Jesus may have been homosexual

http://www.suntimes.com/output/religion/cst-nws-req29.html


Book claims Jesus had homosexual relationship

May 29, 2003

BY RICHARD N. OSTLING
The campaign to have U.S. Protestant churches accept homosexuals has taken a radical new turn with a Chicago scholar's claim that Jesus not only approved same-sex relationships, but also was involved in one.

Many will find his claims of an actively homosexual Jesus ''blasphemous,'' admits Theodore W. Jennings Jr., author of The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives From the New Testament.

 

Quote

Jennings heads gay and lesbian studies at the Chicago Theological Seminary, a school of the United Church of Christ.


Me

Do you know of any seminaries looking for a head of heterosexual studies?

 

I think it's obvious that what the Gospels describe as Jesus' non-sexual but very close relationships with his disciples would be regarded as homosexual by contemporary standards, but years of browsing GLBT theology (hey, so sue me, I'm a liberal) have provided me with no evidence to contradict the traditional teaching that Jesus was celibate (or had at least become celibate by the time he began his ministry). If he wasn't, this certainly wouldn't challenge my faith--but then, to paraphrase the purported words of the great Jesuit biblical scholar Joseph Fitzmyer, it wouldn't challenge my faith if they found the bones of Christ tomorrow.

I do think that contemporary persecution of gays in certain circles is comparable to ancient persecution of Christians, Samaritans, et. al. witnessed by Jesus' disciples. While I can sympathize with those who believe that homosexual conduct is a sin (just as I can sympathize with those who believe that heterosexual conduct is a sin), representing that belief with hatred and exclusion is contrary to the Gospel of one who did not find it morally objectionable to share his dinner table with prostitutes. I'm heartened by the movement I see in some evangelical circles to exorcise the emotion of hatred from theological objections to homosexuality.


Cheers,

 

Nothing new here then!

There is absolutely nothing new here at all! When he was Bishop of Birmingham (about 25 years ago I think), Hugh Montefiore (a converted Jew and biblical UK scholar and I may have not exactly got the spelling right of his family name) stated exactly this and caused a 'fuss' here in the UK.

'telfax'

 

Well, someone would seem to be.

 

Jesus a Brown Hatter!

I remember the same trendy clap-trap when 'The Last Temptation of Christ' hit the news several years ago. It died with a whimper then and will do so this time.
Roy Maybery

 

Nothing new here in this wild speculation. No evidence for it at all. It is just pushing the guy's agenda. Had it been the case there would have been a huge out cry due to the sin it was considered by Jews of Jesus' day (not to mention there is also no credible evidence for it).

I remember taking a theology class as an undergraduate. One of the seminarians (United Church of Canada - very liberal) speculated that the disciple Jesus 'loved' was Mary M.

Did Bishop Spong (Epsicopal Bishop) not speculate Paul was gay?? Spong himself is extrememly liberal and one would be hard pressed to call him 'christian' in any orthodox sense. Spiritual maybe. I remember skimming one of his books and being amused when he would make statements and say that his propositons were without question or that certain parts of scripture were not reconcilable. This was of course not accurate and any credible conservative scholar could have taken his propositions and statements to pieces. Frankly, he comes across as rather arrogant at times.

North

 

Re: Nothing new here then!

I wasn't familiar with his comment about Christ, but I adore Hugh Montefiore's other work (your spelling is right on, BTW); he co-edited The Rabbinic Anthology, which I believe to be the best single-volume anthology of rabbinic writings available in English, bar none.

I think that folks who speculate in print about Jesus' sexuality tend to do so because it's a reliable way to get attention and/or tenure and/or decent book sales. I loved the film The Last Temptation of Christ, but the book it was based on (by Nikos Kazantzakis, a former Orthodox priest best known for another book-turned-movie called Zorba the Greek) was meant as a parable, not a serious study in historical Christology. It's a stretch to say that Jesus slept with Mary Magdalene; there isn't really any evidence for that. But it's a thought-provoking idea.


Cheers,

 

No. Claude G. Montefiore was the co-editor of "The Rabbinic Anthology." Also, he wasn't geshmat.

 

I concur with North. Allegations of the homosexuality of Jesus and Paul have been made before by stretching flimsy evidence past the breaking point. Spong's speculations, for example, have never been particularly compelling to me.

Such musings can guarantee one a prominent article in Time, Newsweek, US, People, etc., due to the "shock value" that they are intended to elicit.

Tony

 

I stand corrected (and impressed)--you'd think that the big bold letters "C.G. Montefiore" on the cover would have been a clue, but unfortunately I didn't think to check the cover. "Hugh Montefiore" just sounded perfect to me, for some reason.

I vaguely remembered thinking that he had an impressive background in Christian theology owing to some comments he made in the introduction, so it wouldn't have surprised me much to learn that he was an Anglican bishop. But owing to his even more impressive background in rabbinics, I should be even less surprised to learn that he wasn't geshmat!


Cheers,

 

I would think that homosexuals that claim to be Christians (there is at least one such denomination, with I believe accredited seminaries as well) would repudiate all these ridiculous claims by some that Jesus was such, because the evidence is clearly not present in any stretch of the imagination. Those that want to claim some intellectual integrity would realize that such statements about Jesus' "sexual orientation" only hurt their cause!

