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. Whether Jesus was gay or straight in no way affects who he was and what he means for the world today. 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.
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. 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. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches.Īll that, I felt deeply, had to be addressed on Good Friday. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. Using the ancient blood sample widely believed to have belonged to the historical Jesus of Nazareth (discovered beneath Golgotha by the Ron Watt excavation team in 1981), a team of research scientists in Tel Aviv have done a successful genetic analysis, concluding that Jesus’ biological father was ‘non-human’. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. ISRAEL: Video report on the DNA analysis of Jesus that changed the world forever. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. It would be so interpreted in any person today. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human.
He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.Īfter 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. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. 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. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. All the other disciples had fled in fear. That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way.
0 kommentar(er)
