Fait Diver: Jesus Was Fabulous!


See this Dude? He doesn’t look like Perez Hilton, does he? Or Mike’s Musto or Signorile for that matter. Not to mention Larry Kramer. But when it comes to “outing” Paul Oestreicher may have struck the Mother Load. For he’s let fly in The Guardian on what the “H” in “Jesus H. Christ” stands for.

“Preaching on Good Friday on the last words of Jesus as he was being executed makes great spiritual demands on the preacher. The Jesuits began this tradition. Many Anglican churches adopted it. Faced with this privilege in New Zealand’s capital city, Wellington, my second home, I was painfully aware of the context, a church deeply divided worldwide over issues of gender and sexuality. Suffering was my theme. I felt I could not escape the suffering of gay and lesbian people at the hands of the church, over many centuries.”

And continues to this day. But thanks to the Gay Rights Movement, the phobes’ bleatings have become increasingly pathetic.

“Was that divisive issue a subject for Good Friday? For the first time in my ministry I felt it had to be. Those last words of Jesus would not let me escape. “When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, ‘Woman behold your son!’ Then he said to the disciple. ‘Behold your mother!’ And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”
That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way.”


“The phrase the disciple whom Jesus loved (Greek: ο μαθητης ον ηγαπα ο Ιησους, o mathētēs on ēgapa o Iēsous) or, in John 20:2, the Beloved Disciple (Greek: ον εφιλει ο Ιησους, on ephilei o Iēsous) is used five times in the Gospel of John, but in no other New Testament accounts of Jesus. John 21:24 claims that the Gospel of John is based on the written testimony of the “Beloved Disciple”.
Since the end of the 1st century, the Beloved Disciple has been considered to be John the Evangelist. Scholars have debated the authorship of the Johannine works (the Gospel of John, First, Second, and Third epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation) since at least the 3rd century, but especially since the Enlightenment. Many modern scholars now believe that he wrote none of them. Opinions continue to be divided, however, and other renowned theological scholars continue to accept the traditional authorship. Colin G Kruse states, since John the Evangelist has been named consistently in the writings of early church fathers, “it is hard to pass by this conclusion, despite widespread reluctance to accept it by many, but by no means all, modern scholars.” Thus, the true identity of the author of the Gospel of John remains a subject of considerable debate.”

“All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. 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.”



And then there was The Disciple That Jesus Dumped

“Judas Iscariot (Hebrew: יהודה איש־קריות‎, Yehuda, Yəhûḏāh ʾΚ-qrayyôṯ) was, according to the New Testament, one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. He is infamously known for his kiss and betrayal of Jesus to the hands of the chief Sanhedrin priests for a ransom of 30 pieces of silver”

Doubtless we all recall The Kiss-Off. Here’s Caravaggio’s rendition:


(Back to the Primary Boytoy)

“Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus’s family.
Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. “


“He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.”

How rude!

“Hugh Montefiore was a member of a famous Jewish family. His father was Charles Sebag-Montefiore (great-great-nephew of Sir Moses Montefiore). He was educated at Rugby School (where he underwent a sudden conversion to Christianity), St John’s College, Oxford, and Westcott House, Cambridge. In 1945 he married Elisabeth Paton., niece of Sir William D.M. Paton.
He was Vicar of the Church of St Mary the Great, Cambridge, from 1963 to 1970 and Bishop of Kingston upon Thames from 1970 to 1978.
Montefiore was the author of more than 20 books, including The Probability of God (1985), Christianity and Politics (1990), Credible Christianity (1993), On Being a Jewish Christian (1998) and The Paranormal: A Bishop Investigates (2002).”

IOW, not exactly Jacqueline Suzanne.

“After 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. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.”

Derek Jarman agrees

“Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which.”

Oh quit beating around the bush! Look at that bod.



Jesus was obviously a Gym Bunny. Does the notion upset you? Well leave us not forget that according to the gospels he was a flesh-eating zombie. “This is my body. This is my Blood. Do this in rememberance of me” and all that jazz.



“And on the third day he rose again from the dead”

“The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches.”

And said sexual sheepishness has hobbled many a movie

Here’s Nick Ray’s I Was a Teenage Jesus

Rather bland, no? Pasolini’s is a tad livelier. Here we see Jesus cruising for disciples.

Marty’s Jesus is even livelier

But the plot makes him out to be a hetero “family man.” Not at all daring, but a lot easier to take than Mel Gibson’s NASCAR Jesus

“All that, I felt deeply, had to be addressed on Good Friday. 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. 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. 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.”

To where? Key West? Palm Springs? Cherry Grove? Mykonos?

“Whether Jesus was gay or straight in no way affects who he was and what he means for the world today. Spiritually it is immaterial. 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. Would the Christian churches in their many guises more openly accept, embrace and love them, there would be many more disciples.”

Hotter ones too.

The West Mesa Central High Drama Department will sing us out

Leave a comment