As reported on accessatlanta.com, in the upcoming issue of Parade Magazine (which comes with this Sunday's copy of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution), music icon Sir Elton John gives his take on Jesus:
"I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems," John told Parade interviewer Dotson Rader.
"On the cross, he forgave the people who crucified him," John said. "Jesus wanted us to be loving and foregiving. I don't know what makes people so cruel. Try being a gay woman in the Middle East -- you're as good as dead."
Revisionist-historical blunders aside, John's sentiment regarding the cruelty experienced by many gay, bisexual or transsexual individuals around the world--particularly at the hands of many "religious" people--is unfortunately quite accurate.
However, Jesus doesn't need to be imagined to be gay in order for Him to oppose injustice, oppression or hatred committed in His name by some sections of sinful humanity against another.
Elton John's take on Jesus is merely another example of people (both within and outside of the Christian faith!) who try to refashion a Jesus they can be more comfortable with. Unfortunately, faithfulness to accuracy and truth in historical studies doesn't give us that option.
For a discussion of homosexuality in particular that is faithful to the historical Jesus see:
"Love is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation with the Gay Community" by Andrew Marin
For more scholarly works on the issue of Jesus, the Bible, and sexual ethics (including, but not limited to the issue of homosexuality), see the following:
"The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics" by Robert Gagnon
"Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis" by William Webb
Comments
I suspect the writings and edits of Polycarp, Irenanus and St. Paul ooze gayness, and thats the filter in which this comes out in the texts. Jesus himself, apart from his eastern rising brightness and red and white covered veil remnant glory, probably wasn't gay. The allegory is a personal matter though, and if Elton says Jesus was intelligent and compassionate, I can see why the nutters have a problem with that.
Good column James. To suggest Christ was a homosexual flies in the face of the Scripture as we know Jesus was tempted like everyone - yet without sin. The Old and New Testament's didactic teaching on the subject of homosexuality is quite unambiguous and leaves no room for doubt on the matter. Elton John's comments are blasphemous and repugant. Anyone who dithers on the subject, no matter how intellectually they wish to approach the topic, with rejoinders like Jesus... probably wasn't "gay," needs to rethink the way they apply their hermeneutic principles...
Keith A. Wimer
Wilmington, DE.
"Elton John's comments are blasphemous and repugant."
I don't think they are either of these, so much as they are misguided and ignorant of historical basics. Saying Jesus was gay is no more "blasphemous and repugnant" as saying Jesus was a conservative, a liberal, a white guy, a black guy, a hippie, a capitalist or a Marxist.
Great article! I completely agree with what you say about the church's relationship with the homosexual community. Our response to the AIDS outbreak amongst (predominantly) homosexuals in the '80s was utterly contemptible. And although I disagree with the Rocketman about Jesus' sexuality, he clearly gets the heart of the gospel, doesn't he?
I'm sorry James. I misjudged you. You're apparantly of the mindset that homosexuality is NOT a grievous sin despite the Scriptural dictums clearly describing it thus. Your argument that depicting Jesus as being gay is akin to the other descriptives is troubling at best.
And NO Mr. Holt, Elton John clearly does NOT get the heart of the Gospel. If he did he would not continue in his reprobate lifestyle. If you disagree that's fine but your argument is with the Bible sir, not me.
Remember, that while Jesus forgave, He also admonished, "go and sin no more."
keith is right, james-michael.
1. it is impossible to read the old or new testament and not see how seriously God takes the accurate understanding of His holy and true identity. He never takes lightly any addition to, subtraction from, or negation of who He really is. so, whether Jesus is made out to be black, white, republican, or homosexual, any and every misrepresentation of His identity is blasphemous/idolatrous/irreverent. Jesus is God.
2. again, keith is right. clearly elton does not understand the heart of the true gospel: that Jesus died FOR OUR SINS according to the scriptures, He was buried, and He rose the third day according to the scriptures. FOR SIN. ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES. homosexuality is a SIN ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES for which elton must repent. if he does not understand or accept that, he does not understand the "heart of the gospel."
As you pointed out, olatunde, the gospel is "Christ Jesus was crucified for our sins...", in other words, forgiveness. The gospel is not "repent of your sins", that is simply an element of our right response to the gospel. My point is simply that Elton seems to understand the core element of the gospel (forgiveness), though I maintain that he doesn't understand how to get there or what exactly to do with it.
Olatunde,
You said: "it is impossible to read the old or new testament and not see how seriously God takes the accurate understanding of His holy and true identity. He never takes lightly any addition to, subtraction from, or negation of who He really is. so, whether Jesus is made out to be black, white, republican, or homosexual, any and every misrepresentation of His identity is blasphemous/idolatrous/irreverent. Jesus is God."
But this is pretty much the point I was attempting to make to Keith. ANY reimaging of Jesus is wrong...not just reimaging him as "gay." Keith (and many other vocal Christians) use words like "repugnant" and "reprobate" when Jesus is depicted as gay...but don't have this same visceral reaction to him being depicted as, say, a Republican or an "Ultimate Fighter" or a racist. This is the thing that disturbs me most...the singling out of homosexuality as "more sinful" or "more repugnant" than other more subtle forms of idolatrous reimaging.
To Andy Holt, It is interesting that you and Olatunde fail to remember that both John the Baptist and Christ Himself began their ministries with the same message "Repent, for the Kingdom is at hand" - how can you say that repentance IS NOT part of the Gospel when Peter preached on Pentecost "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of The LORD JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins..." (Acts 2:38). Repentance is a primary step in the plan of salvation - in fact, there IS NO salvation or Gospel (Good news) without it - Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles all preached the same basic message "Be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the Renewing of your mind (repentance)". James is definitely right that any reimaging of Jesus is wrong and any reimaging of His Gospel is equally as wrong.
Isn't the fact that you wrote this article sort of "singling out" reimaging Jesus as "gay" James? Someone suggesting Jesus is a Republican does in no way rise to the same level as stating He is homosexual and frankly I'm stunned by the comparison.
One would have to point out where God says Republicanism is a sin for that to hold water. You might have a better argument with the racist reference as racism is clearly wrong in terms of our equality before God.
Again your quarrel is with the Scripture not me. God uses the word reprobate to describe homosexuality. God levels a pretty harsh critique at the practice using words like "being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity..." and so on analogously. This is not hateful as Elton John implies. Though harming/killing gays is clearly wrong too. It is simply a Divine dictum delivered once for all, for our own benefit.
Keith A. Wimer says:
"Isn't the fact that you wrote this article sort of "singling out" reimaging Jesus as "gay" James? Someone suggesting Jesus is a Republican does in no way rise to the same level as stating He is homosexual and frankly I'm stunned by the comparison."
Me too. I think being a Republican is far worse.
Of course, I'm one who thinks the religious notion of sin nonsensical, the bible interesting cultural history and poetry and all this theological debate a senseless gyration based on very little fact.
I'm also a bit curious about the cherry picking here. To my recollection Jesus isn't quoted as saying anything in particular about homosexuality, the inference of sin being from the OT. But what's considered sin from the OT is selective, so somehow a whole bunch of commandments are ignored while keeping some. So if you're a homophobe, homosexuality is a grievous sin, while eating shellfish or having filet mignon isn't. But then I'm an incorrigible skeptic.
I don’t remember if it was Schweitzer or somebody else who said they looked down the well of history and they saw their own faces gazing back at them. When people quest for the historical Jesus, they tend to discover whatever it is they admire. Whatever we admire must be what Jesus is like. Interestingly enough, this insistence on always admiring Jesus and attributing to Him the very highest of values that we have, is actually a sign really of Jesus’ power and His presence, that people sort of know instinctively that they cannot question him.
Al,
Although many who argue against homosexuality are guilty of cherry-picking, this does not mean Jesus (or actual NT theology) is as well. Jesus upheld Torah throughout His life, so the extreme burden of proof would be to show that He overturned it regarding its uniform teaching on same-sex behavior.
And while the New Covenant took the spirit of Torah and through the Holy Spirit places it in the heart of all who are in Christ, it does not carry over the form of Torah (i.e. Covenant Law with outward national/legal stipulations). Since the spirit of Torah's teaching on sexuality is expressed in monogamous marriage (though it recounts deviations from that ideal, among humans, even among the patriarchs), and since Jesus upheld that when discussing issues of sexuality, and since the Holy Spirit likewise upheld the sexual ideal among believers, it is not cherry picking to deem it a sin but not deem shellfish a sin; it's just consistent Biblical theology. Thus the links I gave.
I think the question is 'why does anyone care what Elton John thinks? Especially about Jesus'.
james-michael,
i'm with you. i feel you.
wayne, please reread what i wrote.
BathTub, haha, well said. :)
Keith, I guess my response is based on the fact that when it comes to the particular sin of homosexuality, Evangelical Christians often respond more with outrage and denunciations rather than compassion and loving critiques (the same goes for other forms of aberrant sexual sin...except, it seems, for the "normal" sexual sin of promiscuity).
This is, interestingly enough, similar to the reactions among the religious leaders to Jesus' seeming "tolerance" of the sinful within Israel. And Jesus' harshest rebukes were directed not at the wanton sinners (though He warned them equally of the need for repentance and the coming judgment!), but at the outraged religious leaders.
James-Michael says:
"so the extreme burden of proof would be to show that He overturned it regarding its uniform teaching on same-sex behavior."
It depends on one's view of Jesus. If I take the view of say, Jefferson or Spinoza, that he was a brilliant ethical thinker, I would seem not unthinkable that he'd not dwell on condemning those who act according to their, presumably, deity given nature.
"while the New Covenant took the spirit of Torah and through the Holy Spirit places it in the heart of all who are in Christ, it does not carry over the form of Torah"
Speculations about Holy Spirits don't seem to bear much weight.
"and since the Holy Spirit likewise upheld the sexual ideal among believers". Again. Actually, its interesting that you use that concept in discussion. How does one know what the "holy spirit" does other than by tradition? I'd call it theological rationalization.
Your links are to whole books on theology.I might read a summary not by and read a book.
Sorry Olatunde, I should have only addressed my comment to Andy Holt. I reread your comments and I have a better understanding of your position and I sincerely apologize for the mix up.
Wayne, repentance is the appropriate response to the gospel. It is not the gospel itself. That's all I've been trying to say.
"try to refashion a Jesus they can be more comfortable with."
I think on the other hand Conservative Christians try to refashion a Jesus they can be more comfortable with by ignoring his tolerance for a sexually diverse community, which includes his blessing of eunuchs (many of whom engaged in homosexual sex) and the homosexual roman "servant" (really a shield-mate) that Jesus heals without question.
Chris, I see you're still trying to secure your place as Eisegete of the century...
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!