What do you think?
The Gay Gospels: Good News for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered People
The place of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people in the Christian churches is a highly controversial issue. The stance of all the mainline churches is that homosexuality is sinful and incompatible with Christianity. In seeking to respond to attacks on their lives, identities and relationships LGBT Christians have moved over recent decades from a defensive position to a more affirmative position which asserts that there is evidence in the Bible and the Jesus tradition of validated homoerotic experience. This book presents a systematic overview of both the defensive and affirmative positions. In part one, The Defensive Testament, each of the so-called 'biblical texts of terror' used to demonise LGBT people is considered in turn and found wanting. None of them has anything to say about consensual same sex love. In part two, The Affirmative Testament, homoerotic elements in various Bible stories including the healing of the centurion's servant, Jesus and the beloved disciple, David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi are revealed to make visible the place of LGBT lives in the Biblical tradition. Taken together, these two testaments forcefully champion the equality of LGBT people in the Kingdom of God and represent a formidable challenge to ecclesiastical homophobia.
215 pages, Kindle Edition
First published July 29, 2011
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
February 28, 2017
This book perfectly fits the definition of eisegesis. Here's a simple definition from the always reliable Wikipedia :) Eisegesis (/ˌaɪsəˈdʒiːsəs/; from the Greek preposition εἰς "into" and the ending from the English word exegesis, Greek ἐξήγησις, which in turn is derived from ἐξηγεῖσθαι "to lead out")[1] is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text.
Sharpe clearly has an agenda and with no respect, appreciation, or understanding of Scripture he simply interprets Scripture into his own homosexual image. This is a clear case of someone exchanging the truth of God for a lie. It is downright embarrassing how he handles the Bible. No one who seriously believes that Scripture is God's self disclosure (revelation) to his creation or that Jesus is truly the Spotless Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world, could in their right mind buy into the horrendous butchering of God's Word at the hands of Keith Sharpe.
"Over the past two millenia the mainstream patriarchal Christian churches charged with transmitting the gospel message have been the main obstacle to LGBT people hearing any good news at all. These churches have rigidly imposed a rule of compulsory hererosexuality and condemned LGBT people as wicked, evil and intrinsically disordered." 1 Truth is, we are all wicked, evil, and intrinsically disordered. We are dead in our trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2).
"What matters is that we have before our eyes extensive material evidence, much of it sanctified as divinely inspired gospel text, that Jesus' sexuality was predominantly, possibly exclusively, male focused." 115
What I find sad, and frustrating, about both the "Bible is pro-homosexual" and the "the Bible says homosexuality is sinful" camps is that neither read each others works. Too many are focused on starring into the limited mirrors of our own making and thus unwilling to challenge ourselves to see that maybe our views are not as clear or biblical as we believe them to be.
The issue is the authority of Scripture. We need to start there.
Sharpe clearly has an agenda and with no respect, appreciation, or understanding of Scripture he simply interprets Scripture into his own homosexual image. This is a clear case of someone exchanging the truth of God for a lie. It is downright embarrassing how he handles the Bible. No one who seriously believes that Scripture is God's self disclosure (revelation) to his creation or that Jesus is truly the Spotless Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world, could in their right mind buy into the horrendous butchering of God's Word at the hands of Keith Sharpe.
"Over the past two millenia the mainstream patriarchal Christian churches charged with transmitting the gospel message have been the main obstacle to LGBT people hearing any good news at all. These churches have rigidly imposed a rule of compulsory hererosexuality and condemned LGBT people as wicked, evil and intrinsically disordered." 1 Truth is, we are all wicked, evil, and intrinsically disordered. We are dead in our trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2).
"What matters is that we have before our eyes extensive material evidence, much of it sanctified as divinely inspired gospel text, that Jesus' sexuality was predominantly, possibly exclusively, male focused." 115
What I find sad, and frustrating, about both the "Bible is pro-homosexual" and the "the Bible says homosexuality is sinful" camps is that neither read each others works. Too many are focused on starring into the limited mirrors of our own making and thus unwilling to challenge ourselves to see that maybe our views are not as clear or biblical as we believe them to be.
The issue is the authority of Scripture. We need to start there.
February 24, 2018
While perusing the Religion section at my local library, I was surprised to find this book. Setting my astonishment aside, though, I checked the book out to see what Mr. Sharpe had to say about the Gospel's promising message for the LGBTQ community. The book is broken up into two halves: a defensive half that critiques the "terror texts"--Scriptures used throughout modern history to subject homosexuals to persecution--and an affirmative half that attempts to find Scriptural support for homosexual and transgender identity.
1. The Defensive Half
Sharpe starts his book by criticizing and pointing out the flaws in the so-called "terror texts": the couple of passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy pertaining to homosexual relations, as well as the New Testament ("NT") references to homosexuality found in 1 Corinthians, Romans, and 1 Timothy. I was initially sympathetic to Sharpe's ideas, as I am aware of the injustices committed by the Church in the name of Jesus. But his arguments were not fully fleshed out, and often suffered from the very shortcomings he accused the Church of doing for so many years.
In attempting to argue that all of the Scriptural verses that allegedly condemn homosexuality were taken out of context, Sharpe himself takes the Scripture out of context. For example, when he discusses the NT verses, he is quick to rely on translational discrepancies, stating that the word often translated as "homosexuality" would more closely resemble something like slave trade. But while he seeks to redeem homosexual acts as falling outside the purview of the wrath of God, he makes no mention of the elevation of the homosexual identity, ignoring Jesus's command to deny themselves and take up their cross to follow Him.
2. The Affirmative Half
In the second half of the book, Sharpe takes a hard 90-degree turn from not only denying that homosexuality is sinful to positing that homosexuality is actually condoned in the Bible. He even implies in more than one chapter that Jesus himself was "more than friends" with some of the disciples or men he encountered in His ministry. Sharpe's evidence for this requires far more "reading into" than the fundamental Christians he was so quick to condemn in the first half of the book. For example, he argues that one of Jesus's own disciples, John (writer of the Gospel, three letters, and Revelation), was gay because he refers to himself as "the one whom Jesus loved." Uh, newsflash, Mr. Sharpe: Jesus's entire ministry was based on the unconditional love that God has poured out on all of us.
Conclusion
This book does not bring good news to LGBT people, but fills them with false hope. In attempting to affirm individuals who identify as homosexual or transgender, Sharpe does them a great disservice. He misleads them into thinking there is absolutely nothing wrong with their desire to express themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or queer. He affirms their worldly identity at the expense of their spiritual identity. Without an admonition in the first half that homosexuals are lost souls in need of saving, they have no need for the Gospel in the second half. The power of the Gospel comes not from Jesus's message of love and commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. While that is important, the ultimate good news comes from knowing that we are dead in our trespasses, but through God's grace we are saved and made new (Eph. 2:2:10).
1. The Defensive Half
Sharpe starts his book by criticizing and pointing out the flaws in the so-called "terror texts": the couple of passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy pertaining to homosexual relations, as well as the New Testament ("NT") references to homosexuality found in 1 Corinthians, Romans, and 1 Timothy. I was initially sympathetic to Sharpe's ideas, as I am aware of the injustices committed by the Church in the name of Jesus. But his arguments were not fully fleshed out, and often suffered from the very shortcomings he accused the Church of doing for so many years.
In attempting to argue that all of the Scriptural verses that allegedly condemn homosexuality were taken out of context, Sharpe himself takes the Scripture out of context. For example, when he discusses the NT verses, he is quick to rely on translational discrepancies, stating that the word often translated as "homosexuality" would more closely resemble something like slave trade. But while he seeks to redeem homosexual acts as falling outside the purview of the wrath of God, he makes no mention of the elevation of the homosexual identity, ignoring Jesus's command to deny themselves and take up their cross to follow Him.
2. The Affirmative Half
In the second half of the book, Sharpe takes a hard 90-degree turn from not only denying that homosexuality is sinful to positing that homosexuality is actually condoned in the Bible. He even implies in more than one chapter that Jesus himself was "more than friends" with some of the disciples or men he encountered in His ministry. Sharpe's evidence for this requires far more "reading into" than the fundamental Christians he was so quick to condemn in the first half of the book. For example, he argues that one of Jesus's own disciples, John (writer of the Gospel, three letters, and Revelation), was gay because he refers to himself as "the one whom Jesus loved." Uh, newsflash, Mr. Sharpe: Jesus's entire ministry was based on the unconditional love that God has poured out on all of us.
Conclusion
This book does not bring good news to LGBT people, but fills them with false hope. In attempting to affirm individuals who identify as homosexual or transgender, Sharpe does them a great disservice. He misleads them into thinking there is absolutely nothing wrong with their desire to express themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or queer. He affirms their worldly identity at the expense of their spiritual identity. Without an admonition in the first half that homosexuals are lost souls in need of saving, they have no need for the Gospel in the second half. The power of the Gospel comes not from Jesus's message of love and commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. While that is important, the ultimate good news comes from knowing that we are dead in our trespasses, but through God's grace we are saved and made new (Eph. 2:2:10).
February 16, 2020
'.............the patriarchal churches actually are not so much interested in defending their arguments as simply asserting again and again their own pernicious ideologies.............'instruments of power'(attributed to Mark Jordan by the author). As the marketing and advertising industries are well aware, all you need to do to persuade people of something is to say it over and over and over again. This endless repetition carries with it an aura of magisterial authority as though it were obviously so and therefore pointless to argue.'
Occasionally, the writer stretches a point beyond credulity, and it's easy to sense the narrowness and manipulation that Sharpe accuses religious anti-LGBT+ers of being is also in his toolbox. But in the main his arguments and analysis hold for me. The book is split into two: defensive testaments, dissent (and disproof) of fallacious anti-LGBT+ ideology; and affirmative testaments, teasing out LGBT+ acceptance.
Religion, but more so spirituality, has held an important place in my life, and the teachings of Jesus, from childhood, pivotal in my development and establishment of life principles, probably without me being aware of the influence. But as a child and not re-examining, it's hard to separate out the affirmative from the hell fire and brimstone of the old testament, manipulation and unscrupulousness.
Fascinating that religious bigotry and extremism can twist words (called textual abuse in this book) to suit its purpose, make up its own narrative and ignore elements that don't fit the mindset. There are so many examples in the Bible that are pro-slavery, pro-blood family, anti-women, which are ignored because they don't suit the blinkered ideology. And then fake 'evidence' to support moral positions that are simply not represented in the Bible.
A useful read.
Occasionally, the writer stretches a point beyond credulity, and it's easy to sense the narrowness and manipulation that Sharpe accuses religious anti-LGBT+ers of being is also in his toolbox. But in the main his arguments and analysis hold for me. The book is split into two: defensive testaments, dissent (and disproof) of fallacious anti-LGBT+ ideology; and affirmative testaments, teasing out LGBT+ acceptance.
Religion, but more so spirituality, has held an important place in my life, and the teachings of Jesus, from childhood, pivotal in my development and establishment of life principles, probably without me being aware of the influence. But as a child and not re-examining, it's hard to separate out the affirmative from the hell fire and brimstone of the old testament, manipulation and unscrupulousness.
Fascinating that religious bigotry and extremism can twist words (called textual abuse in this book) to suit its purpose, make up its own narrative and ignore elements that don't fit the mindset. There are so many examples in the Bible that are pro-slavery, pro-blood family, anti-women, which are ignored because they don't suit the blinkered ideology. And then fake 'evidence' to support moral positions that are simply not represented in the Bible.
A useful read.
June 18, 2017
A good, understandable introduction to queer theology and informed by queer theory. There will be plenty to dislike if your mind is already made up.
July 11, 2017
A great resource for anyone in the LGBTQ community or a supporter of the LGBTQ community to deal with questions of Christian faith and belief. Mr. Sharpe examines the biblical texts that have been used to exclude LGBTQ individuals from the church and goes back to the original language to put the text into context of the time in which they were written. More times than not the modern words used in translations used today have changed the meaning of the text, reflecting a modern prejudice that does not exist in the original. He also examines other passages that reveal a very different interpretation of the message of Christ. I know that I found some of the interpretations very different from what has traditionally been taught even by more liberal churches. Mr. Sharpe has written a very accessible text. His writing is not so scholarly that the average reader would be discouraged, but the scholarship is certainly there in the background.
December 15, 2018
“The Gay Gospels: Good News for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered People” by Keith Sharpe
Leviticus was written not as a moral code but defining property boundaries in a patriarchal misogynist subculture society. Male dominance was enforced by the sexual penetration of a woman thus making her his property. To do so to another man's property was not a breach of morality but a violation of another man's property.
Male-male penetration was seen as a male becoming "womanised" thus threatening the patriarchal institution. The warning (grossly misinterpreted by the church for the past 2 millennia) had nothing to do with sex per say but about the place of men as dominators
Question:
Was Jesus and his “Beloved” in a public, emotional, homoerotic gay relationship? Here's why I think they were:
UNIQUE LOVE: John was the one disciple “whom Jesus loved” in a way different from his love for the others. Didn't Jesus love everybody? Yes. So THIS guy must have been distinguishable {Jn 13:23; 19:26; 20:2,8; 21:7,20}.
