Original_To:  JNET%"christia@asuacad.bitnet"
Original_cc:  AZPAB
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:57:00 MST
From:         "Patrick Brooks" <AZPAB@ASUACVAX.BITNET>
Subject:      Jumping into the frying pan

Well I guess I'm going to belly flop into the middle of this :-|

Issues of Homosexuality have bothered me for sometime.  Frankly, I
go back and forth on what I feel/think about it.  The article that
was posted in some sense characterizes the more liberal side of me.
However, I think that the scripture interpretation was brushed
over and as a consquence may have deluted the point.  I do not
believe we can simply blow off one part of scripture because a
closely related part is considered any longer.  In fairness to the
orginal author, I do not think his intent was interpretation but
rather the potential for cultural predudice to color our interpretation.
This may be a topic I will throw out later on.

I guess I am writting this, and I hope other things as well, both set
down my own thoughts, but also to bounce them off of you.  My *tone* here
is one of expressing my thoughts.  Not to establish a criterion by which I
classify people into right or wrong.  Between working 40+ hours a week,
graduate school, a new home, a pregnant wife (not have problems, praise God)
me adjusting to a future child, I do not know how long I will be able to
monitor the list; or participate.  But here goes....

My own position on the interpretation of scriptures,
regarding homsexuality, can be generalized from my opionions of
the Leviticus 18:

1. At the begining of the Chapter there is a hole list of illicit
sexual acts involving men and women.  They are characterized by
the word "uncover" in RSV.  The one commentary ( I would be
interested in other commentary) I have checked indicates that
the sexual acts in this list are actions originating out an
agressive passion; rather than the passion than what occurs
from nurturing "appropriate" relationship.  *My* tendency is to
carry this notion of "acts of agressive passion" through the
entire list.

2. The concern that I have is that we have taken the condemnation
of "acts of aggressive passion" AND "homosexual acts" as being
equivalent to condemnation  of "homosexual acts" that may result
from a nurturing relationship.

In general then: in the context where homosexual acts are
condemned, agressive passion is also present.  And in *that case*
it is clear to me that these actions are sin.  In the Roman's
passage, Paul says that God gives them up to their wicked ways.
Again indicating the actions being motivated by lust not love and
relationship.  Are there cases in scripture that mention
homosexuality as being sin even within the context of nurturing
relationships?

A person might argue that they are having sex outside of
marriage.  Well marriages could be and in some churches are
conducted for homsexuals.  Furthermore, if we assumed that God
condoned homosexual relationship in some contexts then how do we
know that marriage is mentioned for heterosexuals only because
they have the added _responsibility_ of child bearing?

Now let me explain how I muddy my philisophical water is with
another opinion.  Someone earlier mention that a theory of
homosexual behavior occurs out a breakdown in the relationship
with a same sex parent.  This makes sense to me and a large
number of homosexuals may suffer from this wound and not even
know it.  This might explain why some beleive they have been
gay from birth.  Praise God for those healings and the witness
of those , to all of us, who have trusted God and faced the dragons
within.  I have also heard that this behavior could be the result
of abuse and other forms of disfunctional family life. But, I
personaly, would not be suprised if evidence becomes convincing
enough to say that some people are born with this tendency.
My generalization, by analogy of sorts, is this:

Some people are born blind.  Some people become blind as a result
of accidents.  Some people, as a result of surgery or therapy may
regain their site, or part of it.  Some people choose to languish
in self pity as a result of their condition.  And their are some
that will go through life always blind.  We accept that.  We
include these people in fellowship and ministry with open arms.
Why is human sexuality not viewed from the same perspective?  Why
is it not subject to the affects of a being born into a fallen
world with people that have a sin/imperfect nature?  Sometimes
things are just not fixed.  However God loves us and we are
called to "...work out or own salvation with fear and trembling..."
(I mean here to work on our relationship with the Lord.
Not to make a deal :-) ).

To me, homosexual behavior are foreign, strange and some
what frightening to me.  But then so are stories of people who
have infants that die hours or days after and uneventful
pregnancy.

If people are homosexual as a result of damage in their life then
that can hopefully and prayerfully be faced.  As should any behavior that
may be the result of damage or sin in our lives.  God sees our heart and
motivation not just our actions.

My views, I suppose, potentially open a "pandora's box" on dealing
with lifestyles and church dicipline.  There is also, I
suppose, the whole question of the role cultural context had
in how the writers expressed their concerns to the gatherings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Brooks                     | Of making many books there is no
Bitnet:   AZPAB.ASUACVAX           | end, and much study is a weariness
Internet: AZPAB.ACVAX.INRE.ASU.EDU | of the flesh.
                                   |   -Qoheleth
-----------------------------------------------------------------------