Jesus Christ | News

Jesus Was 'Probably Gay'

Paul Oestreicher is an Anglican priest and a chaplain at the University of Sussex. Oestreicher felt Jesus Christ's intimacy with John had to be addressed, so he did so to a congregation in New Zealand on Good Friday.

JesusHe writes, in the UK's Guardian:

Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches.

All that, I felt deeply, had to be addressed on Good Friday. I saw it as an act of penitence for the suffering and persecution of homosexual people that still persists in many parts of the church. Few readers of this column are likely to be outraged any more than the liberal congregation to whom I was preaching, yet I am only too aware how hurtful these reflections will be to most theologically conservative or simply traditional Christians. The essential question for me is: what does love demand? For my critics it is more often: what does scripture say? In this case, both point in the same direction.

Whether Jesus was gay or straight in no way affects who he was and what he means for the world today. Spiritually it is immaterial. What matters in this context is that there are many gay and lesbian followers of Jesus – ordained and lay – who, despite the church, remarkably and humbly remain its faithful members. Would the Christian churches in their many guises more openly accept, embrace and love them, there would be many more disciples.

Read the whole piece HERE.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. @ RONN IN SF: remember, infant mortality lowers overall expectancy greatly so those who survived childhood lived longer. At age 15, the expectancy during that period was more like 52 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy).

    This particular wrinkle is very important, but often ignored.

    Posted by: David R. | Apr 20, 2012 10:31:49 PM


  2. Oh for the love of all that is logical, studied and rational, JESUS NEVER EXISTED!

    Posted by: Bystander rk | Apr 20, 2012 10:40:34 PM


  3. Yawn. I understand Dumbledore was gay also. He was just as magical and just as real.

    Posted by: Dearcomrade | Apr 20, 2012 10:44:45 PM


  4. Remember, If you don't sin Jesus died for nothing.

    Posted by: Dearcomrade | Apr 20, 2012 10:48:50 PM


  5. I'm so relieved that the mystery of Jesus' sexuality has now been solved. Now we can move on to other really important archeological mysteries like whether Zeus had blond hair or brown, whether Neptune lived primarily in the Atlantic ocean or the Pacific and whether Unicorn horns are made of ivory or alabaster.

    Posted by: TampaZeke | Apr 20, 2012 10:59:04 PM


  6. Sounds like a sexually active gay minister desperate for validation from his peers. Silly speculation worthy of that pot-boiler writer Dan Brown and his inaccurate "history" and equally silly "theology". Standard small "o" orthodox Christianity is not accepting of this view of Jesus and it's not "puritanism" but 2000 years of tradition and teaching. The Jewish culture into which he was born was particularly hostile to homosexuality and its highly doubtful he'd have gotten twelve Jewish men to follow him, no less numerous women like Mary Magdalene if he was "doing" the "Beloved Disciple" behind a hedge row. His enemies would have used it against him but there is no account which even suggests they alleged he was gay, which the religious Jews thought of as a Roman pagan depravity.

    Posted by: Contrarian | Apr 20, 2012 11:37:42 PM


  7. "... if he was "doing" the Beloved Disciple behind a hedge row."

    @Contrarian: No one has to "do" anything to be gay, let alone "behind a hedge row."

    "...but there is no account which even suggests they alleged he was gay, which the religious Jews thought of as a Roman pagan depravity."

    The ancient religious Jews had no developed concept of sexual orientations. What was considered by many of them (as well as by Saul of Tarsus in his writing) to be a Roman pagan depravity was the ritual of all the people of the congregation at a temple (which, like in most Middle-Eastern religious temples today was segregated by sex) to have sexual orgies as a part of their religious rituals to worship animals.

    That concept had nothing at all to do with men pairing up with other men to love one another romantically and build a life together.

    Posted by: GregV | Apr 21, 2012 12:40:25 AM


  8. The Jesus mythology was primarily written hundreds of years AFTER He supposedly walked. Apparently He was discreet. Jesus and His Band of Merry Men, no kidding, twelve bff's? No girl friends. And still not gay?

    It's a fun topic. Dan Brown made, what, a hundred million dollars off it?

    Posted by: Keepin' It Straight | Apr 21, 2012 12:41:14 AM


  9. The novel Jesus in Love is worth a read if you are Christian or were raised that way. If the current churches were as unconcerned about the gender of partners as Jesus is in that fictional representation, a lot of religious (and non-) queer folk could breathe lots easier.

    Whether Jesus existed or not isn't the point. Churches and other religious organizations are one more area of life in which LGBT people merit the same level of acceptance and community as the straight people with 2.3 kids. And I do know people who lost their homophobia when they met gay folk in church and found that they really didn't have horns and hooves.

    Posted by: Evan | Apr 21, 2012 1:52:30 AM


  10. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

    Posted by: Bill Perdue | Apr 21, 2012 3:29:39 AM


  11. Since the continuity of the species rests on heterosexual copulation and Jesus had to know he would be a figure of emulation ... somehow I'm just not buying it.
    Since he was celibant however, it doesn't really matter anyhow.

    Posted by: Rodney Wollam | Apr 21, 2012 7:08:08 AM


  12. Jesus was probably hot and ripped.

    Posted by: RobWest | Apr 21, 2012 8:31:26 AM


  13. Who cares? Chances are he and his disciples smoked weed,too! If Jesus ever did come back, the first thing he would do is hire a lawyer and ask for residuals ( A royalty paid to a performer) from all those churches using his image and words without his written permission. The simple facts are... if you can believe in Jesus... you can believe in anything! Virgin birth,walking on water, raising the dead, feeding the multitude with 2 loves of bread. If you believe strong enough, nothing else matters. My only question... who will have to wait longer... those who believe he's coming back? Or if the Cubs will ever get into and win a World Series!

    Posted by: Jerry Pritikin aka The Bleacher Preacher | Apr 21, 2012 9:18:45 AM


  14. This is all moot in my book. The Christian faith became irrelevant to me a long time ago. In fact, I believe that religion is the ROOT CAUSE of more evil than money, or anything else.

    Posted by: John | Apr 21, 2012 10:03:10 AM


  15. Every one of these comments are pricless.
    I am most definitely putting a "bookmark"
    of this TLRD post.

    I appreciate a healthy exchange of these
    speculations/opinions.

    Posted by: Mark (Marcito) | Apr 21, 2012 10:22:43 AM


  16. I think the bottom line is that this is a very important and insightful commentary, but I also think its good to point out one theological error in his statements and that is that Jesus was not required to be celibate. As a Nazarite, he would have been required to take a vow of celibacy.

    Posted by: Jim | Apr 21, 2012 10:40:23 AM



  17. Scriptures do not speak to Jesus' sexuality in any way. Is it a possibility that he was gay, bisexual, poly.. ? We do not know, no one can speak to this element of the person of Christ. In my opinion it is irrelavent.

    Posted by: dancran | Apr 21, 2012 10:45:40 AM


  18. http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/2012/04/21/fait-diver-jesus-was-fabulous/

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Apr 21, 2012 11:15:56 AM


  19. Yeah, emotional intimacy among men implies homosexuality, right?.....because, as we all know, so many gay men have such deep emotional attachments to other males, right?

    Another misguided action that will only serve to further alienate people in the social mainstream, which the Far Left seems absolutely determined to do.

    Posted by: Rick | Apr 21, 2012 11:16:32 AM


  20. And, by the way, Christians believe that Jesus was the embodiment of God on Earth, so he would have been completely immune to any normal human temptations, including sexual desire.

    You can accept that idea or not, but trying to assign human traits to Jesus automatically makes you a non-Christian.

    Oh, and David Ehrenstein deserves particular mention in this thread for giving us all a great example of why Jews have been so hated throughout history that they have been either kicked out of every country they inhabited or have been in constant conflict with their neighbors, as Israel has been.....and why Israel deserves no sympathy at all from the world (and gets almost none except from the United States--and we all know why that is).

    Posted by: Rick | Apr 21, 2012 11:30:39 AM


  21. @Rick,

    aren't you going to say how Jesus needed to be more manly and get all those whorish divas off pedestals?

    How you doin' anyway?

    Posted by: Rin | Apr 21, 2012 11:35:12 AM


  22. I thought that this piece of "news" was common knowledge.
    Just as David and Jonathan were gay, expressly so, and also Ruth and Naomi....

    There's ample evidence of gay relationships in those books which are put together as the bible....and those relationships are not condemned or criticised but expressly praised.

    Posted by: JackFkTwist | Apr 21, 2012 12:08:07 PM


  23. @RIN LOL. Actually, what is even worse is the Catholic notion of bypassing Jesus himself and appealing to his mother, instead, on the assumption that he will do whatever his mother wants him to do. That is about as emasculating as it gets.

    I'm fine, despite the comments in other threads yesterday from people wishing AIDS on me or wishing that I would commit suicide....ho-hum, just another lovely day on Towleroad.com

    Thanks for asking, though--I hope you are well, too.

    Posted by: Rick | Apr 21, 2012 12:12:00 PM


  24. So funny whe Rick "plays the Jew card."

    My father was jewish dear. I was raised a Rma Catholic -- like my mohter. It "didn't take" of course.

    Now back to your "Manliness" issues. How much do you bench press dear? What kind of outfits do you wear. Nothing too "colorful" I hope because that's so "Unmnly" doncha know.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Apr 21, 2012 12:38:00 PM


  25. Could be. Mabye thats the reason jesus is not quoted as condemning homosexuality in any of the gospels. His relationship with john may have been more than platonic.

    Posted by: jack | Apr 21, 2012 2:55:48 PM


  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «New Gay Romney Spokesman Thinks Rachel Maddow Looks Like a Man, Needs to 'Put on a Necklace'« «