Holy Fool

There seems to be some hub-bub going on about Elton John's comment that he believes Jesus was a "compassionate, super-intelligent gay man."  Some are even calling it blasphemous.  I think we are, to borrow from McLaren/Campolo, embarking on an adventure in missing the point when we so easily condemn Elton's statement.  What some are labeling an 'attention grab' I guess I just see as a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

It is really quite easy to get all up in arms because someone thinks Jesus may have been gay.  But there are a few things to think of here:

Being gay does not equate to sinfulness in and of itself.  Gay is used as a pejorative term in many Christian circles in a way which couples orientation and practice in a destructive way.  I say it is destructive in that it connotes a special level of disdain and degradation for those that have engaged in homosexual acts. If they were to do the same acts with the opposite sex, while still sin (outside of marriage), they do not receive any extra condemnation from 'Christian' society.  As Christians we do not point a finger and speak under our breath, "you know that guy is a heterosexual right?"  There are many and varied reason why a persons orientation may differ from heterosexual that have nothing to do with the choice of the individual.

It is statistical truth however that most people are heterosexual.  Heterosexuality also has the weight of being the only way in which humans can 'go forth and multiply'.  Those in mind it would seem that nature in general would point us towards a heterosexual pre-disposition in the majority of cases and we have no evidence that Jesus was otherwise.  It makes anthropological sense then that Jesus was indeed heterosexual.  Of the temptations Jesus faced the Bible does not speak to any matters of lust or sexual indecency that Jesus may have faced directly, although we do have assurance that he was tested in all the ways that we are as humans, the Bible simply just doesn't say 'how' he was tempted.  The Hellenistic/pagan culture of that era, especially in the areas outlying the reach of Judaism, were libertine in nature and sexual temptations were not limited to heterosexual ones.

The main issues I take task with in Elton's assertion is not one of sexual correctness, but one of hermeneutic focus.  How does he interpret the story of Jesus to make the assumption that he was gay?  Elton has fallen prey to the interpretive error of egocentrism.  In How to Read the Bible for All it's Worth Fee and Stuart make this observation:

"That is, most of us assume as we read that we also understand what we read.  We also tend to think that our understanding is the same thing as the Holy Spirit's or human author's intent.  However, we invariably bring to the text all that we are, with all of our experiences, culture, and prior understandings of words and ideas.  Sometimes what we bring to the text, unintentionally to be sure, leads us astray, or else causes us to read all kinds of foreign ideas into the text."

It seems logical that Elton is simply bringing into his understanding of Christ an uneducated and perhaps egocentric world-view in which his interpretation is correct.  This is no different than the many challenges we face in the church today whether it is unholy patriotism, prosperity gospel, name it and claim it, fierce judgmentalism, or churches that pray for the death of our president.

Everyone has a pet sin that they love to call out, I like calling out laziness in others because I struggle with it myself at times.  It's really easy for me to read my pre-judgments into scripture.

What Elton faces is the same thing we all face in interpreting scripture, are we going to let the text inform our life and practice and let the text be the text, or are we going to continually ram the text into our mold of choice to fit our comfort level?  I really wish parts of the Old-Testament weren't in there at times, all the violence is quite frankly a bit embarrassing, but I have to let the text be the text and learn from it and let it shape me. Not the other way around.