In this strange postmodern age, heretics find themselves in a very strange predicament. Various skeptics, revisionists, liberal theorists, and atheists have been undermining the faith for more than a century. By this time, virtually every heresy has been expounded by numerous proponents. The creative heretic of the contemporary age has to come up with some new angle or bizarre new theory to promote.
Nevertheless, never discount the diabolical ingenuity of those who intend to subvert biblical truth and the Christian faith. The latest evidence of the heretical imagination comes from Professor Theodore W. Jennings, Jr. of Chicago Theological Seminary. Just when you think you've encountered just about every possible heresy, along comes something so shocking that it demands painful attention.
In The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives From the New Testament, Ted Jennings argues not only that Jesus approved of same-sex relationships--but that he was involved in one. Jennings explains that his book, "is an attempt to carefully and patiently explore texts from the Gospels that suggest something about Jesus' own erotic attachments and the attitude toward same-sex relationships that may be fairly extrapolated from the traditions about Jesus." He admits that his argument "departs from what has been the norm of discussion." That qualifies as a disingenuous understatement.
What Jennings proposes is a radical re-reading of the New Testament material in order to claim Jesus, not only as a proponent of the homosexual movement, but as a man involved in homoerotic relationships. He intends to appropriate the Bible for a "gay-positive perspective."
Of course, the Bible contains explicit statements condemning homosexual activity in all forms. Jennings explains that the biblical material dealing with homosexuality can be reduced to five texts--two verses from Leviticus and three from the New Testament. Liberal theologians determined to find support for theological behavior must deal with these specific texts, and Jennings acknowledges that these texts seem "to require additional work." Additional work, indeed. What Jennings proposes is to ignore those specific texts and to jump over the entire argument by appealing to an absurd reading of the entire New Testament for evidence justifying homoerotic relationships and attraction.
Jennings argues that his approach is "pro-gay" rather than defensive in dealing with the biblical texts. Reading the Old Testament, he finds parallels in the relationship between Jonathan and David or Ruth and Naomi. The biblical texts, he commends, should be read "from the perspective of a contemporary gay or clear sensibility." He explains: "Here the aim is to discover how the text appears when it is read from a standpoint affirmative of gay or queer reality--that is, what the text means now, when viewed from this perspective."
Those unfamiliar with the bizarre science of liberal theology and modern biblical studies may be unfamiliar with the way the post-Christian scholars approach the text. Rather than dealing with the text as it is given and clearly intended to be understood, they look for hidden "strategies" by which the text can be read to mean the opposite of what it clearly states.
