Was J gay? Probably | Pl Otreicher | The Guardian

Contents:

• J AS AN OPENLY GAY MAN
• WAS J GAY? PROBABLY
• 7 REASONS J WAS GAY
• WAS J GAY?
• THE TWISTED FATE FOR MEN WHO CLAIMED J WAS GAYLOVE THY NEIGHBORWHILE THE MOST FAMO (AND MON) CLAIM IS THAT J HAD A RELATNSHIP WH MARY MAGDALENE, MAJOR WAV HAVE BEEN MA THROUGHOUT HISTORY ARGUG THAT J WAS GAY.CANDIDA MOSSUPDATED MAR. 23, 2020 4:57AM EDT / PUBLISHED MAR. 22, 2020 5:07AM EDT PHOTO ILLTRATN BY ELIZABETH BROCKWAY/THE DAILY BEAST/PIERO LLA FRANCON MAY 30, 1593, THE PLAYWRIGHT AND POET CHRISTOPHER “K” MARLOWE WAS FOUND BTALLY MURRED. ACRDG TO AN TOPSY REPORT AND SEVERAL EYEWNS REPORTS, MARLOWE HAD SPENT THE DAY AT THE HOE OF MRS. ELEANOR BULL DEPTFORD, SOUTH LONDON, BEFORE BEG FATALLY STABBED THE EYE. THE DAGGER STCK SLIGHTLY ABOVE HIS RIGHT EYE AND DROVE TWO CH TO HIS BRA. THOUGH HE WAS NOT EVEN 30, MARLOWE HAD ALREADY MA HIS IMPRSN ON THE ENGLISH LERATI WH HIS DOCTOR FST. HIS EXCLAMATN “WAS THIS THE FACE THAT LNCHED A THOAND SHIPS?” LIV ON LERARY AND POP-CULTURAL FOLKLORE EVEN TODAY. SO, WHO WOULD WANT TO KILL HIM? QUE A FEW PEOPLE, AS TURNED OUT, AND NSPIRACY THEORI ABOUND. ONE EXPLANATN IS THAT MARLOWE’S ATHEISM AND HIS SNDALO BELIEF THAT J WAS A HOMOSEXUAL RELATNSHIP WH THE DISCIPLE JOHN PLAYED A ROLE HIS MISE. IF RRECT, THIS WOULD MAKE MARLOWE ONE OF A CLTER OF DIVIDUALS WHO HAVE FACED STRONG, SOMETIM FATAL, OPPOSN FOR ASKG QUTNS ABOUT THE SEXUALY OF J.THE MORE NVENTNAL-YET-INOCLASTIC THEORY ABOUT J’S ROMANTIC LIFE IS THAT HE WAS A RELATNSHIP WH MARY MAGDALENE. SOME SAY THEY WERE EVEN MARRIED. THIS THEORY IS MOST FAMOLY ARTICULATED THE BTSELLG DA VCI CO BUT THERE ARE SOME AMICS WHO HAVE MA SIAR CLAIMS. ONE MAN, WALTER FRZ, EVEN FED AN ANCIENT DOCUMENT TO TRY TO ADD WEIGHT TO THE CLAIM THAT J AND MARY WERE MARRIED. THERE IS SOME GOOD EVINCE FOR THKG THAT THE RELATNSHIP BETWEEN MARY MAGDALENE AND J WAS PLAYED DOWN BY LATER CHRISTIAN THORS, BUT THERE’S NOTHG THE EARLIT TRADN THAT NCRETELY SUGGTS THEIR RELATNSHIP WAS ROMANTIC.   NEWSLETTERSBEAST TRAVEL DIGTGET THE ENTIRE WORLD YOUR BOX.SUBSCRIBEBY CLICKG "SUBSCRIBE" YOU AGREE TO HAVE READ THE TERMS OF USE AND PRIVACY POLICY WHAT THIS POPULAR NSPIRACY THEORY NVENIENTLY OVERLOOKS IS THE TENSY OF J’S RELATNSHIPS WH HIS RE GROUP OF DISCIPL. THE CLOSE RELATNSHIP OF J AND THE “BELOVED DISCIPLE” (TRADNALLY INTIFIED AS JOHN THE EVANGELIST) HAS LED SOME TO SUGGT THAT THEIR RELATNSHIP WAS HOMOEROTIC. THE EVINCE IS SUGGTIVE; AFTER ALL THERE IS A DISCIPLE WHO IS REPEATEDLY SCRIBED AS A PERSON WHOM J “LOV.” THERE’S A NVERSATN BETWEEN J AND PETER WHICH J ASKS PETER THREE TIM IF HE LOV HIM AND, WHEN PETER RPONDS, ASKS HIM TO RE FOR HIS FLOCK (JOHN 21:15-17). A MAN WHO SPENDS MOST OF HIS PERSONAL TIME ALONE WH 12 OTHER MEN? YOU MIGHT SAY THAT THERE’S SOMETHG CREDIBLY HETERONORMATIVE ABOUT THKG THAT J WAS TERTED MARY MAGDALENE.WHILE THE SCRIPTURAL TEXTS SOUND QUE SUGGTIVE ENGLISH, THE EROTICISM EVAPORAT OUT OF THE NVERSATN WHEN YOU READ THE ORIGAL GREEK. GREEK HAS MULTIPLE WORDS TO SCRIBE DIFFERENT KDS OF LOVE. AND, AS ISMO DUNRBERG, A PROFSOR OF NEW TTAMENT AT THE UNIVERSY OF HELSKI, HAS SHOWN, THE GREEK DO NOT SUGGT EROTIC RELATNSHIPS. IN JOHN 21 THE WORD J IS “AGAPE” A WORD THAT NNOT BROAD AFFECTN AND RE FOR OTHERS. THE WORD FOR SEXUAL LOVE OR SIRE IS “EROS” (OM WHICH WE GET THE ENGLISH WORD “EROTIC”), BUT THAT LANGUAGE IS NEVER ED TO SCRIBE J’ LOVE FOR ANY OF HIS PANNS.BUT IF JT SPENDG TIME TOGETHER IS ENOUGH TO BUILD A WHOLE THEORY ABOUT THE RELATNSHIP BETWEEN J AND MARY MAGDALENE, THEN CERTALY THE ARGUMENT J WAS SEXUAL RELATNSHIPS WH OTHER MEN HAS AT LEAST AS MUCH PLSIBILY? FOR MARLOWE, AN OUTSPOKEN CRIC OF ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND’S STRONG PROHIBNS AGAST HOMOSEXUALY ( WAS A PAL CRIME), THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVINCE OF HOMOEROTICISM. THE SAME MONTH THAT MARLOWE DIED A POLICE RMANT AND ON-AND OFF-SPY RICHARD BA PILED A DOCUMENT OF K’S “MONSTRO OPNS.” THE POT OF THE BA NOTE, AS HISTORIAN AND THOR CHARL NICHOLL HAS WRTEN, WAS “TO CRIMATE MARLOWE.” ACRDG TO BA, MARLOWE WAS AN ATHEIST WHO DOUBTED THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, THOUGHT THE BIBLE WAS “FILTHILY [I.E. POORLY] WRTEN,” AND BELIEVED THAT THE SACRAMENT OF MUNN WOULD BE GREATLY IMPROVED IF THE BREAD AND WE WAS REPLACED WH A TOBAC PIPE. HIS MOST SHOCKG STATEMENT, HOWEVER, WAS THAT “ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST WAS BEDFELLOW TO CHRIST AND LEANED ALWAYS HIS BOSOM, THAT HE ED HIM AS THE SNERS OF SODOM.” THE FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE OF LEANG TO THE BOSOM IS ACTUALLY ANCIENT AND IS ED THE WRGS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY CHURCH HISTORIAN EEBI WHO SCRIBED JOHN AS “THE ONE WHO LAY ON [J’] BREAST.” IN ANCIENT TEXTS THIS IS AN IMAGE FOR NON-SEXUAL TIMACY, BUT YOU N SEE WHAT MARLOWE WAS GETTG AT.MARLOWE WASN’T THE ONLY RENAISSANCE-ERA FIGURE TO ASK QUTNS ABOUT THE RELATNSHIP BETWEEN J AND JOHN. JT 40 YEARS EARLIER A YOUNG VEIAN IAR NAMED FRANC CALGNO WAS EXECUTED FOR BLASPHEMY FOR CLAIMG THAT JOHN WAS J’ TAME (A PUBCENT BOY WHO ENGAGED A SEXUAL RELATNSHIP WH AN OLR MAN). FOR CALGNO, LIKE MARLOWE, HIS BELIEFS ABOUT J’ SEXUALY ARE NNECTED TO A PARTICULAR FORM OF 16TH CENTURY ATHEISM THAT FOCED ON THE IA THAT J WAS HUMAN. HE APPARENTLY SAID THAT CHRIST “WAS MERELY HUMAN, AND THAT HE OFTEN HAD RNAL KNOWLEDGE OF ST. JOHN,” THAT HE HAD MORE NFINCE THE LAT POET OVID THAN THE BIBLE, AND “THAT HE WOULD RATHER WORSHIP A PRETTY LTLE BOY THE FLH THAN GOD.” ONE OF CALGNO’S ACQUATANC TTIFIED AT HIS TRIAL THAT CALGNO SLEPT WH A BOY “ALMOST EVERY NIGHT” BUT ’S UNCLEAR IF THIS WAS SLANR. IN 1550, AT THE AGE OF 22, CALGNO WAS TERROGATED BRCIA, AND WAS EXECUTED VENICE TWO DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS.MORE THAN ONE NEW TTAMENT SCHOLAR HAS SHARED MARLOWE AND CALGNO’S VIEW THAT THE GOSPEL OF JOHN IS RIPE FOR HOMOEROTIC READGS. SJEF VON TILB, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS WRTEN THAT “ACRDG TO MORN DISURSE” THE FOURTH GOSPEL IS “POSIVELY ATTUNED TO THE VELOPMENT OF POSSIBLY HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR.” BUT THE KDS OF SCHOLARLY NFIRMATNS PALE NEXT TO COLUMBIA ANCIENT HISTORIAN MORTON SMH’S EXPLOSIVE 1960 ANNOUNCEMENT THAT HE HAD DISVERED A “SECRET GOSPEL OF MARK.” TWO YEARS EARLIER, SMH CLAIMED, HE HAD DISVERED A PREVLY UNKNOWN LETTER WRTEN BY THE LATE SEND/EARLY THIRD CENTURY THEOLOGIAN AND TEACHER CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA THE GREEK ORTHODOX MAR SABA MONASTERY, 20 KILOMETERS TO THE SOUTH-EAST OF JESALEM. SMH PHOTOGRAPHED THE LETTER AND PUBLISHED HIS STUDY OF THE TEXT 1973.WHAT SHOCKED THE WORLD WAS THE NTENTS OF THE LETTER WHICH CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA SCRIBED AS AN EXTEND VERSN OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK. IN THIS VERSN J RAIS A YOUNG MAN OM THE AD AND THGS GET TERTG OM THERE ON. QUOTG WORD FOR WORD, THE SECRET GOSPEL READS: “BUT THE YOUTH, LOOKG UPON [J], LOVED HIM AND BEGAN TO BEECH HIM THAT HE MIGHT BE WH HIM. AND GOG OUT OF THE TOMB, THEY ME TO THE HOE OF THE YOUTH, FOR HE WAS RICH. AND AFTER SIX DAYS J TOLD HIM WHAT TO DO, AND THE EVENG THE YOUTH TO HIM, WEARG A LEN CLOTH OVER HIS NAKED BODY. AND HE REMAED WH HIM THAT NIGHT, FOR J TGHT HIM THE MYSTERY OF THE KGDOM OF GOD. AND THENCE, ARISG, HE RETURNED TO THE OTHER SI OF THE JORDAN.” THERE’S NOTHG EXPLIC ABOUT A SEXUAL ENUNTER BETWEEN J AND THE YOUNG MAN, BUT THE REAR DON’T GET THE IMPRSN THAT THEY SPENT THE NIGHT JT CHATTG, EHER.AS YOU MIGHT IMAGE, THE DISVERY OF THIS SECRET GOSPEL SHOCKED THE WORLD AND DIVID AMICS. SOME BELIEVED THAT SMH HAD FED THE DOCUMENT, AND OTHERS FEND SMH’S IMPECBLE REPUTATN AS A SCHOLAR. SOME OF THE ACCATNS OF FERY TURNED PERSONAL WH SOME ACCG SMH, HIMSELF A GAY MAN, OF FG THE LETTER HIMSELF. THE MOST SUGGTIVE EVINCE WAS THAT THE ORIGAL LETTER, PHOTOGRAPHED BY SMH, HAD BEEN LOST (FOR ALMOST 60 YEARS NOW!) AND WHOUT THAT DOCUMENT THERE IS NO WAY TO TT S THENTICY G SCIENTIFIC MEANS. THE WEIGHT OF THE CURRENT EVINCE SUGGTS THAT IS A FERY, AS SCHOLAR STEPHEN CARLSON CLEARLY ARGUED HIS THE GOSPEL HOAX, BUT FOR MANY THE JURY IS STILL OUT. IF HE DIDN’T FE THE TEXT WHAT PETER JEFEY LLS “AN ASTOUNDGLY DARG ACT OF CREATIVE REBELLN” THEN THIS ENORMOLY EDE AND DISTGUISHED SCHOLAR WAS LLED A FER PURELY ON THE BASIS OF HIS PERSONAL LIFE.WHAT’S TERTG ABOUT THE ATTACKS ON THOSE WHO HAVE QUTNED THE PRUMPTIVE HETEROSEXUALY OF J IS HOW QUICKLY THEY ARE NNECTED TO THE PERSONAL LIV OF THOSE ASKG QUTNS. THE SEX LIV OF CALGNO, MARLOWE, AND SMH HAVE ENTERED THE NVERSATN WAYS THAT THE SEXUAL ORIENTATN OF THOSE WHO THK J AND MARY MAGDALENE WERE MARRIED HAS NOT. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THAT DAN BROWN IS BIASED BEE HE’S HETEROSEXUALLY PARTNERED. IN NEW TTAMENT SCHOLARSHIP THERE’S AN ALMOST CLICHéD OBSERVATN THAT EVERY SCHOLAR SE THEMSELV J: IF YOU’RE A LIBERAL J IS A LIBERAL, IF YOU’RE A FEMIST J IS A FEMIST, AND SO ON. “BUT,” AS TAYLOR PETREY AN ASSOCIATE PROFSOR OF EARLY CHRISTIANY AT KALAMAZOO COLLEGE, TOLD THE DAILY BEAST, “WHEN TO J’S SEXUALY THE SCHOLARS WHO ARGUE FOR A NON-NORMATIVE J HAVE BEEN PUNISHED PECIALLY HARSHLY, WHILE THOSE WHO ARGUE THAT J LIVED A NVENTNAL LIFE OF MARRIAGE HAVE BEEN TREATED AS DISPASSNATE OBSERVERS.”THE REASON FOR THIS, PETREY OBSERVED, IS THAT “J’S SEXUALY IS MORE THAN JT A HISTORIL QUTN. IT SUPPOSEDLY THORIZ OR UNTHORIZ CERTA KDS OF RELATNSHIPS AND SEXUAL EXPRSNS.” FOR RELIG LEARS, PECIALLY THOSE NOMATNS THAT SEE HOMOSEXUALY AS A S OR “TRSILLY DISORRED,” THE ASSUMED HETEROSEXUALY OF J IS EASY TO EXPLA: RNATE GOODNS NNOT BE DISORRED. BUT ’S NOT SO CLEAR WHY OTHERS ASSUME THAT J WAS HETEROSEXUAL, PECIALLY WHEN SCRIPTURAL EVINCE SCRIB ONLY HIS CELIBACY AND NOT HIS SEXUAL ORIENTATN. IN TTH, AS PETREY SAYS, “THE AMBIGUY OF THE EVINCE OF J’S SEXUALY IS ENTICG TO SPECULATE ABOUT NOT JT BEE IS AN UNANSWERABLE MYSTERY, BUT BEE WE TEND TO THK THAT THE ANSWER UNLOCKS SOME GREAT TTH ABOUT RELIGN, SEX, AND OURSELV.” CANDIDA MOSS
• WAS J CHRIST GAY?
• 'WAS J GAY?’: THE CLASS UNVERG HIDN QUEER HISTORI
• WHAT COM AFTER THE EX-GAY MOVEMENT? THE SAME THG THAT CAME BEFORE.
• 10 REASONS GOD LOV GAY CHRISTIANS
• THE GAY CHURCH
• THE EX-GAY CHRISTIANY MOVEMENT IS MAKG A QUIET EBACK. THE EFFECTS ON LGBTQ YOUTH ULD BE VASTATG.
• BLACKS, GAYS AND THE CHURCH: A COMPLEX RELATNSHIP

J AS AN OPENLY GAY MAN

It seems clear now that this is ls a negative repudiatn of fay and more a posive exhortatn to jo affirmatn of a gay liftyle and is at least one new parable, that of the two young men. Before, one might have thought that, given Mary's virgy, Joseph's attu was reflectg the ambigui of his stat the fay; but now seems more probable that we have here a classic example of the Frdian triangle: over-posssive mother, hostile father, gay have we known so ltle about all of this before? 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.

After the Supreme Court's historic lg on gay marriage, seemed like all the proudly homophobic Christians me out of the woodwork to talk about how much they still hate gay people.

As a straight Jew, the homophobia amongst J's followers has always stck me as a b of a surprise: Worshippg at the feet of a ripped, hung man, seems at least a ltle homoerotic. But what this has to say is that there was some sort of homoerotic relatnship, a love seems that, like anythg else the Bible, you n draw your own nclns, cludg that J was gay. Even evangelils will say that J was perfect so that, orr to be saved for evangelils, you mt be heterosexual to be VICE News: Tears, Lghter, and Triumph for a Lbian Couple the Supreme Court's Gay Marriage CaseBut if J was gay, and he was perfect, then really 's only the gay people that are gog to heaven, right?

WAS J GAY? PROBABLY

I want to say that all sexuali are an origal blsg bee we're ma the image of I'm gettg om this the most is that J, as a queer human dividual, uld at least relate to the stggle of gay men—feelg like outsts, havg vlence perpetrated on them for their queerns, whatever may be.

Yeah, I'd say that you're absolutely on solid ground wh your if J wasn't gay, I image he'd certaly feel more kship wh the mory of homosexuals than the heteronormative Christians who preach hate. And often tim they're vehement about bee they have so much ternalized homophobia, which dit to me that they have those same attractns to the same sex that they need to stamp them out other people. In 1550, at the age of 22, Calgno was terrogated Brcia, and was executed Venice two days before than one New Ttament scholar has shared Marlowe and Calgno’s view that the Gospel of John is ripe for homoerotic readgs.

7 REASONS J WAS GAY

” For relig lears, pecially those nomatns that see homosexualy as a s or “trsilly disorred, ” the assumed heterosexualy of J is easy to expla: rnate goodns nnot be disorred. While some nuchs may have engaged heterosexual acts, and while one non-nonil source has J Christ kissg Mary Magdalene, the evince overall suggts that Elton John was right, and that J was a nice gay man. Those who would exclu homosexuals om God’s kgdom choose to ignore J, turng stead to the Old Ttament – most particularly to Genis 19, the stctn of the ci of Sodom and Gomorrah.

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. 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 .... Recent bat among nservative Anglins and Prbyterians over whether someone n claim a “gay inty” are only the latt round of siar disput that have echoed church rridors for years.

WAS J GAY?

As Stott wrote Issu Facg Christians Today back 1982, “In every discsn about homosexualy we mt be rigoro differentiatg between this ‘beg’ and ‘dog, ’ that is, between a person’s inty and activy, sexual preference and sexual practice, nstutn and nduct. In the Uned Stat, as the 1969 Stonewall rts New York announced the birth of the gay rights movement, orthodox Prottants were already askg what posive visn Scripture giv for people who are gay. In a statement, the lears clared, “We repent of the cripplg ‘homophobia’ … which has loured the attus toward homosexual people of all too many of , and ll our fellow Christians to siar repentance.

Schaeffer foraw signifint cultural chang when, 1978, an Orthodox Prbyterian Church ngregatn San Francis found self sued for releasg a gay employee who had vlated the church’s of nduct. Church historian Richard Lovelace’s 1978 book Homosexualy and the Church garnered hearty endorsements om evangelil lumari Ken Kantzer (a former CT edor), Elisabeth Ellt, Chuck Colson, Harold Ockenga, and Carl F.

THE TWISTED FATE FOR MEN WHO CLAIMED J WAS GAYLOVE THY NEIGHBORWHILE THE MOST FAMO (AND MON) CLAIM IS THAT J HAD A RELATNSHIP WH MARY MAGDALENE, MAJOR WAV HAVE BEEN MA THROUGHOUT HISTORY ARGUG THAT J WAS GAY.CANDIDA MOSSUPDATED MAR. 23, 2020 4:57AM EDT / PUBLISHED MAR. 22, 2020 5:07AM EDT PHOTO ILLTRATN BY ELIZABETH BROCKWAY/THE DAILY BEAST/PIERO LLA FRANCON MAY 30, 1593, THE PLAYWRIGHT AND POET CHRISTOPHER “K” MARLOWE WAS FOUND BTALLY MURRED. ACRDG TO AN TOPSY REPORT AND SEVERAL EYEWNS REPORTS, MARLOWE HAD SPENT THE DAY AT THE HOE OF MRS. ELEANOR BULL DEPTFORD, SOUTH LONDON, BEFORE BEG FATALLY STABBED THE EYE. THE DAGGER STCK SLIGHTLY ABOVE HIS RIGHT EYE AND DROVE TWO CH TO HIS BRA. THOUGH HE WAS NOT EVEN 30, MARLOWE HAD ALREADY MA HIS IMPRSN ON THE ENGLISH LERATI WH HIS DOCTOR FST. HIS EXCLAMATN “WAS THIS THE FACE THAT LNCHED A THOAND SHIPS?” LIV ON LERARY AND POP-CULTURAL FOLKLORE EVEN TODAY. SO, WHO WOULD WANT TO KILL HIM? QUE A FEW PEOPLE, AS TURNED OUT, AND NSPIRACY THEORI ABOUND. ONE EXPLANATN IS THAT MARLOWE’S ATHEISM AND HIS SNDALO BELIEF THAT J WAS A HOMOSEXUAL RELATNSHIP WH THE DISCIPLE JOHN PLAYED A ROLE HIS MISE. IF RRECT, THIS WOULD MAKE MARLOWE ONE OF A CLTER OF DIVIDUALS WHO HAVE FACED STRONG, SOMETIM FATAL, OPPOSN FOR ASKG QUTNS ABOUT THE SEXUALY OF J.THE MORE NVENTNAL-YET-INOCLASTIC THEORY ABOUT J’S ROMANTIC LIFE IS THAT HE WAS A RELATNSHIP WH MARY MAGDALENE. SOME SAY THEY WERE EVEN MARRIED. THIS THEORY IS MOST FAMOLY ARTICULATED THE BTSELLG DA VCI CO BUT THERE ARE SOME AMICS WHO HAVE MA SIAR CLAIMS. ONE MAN, WALTER FRZ, EVEN FED AN ANCIENT DOCUMENT TO TRY TO ADD WEIGHT TO THE CLAIM THAT J AND MARY WERE MARRIED. THERE IS SOME GOOD EVINCE FOR THKG THAT THE RELATNSHIP BETWEEN MARY MAGDALENE AND J WAS PLAYED DOWN BY LATER CHRISTIAN THORS, BUT THERE’S NOTHG THE EARLIT TRADN THAT NCRETELY SUGGTS THEIR RELATNSHIP WAS ROMANTIC.   NEWSLETTERSBEAST TRAVEL DIGTGET THE ENTIRE WORLD YOUR BOX.SUBSCRIBEBY CLICKG "SUBSCRIBE" YOU AGREE TO HAVE READ THE TERMS OF USE AND PRIVACY POLICY WHAT THIS POPULAR NSPIRACY THEORY NVENIENTLY OVERLOOKS IS THE TENSY OF J’S RELATNSHIPS WH HIS RE GROUP OF DISCIPL. THE CLOSE RELATNSHIP OF J AND THE “BELOVED DISCIPLE” (TRADNALLY INTIFIED AS JOHN THE EVANGELIST) HAS LED SOME TO SUGGT THAT THEIR RELATNSHIP WAS HOMOEROTIC. THE EVINCE IS SUGGTIVE; AFTER ALL THERE IS A DISCIPLE WHO IS REPEATEDLY SCRIBED AS A PERSON WHOM J “LOV.” THERE’S A NVERSATN BETWEEN J AND PETER WHICH J ASKS PETER THREE TIM IF HE LOV HIM AND, WHEN PETER RPONDS, ASKS HIM TO RE FOR HIS FLOCK (JOHN 21:15-17). A MAN WHO SPENDS MOST OF HIS PERSONAL TIME ALONE WH 12 OTHER MEN? YOU MIGHT SAY THAT THERE’S SOMETHG CREDIBLY HETERONORMATIVE ABOUT THKG THAT J WAS TERTED MARY MAGDALENE.WHILE THE SCRIPTURAL TEXTS SOUND QUE SUGGTIVE ENGLISH, THE EROTICISM EVAPORAT OUT OF THE NVERSATN WHEN YOU READ THE ORIGAL GREEK. GREEK HAS MULTIPLE WORDS TO SCRIBE DIFFERENT KDS OF LOVE. AND, AS ISMO DUNRBERG, A PROFSOR OF NEW TTAMENT AT THE UNIVERSY OF HELSKI, HAS SHOWN, THE GREEK DO NOT SUGGT EROTIC RELATNSHIPS. IN JOHN 21 THE WORD J IS “AGAPE” A WORD THAT NNOT BROAD AFFECTN AND RE FOR OTHERS. THE WORD FOR SEXUAL LOVE OR SIRE IS “EROS” (OM WHICH WE GET THE ENGLISH WORD “EROTIC”), BUT THAT LANGUAGE IS NEVER ED TO SCRIBE J’ LOVE FOR ANY OF HIS PANNS.BUT IF JT SPENDG TIME TOGETHER IS ENOUGH TO BUILD A WHOLE THEORY ABOUT THE RELATNSHIP BETWEEN J AND MARY MAGDALENE, THEN CERTALY THE ARGUMENT J WAS SEXUAL RELATNSHIPS WH OTHER MEN HAS AT LEAST AS MUCH PLSIBILY? FOR MARLOWE, AN OUTSPOKEN CRIC OF ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND’S STRONG PROHIBNS AGAST HOMOSEXUALY ( WAS A PAL CRIME), THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVINCE OF HOMOEROTICISM. THE SAME MONTH THAT MARLOWE DIED A POLICE RMANT AND ON-AND OFF-SPY RICHARD BA PILED A DOCUMENT OF K’S “MONSTRO OPNS.” THE POT OF THE BA NOTE, AS HISTORIAN AND THOR CHARL NICHOLL HAS WRTEN, WAS “TO CRIMATE MARLOWE.” ACRDG TO BA, MARLOWE WAS AN ATHEIST WHO DOUBTED THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, THOUGHT THE BIBLE WAS “FILTHILY [I.E. POORLY] WRTEN,” AND BELIEVED THAT THE SACRAMENT OF MUNN WOULD BE GREATLY IMPROVED IF THE BREAD AND WE WAS REPLACED WH A TOBAC PIPE. HIS MOST SHOCKG STATEMENT, HOWEVER, WAS THAT “ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST WAS BEDFELLOW TO CHRIST AND LEANED ALWAYS HIS BOSOM, THAT HE ED HIM AS THE SNERS OF SODOM.” THE FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE OF LEANG TO THE BOSOM IS ACTUALLY ANCIENT AND IS ED THE WRGS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY CHURCH HISTORIAN EEBI WHO SCRIBED JOHN AS “THE ONE WHO LAY ON [J’] BREAST.” IN ANCIENT TEXTS THIS IS AN IMAGE FOR NON-SEXUAL TIMACY, BUT YOU N SEE WHAT MARLOWE WAS GETTG AT.MARLOWE WASN’T THE ONLY RENAISSANCE-ERA FIGURE TO ASK QUTNS ABOUT THE RELATNSHIP BETWEEN J AND JOHN. JT 40 YEARS EARLIER A YOUNG VEIAN IAR NAMED FRANC CALGNO WAS EXECUTED FOR BLASPHEMY FOR CLAIMG THAT JOHN WAS J’ TAME (A PUBCENT BOY WHO ENGAGED A SEXUAL RELATNSHIP WH AN OLR MAN). FOR CALGNO, LIKE MARLOWE, HIS BELIEFS ABOUT J’ SEXUALY ARE NNECTED TO A PARTICULAR FORM OF 16TH CENTURY ATHEISM THAT FOCED ON THE IA THAT J WAS HUMAN. HE APPARENTLY SAID THAT CHRIST “WAS MERELY HUMAN, AND THAT HE OFTEN HAD RNAL KNOWLEDGE OF ST. JOHN,” THAT HE HAD MORE NFINCE THE LAT POET OVID THAN THE BIBLE, AND “THAT HE WOULD RATHER WORSHIP A PRETTY LTLE BOY THE FLH THAN GOD.” ONE OF CALGNO’S ACQUATANC TTIFIED AT HIS TRIAL THAT CALGNO SLEPT WH A BOY “ALMOST EVERY NIGHT” BUT ’S UNCLEAR IF THIS WAS SLANR. IN 1550, AT THE AGE OF 22, CALGNO WAS TERROGATED BRCIA, AND WAS EXECUTED VENICE TWO DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS.MORE THAN ONE NEW TTAMENT SCHOLAR HAS SHARED MARLOWE AND CALGNO’S VIEW THAT THE GOSPEL OF JOHN IS RIPE FOR HOMOEROTIC READGS. SJEF VON TILB, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS WRTEN THAT “ACRDG TO MORN DISURSE” THE FOURTH GOSPEL IS “POSIVELY ATTUNED TO THE VELOPMENT OF POSSIBLY HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR.” BUT THE KDS OF SCHOLARLY NFIRMATNS PALE NEXT TO COLUMBIA ANCIENT HISTORIAN MORTON SMH’S EXPLOSIVE 1960 ANNOUNCEMENT THAT HE HAD DISVERED A “SECRET GOSPEL OF MARK.” TWO YEARS EARLIER, SMH CLAIMED, HE HAD DISVERED A PREVLY UNKNOWN LETTER WRTEN BY THE LATE SEND/EARLY THIRD CENTURY THEOLOGIAN AND TEACHER CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA THE GREEK ORTHODOX MAR SABA MONASTERY, 20 KILOMETERS TO THE SOUTH-EAST OF JESALEM. SMH PHOTOGRAPHED THE LETTER AND PUBLISHED HIS STUDY OF THE TEXT 1973.WHAT SHOCKED THE WORLD WAS THE NTENTS OF THE LETTER WHICH CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA SCRIBED AS AN EXTEND VERSN OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK. IN THIS VERSN J RAIS A YOUNG MAN OM THE AD AND THGS GET TERTG OM THERE ON. QUOTG WORD FOR WORD, THE SECRET GOSPEL READS: “BUT THE YOUTH, LOOKG UPON [J], LOVED HIM AND BEGAN TO BEECH HIM THAT HE MIGHT BE WH HIM. AND GOG OUT OF THE TOMB, THEY ME TO THE HOE OF THE YOUTH, FOR HE WAS RICH. AND AFTER SIX DAYS J TOLD HIM WHAT TO DO, AND THE EVENG THE YOUTH TO HIM, WEARG A LEN CLOTH OVER HIS NAKED BODY. AND HE REMAED WH HIM THAT NIGHT, FOR J TGHT HIM THE MYSTERY OF THE KGDOM OF GOD. AND THENCE, ARISG, HE RETURNED TO THE OTHER SI OF THE JORDAN.” THERE’S NOTHG EXPLIC ABOUT A SEXUAL ENUNTER BETWEEN J AND THE YOUNG MAN, BUT THE REAR DON’T GET THE IMPRSN THAT THEY SPENT THE NIGHT JT CHATTG, EHER.AS YOU MIGHT IMAGE, THE DISVERY OF THIS SECRET GOSPEL SHOCKED THE WORLD AND DIVID AMICS. SOME BELIEVED THAT SMH HAD FED THE DOCUMENT, AND OTHERS FEND SMH’S IMPECBLE REPUTATN AS A SCHOLAR. SOME OF THE ACCATNS OF FERY TURNED PERSONAL WH SOME ACCG SMH, HIMSELF A GAY MAN, OF FG THE LETTER HIMSELF. THE MOST SUGGTIVE EVINCE WAS THAT THE ORIGAL LETTER, PHOTOGRAPHED BY SMH, HAD BEEN LOST (FOR ALMOST 60 YEARS NOW!) AND WHOUT THAT DOCUMENT THERE IS NO WAY TO TT S THENTICY G SCIENTIFIC MEANS. THE WEIGHT OF THE CURRENT EVINCE SUGGTS THAT IS A FERY, AS SCHOLAR STEPHEN CARLSON CLEARLY ARGUED HIS THE GOSPEL HOAX, BUT FOR MANY THE JURY IS STILL OUT. IF HE DIDN’T FE THE TEXT WHAT PETER JEFEY LLS “AN ASTOUNDGLY DARG ACT OF CREATIVE REBELLN” THEN THIS ENORMOLY EDE AND DISTGUISHED SCHOLAR WAS LLED A FER PURELY ON THE BASIS OF HIS PERSONAL LIFE.WHAT’S TERTG ABOUT THE ATTACKS ON THOSE WHO HAVE QUTNED THE PRUMPTIVE HETEROSEXUALY OF J IS HOW QUICKLY THEY ARE NNECTED TO THE PERSONAL LIV OF THOSE ASKG QUTNS. THE SEX LIV OF CALGNO, MARLOWE, AND SMH HAVE ENTERED THE NVERSATN WAYS THAT THE SEXUAL ORIENTATN OF THOSE WHO THK J AND MARY MAGDALENE WERE MARRIED HAS NOT. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THAT DAN BROWN IS BIASED BEE HE’S HETEROSEXUALLY PARTNERED. IN NEW TTAMENT SCHOLARSHIP THERE’S AN ALMOST CLICHéD OBSERVATN THAT EVERY SCHOLAR SE THEMSELV J: IF YOU’RE A LIBERAL J IS A LIBERAL, IF YOU’RE A FEMIST J IS A FEMIST, AND SO ON. “BUT,” AS TAYLOR PETREY AN ASSOCIATE PROFSOR OF EARLY CHRISTIANY AT KALAMAZOO COLLEGE, TOLD THE DAILY BEAST, “WHEN TO J’S SEXUALY THE SCHOLARS WHO ARGUE FOR A NON-NORMATIVE J HAVE BEEN PUNISHED PECIALLY HARSHLY, WHILE THOSE WHO ARGUE THAT J LIVED A NVENTNAL LIFE OF MARRIAGE HAVE BEEN TREATED AS DISPASSNATE OBSERVERS.”THE REASON FOR THIS, PETREY OBSERVED, IS THAT “J’S SEXUALY IS MORE THAN JT A HISTORIL QUTN. IT SUPPOSEDLY THORIZ OR UNTHORIZ CERTA KDS OF RELATNSHIPS AND SEXUAL EXPRSNS.” FOR RELIG LEARS, PECIALLY THOSE NOMATNS THAT SEE HOMOSEXUALY AS A S OR “TRSILLY DISORRED,” THE ASSUMED HETEROSEXUALY OF J IS EASY TO EXPLA: RNATE GOODNS NNOT BE DISORRED. BUT ’S NOT SO CLEAR WHY OTHERS ASSUME THAT J WAS HETEROSEXUAL, PECIALLY WHEN SCRIPTURAL EVINCE SCRIB ONLY HIS CELIBACY AND NOT HIS SEXUAL ORIENTATN. IN TTH, AS PETREY SAYS, “THE AMBIGUY OF THE EVINCE OF J’S SEXUALY IS ENTICG TO SPECULATE ABOUT NOT JT BEE IS AN UNANSWERABLE MYSTERY, BUT BEE WE TEND TO THK THAT THE ANSWER UNLOCKS SOME GREAT TTH ABOUT RELIGN, SEX, AND OURSELV.” CANDIDA MOSS

