lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew) (11/02/90)
I am on an Identity Task Force of the Diocese of Newark and have agreed
to write a draft of the portion of our Identity statement that deals with
our own mission. This will follow a much longer section in which we
try to define the Church, and specifically "the Episcopal Church," as we
understand them.
This is still rough and obviously subject to the enlarging visions of others
on the Task Force. I would welcome any suggestions you might share with
me of ways to make this better.
Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Crew's Draft of the "Diocese of Newark" portion of our Task Force
Document:
Understanding our community as called to love the world radically,
we define ourselves not as monument-makers but as tent-dwellers,
focused on a new Jerusalem, a holy city, in Newark's fair and pleasant
land.
We on this Task Force call upon our Diocese steadfastly to commit
ourselves--our time, our talents, and our dollars--to ministries of
justice and compassion, not just towards other Episcopalians and not
just towards other Christians, but toward the full human community
for whom Christ died. We take seriously the bidding to let God's
countenance be seen in our own. We worship neither a dead Jesus
nor a dead book but the Word Made Flesh. We believe in the Holy
Spirit, continuing God's ministry with us and through us.
As did Jesus, we must not only feed the hungry, shelter the homeless,
clothe the naked, and visit those who are alone, neglected, sick or in
prison, but must also vigorously advocate systemic changes. Why
should we in New Jersey and the United States allow so many to be
homeless and hungry? How can we reverse patterns of greed and
violence in our society?
Our society says to many young people in Newark: Either sweep at a
fast-food outlet, or take out a dealership in crack cocaine. Genera-
tion of Vipers! We call upon our leaders to provide better choices.
Hour by hour, minute by minute, we greedily use up our natural
resources and prodigally pollute the earth, air and water. We must
repent lest we perish.
How can we unite rich and poor? We must promote more dialogue,
more sharing, a more equitable distribution of our own resources,
cultural as well as economic. It is ridiculous to dream of living in
heaven with people whom we avoid on earth.
As the Diocese of Newark has built schools, hospitals, hospices, AIDS
ministries, oases for lesbians and gays, we call upon it to continue to
manifest itself as a radical lover of the world in fresh ways:
Create a Task Force of Prophecy, charged with monitoring
social justice issues within the diocese. The Task Force will
coordinate responses at the parochial, convocational, and
diocesan levels. The Task Force will plan and coordinate at
least two major public forums annually to bring together citi-
zens, elected officials, civil servants, economists, and other
advisors to dialogue about issues of social justice. At least
one of these events will be set in the community of the poor.
The Task Force will also develop a human resources list of
persons in the diocese willing to witness for Diocesan concerns
in various secular forums.
Assign an officer of the diocese to bring together in one place
for dialogue and mutual building up of the community, people
from parishes diverse economically and culturally. We urge
that each parish plan joint services and other types of gather-
ings with another unlike parish at least quarterly. We urge
clergy to swap pulpits across cultural and economic lines at
regular intervals.
Assign an officer of the diocese or a task force to review all
the Diocese of Newark's responsibilities towards the environ-
ment. This person or task force would network parishes and
persons to other Christians working for the same goals; would
advise parishes of policies that would make them better stew-
ards; would draft official environmental policies for the Dio
cese.
Create an appropriate body or designate a current officer
specifically to address the Diocese's role in education in
general and in education specifically designed to lead our
society towards a more just social order and a right use of
creation. This group would look at strengthening our ties to
existing educational institutions as well as recommend ties to
additional institutions. E.g., Should we not establish a full-
time chaplaincy to the 35,000+ students attending the three
post-secondary institutions in downtown Newark? All campus
ministries might develop new models more directly to engage
the talents of students and faculty towards addressing social
issues in addition to, or maybe instead of, serving as surrogate
parishes.
============================================================================
===== Louie Crew: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu ====
===== CompuServe No. 73517,147. FAX 201-648-5700 Attn. Conklin #156 ====
===== Rutgers/Newark, NJ 07102 201-485-4503 h; 201-648-5434 o ====
===== or ====
===== Box 30, Newark, NJ 07101 ====
============================================================================ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/06/90)
In article <Nov.2.04.05.42.1990.4526@porthos.rutgers.edu>, lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew) writes: > I am on an Identity Task Force of the Diocese of Newark and have agreed > to write a draft of the portion of our Identity statement that deals with > our own mission. What is this "Identity statement" *for*? It reads a lot like the manifesto of a political party. > This will follow a much longer section in which we > try to define the Church, and specifically "the Episcopal Church," as we > understand them. This really puzzles me. Why is it your task to define the Church? What kind of definition do you want? Isn't "the Episcopal Church" something like "the community of Christians led by bishops in communion with the Archbishopric of Canterbury"? Or "the collection of people who honestly hold to the 39 articles"? Or something like that? > Understanding our community as called to love the world radically, > we define ourselves not as monument-makers but as tent-dwellers, > focused on a new Jerusalem, a holy city, in Newark's fair and pleasant > land. Is the COMMUNITY called to love the world? That sounds like a cop-out. Is the community called to love the WORLD? I don't think so. Surely "each and every one of God's slaves is commanded to love his or her neighbours; people loving people, _this_ saint regarding _that_ beggar as one of the Lord's 'brothers'". "We define ourselves not as monument-makers but as tent-dwellers" is all very poetic, but what on earth does it _mean_? Does it mean that you move around a lot? Does it mean that you observe Sukkoth? > We on this Task Force call upon our Diocese steadfastly to commit > ourselves--our time, our talents, and our dollars--to ministries of > justice and compassion, not just towards other Episcopalians and not > just towards other Christians, but toward the full human community > for whom Christ died. Pay greater attention to your pronouns. If you on the task force want _yourselves_ to be committed thus, what is to prevent you? If you want the Diocese as an organisation to be committed, say so. If you want the members of the Diocese to be committed say that. What do you mean by "justice" here? Why only "dollars"? If I have some of my money in pounds or Deutchmarks, is that exempt? "full human community"? I'm perturbed by the suggestion that justice and compassion should be directed at communities rather than people. Why not say "We on this Task Force call on everyone in this Diocese to commit his or her own time, talents, and money to practical ministries of mercy and charity towards all our neighbours, not just our fellow Christians". > We take seriously the bidding to let God's > countenance be seen in our own. That's inspiring. Could you give me the reference? > We worship neither a dead Jesus > nor a dead book but the Word Made Flesh. This is potentially misleading. I'm sure a Unitarian would agree whole-heartedly with it. How about "The Jesus we worship is not dead, the Book which instructs us is not lifeless, but Jesus the Expression of God made Human is alive today." > As did Jesus, we must not only feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, > clothe the naked, and visit those who are alone, neglected, sick or in > prison, but must also vigorously advocate systemic changes. Um. Which "systemic changes" did Jesus "virorously advocate"? I fully agree that the hyperindustrial system is at best seriously flawed and hospitable to evil, but seeing moral responsibility in terms of systems acting on systems is one of the characteristic modes of thought of that very system. > Why should we in New Jersey and the United States allow so many to be > homeless and hungry? I don't know. Why _do_ you? Maybe you expect the political system of New Jersey or the United States to take over your responsibilities? A visiting minister who recently spoke in the church I go to here said that if people come to their church and ask for money, the first question is "have you got a job?" and if the answer is "no", the next thing they say is "let's go find you one", and they _do_ it. Perhaps the answer is that we need free employment agencies operated by Christians. > How can we reverse patterns of greed and violence in our society? This is all so incredibly fuzzy. What counts as YOUR society? Is there a high level of greed and violence amongst Episcopalians in Newark? In that case, the answer is "get the beam out of your own eye first". If there isn't (and I don't for a moment suppose that there is), in precisely what sense is the society with the patterns of greed and violence YOURS? Isn't the real question something like "We find ourselves aliens and sojourners in a society based on greed and full of violence. What can we do to change it?" Seen from _that_ perspective, the answer has to be "End it! Rescue people out of it until these patterns are unable to sustain themselves." Remember, hyperindustrial society starts from presuppositions which are radically opposed to Biblical presuppositions. You _can't_ change that society if you leave its presuppositions intact. It really is vital to avoid the mistake of thinking of hyperindustrial society as yours, lest you make the mistake of thinking that it must be preserved. > Our society says to many young people in Newark: Either sweep at a > fast-food outlet, or take out a dealership in crack cocaine. Genera- > tion of Vipers! We call upon our leaders to provide better choices. Again, why are the Episcopalians in Newark doing this? And if they aren't, why do you call it YOUR society? And HOW DARE YOU take away the dignity of people who sweep at a fast-food outlet? (Some of the people I admire most clean houses.) Again, it's important to be clear. When you say "OUR leaders", are you saying that the Church in Newark should be doing something to find work for these young people? If that's so, GREAT! (Something I would like to see Christians doing is finding families that are about to buckle under the strain of debt, paying off their debt, and replacing it by an interest-free loan. Why not just pay off the debt? Two reasons: for the benefit of the debtors, and so that the money can be used again for someone else. Why interest-free? Because usury is wrong.) > How can we unite rich and poor? We must promote more dialogue, > more sharing, a more equitable distribution of our own resources, > cultural as well as economic. It is ridiculous to dream of living in > heaven with people whom we avoid on earth. I'm sorry. I'm really sorry. I know what you're getting at here, and I like the sentiment. But when you say "promote more dialogue" it's hard to stop giggling. What does it _mean_? "ah, hi. What's it like being poor?" "Oh, you get used to it. What's it like being rich?" "It's worry, worry all the time. You're better of as you are." When you say "OUR OWN resources", what do you mean? Are you asking the members of the Church in Newark to share their worldly goods with those poor people they voluntarily choose to help, or are you asking for the Government to expropriate some people's wealth and give it to others? (To a certain degree I approve of both. I firmly believe that a National Health system is a Good Thing. They're demonstrably more efficient than the US system, and the freedom to shop which is required for a market to be free is absent in emergency health care. I approve of graduated tax, and don't mind paying it.) The point is, it is important to be CLEAR about what you're asking. As for the last sentence there, we are called to _love_ people, not _like_ them. I avoid smokers. They smell so bad that it physically brings tears to my eyes. Does that mean I can't love them? Beware of cultural imperialism. When you talk about "a more equitable distribution of our own resources, cultural as well as economic", if you mean "let's have more free public libraries, let's have cheap adult education available for all", great, but it _sounds_ like "the poor haven't got any worthwhile culture of their own, we'll have to share ours with them." What _do_ you mean by "cultural resources", anyway? > As the Diocese of Newark has built schools, hospitals, hospices, AIDS > ministries, oases for lesbians and gays, we call upon it to continue to > manifest itself as a radical lover of the world in fresh ways: It sounds as though the Diocese of Newark is already doing lots of things. I would like to express some anger, though. In my own country, asthma kills a lot more people than AIDS ever has or is ever likely to. Yet far more government money goes on treating one of the world's most avoidable diseases (AIDS) than on something which you _can't_ catch and is a worse killer (asthma). I cannot regard this as just. Where are the asthma ministries? Where are the ministries for teaching parents that it's a good idea to have your baby sleep in your bed, as that not only _greatly_ reduces deaths from SID but has many desirable social consequences? (Let's agree to leave to one side the fact that current research on AIDS vaccines is racist. The AIDS strain that's killing African heterosexuals hasn't got the protein fragment that Western researchers are basing their vaccines on.) What is an "oasis for lesbians and/or n'nagms?" People who act out a preference for the same sex enjoy special status in today's society, _dare_ to mention that the Bible forbids the activity and you are jumped on and accused of all sorts of things. If you help people who want to have sex with people of the same sex find other people with the same wish, why aren't you providing help for people who want to steal? I am often tempted to steal. Why is there no-one providing "oases" for people like me? > Create a Task Force of Prophecy, charged with monitoring > social justice issues within the diocese. Why call it prophecy? Why the proliferation of NewSpeak? If you want a "Social Justice Monitoring Group", be honest about it. I am seriously perturbed that the recommendation is to set up a group of people whose task is to talk and to criticise other people, rather than to devote the people and money involved to actually _doing_ things. > The Task Force will > coordinate responses at the parochial, convocational, and > diocesan levels. The Task Force will plan and coordinate at > least two major public forums annually to bring together citi- > zens, elected officials, civil servants, economists, and other > advisors to dialogue about issues of social justice. When did the English language acquire a verb "to dialogue"? What does it mean? What's wrong with "talk about", "discuss", "debate"? (Excuse me for a minute while I giggle about the economists. Have you _no_ scepticism in your souls? Accountants who can tell you how much money there _is_, where it came from, and where it has been going, by all means include them. Book-keeping is honest and important work. But economists? Economics is _not_ a predictive science.) Why are you so concerned to have _other_ people (elected officials &c) _talking_ about things rather than having _yourselves_ _DOING_ things? We've _had_ a century or more of people talking about what other people should do! > At least > one of these events will be set in the community of the poor. I don't understand this. Is a "community" a _place_? Do you mean "let's have an army of talk-gooders show their faces in a ghetto once a year"? Why not do something really practical, like "all of these events will use office staff, caterers, cleaners, &c &c who are at the time out of work, so that they may receive money proudly"? > The Task Force will also develop a human resources list of > persons in the diocese willing to witness for Diocesan concerns > in various secular forums. Again, I am very seriously perturbed that your solution seems to be "let's have the middle class _talk_ about the problems of the poor". (English again: why "persons" rather than "people"? What does saying "a human resources list" buy you? Why only think about witnessing in secular fora? Why not say "The Monitors will also draw up a list of local people willing and able to explain Diocesan concerns about social justice." At every turn, the language you use betrays the thought- patterns of hyperindustrial society.) > Assign an officer of the diocese to bring together in one place > for dialogue and mutual building up of the community, people > from parishes diverse economically and culturally. What does this mean? Do you mean that people will only be accepted from parish X if parish X is economically and culturally diverse? That's what it _sounds_ like. Do you mean that each meeting should be in one place (but that meetings about parishes Y and Z might take place in parishes Y and Z, one place each) or that there should be one place for all such meetings. What in the name of plain speech do you mean by "dialogue and mutual building up of the community"? (If there is one community, what is it mutual with?) What are these people supposed to talk about? How does having a small elite group talking talking talking help to "mutually build up the community"? (The Maaori people have a saying "talk is the food of chiefs".) Why not organise burial clubs? (Burying the dead _is_ historically one of the 7 acts of mercy. It's also a mitzvoh.) I mean this in all seriousness: funerals and burials are very expensive. Joining together to reduce this burden is a practical thing to do, and if rich and poor were to receive the same kind of burial, that would be one way of demonstrating (if you have anything resembling a community as formerly understood) that rich and poor are alike to you. This "Identity statement" has the form of a political manifesto whose chief concern is to build up a new bureaucracy. It is painfully predictable that the effect of doing this will be to spend money on talking bureaucrats rather than actually accomplishing things. I beg you to think about paying some of the poor people you want to help to find work for other poor people. I beg you to think about giving loans to poor people who want to start their own businesses. I beg you to think about financing local nurses. Anything but bureaucrats. -- The problem about real life is that moving one's knight to QB3 may always be replied to with a lob across the net. --Alasdair Macintyre.
mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (11/09/90)
It's a shame that this paragraph I'm quoting sneaked into an otherwise
very thoughtful and well written article...
In article <Nov.6.03.13.01.1990.2212@athos.rutgers.edu> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
I would like to express some anger, though. In my own country,
asthma kills a lot more people than AIDS ever has or is ever likely
to. Yet far more government money goes on treating one of the
world's most avoidable diseases (AIDS) than on something which you
_can't_ catch and is a worse killer (asthma).
AIDS is an infectious disease. The epidemiology of infectious
diseases is very different from that of systemic diseases such as
asthma or cancer. AIDS is avoidable if and only if those who should
avoid it are given accurate information about its avoidance. Such
information is, of necessity, detailed. It needs to include,
specifically, what acts are likely to transmit the disease and in what
fashion. Nothing else will do.
Infectious diseases, once treated, are almost always cured. Counting
money spent to treat and cure various diseases is not a useful task.
One glance at the titles of articles printed in Scientific American
over the past 5 years will show how much basic research has been done
on immune function, etc., all as a direct cause of AIDS. Almost all
of this research is applicable to many other areas of medicine.
Arthritis, which serious debilitates even more people than asthma is
usually caused by an autoimmune response, and there are already areas
of research into new approaches to arthritis that have come directly
from AIDS researchers.
The history of infectious disease control shows that early intensive
research is necessary, along with research into transmission methods
for the sake of education. The US government, apparently because most
AIDS patients were gay, refused to deal with the problem for the first
several years of the epidemic. Certain writers and leaders in the gay
community, because of a lack of hard research, refused to advocate
safer sex practices for several years. With research, this would have
never happened.
I cannot regard this
as just. Where are the asthma ministries? Where are the
ministries for teaching parents that it's a good idea to have your
baby sleep in your bed, as that not only _greatly_ reduces deaths
from SID but has many desirable social consequences?
The benefits of infants sleeping with parents are manifold. The
number of babies dying from SIDS each year are very few, which has
made research very difficult, and the nature of the problem is such
that the only possibility is investigation after the fact. Attempts
to find babies "liable" to SIDS, for example those with persistent
sleep apnea problems, have had only moderate success.
(Let's agree
to leave to one side the fact that current research on AIDS
vaccines is racist. The AIDS strain that's killing African
heterosexuals hasn't got the protein fragment that Western
researchers are basing their vaccines on.)
Amazing how you managed to leave it aside while mentioning it. This
"fact" I've never seen from any other source than this posting. Do
you have any references? There is a newer virus, HIV-II, but that is
significantly different from HIV, and is "only" responsible for about
5% of the people with AIDS in Africa.
What is an "oasis for
lesbians and/or n'nagms?"
What, pray tell, is a n'nagm? Is that a typo?
People who act out a preference for the
same sex enjoy special status in today's society, _dare_ to mention
that the Bible forbids the activity and you are jumped on and
accused of all sorts of things.
Oh dear. I suspect I'm placing myself in the category of jumping on
you in just that fashion. There is amazingly little consensus on the
issue. I'm not willing to continue the discussion here, because it's
been had many times.
If you help people who want to
have sex with people of the same sex find other people with the
same wish, why aren't you providing help for people who want to
steal? I am often tempted to steal. Why is there no-one providing
"oases" for people like me?
Specifically because it seems that the Task Force for the Diocese
doesn't see anything wrong with same-sex romantic relationships. I'm
fortunate to be in such a Presbyterian congregation. I'm willing to
admit that we disagree, but to pretend that the Task Force is being
hypocritical is off base. They aren't. They are disagreeing with you
and you are pretending that they secretly agree.
--
Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day,
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man.
CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/23/90)
In article <Nov.9.00.16.16.1990.26955@athos.rutgers.edu>, mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) replied to a posting of mine. What happened here is that I misunderstood the list of ministries in the Newark Task Force statement to be EXHAUSTIVE. So when I saw "AIDS ministries" but no other health support, I asked why *only* AIDS. The original poster has assured me by E-mail that the list of ministries in the draft statement was a list of NEW, recently added ministries, and that the Newark diocese does a lot of other kinds of health support. That completely and satisfactorily answers my question. Then Bushnell misread me. I asked why _only_ AIDS. He DRASTICALLY misunderstood me as asking why help AIDS people at all. That is not what I wrote and not what I meant. My question was "why help _only_ people with AIDS" or "why give people with AIDS priority over all others". The answer is that the Newark diocese _does_ help people with other diseases (by supporting hospitals &c) and gave historical priority to those others, the AIDS ministry is a new one. With that cleared up, what the Newark diocese are doing sounds wonderful. Given that Bushnell so completely misunderstood my question, his response is aimed about 169 degrees away from me. I do not advocate that AIDS research should not be done or that people with AIDS should not be helped, and never have done. > Infectious diseases, once treated, are almost always cured. There is as yet no treatment for AIDS, and there is no prospect of a cure this century. It's not clear what inference we are supposed to draw from that sentence in any case: gonorrhea has been treatable, even curable, for some time, but due to human behaviour it was classified by the WHO, at the time my 10-year-old venereology texts were written, as "out of control". > Counting > money spent to treat and cure various diseases is not a useful task. Of course it is. There is not an unlimited supply of money. Money that is spent on one disease cannot also be spent on another, it cannot be spent on prevention, it cannot be spent on education, &c &c. Priorities have to be set. > One glance at the titles of articles printed in Scientific American > over the past 5 years will show how much basic research has been done > on immune function, etc., all as a direct cause of AIDS. Almost all > of this research is applicable to many other areas of medicine. > Arthritis, which serious debilitates even more people than asthma is > usually caused by an autoimmune response, and there are already areas > of research into new approaches to arthritis that have come directly > from AIDS researchers. The immune system was one of the hottest areas of medical research before AIDS was ever heard of. My immunology texts are as old as my venereology texts (it is awesome to think that ten-year-old texts didn't mention AIDS) and they were really gung-ho; aspects of the immune system are also quite relevant to biotech. Let's not be naive about this; what has happened to a large extent is that people who wanted to do immune system research anyway have leapt at the opportunity offered by the current plague. The 30-year-old woman I met on the tram a wee while back who is crippled by arthritis; if the money hadn't been diverted to AIDS research there might have been something that would help her _now_. It's worth noting that some AIDS activist groups are now demanding that research on the virus be curtailed and that attention be focussed on the opportunistic infections which actually kill people. They evidently don't buy Bushnell's argument. > The number of babies dying from SIDS each year are very few, The latest figure I have is that in the UK 1200 babies died in 1985 of SIDS. (For comparison, the number of heterosexuals in the UK with AIDS was 240 in October this year.) If the rate in the USA were comparable, we'd be talking about roughly 5,000--6,000 a year. In this country (Oz), I believe the rate is higher. Is it because they are