Jesus Christ was most likely gay, an Anglican priest told his flock on Good Friday. Paul Oestreicher, Canon Emeritus of Coventry Cathedral, writes today that the “homosexual option simply seems the most likely,” Oestreicher writes, because the “intimate relationship with the beloved disciple…John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way…points in that direction.” Oestreicher, also a chaplain at the University of Sussex, acknowledges that it could be a “divisive issue,” especially on Good Friday, but adds that Jesus being gay “in no way affects who he was and what he means for the world today. Spiritually it is immaterial.”
Was that divisive issue a subject for Good Friday? For the first time in my ministry I felt it had to be. Those last words of Jesus would not let me escape. “When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, ‘Woman behold your son!’ Then he said to the disciple. ‘Behold your mother!’ And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”
That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus’s breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus’s family.
Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.
After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.
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.
Advocating for understanding from his Church, Oestreicher notes:
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.
Oestreicher, who retired from the Cathedral in 1998 lives in Brighton, England, with his wife and “works as a journalist and expert on human rights, peace, faith and society,” according to his bio at Wikipedia. He has published 30 op-eds at The Guardian.
Hat tip: Pink News
Friends:
We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.
Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!
{ 8 comments }
What else might one conclude? Jesus said: "Take and eat. This is my body."
What a cheap shot, and inappropriate here !
I agree with the concept of this article and find it quite interesting. However, I'd rather not see it on thenewcivilrightsmovement site. This article detracts from the equality struggle and raises controversy in an area unlikely to do much good toward advancing the cause.
Hardly daxaeon, I am very glad to see it here. I am sure it is being discussed in other sites in more ecclesiatical terms. But it is an idea that must be shown the light of day. It would not have been appropriate for one not of the Church to have it presented here. Canon Oestreicher has every right to say it and David has every right to blog it. I do hope you have noticed that Davids blog has been growing and expanding over the last while. I appreciate it. I will be sure to share this with a gay Priest, gay Episcopal bishop and gay Theology student I know. … as well as post it on the Catholics for Equality page to expand their reference.
Fine…. now read this from Brian Brown Bill requiring schools to respect students' religious expression unanimously approved by #Tennessee Senate! myop.us/HYFrc8
So if we have a new or existing Christian denomination that professed their belief that Christ was GAY this will HAVE to be accepted by ALL TENNESSEE schools!
they'll make this an exception. In fact they'll likely decide its justification for bullying.
Anyone with a brain knows Jesus was probably queer if he indeed existed at all, duh. He wandered around the desert with his 12 boyfriends, and hung out with a hooker but didn't bang her. Sounds pretty gay to me…
An interesting statement, but in a rational world, one that would have no effect on the religion what so ever. Jesus never brought up the subject of sexuality in his ministry, so it obviously wasn't an issue that he felt needed adressing. And the other two references to homosexuality in the bible, on which the majority of hate is based, are either incredibly vague or incredibly specific.
The passage in Leviticus specifically states that a man should not lie with a man as he does with a woman. Which in all honesty, was probably more of a law for heigenic reasons that anything else. After all, there is no passage in Leviticus that says that a woman may not lie with another woman. Odd, considering that every other decree in the book, in regards to sex, makes it a point to address both men and women.
The second, the story of Sodom, is simply to vague to draw any conclusions from.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }