Meta-exegesis: Conviction of Sin,  part II  Let me return to the question, stipulating that Paul meant his use of _arseonkoitai_ to refer more or less exactly to the Levitical prohibition of male-male sex.  In order to bring out the problems most clearly, I'll also stipulate (what I think is far less plausible) that Paul coined the term for this usage.  The question I want to turn to is what that would mean for Paul's readers and for later Christians.  This should be shorter than my last note, as we will see that this question rapidly confronts us with some of the major divisions within Christ's body, and I am not trying to open the gates for flames across any of the terrible chasms that separate any of us from our fellow Christians.  My own biases (loosely characterizable as "liberal") will be evident, but I am not grinding an axe here, so much as trying to get all parties to see that it may be HARD to reach "closure" when the issues involved strike at the heart of what we each, in our own different ways, see as crucial to the Gospel of Christ.  So; stipulating Paul's intent, the immediate question is: HOW CAN HIS READERS UNDERSTAND this intent?  And following on that question, there is a second one: WHAT IS OUR PROPER ACTION if we *do* manage to understand him?  Since Paul gives not a single clue about his meaning in the text of 1st Corinthians, there are two "positive" answers and one "negative" to this question:  +	a.  Paul (or Apollos, or someone) in the apostolic community has 	    conveyed to the Corinthians the then-traditional Jewish condem- 	    nation of homosexual behavior, and Paul expects them to be 	    sufficiently well-tutored by this tradition that he needs no 	    futher explanation.  [I should note that there is no evidence 	    in the letter, or in 2 Corinthians for such a supposition :-)]  +	b.  The Spirit will teach us what Paul means (or, if not Paul, 	    what God means "behind" Paul's inspired word-choice.)  -	c.  We *don't* know, and cannot guess to within any better pre- 	    cision here than, for comparison, in the parallel use by Paul, 	    in the same passage of the word  _pleonektai_ ("those who have 	    more" -- if you think that _areseonkoitai_ is "obvious" from 	    its roots, try cutting your teeth on *this* word!  The NEB 	    translates it as "grabbers") or even _methusoi_ ("drunkards" 	    -- at least this has the advantage of being a common insult, 	    so that at least there is *some* hint as to its meaning!)  The three positions more or less -- if I can be allowed some exaggeration for the sake of argument -- define a classical Catholic attitude towards tradition, one form of Protestant _sola scriptura_, and a liberal/critical demand for evidence.  All three positions have strengths and weaknesses.  _ad_ a:	It is unquestionable that the gospel was preached in and by the 	community of Christ's disciples and their successors, and that 	our NT scripture itself emerges from this communal tradition. 	But it's also the case that we know little or nothing about this 	tradition until almost a century after Paul, which is to say that 	we have access to the tradition only after several generations of 	possibly confused transmission.  The scripture is itself our only 	documentation of the tradition in the critical era.  _ad_ b:	If we are NOT born of water and Spirit [to revert to John in an 	attempt to explain Paul :-)], then we have no more hope of under- 	standing the gospel than Nicodemus had; neither the traditions of 	men nor the vain elevation of our own reason can prevent the Spirit 	from blowing where it will -- the Paraclete is a kamikaze.  But 	the downside of Protestant belief in the efficacy of the Spirit 	as our guide in scripture is that the wing of Protestantism that 	takes this most seriously is also the most fragmented over divergent 	understanding supposedly derived from the "clear" Word of God.  		[Note: classical Lutheran, Calvinist and Anglican thought 		constrains scripture to be read *within* tradition, even 		while reserving judgment against tradition out of scripture; 		the more bizarre forms of "I will read Scripture my way" 		are primarily a fringe aspect of "cultic" Protestantism.]  	The main problem with this approach is that there is apparently no 	means for ONE person to convey to another what that one may feel 	*is* teaching received from the Spirit; and history shows incredible 	conflict between Christians on this point, each in his own mind 	"convinced" that he is led by the Spirit.  No one can seriously 	urge point b without SOME sense of its potential for setting Christian 	against Christian.  To what purpose?  _ad_ c:	The critical approach has the distinct advantage that when it can 	reach a conclusion, it can lay out the data in a way which is open 	to all.  The weakness is an obvious corollary: this is not usually 	possible. :-)  	[If I may say a word here, out of my own already acknowledged bias; 	one complaint against critical methodology is that it "dissolves" 	faith -- but surely a "faith" that cannot honestly face the evalu- 	ation of evidence has problems which mere theology is helpless to 	address.]  Anyway, there is a serious and unfortunate possibility of schism between "liberal" and "conservative" positions, mostly on the basis of extreme zealots of positions b and c.  A Catholic sense of authority and tradition tends to constrain arguments of b contra c to secondary position, so that despite horrendous strains Rome is NOT as likely to find these issues as ultimately divisive as the Protestant world will.  And Anglicans will (I predict) muddle through on the _via media_, attempting to give each position its due, but no more than its due.   Second question.  Suppose tradition tells us, and lots of "spiritual" Christians tell us, and critical thought at least admits as possible, that Paul is refering to a flat, universal Levitical prohibition against male-male sex.  What then?  Again, we can abdicate our personal responsi- bility to tradition, and let it dictate the answer.  But it's precisely where inherited traditions are NOT questioned that they're most dangerous.  We have EXAMPLES of Christ questioning the Pharisees and THEIR use of tradition (despite his urging, in Matthew 23:2 that we are to heed them). We have EXAMPLES of Peter, and more radically still Paul, jettisoning the traditions that THEY were led by the Spirit to call into question.  Jesus and Peter and Paul do not so much "throw out" tradition as subject it to radical criticism, on a couple of very basic grounds:       "the weightier demands of the law: justice and mercy and good faith" 							(Matthew 23:23) and  "On these two commandments [love God & neighbor] hand the whole Law,       and the Prophets, also." 							(Matthew 22:40)  If there is a fundamental (because derived from Christ) validity in the challenge to *some* traditions, a validity that led the first generation to go so far as to waive application of the Torah to gentile converts (vastly beyond anything that is directly deducible from Jesus' reported words and deeds), it signifies to me a certain failure of the imagination to *postulate* that *only* the traditions that we have specific challenges against are in fact open to challenge.  All traditions passed *through* men are traditions *of* men.  That God may lead us even so, that these traditions are a source of our spiritual instruction I will freely grant.  But tradition is inherently human, and inherently corruptible (and given the Fall, corrupt).  Nothing in it is immune to challenge, when the Spirit shows us a failure in justice, mercy and good faith.  Nothing may ultimately stand unless it DOES follow from love of God and love of neighbor.  I am perfectly willing to grant that I could be blind to my own sin.  That the Spirit may have taught another what She refuses to teach me (or I am too dense to learn).  That tradition *might* have value here.  But what I *know* of tradition is that on one occasion, some superstitious Christians appealed to Justinian after an earthquake in Asia Minor, and scapegoated "sodomites" as the "cause" of the earthquake, so that legislation was passed making homosexual behavior a capital offense.  If that is in accord with the gospel of Christ, then I am no Christian.  That is human tradition at its most hateful and vicious.  And I see nothing all that much different in all the unbidden eruptions onto USENET of people who are quick to condemn but slow to understand.  If that is the leading of the Spirit, then I want no part of it.  But what I have found in obedience to the Lord is that I am, myself, TOTALLY dependent on the witness of other Christians, for the truth that lives in the Body of Christ.  And I say to all who doubt that gay Christianity is from God what Gamaliel said to doubting Pharisees who would have suppressed the earliest Church:  	"be careful how you deal with these people...  If this enterprise, 	this movement of theirs, is of human origin it will break up of 	its own accord; but if it does in fact come from God you will not 	only be unable to destroy them, but you might find yourselves 	fighting against God." 							[Acts 5:36...39]   All I ask is that you listen to your traditions, and read your scriptures with a mind and soul OPEN to the Spirit, and to the past history of our first Christian witnesses' willingness to challenge tradition and OTHER readings of scripture -- though read with all the authority of scribes and rabbis -- and a submission to the declaration that all must depend on the love of God and neighbor.  Then, study the evidence; learn the history of Christians oppressing Christians out of their traditions and eagerness to judge where Jesus and Paul tell us NOT to judge.  And let the witness of the Spirit in the lives of your fellow Christians -- including those who are NOT of your preference in theology -- guide you towards God's truth. --  Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless     - or -			you shall die like men, and fall mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7  [There's a certain ambiguity in your discussion of position (a), as to whether you're speaking of tradition in Paul's time or ours.  I think there are two ways to use tradition.  One is to say that when Paul and his readers share a tradition, it makes sense to interpret his words in the context of that shared tradition.  That's what makes me think that these arguments over words turn out to be silly.  We know that Paul came out of a background that was rather Puritanical on sex. Everything else he says on sex is consistent with that background. The tone of his remarks on homosexuality in Rom 1 is consistent with that background.  Even if the words in the sin lists aren't the most general terms for homosexual activity (and it seems to me that there's some evidence that they are not), they are just one more piece of evidence for something we would probably be willing to believe with no evidence at all -- that Paul shares the common Jewish rejection of homosexuality.  But when you identify (a) with the Catholic position, that's rather a horse of a different color.  The Catholic position involves a continuing church tradition.  Arguments specific to that tradition might be (1) we can get guidance on how to interpret Paul's original meaning from tradition, e.g. the way the Church Fathers interpreted him, and (2) we gain confidence that his prohibitions still apply in our time because of the universal judgement of the church between his time and ours.  I think this is a somewhat different use of tradition. A radical Protestant might be willing to use known 1st Cent. tradition to illuminate Paul's original meaning, but not use the Catholic position to answer the question of what our own attitude to homosexuality should be.