From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality & the Bible
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:59:17 GMT
Summary: Zen Calvinism
	(or "sorry: the thread refuses to die")

In article <1345@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>, corvette@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Jeff Cox) writes:

>      I am just curious as to the nature of your translations.

I am not TALKING about translations, except insofar as translation is
treachery.  The translators *mislead* (whether intentionally or not)
by implying a certainty and conformance to YOUR expected categories
which is highly debatable in the original Greek.

A quite *reasonable* case can be made that Paul is using the word
_arsenokoitai_ because it echoes, in at least his mind, with the torah
law about "not lying with a man as with a woman" (whatever THAT means.)
One may further reason, as most "traditional" Christians (and most gay
men) are prone to that this *implies* that Paul thought sexual acts
between men were sinful (gay men will tend to draw a rather different
conclusion from this agreement than traditional Christians do, of course.)

If we are talking about this reasoning process, then we also must sound
its limits -- and among the limits there are these:

	- Paul says damned little to clarify what he means; the word was
	  NOT in common usage and ANYONE who pretends to have a confident
	  translation is simply wrong.  The translations should be foot-
	  noted to emphasize our ignorance.  Given the *centuries* of
	  bitter argument within Christendom about what Paul means on
	  questions that he writes whole chapters about, it is very weird
	  that ANYONE could claim that unexplained, throwaway epithets
	  are a sound basis for determining either Pauline or more general
	  Christian issues.  It's a moral Rorschach test, not a law code!

	- The uncertainty of our reason makes it *extremely* important
	  not to confuse OUR conclusions, limited in nature, with God's
	  will.  If there is ALSO reason against our conclusions, it is
	  a desperately bad idea to suppress the divergent conclusions
	  in a pretense that God speaks with our voice.  Whether or not
	  *we* individually are "convinced" that we understand what Paul
	  meant and what he wanted and what he might say to our present
	  questions -- our conviction must operate under the sign of our
	  humility (not in an arrogant assumption of a supposed "Godly"
	  voice that drives children to suicide; Jesus said that even the
	  sinning publicans are good to their children -- what are we to
	  assume about "Christians" who act to *destroy* their children?)

and far more importantly than the bandying of exegetical opinions -- if
you have EVER in your life presumed to call other people blessed, and to
look to them as models of sainthood, then I claim that only blindness can
prevent you from seeing ALL the blessings you wish to credit to married
Christian couples from existing in the unions of gay men and lesbian women.

Now that raises a serious question.  Can we KNOW that we are saved, or that
anyone is?  (I don't mean, can we "feel" we are saved, or "hope" we are
saved, or "trust" we are saved, or even "have an unshakeable faith" that
we are saved.)  I don't mean deductions from John 3:16, which can only
introduce preposterous hair-splitting over whether one does or does not
"believe in Him" in the "right" way.  Much in the gospels suggests that
we cannot know who is and who is not saved -- and much suggests that those
who are graced with the Spirit easily recognize the truth.  Which can be
a rather nasty bit of gamesmanship if contending parties each CLAIM to
be "recognizing" incompatible truths.  Christian history is FULL of such
stuff -- to the point of emphasizing against our claims to be spirit-led
that "not all who say 'Lord, Lord' will enter into the kingdom of heaven."

So which is it? either we CANNOT know who is in the elect -- which will
disrupt an awful lot of churches' celebrations of their members -- or
we are expected in some sense to discern the saints of God amongst us.
If people were not so hateful to each other over such questions, this
would be a delicious koan.

Christianity has *always* worked by taking the latter route (despite
the rather alpine joys of a purified Calvinist ignorance of the matter).
We come to Christ THROUGH others in whom Christ lives; the book is quite
secondary to this, though it is an indispensible "anchor" to keep from
floating out to sea in the midst of a fogbank of "witnesses."  It is
the recognition of the saints of God, in whom Christ lives, that BROUGHT
me to faith in God.  I can hardly mistrust that when it then shows me
saints among those whom some "reasonable" interpretation of Paul claims
"cannot inherit the Kingdom."  Either the "reasonable" interpretation
of Paul is wrong, or Paul is wrong.  Again the limits have to be sounded
-- the limits of our reason and the limits of our own discernment.

> I would like to have more that what you have written
> as a basis for the bible to be wrong.....:)

It isn't a question of the bible being "wrong" or "right" -- though it
is, in the matter of working out the strengths and weaknesses of the
translations and commentaries, partly a question of who has gone over-
board, and who has hold of life preservers.  The questions are:

	- what did Paul mean
and	- what does Paul's meaning mean for us.

This is not peculiar to sexual questions.  Paul's list in 1 Corithians 6
also names slanderers and swindlers as not inheriting the kingdom.  So --
who is a slanderer?  someone who hurls ignorant nonsense on the net at
people he objects to?  who is a swindler?  someone who has made an excep-
tionally good deal (for himself, though a bit hard on other parties) in
business?  Is not EVERY case one in which we MUST step back and see the
question in terms of love for God & our neighbors, rather than some dumb
rule book?

If you think, with Paul, that drunkards are in the same category as "man-
bedders" [or however you want to translate it] where are the campaigns for
prohibition? and why don't THESE words exercise the negative-minded who
"only" want to let us know God's judgment?  What *is* this obsession some
people seem to have with someone *else's* sex life?  [note: yes, the
drunkard/prohibition analogy means deliberately to cause the meddlers in
other peoples' lives to stand back and look at the evident results of
such activity.  Anyone who thinks the Temperance Movement was holy needs
a good dose of judging things by their fruits.]
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		   "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
					As the tears scald and start;
mls@usl.com			   You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer			With your crooked heart."