 

I can't quite figure the Metropolitan Community Church out. I think there is certainly room for a "gay" church, but I would like to see more GLBTs in other mainline churches where they're in a position to affect church polity. I know this isn't how the MCC got started, but I can see a bunch of homophobic church organizers sitting in a room saying "Okay--let's make a 'gay' church to draw away the most charismatic, socially conscious gay and lesbian activists and take the edge off their political influence in mainline churches." I have to believe that if every MCC congregant showed up in their nearest Lutheran or Episcopal church next week and got involved, every American diocese of both congregations would be blessing same-sex unions by this time next year. That would be real progress.

It doesn't help that every MCC pastor I've ever met or seen interviewed strikes me as an activist more than s/he strikes me as a pastor. Nice folks, in my experience, but not the sort of hardcore theologians that the religious GLBT rights movement really needs. I'd like to see credible across-the-board theologians and ministry leaders who happen to be gay and who can mount a serious defense of homosexuality, not theologians who are best known for speculating about the purported sexual orientations of various figures in the early church. Giggling teenagers can do that.


Cheers,

 

Alan, to answer your specific concern: I suspect that there are certainly gay and lesbian theologians who don't believe that Jesus or Paul were gay, but they wouldn't get television time for expressing those beliefs because they're not particularly outrageous beliefs. It would be a case of "dog bites man." Heterosexual theologians who speculate that Jesus or Paul were gay are more likely to get the television time, because that's a case of "man bites dog."


Cheers,

 

I think that the evidence that Jesus was gay is probably more convincing (at least to me) than the evidence that he was God. That's not to say that I believe either one.

My point is that all of this stuff is a matter of one's personal faith commitments. It all involves going way out beyond the available evidence. People make those kind of leaps because they are sanctioned by tradition and because they fulfill people's emotional and spiritual needs. Gay theology may be out of tune with tradition, but if it fulfills people's needs and is consistent with the evidence (however weakly), it's OK with (but unconvincing to) me.

 

I should add here that I don't see a problem with believing that Jesus was gay, or that he slept with Mary Magdalene (though if I had a more conservative moral theology, I probably would); I just don't see a strong historical case for it, and don't think it should be presented as if it were a historical case rather than a theological one. You wouldn't see a news headline saying "Jesus may have been Son of God, Redeemer of Mankind" because that's pure theology. Well, near as I can tell, so is the idea that Jesus was gay. That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with believing it, but it should be reported on as a point of theology, not as one more battle between science and religion. That's just silly.


Cheers,

 

I think that the MCC was formed to serve the gay and lesbian community, to be a warm and welcoming place for them. It exists to serve the needs of its parishoners.

They aren't doing it to change the world, Tom (though I'm sure that they would like to). They are doing it for themselves.

If God could manifest, could incarnate in the form of a man whose sexuality was ambiguous, who might even conceivably have been called gay, then it's a lot easier for religious gays to believe that God opens his arms to them.

I think that it gets old for them to beat their heads against a brick wall until they are all bloody. They are never going to soften the hearts of people who hate them on a gut-level. At least not in their lifetimes.

They just want to feel as if God loves them.

 

Tom Head wrote: "I have to believe that if every MCC congregant showed up in their nearest Lutheran or Episcopal church next week and got involved, every American diocese of both congregations would be blessing same-sex unions by this time next year. That would be real progress."

Unh-uh.

I was going to stay off this thread, other than sorting the Montefiori. I will NOT argue the anti-exegetical grandstanding that triggered it. As to forecasts of simooms within synods:

Maybe the Episcopal Church.
Maybe the ELCA Lutherans.

Not the Missouri Lutherans.
Not next year, anyway.

Not the Evangelical Lutheran Synod.
Not the Wisconsin Ev. Luth. Synod.
Not next year.
Not ever.

 

And I can respect that--I said in the original post that I can see the need for a "gay" church. But at the same time, I think that it does have the detrimental side effect of drawing religious gays away from mainline denominations, where they can change and are changing both policies and attitudes.

Which is why the idea of a gay Jesus may, in fact, be great theology. It may also be an idea worth accepting at face value as a historical fact, depending on one's theological predilections. What it shouldn't be is a boldfaced attempt to stir up controversy and act as a lightning rod for homophobes. When a professor comes up and promotes a book about a "homoerotic" Christ to a mainstream audience, and a reporter chooses to deal with that book as if it were new historical data rather than a new interpretation of old historical data, that strikes me as not-quite-sensible. It seems to me that a more subdued description of the book, focusing less on the controversy and more on the book's content, would be more productive. It might not be as interesting to casual readers, but it would be more productive.

I also tend to suspect that books that focus on striking and unconventional statements about the life of Jesus tend to sell extremely well. Not having read the new book itself (much less read the author's mind), I (of course) have no way of knowing whether this was one of the author's motives, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was.


Cheers,

 

What, you mean the ELCA isn't the only Lutheran denomination? (Seriously: I meant the ELCA, and should have specified that. I know that same-sex unions in the Missouri Synod are about as likely as same-sex unions in the Southern Baptist Convention.)


Cheers,