LAST SUPPER: Friends at a meal would lie on mats or pillows. But it was highly unusual in that culture that anyone other than lovers would express such physical closeness and intimacy as leaning on their partner's chest ('bosom' in some translations). Peter and the other guys approved and accepted this distinct intimate physicality and affection between Jesus and his Beloved. Notice that Peter asks John a question about what Jesus knows (rather than straight out asking Jesus himself) because he assumes that Jesus would have confided in his significant other, his Beloved {Jn 13:21-26}.
CRUCIFIXION: The Beloved Disciple is the only member of the team who remains after all the others have fled. There is a dedication and resolution of heart here that is what romantic couples have for each other. Also, Jesus knows he is dying and he puts his Beloved in an adoptive relationship with his mother, Mary. It was the cultural norm for the mother of a dead son and the wife of that same dead husband to then take care of each. It's what was done at that time. But his concern was primarily for the welfare of his significant other, not his mother. Mary had other sons whom could take care of her. In fact Jesus doesn't actually express his love for his mother, or even Mary Magdalene who was present. If Jesus was 'straight' and had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene he would have asked his mother to take her in as her daughter-in-law. But he asks his mother to take his Beloved in as her son-in-law. Finally, this intimate 'spousal' relationship between Jesus and John was public and openly acknowledged by his mother, by Mary and the other women who were present.
EMPTY TOMB: Mary Magdalene seeks out Peter (as the leader of the new church) and John (the Beloved) to tell them of the sighting of Jesus before telling the others. John outruns Peter. John waits, maybe because he was still traumatized by viewing the horrendous death of his 'lover' and hesitant with grief to see his corpse, or intentionally restraining himself and given deference to Peter the chosen leader of the Church. Either way, when John sees the empty sheets he is the first to believe. You'd think it'd be recorded that Peter, the commissioned shepherd and first founding pope (the 'rock' of the Church) was the first to believe. But no, it was Jesus' Beloved.
By the way, has anyone considered that the modern rephrasing of 'beloved' is simply 'lover'?
APPEARNCE ON SHORE: At the resurrection appearance of Jesus on the shore it's the Beloved, not the leader of the disciples, Peter, who immediately recognises Jesus.There are intangible intimate familiarities which characterise partnerships based on close emotional attachment, even beyond death. Again, Peter relies on the Beloved Disciple to know what is happening {Jn 21:7}.
LAUNCH OF THE CHURCH: When Jesus commissions Peter as the future leader of the Church, the Beloved Disciple is not under that same pastoral care, rather Jesus says he will be looked after personally and directly by Jesus (Jn 21:20-24). It's Peter who raises the question, taking it for granted that the Beloved is not just one of the 'flock'. Peter knows that John has a unique relationship with Jesus, and Jesus confirms it. The other disciples have no problem with this, in fact, they go so far as to assume (wrongly) that Jesus won't let John die. That's how certain they were of the mutual love between Jesus and his Beloved. John was not exempt because he was a better disciple or Christian. Jesus makes no mention that John had any particular virtue or spiritual superiority. He was simply his Beloved.
FINALLY: Notice how Peter and the Beloved get on so well. They're not in competition. Both find joy in their respective relationships with Jesus. Peter does not want to be his lover, John doesn't want to be the leader. They are no threat to each other.
SO: This close homoerotic and emotional bond based on reciprocal desire and delight would today be recognised as a gay relationship, chaste or otherwise. In fact, if we get past the “same-sex” of the pair, their relationship is a picture of what we would all agree is the classic love story narrative. It's what romance books and movies are made of. If it were not for centuries of entrenched Church-inspired erotophobia and homophobia we would see their relationship for what it is, homoerotic in nature.
Leviticus was written not as a moral code but defining property boundaries in a patriarchal misogynist subculture society. Male dominance was enforced by the sexual penetration of a woman thus making her his property. To do so to another man's property was not a breach of morality but a violation of another man's property.
Male-male penetration was seen as a male becoming "womanised" thus threatening the patriarchal institution. The warning (grossly misinterpreted by the church for the past 2 millennia) had nothing to do with sex per say but about the place of men as dominators
Question:
Was Jesus and his “Beloved” in a public, emotional, homoerotic gay relationship? Here's why I think they were:
UNIQUE LOVE: John was the one disciple “whom Jesus loved” in a way different from his love for the others. Didn't Jesus love everybody? Yes. So THIS guy must have been distinguishable {Jn 13:23; 19:26; 20:2,8; 21:7,20}.
