From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (A Guilty Bystander)
Subject: Interpretations, Proportion, and Shutting One's Mouth
Organization: Glassboro State College (Two More Days!)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 21:02:04 GMT


Note: this post is going to be insulting to some people.  I have done my best
to keep that to a minimum, and I apologise for my failure to do better.  The
reason it will insult some people is that I mention some issues which are
currently being debated, and about which emotions run hot.  I do not intend
to actually discuss them, but I do name them and give my opinions.

Those opinions will probably insult -- this article is about why I don't
usually talk about them.


Mark Drake writes about people who favor allowing active homosexuals to
participate in church -- often, these people will say to others that their
ideas are out of date.  But (as he says) being out of date, or politically
incorrect, is no reason to change a moral teaching, if the teaching is well
supported from an agreed authority.

Mr Drake writes:

> All I hear is that I'm a terrible person 'cause I wont let people have
> non-het, sexually active relationships.  This is reason enough to totally
> change my view on the sinfulnes of an action?

And the answer, of course, is no.

However, you might consider holding your tongue, and worrying about YOUR
sinfulness for a while.  In North Carolina, two Baptist churches, after much
prayer, study, and consideration, voted to approve of homosexuality.  Lots of
people are complaining in loud voices about how awful those two churches are.
But none of the people complaining are talking about his own church, or any
failings his group might have.

Let's relate this to some more mundane issues:

I consider Roman Catholic attitudes and treatment of the Blessed Sacrament to
be positively idolatrous.  They claim, through some mystical hocus-pocus, that
a collection of wheat wafers has been turned into the Body of Christ, and they
treat the wafers appropriately.  It is considered proper to bow down when
passing the box the wafers are in, for example, just as one would bow before
Jesus.  But I think the claims about Transubstantiation are ridiculous
bordering on stupid.  I consider treating man-made objects (wafers, statues,
whatever) as one would treat God to be idolatrous -- I've read the RC claims
and apologetic writings, and find them pointless and absurd.  No sensible
defense of the actions has yet been presented, and I will not participate in,
or condone by being present at, anything which includes treating a box of
wafers as if it were God.

Numerous denominations baptise infants -- a practice I consider baseless and
superstitious, not to mention unsupported by Scripture and contrary to Jesus'
instruction ("Repent, be baptised, ...": one cannot follow the instruction
without knowing what it means).  On top of which, most don't even bother to
actually do what Jesus was talking about.  They spritz or sprinkle or pour
water, when the literal meaning of his word is "immerse".  Jesus wasn't using
a fancy theological term, any more than we do when we say "dunk"; but after
turning the word `baptise' into a special word, they redefined it, and came up
with new ways to do it.  I find this revisionism intellectually dishonest.


What may surprise you after reading the above paragraphs is that I consider
Roman Catholics (and Methodists, Presbyterians, etc) fully my brothers and
sisters in Christ.  I think they are pretty confused about some things, but if
confusion is enough to merit Damnation then I think we are all in Big Trouble,
me included.  Many of the people described above are committed to following
Christ, and (IMHO) succeed as well as I do.  So what if they get some things
wrong?

Now we turn to those churches which recognise homosexual couplings.  The
entire debate hinges on two things:

 a) what is meant by `porneia' in the New Testament -- no Christians that I
    know of obey all Old Testament laws, and I refuse to accept arguments
    requiring OT observance from anyone who does not follow the entire thing.

 b) whether the instructions in the New Testment are intended as rules for
    all Christians at all times, or only for the immediate audience.

I believe that `porneia' includes homosexual behaviour, as it was (probably)
part of the mindset of those who wrote the NT passages we have (even if
lesbian activity is not specifically prohibited in the Old Testament).  And I
believe that the sexual morality rules WERE intended for all Christians, not
just for the immediate audience -- they are repeated in several places by
several different writers.  In sum, I agree with the "traditional
interpretations" about homosexuals in the Church.

However, my arguments against homosexuality are much weaker than my arguments
against Wafer idolatry or my arguments against infant baptism.  Further, I
think that idolatry is far worse than homosexual activity in a loving,
committed relationship.

I believe that the churches which approve of homosexual relationships have
gone wrong -- but I do not believe it as strongly as I believe that RCs who
bow to Wafers have gone wrong.  However, I do not scream loud and long about
what RCs do in their churches -- it isn't going to change anything, and it may
well be ME who is mistaken.

Many people tell me that I should resist the error of recognising homosexual
relationships -- but nobody has explained why I should let Roman Catholics off
the hook.  I think the churches that accept homosexuality have made a smaller
error, and one I am less able to demonstrate.  Why should I berate the group
that has done the lesser evil?


If you think homosexuality should be forbidden by your church, then vote that
way when or if it comes up.  If another group of Christians in another church
disagrees with you, then you should think _VERY carefully_ before you start to
attack them for it.  How many other people do you disagree with?  How often do
you attack them for the errors that you perceive?


I think that some of my opinion on homosexuality derives from my own feeling
that it is, well, icky.  I am sure that colors my interpretation of the Bible,
but I do not know how much.  I rather suspect that this feeling of `ickiness'
drives most of the Christia posts about this issue -- because there are other
issues - some much bigger - which nobody ever talks about.


[ If I've offended any people who baptise infants, or who happen to be RC,
  I apologise.  Take heart in the notion that I do not plan to discuss these
  issues ever again.  You might also consider whether you have said anything
  nasty about churches that recognise homosexual relationships, and decide
  whether doing so is really a useful activity. ]


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"You know, it is permissible to have an unspoken thought."
                                                    -- Lilith Sternin-Crane
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU