The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament
by Theodore Jennings, Jr.
Cleveland, The Pilgrim Press, ix-246pp., pb, $28.00

While there is much in Theodore Jennings' The Man Jesus Loved to which one can take exception, it is clearly an important work, full of fascinating information and striking conclusions guaranteed to set the reader thinking. Certainly a compelling read. Anybody who claims to be a "Christian" should read it, and that includes the hate-preaching "Christian Right" (although it is unlikely that this, or any other book--including The Scriptures themselves, can change their rigidly held views). In particular, those who have lost their faith through mistreatment by an historical church or some such reason should read it. It may help them to feel included in Jesus's embrace. Perhaps it can help them find their faith by offering a more inclusive vision of Jesus.

Jennings declares that his purpose is to make a "gay reading" of The Scriptures, that is, to see that there is a way of reading the story of Jesus which not only isn't anti-gay but is actually pro-gay.

The book is divided into three parts. The first part is the most valuable. Jesus, we are told in the Gospel of John, had a special friend, though that man is never named. And during the last supper this Beloved Disciple rested his head on Jesus' chest in an obvious sign of physical affection. The Gospel says so clearly and unequivocally, but the next step is the dangerous one. Did Jesus and his special friend have sex? And does that mean Jesus was gay?

One of the issues addressed at length in the book's first section is the identity of the Beloved Disciple. The Gospels give few details of the relationships between Jesus and His followers, so straws have to be clutched at. Jennings considers as candidates for who the Beloved Disciple was Peter's brother Andrew, Nathaniel, Philip, Thomas, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, and Lazarus. He even considers that the Beloved Disciple might not be a person at all but rather a symbol for the Church. Curiously, Jennings rejects the tradition of very long standing that John the Apostle is the Beloved Disciple and opts for Lazarus.

One of the most enlightening chapters in The Man Jesus Loved is the one entitled "The Hidden Tradition." It turns out there's been a longstanding tradition that Jesus had a homosexual relationship with St. John. The material on Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), the latter's view so modern and precisely expressed, is a pleasure to read. And when it comes to love, including homosexual love, the long excerpt (translated by John Boswell) from The Mirror of Charity by Aelred of Rievaulx (12th century) says it all. It's worth the price of the book. It should be read at every gay commitment service.

The second section of the book, "The Jesus Tradition" presents analyses of a number of familiar New Testament incidents which are not incompatible with an homoerotic interpretation. An example is the story of the Roman officer who asks for a miracle of healing for a boy who is dear to him. It's not clear whether this is a son, a servant, or a boyfriend. What is clear is that there is some ambiguity. Jesus might very well have understood that the centurion was imploring on behalf of a beloved homosexual lover. Jesus performed the miracle. Now Jesus's good will toward homosexuals may not be the point of that story, but maybe it is. The suggestion that it could be is indicative of the real character of Jesus. Jennings recounts the story of the "rich young man" who came to Jesus but did not follow because Jesus asked him to give up all his belongings. A detail seldom noticed is that the Gospel says "Jesus gazed on him, and loved him." That rich young man and the beloved disciple are the only people the Scriptures say Jesus actually "loved" personally.

The third section of the book analyses Jesus's attitudes toward the family. If Jennings is intentionally flouting the Fundamental Christians with the suggestion Jesus was at least soft on gays if not gay himself, he really goes after them by reading the Scripture to show how un-family values-like Jesus's teachings were. Jesus, after all, was reacting to a religion that taught that personal value lay in tribal and family membership; Jesus said no, a person's value is determined by how lovingly they behave and by what they believe in, not by who their relatives are, how many children they have, or how successful the children turn out. "Family values" today means a wide range of things (including shame about sex because parents are embarrassed about sex in front of their children). It also includes the tenet that salvation comes from being a good parent and giving birth to a new generation. Spiritual religion, on the other hand, tends to demand more. A person is supposed to believe in the goodness of love and to be loving to others beyond his or her immediate relatives. Parenthood alone isn't enough. Jesus was calling people to something beyond normalcy.

Jesus certainly challenged the patriarchal dominance of the religion of his day, and ironically, of the religion that's taken his name. Jesus's attitude towards women was extremely sympathetic for His times. One of His closest intimates was Mary Magdalene.

Jennings concludes that " ...the least forced reading of the texts that deal with the man Jesus loved is one which understands this relationship as one of physical and emotional intimacy, and...nothing in the text in any way precludes the sexual mediation of this relationship." As for the question: was Jesus gay? The author declares, "...the question as thus framed admits of no simple answer....any conclusion about the sexual experience or practice of particular individuals in antiquity must in the nature of the case be inferential and tentative..." But the possibility is there.

In recent years there has been a succession of fascinating books on the sexuality of Jesus. One of the earliest and most interesting of these books is Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times by Tom Homer (1978). By and large for reasons unclear these important books seem to be ignored, even by the gay community and certainly by the zealots of the traditional churches. This neglect contrasts strongly with treatments of the same subject matter on the stage, in the cinema, and in fiction. The Last Temptation of Christ by Niko Kazantzakis raised a firestorm of controversy and Corpus Christi by Terrance McNally nearly ignited a riot of protesters in New York City. The books do much better to treat the issue seriously than the dramas because it is a very thorny issue with many necessary nuances.

The Man Jesus Loved is an interesting book. I didn't always agree. I thought Jennings' preoccupation with the question of Jesus's sexual behavior created a bias just like the traditional Church's preoccupation in denying Jesus's sexuality (Jesus's cruising the rich young man seemed to me far-fetched). I thought the attack on the family values advocates relentless and unrealistic (we all do love our families and familial love is neither unChristian nor unspiritual). And I was personally disappointed and bewildered by his dismissal of St. John as the beloved of Jesus.

For me the most important event in the history of the faith after the birth, death, and Resurrection of Jesus is when the Beloved Disciple enters the empty Tomb "and he saw, and believed" (John 20:8). At that crucial moment John believed, he knew who Jesus is: the meaning of The Cross and of the empty Tomb. John the Beloved Disciple was the first (Mary Magdalene was the second) to be blessed with such knowledge and belief. He is the first Christian. He, not Peter, is the successor of Jesus. Thus with him began a holy brotherhood, a true Christian Church, what today we would call a gay Christian Church. Today the issue is not will the historical sects accept and include us but rather shall we share Him with them.