LAST SUPPER: Friends at a meal would lie on mats or pillows. But it was highly unusual in that culture that anyone other than lovers would express such physical closeness and intimacy as leaning on their partner's chest ('bosom' in some translations). Peter and the other guys approved and accepted this distinct intimate physicality and affection between Jesus and his Beloved. Notice that Peter asks John a question about what Jesus knows (rather than straight out asking Jesus himself) because he assumes that Jesus would have confided in his significant other, his Beloved {Jn 13:21-26}.
CRUCIFIXION: The Beloved Disciple is the only member of the team who remains after all the others have fled. There is a dedication and resolution of heart here that is what romantic couples have for each other. Also, Jesus knows he is dying and he puts his Beloved in an adoptive relationship with his mother, Mary. It was the cultural norm for the mother of a dead son and the wife of that same dead husband to then take care of each. It's what was done at that time. But his concern was primarily for the welfare of his significant other, not his mother. Mary had other sons whom could take care of her. In fact Jesus doesn't actually express his love for his mother, or even Mary Magdalene who was present. If Jesus was 'straight' and had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene he would have asked his mother to take her in as her daughter-in-law. But he asks his mother to take his Beloved in as her son-in-law. Finally, this intimate 'spousal' relationship between Jesus and John was public and openly acknowledged by his mother, by Mary and the other women who were present.
EMPTY TOMB: Mary Magdalene seeks out Peter (as the leader of the new church) and John (the Beloved) to tell them of the sighting of Jesus before telling the others. John outruns Peter. John waits, maybe because he was still traumatized by viewing the horrendous death of his 'lover' and hesitant with grief to see his corpse, or intentionally restraining himself and given deference to Peter the chosen leader of the Church. Either way, when John sees the empty sheets he is the first to believe. You'd think it'd be recorded that Peter, the commissioned shepherd and first founding pope (the 'rock' of the Church) was the first to believe. But no, it was Jesus' Beloved.
By the way, has anyone considered that the modern rephrasing of 'beloved' is simply 'lover'?
APPEARNCE ON SHORE: At the resurrection appearance of Jesus on the shore it's the Beloved, not the leader of the disciples, Peter, who immediately recognises Jesus.There are intangible intimate familiarities which characterise partnerships based on close emotional attachment, even beyond death. Again, Peter relies on the Beloved Disciple to know what is happening {Jn 21:7}.
LAUNCH OF THE CHURCH: When Jesus commissions Peter as the future leader of the Church, the Beloved Disciple is not under that same pastoral care, rather Jesus says he will be looked after personally and directly by Jesus (Jn 21:20-24). It's Peter who raises the question, taking it for granted that the Beloved is not just one of the 'flock'. Peter knows that John has a unique relationship with Jesus, and Jesus confirms it. The other disciples have no problem with this, in fact, they go so far as to assume (wrongly) that Jesus won't let John die. That's how certain they were of the mutual love between Jesus and his Beloved. John was not exempt because he was a better disciple or Christian. Jesus makes no mention that John had any particular virtue or spiritual superiority. He was simply his Beloved.
FINALLY: Notice how Peter and the Beloved get on so well. They're not in competition. Both find joy in their respective relationships with Jesus. Peter does not want to be his lover, John doesn't want to be the leader. They are no threat to each other.
SO: This close homoerotic and emotional bond based on reciprocal desire and delight would today be recognised as a gay relationship, chaste or otherwise. In fact, if we get past the “same-sex” of the pair, their relationship is a picture of what we would all agree is the classic love story narrative. It's what romance books and movies are made of. If it were not for centuries of entrenched Church-inspired erotophobia and homophobia we would see their relationship for what it is, homoerotic in nature.
July 15, 2021
Excellent book that dispels the homophobic and trans phobic attitudes of conservative Christians showing what they use to back up their opinions do not actually back them up but the exact opposite.
I assume that all right wing evangelicals would like this book burnt but if they read it they would learn something.
I assume that all right wing evangelicals would like this book burnt but if they read it they would learn something.
January 23, 2017
This book laid out some interesting theories and made some very good points. I dig it.
May 24, 2018
Occasionally excellent, but sometimes slips into language that undermines the arguments it’s making. The author’s insistence on that which is “obvious” or “the only possibility” is as frustrating as when encountered in anti-gay Bible based argument. Some conclusions the author deems “obvious” are in fact leaps of logic that I could not follow. That said, some really solid material for pro-LGBT Christians to be found in here if you’re prepared to be discerning while you read.
January 29, 2019
Wicked book. Changing God's word to make an anti Christ agenda. New age in back page. Abomination to God.woo to those who call good evil and evil good. This book should be burnt and never sold again. Book of satans lies!!!!
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews