J as an openly gay man | Michael Re | The Guardian

Contents:

• WAS J GAY? PROBABLY
• J AS AN OPENLY GAY MAN
• WAS J GAY?
• 7 REASONS J WAS GAY
• 'WAS J GAY?’: THE CLASS UNVERG HIDN QUEER HISTORI

WAS J GAY? PROBABLY

In a 2012 article for Slate onle, Will Orem asked a provotive qutn: Was J a homophobe? The article was ocsned by a story about a gay teenager Oh who was sug his high school after school officials prohibed him om wearg a T-shirt that said, “J Is Not a Homophobe. Orem suggts that J’s views on homosexualy were more clive than Pl’s.

While ’s reasonable to assume that J and his fellow Jews first-century Palte would have disapproved of gay sex, there is no rerd of his ever havg mentned homosexualy, let alone exprsed particular revulsn about ....

Never the Bible do J himself offer an explic prohibn of homosexualy. Orem seems to suggt that sce J never explicly mentned homosexualy, he mt not have been very ncerned about .

J AS AN OPENLY GAY MAN

Get a ee py of the ebook ‘What Do the Bible Really Teach about Homosexualy?

It is credible to suggt that the words om J have no bearg on the qutn of homosexualy. So Orem has misnsted the relevance of J’s teachg to the homosexual qutn. Even if J viewed homosexualy as a s, he had a penchant for reachg out to sners rather than shunng them....

In Romans 1, Pl nounced gay sex as unnatural—an egreg example of pagan nce—and said would brg the wrath of God.

WAS J GAY?

On the one si is J: peace-lovg, enemy-fivg, egalarian, and clive wh regard to homosexuals. On the other si is Pl: war-lovg, ath penalty–supportg, patriarchal, and exclnary wh regard to homosexuals. Dpe the hang-ups of people like Pl, J was not a homophobe.

7 REASONS J WAS GAY

Wh clary and passn, this book sets forth the Bible’s teachg on sexualy om a plementarian perspective, alg wh ntroversial issu such as homosexualy and polygamy.

Will Orem, “Wa, Was J a Homophobe?

I felt I uld not pe the sufferg of gay and lbian people at the hands of the church, over many that divisive issue a subject for Good Friday? The evince, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today ll gay is very strong. But even gay rights mpaigners the church have been reluctant to suggt .

'WAS J GAY?’: THE CLASS UNVERG HIDN QUEER HISTORI

He dared to suggt that possibily and was met wh disda, as though he were simply out to much reflectn and wh certaly no wish to shock, I felt I was left wh no optn but to suggt, for the first time half a century of my Anglin prithood, that J may well have been homosexual. Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: J uld have been any of the. The homosexual optn simply seems the most likely.

Although there is no rabbic tradn of celibacy, J uld well have chosen to rea om sexual activy, whether he was gay or not. I saw as an act of penence for the sufferg and persecutn of homosexual people that still persists many parts of the church. Whether J was gay or straight no way affects who he was and what he means for the world today.