The Gospel of John is of particular interest to queer people of faith for its repeated references to the “beloved disciple”, or to “the disciple that Jesus loved”. These references make clear that whoever he was, this disciple had a relationship with Jesus of particular intimacy. There’s the well-known scene from the Last Supper where he rests his head on Jesus’ breast (or lap), and at the crucifixion, he is the only man standing among the women at the foot of the cross. He is the one to whom Christ entrusts the care of his mother - rather as a surviving spouse in marriage would assume some responsibility for the care of a mother-in-law. The existence of this special relationship provides much of the argument for the proposition that Jesus’ sexual orientation may have been what we call “gay”.
The beloved disciple is not explicitly named, but is often assumed to be John himself. I have written before on these lines, using “John, the Beloved Disciple” as a jumping off point for a reflection on the gay Jesus:
For gay men in particular, combining this thought in our prayer with a recognition of Jesus’ full bodily humanity can be a powerful entry into building that important personal relationship with him in our spiritual lives.……….
The significance for us of John as “the disciple Jesus loved”, goes way beyond the possibility of genital activity. Love is primarily an emotional relationship, not a physical one. The English language does us a disservice in using “lovemaking” as a euphemism for the physical act, even without any deep emotional significance. “Loving”, in its full sense is more important than mere “lovemaking” as a physical act. In this sense, we know without any possible doubt that the words “whom Jesus loved” are true. How do we know it? Because they are true for all the disciples, as they are for each of us, and for all others.John the Evangelist, the “Beloved Disciple” (Queer Saints & Martyrs)
But this does not do full justice to the importance of John himself. He may not, after all, be the person described. (Theodore Jennings, who has written most extensively on the subject, believes he is not). In any case, focussing on Jesus in the relationship ignores John, whose feast day it is. There are other reasons for thinking of John the Evangelist as queer.
After Jesus had left the earth, John had a further notable and intimate (at least emotionally so) relationship with another male disciple, this time younger than he - his disciple and scribe, Prochorus, bishop of Nicomedia. (Prochorus in turn, later formed a fresh relationship of his own with a younger man, Irenaeus,)
John the Evangelist, with his scribe Prochorus
Then there’s the nature of John’s Gospel itself. Even the most cursory comparison of the four Gospels notes that it stands apart from the other three. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke share a common perspective and so are called the “synoptic” Gospels. That of John is quite different. It is often noted that gay men, as social outsiders, offer a unique view and special insight on the world and social relationships, possibly explaining the high proportion of gay men among the most acclaimed writers and artists in human history. This Gospel is written from the perspective of the beloved disciple - John states clearly that it is written from his witness. Even if John is not himself the beloved disciple, it is notable that it is in his Gospel, and not the Synoptics, that this relationship is recorded. Is this because, being gay himself, John saw something with his queer view (his “gaydar”) that the others did not? In his commentary on John (in The Queer Bible Commentary
), Robert Goss describes it unambiguously as the queerest Gospel, because it as a coming out story - that of God coming out, through Christ, to his people, because it is in John that Christ is presented as most gender fluid.
Finally, let us recall again that in medieval Northern Europe, there was even a long-standing tradition that John and Christ were the bridal couple at the Cana Wedding Feast. This image of a marriage between Christ and John reminds us that in the mystical tradition of the Church, the established image of the Christian as the spouse of Christ is available to gay men, as “bridegrooms of Christ“, just as much as it is to women, as “brides of Christ”.
John, the queer Evangelist, is a powerful reminder to us as LGBT people that Christ numbered among his close followers and leaders of the church, people whose emotional and sexual lives did not conform to the conventional stereotypes of the day. In addition to John, we have the examples of Martha and Mary, of Lazarus (who is also named as a possible claimant to the title “beloved disciple”), Philip the Ethiopian Eunuch, and the Roman centurion. We too, likewise have a claim to be fully included in the modern Church, and to take any leadership roles for which our talents equip us.
(For a superb selection of visual representations of John, or of John and Jesus together, see Kittredge Cherry’s post at Jesus in Love blog).
Books:
- Jennings, Theodore: The Man Jesus Loved
- Goss, Robert: The Gospel of John, in The Queer Bible Commentary
- Loughlin, Gerard: Editor’s Introduction to ”Queer Theology: Rethinking the Western Body “
Related articles
- John the Evangelist, the “Beloved Disciple“
- Blessed Bernardo de Hoyos, the Spouse of Christ
- Martha and Mary
- The Gay Centurion
- Water into Wine: Jesus’ Gay Wedding at Cana
- LGBT History Month: Queer Icons, in Faith - Jesus Christ.
- Was Jesus Gay?
- John the Evangelist: the Man Jesus Loved (Jesus in Love)
- Lazarus: Jesus’ beloved disciple? (Jesus in Love)
There is of course another school of thought that believes the “beloved disciple” may have been Mary Magdalene… it also appears that scholars now believe John did not write ANY of the new testament canon http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/304610/Gospel-According-to-John
Agreed that Mary may have been the Beloved Disciple. I’m not going to take sides on that matter.
On who actually wrote the Gospel of John, I’m not concerned, any more than I am about whether Shakespeare really wrote his plays. In my view, the “Shakespeare” that matters is the person who wrote the texts, not the historical person who bore the name. I think they were probably the same - but if not, so what?
Similarly, to my mind, the “Evangelist John” is the one who wrote the Gospel - even if in the real world, his name wasn’t actually John.
Thanks and happy Beloved Disciple Day! I included a link to your wonderful overview in my own post today on John the Evangelist: The Man Jesus Loved
Your blasphemous post thoroughly refuted here:
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com
I’m sure you’ll delete this comment. That’s your modus operandi: delete anything which proves you wrong.
There is nothing at all in the above post to refute what I have written, and I resent the suggestion that it is my “modus operandi” to “delete anything which proves you wrong”. You have absolutely no grounds for any such accusation, as I have never, ever, deleted a reader’s comment except for purely technical reasons - such as spam.
Actually, you deleted a previous comment from me. And you ARE refuted at La Salette Journey. You simply lack the grace to admit this.
”
you deleted a previous comment from me”. I don’t know what you are talking about. I repeat: I have never knowingly deleted comments - even when they are specifically offensive to me personally.
The post you referred to does not in any way refute what I wrote - that there was a special relationship between Jesus and the Beloved disciple - but only attacked, very poorly, what it imagined I had written.
I will not be wasting time on any further responses to you.
I agree. Terry Weldon has failed to understand the difference between agape love and eros. His lack of scholarship is an embarassment.
The distinction between agape and eros is entirely irrelevant to what I actually wrote - but is in any case far more subtle than is commonly presented.
Oh dear…..The inquisitor in me is wanting to rear his ugly head. Mcole1977 and Roger Vaste, you dear people, are mistaken. I personally know 4 people with doctorates in Biblical scholarship, all of whom can read ancient Greek, hebrew, and aramaic fluently (it annoys me in class when they assume that everyone else can keep up with them). Your Wikipedia and “the pope says so” ignorant comments are a SHAME to Catholic Scholarship.
I know more about the Roman Catholic Religion than you probably could hold in your tiny little mind. I know things about OUR religion that you have never heard of, things that I bet the Pope himself is unfamiliar with. I guarantee you that I could cause you to question your faith in a heart beat using SOLELY quotes from Catholic saints and Popes from pre-vatican 2. I would not use post-vatican 2 stuff because that would be too easy to be worth the effort.
I know this religion more than anything I know in my entire life because I used to be even more conservative than either of you could possibly be. I used to be a sedevacantist, and the only thing I dreamed about doing with my life for the past 5 years was to lead an inquisition to purify the church from all the heresies and corruption that the second vatican council brought in, and especially Pope Paul XI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. If you accept a single shred of Vatican 2, or even believe that the changes made to the sacraments mean that they are still valid, I would have a field day reciting to you things like: the INFALLIBLE statements of REAL Popes like Leo XIII who declared the ordinations of the Anglican Clergy invalid because of certain deficiencies in their ritual. Those same deficiencies were introduced to the sacrament of holy orders ritual after Vatican 2, and were NOT protected by infallibility. Resolve that one before you start swinging your fists around here. I hate to do this, because I know what it is like to have my world-view shattered, but I would suggest you read up on this site and even TRY to successfully counter their arguments. http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/ Do you practice mortification of the flesh like many of the saints did? I doubt it, you have probably never sacrificed a bit of comfort in devotion to Jesus Christ. Try praying all 3 Decades of the Rosary (not 4, the luminous mysteries were added by the HERETIC ANTI-POPE John Paul II) straight through in LATIN (the REAL language of the church) 3 times in a row. That takes hours. Now try doing that while kneeling on upside-down bottle caps in shorts WITHOUT taking a brake for the whole time through. Try not eating for 3 days, and sleeping on the floor with no blanket and no pillow for a month straight as many of the saints suggested. Or Flagellating your back until the walls are covered with your own blood. That is TRUE devotion that you have never known. Heck, even that heretically sainted founder of the Fascist Opus Dei freak show was more pious and devoted through the traditional catholic practice of mortification of the flesh than I bet you are. Did you know that he was ‘sainted’ in violation of nearly EVERY canon law by your beloved heretic John Paul II, did you know that John Paul KNEW that the founder of Opus Dei had sympathies for Adolf HITLER but SAINTED HIM ANYWAYS? That proves that he was DOUBLY heretically sainted. Your faith is soft-boiled, you are brainwashed to accept orders from the heretical Vatican 2 church and its Abomination of Desolation mass that was predicted in Revelations and countless Catholic visionaries throughout the centuries. May God have mercy on your soul for supporting the New Order Church that eclipsed the real Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. You are supporting the Great Apostasy of Revelation and of saint and marian predication. If you need more conservative Catholic stuff to shake your faith, I have plenty of documents written by Cardinals and Bishops expressing concern that the changes of Vatican 2 were heretical and that the sacrament of the Eucharist has been invalidated meaning that everyone is committing idolatry every time they take communion from the new mass, only to be dismissed by Pope John 23 and Paul XI with statements like “I am canon law” or “I can never be wrong”, both of which are patently FALSE statements because a correct understanding of Papal Infallability as declared by the first vatican council is that there are only certain conditions which the Pope may speak infallibly, and that the pope is still subject to several articles in canon law.Also, your assumption that Mr. Weldon would delete a comment is INDICATIVE OF YOUR SATANIC hate and blind obedience to the Anti-Pope Ratzinger, head of the Church of Apostasy and financial, sexual, and moral corruption; because he has NEVER deleted a comment. I would know, I post stuff all the time on here that few blogs would tolerate, but he hasn’t removed any of them. In fact, I once ASKED him to remove something I wrote because it was uncalled for, but he still wouldn’t. Your aggressive and PURELY NOT BASED IN REALITY assumption is rediculous. People with your attitude is all that the False Church has produced. I cannot wait for the day that Jesus Christ will restore the church.
Ignore MCole and Roger Vaste…that is just Paul Melanson hiding behind his many pen names.
Thanks for the tip-off.