First, would require profsg Christians who are gay to have the urage both to avow [acknowledge] their orientatn openly and to obey the Bible’s clear junctn to turn away om the active homosexual life-style.

The church’s sponsorship of openly avowed but repentant homosexuals learship posns would be a profound wns to the world ncerng the power of the Gospel to ee the church om homophobia and the homosexual om guilt and bondage. Yet this was the Christian visn of Lovelace and Henry, Ockenga and Ellt, Kantzer and Colson, Lewis and Graham, Schaeffer and Stott, and a young gay evangelil Anglin who felt too aaid to e his own name, even though he was still a virg. As I watch evangelil church and nomatns fumble their way through discsns of sexual orientatn and inty, often enforcg the language and tegori of a failed ex-gay movement, we’re missg the real battle: The surroundg culture has nvced the world that Christians hate gay people.

They are already send-gusg their fah bee they hear all around them that Christians hate gay people, and they n’t pot to anyone their ngregatn who is gay, is fahful, and is loved and accepted as such. Some morn Bible translatns say that “homosexuals” will not her the kgdom of God, but neher the ncept nor the word for people wh exclive same-sex attractn existed before the late 19th century. Matthew V is the thor of God and the Gay Christian and is the founr of The Reformatn Project, a Bible-based non-prof anizatn that seeks to reform church teachg on sexual orientatn and genr inty.

WAS J CHRIST GAY?

Although s unlikely that the biblil thors had any notn of sexual orientatn (for example, the term homosexual wasn't even ed until the late 19th century) for many people of fah, the Bible is looked to for timels guidance on what means to honor God wh our liv; and this most certaly clus our sexualy.

” In askg, “What do the Bible say about homosexualy” (or more appropriately stated, “what do the Bible say about attractn to someone of the same sex, ”) our task is to explore what the relevant biblil passag on the topic meant their origal ntext and what they mean for today. A church that, sce 2005, bans prits wh “ep-seated homosexual tennci” and officially teach that gay men are “objectively disorred” and herently disposed toward “trsic moral evil” is actually posed, ways very few other stutns are, of gay men. This cultural and moral shift has not only changed the nscns of most Amerin Catholics (67 percent of whom support civil marriage for gay upl) and gay prits (many of whom are close to qutg) but also broken the silence that long shroud the subject.

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

Alarmed by the possibily that divorced and remarried people might be weled as well as gays, tradnalists lnched a fierce rearguard mpaign agast the new papacy, wh a foc on what some lled a “Lavenr Mafia” nng the church, and broke new ground nnectg this directly to the horrifyg revelatns of sex abe that me to light 2002. In creasgly direct ways, they have argued that the root of the sndal was not abe of power, or pedophilia, or clerilism, or the distortive psychologil effects of celibacy and stutnal homophobia, but gayns self. ” Michael Hichborn, head of the ge-right Lepanto Instute, lled for a “plete and thorough removal of all homosexual clergymen om the church … It is gog to be difficult and will likely rult a very ser prit shortage, but ’s fely worth the effort.

Here, seemed, was a pedophile and an abive gay man, at the very apex of the church, known to be sexually active wh semarians, protected by his peers, and tolerated for s by many the hierarchy, cludg the last three pop. New onle media anizatns — led by Brebart-style webs such as LifeSe News and Church Milant — now routely pounce on any cints volvg gay prits and have an fluential dience the Vatin.

WHAT COM AFTER THE EX-GAY MOVEMENT? THE SAME THG THAT CAME BEFORE.

At one pot as we spoke the next day the hospal, he was greeted by a woman who asked for an on-the-spot nfsn and he shooed me asi; later I met an anguished gay man om an ultra-Catholic fay he was unselg; and for a few hours on Sunday morng, he was wh the wife and teenage sons of a dyg man. The news environment is saturated wh stori about sex abe — and rightly so — yet there are hardly any public exampl of the overwhelmg number of gay prits who would never dream of preyg upon the powerls. For example, as the late historian John Boswell monstrated his groundbreakg, ntroversial book Christiany, Social Tolerance, and Homosexualy, a fourth-century Christian wrer, John Chrysostom, attacked the lears of the church for beg too acceptg of same-sex love and even sex: “Those very people who have been nourished by godly doctre, who stct others what they ought and ought not to do … the do not nsort wh prostut as fearlsly as they do wh young men … None is ashamed, no one blh … the chaste seem to be the odd on, and the disapprovg the on error.

” There was nsirable Christian ncern about sex general — followg the teachg of sats Pl and Augte — but no nsens that homosexualy, if kept to tense mutual love and celibate iendship, was specifilly problematic.

10 REASONS GOD LOV GAY CHRISTIANS

The historil rerd, however, reveals that for all Augte’s fluence, the practice of tense homoerotic iendship among the clergy was mon over the followg centuri, pecially monasteri. Homosexuals, the new theology, were part of nature — many had noticed homosexual behavr the animal kgdom, particularly among har and hyenas — but they were also somehow ntrary to nature.

Carl Jung intified the archetypal gifts of the homosexual: “a great pacy for iendship, which often creat ti of astonishg tenrns between men”; a talent for teachg, athetics, and tradn (“to be nservative the bt sense and cherish the valu of the past”); “a wealth of relig feelgs, which help to brg the ecclia spirualis to realy; and a spirual receptivy which mak him rponsive to revelatn.

In many ways, the old, elaborate High Mass, wh s cense and procsns, lor-d vtments, lurgil plexy, mil precisn, choirs, ans, and sheer drama, is obvly, part, a creatn of the gay prithood. To nflate sexual abe wh the gay prithood, as many now reflexively do, is a grotque libel on the vast majory who have never ntemplated such crim and are ed appalled by them. But some abe of male teens and young adults, as well as abe of other prits, is clearly related to homosexualy gone horribly astray — and around a quarter of the reported s volve 15- to 17-year-old victims.

THE GAY CHURCH

He was also the theologian who monstrated a manic sire to police the slightt viatn om orthodoxy, who scribed gay people as “objectively disorred” and cled toward an “trsic moral evil, ” and who, after he banned gay prits, lled them “one of the miseri of the church. Some of the gay prits I spoke wh acknowledged laps but sisted that, nsultatn wh their spirual directors and superrs, they chose celibacy when the choice beme impossible to ignore or avoid. ” The problem, he said, was if gays were to form some kd of factn or lobby wh the church — but this, he explaed, applied to any lobby: “a lobby of misers, a lobby of policians, a lobby of Masons.

But Viganò’s ttimony on the key qutn — that an actively abive homosexual rdal was knowgly tolerated by John Pl II and Benedict XVI and nsulted by Francis — had the rg of tth.

(Whether celibacy is healthy for the church is s own qutn, one oddly distct om the current crisis; a relaxatn of the l wouldn’t self rolve the church’s posn on homosexualy, and an embrace of homosexualy is patible wh a celibate prithood.

THE EX-GAY CHRISTIANY MOVEMENT IS MAKG A QUIET EBACK. THE EFFECTS ON LGBTQ YOUTH ULD BE VASTATG.

For two s, McKrae Game was a top-tier figure among ex-gay Christians and a leadg advote for nversn therapy, a unselg practice wh the goal of helpg LGBTQ people supprs their homosexualy and bee “straight. ” But Game, 51, now disavows the movement and acknowledg he has been gay all told the Post and Courier that nversn therapy proved to be trimental, a “lie” and “false advertisg.

BLACKS, GAYS AND THE CHURCH: A COMPLEX RELATNSHIP

The most proment ex-gay anizatns have shnk or shuttered; lears have fected; and many church now fear that beg associated wh such wily discreded techniqu will st them as unwelg or bigoted. Addnally, the Inter is rife wh stori of LGBTQ people who have reported sufferg psychologil harm as a rult of participatg the programs and proment Christians are quietly tryg to rurrect ex-gay Christiany, and the new rnatn is hipper and perhaps more evolved.

Yet beneath the smetic tweaks ss the same msage that has damaged many liv over many s: If you’re a Christian wh same-sex attractns, change is both possible and first wave of Amerin ex-gay Christiany the 1970s alced around mistri and anizatns specifilly voted to the e. But the current wave is far more centralized, beg led by pennt thors and personali who are embedd the nservative Christian world rather than segregated to an issue-specific views differ ever so slightly om the next while orbg tightly to siar them, such as the possibily of “former homosexuals” havg a healthy heterosexual marriage, differentiatg between one’s behavr and inty, and a ubiquo, if obligatory, nod to church’ historil failur to love people who intify as of the movement’s most articulate lears is Rosaria Champagne Butterfield, a former women’s studi profsor at Syrace Universy who says she “adopted a lbian inty” her 20s as a rult of beg fluenced by femist philosophy.