babies that this counts as "very few", or what? > (Let's agree > to leave to one side the fact that current research on AIDS > vaccines is racist. The AIDS strain that's killing African > heterosexuals hasn't got the protein fragment that Western > researchers are basing their vaccines on.) > > Amazing how you managed to leave it aside while mentioning it. This > "fact" I've never seen from any other source than this posting. Do > you have any references? There is a newer virus, HIV-II, but that is > significantly different from HIV, and is "only" responsible for about > 5% of the people with AIDS in Africa. I think this outcome of AIDS research is worth noting, but it wasn't directly related to the Newark Task Force, which is why I wanted to leave it to one side in that context. The "fact" comes from that notoriously unreliable homophobe rumour mill, the 5th international conference on AIDS in Africa. If the "fact" makes you uncomfortable, keep on ignoring it. I didn't go to Kinshasa myself, so the facts may have been muddled in transmission, but the strain is NDK, it's missing the peptide 'gpgr' in the V3 loop, and in the laboratory it can infect cells without the CD4 receptor. > People who act out a preference for the > same sex enjoy special status in today's society, _dare_ to mention > that the Bible forbids the activity and you are jumped on and > accused of all sorts of things. > Oh dear. I suspect I'm placing myself in the category of jumping on > you in just that fashion. Just so. > There is amazingly little consensus on the > issue. I'm not willing to continue the discussion here, because it's > been had many times. Not since I've been watching soc.religion.christian. I have never in my life seen a reasoned argument that explains how we can ignore what the Bible appears to teach about this matter. However, I've introduced in another thread the question "may Richard O'Keefe visit a legal brothel in Victoria"; it seems to me that the kind of reasoning which can be used to overturn one set of prohibitions can be used to overturn the other. The attitudes to homosexual behaviour that I started with I got from American science fiction: "not a problem", "helps fight the population explosion", "their own business", "let people go to hell their own way". The belief I now have is neither native to me, especially congenial to me, nor expedient. The _only_ reason I believe as I do is that approaching the Bible with intellectual integrity in the light of tradition _forces_ me to that interpretation. If you know better, then enlighten me. If you fear that the issue of male/male copulation is too "hot" to handle, then let's carry out the analysis in the context of the specific question "may Richard O'Keefe visit a legal brothel in Victoria". > Specifically because it seems that the Task Force for the Diocese > doesn't see anything wrong with same-sex romantic relationships. Romance? Either my venereology texts are wrong about typical male/male contact frequency, or you have a very different notion of "romance" from me. > I'm willing to > admit that we disagree, but to pretend that the Task Force is being > hypocritical is off base. They aren't. They are disagreeing with you > and you are pretending that they secretly agree. Clean your mouth out, sir! I pretended nothing. I will state plainly: I do not see how it is possible with intellectual integrity to profess obedience to the Bible and explicitly deny what seem to be its teachings on sexual matters. I want an explanation. Is there a claim there that anyone is hypocritical? No. There is a claim that I do not _understand_. There is a claim that either they are deeply mistaken or I am, quite possibly both. Did I ever make any claim that they agree with me? NOWHERE! Instead of accusing me of pretending things I did not pretend, how about giving me that explanation? As I said in the posting where I proposed the question "may Richard O'Keefe visit a legal brothel in Victoria", there is a question of sexual ethics which became a major issue in my life this year (no, that's not it, but it is like enough for the mode of reasoning to be the mode of reasoning I want to understand). The question "how is it possible to hold with intellectual integrity a view about a question of sexual ethics which is absolutely incompatible with what the Bible *appears* to teach" is not an abstract issue to me, it is vitally important on a personal level. Being faithful to my God, as I understood it, has made me rather unhappy for most of this year. Intellectual integrity meant that I _had_ to put my beliefs to the strongest possible challenge. I sought advice first from people who identified themselves as liberals. If they could have convinced me that I had misunderstood, if they had even given me something resembling a rational argument which I could have grasped as plausible even if it didn't convince me, I would have been spared 9 months of grief. But they didn't even TRY. I asked advice from ministers of several denominations in four countries. But the invariable rule was that ministers who identified themselves as liberals refused to give me any kind of explanation and demanded that I just accept, while everyone who was prepared to explain to me _why_/_how_ their view was valid held to traditional views. I have come to expect statements like Bushnell's > I'm not willing to continue the discussion here from people who don't hold traditional views of sexual ethics; I have come to expect rational argument (even when I pretend to disagree, which I have successfully carried off on occasion) from people who do hold the traditional views. It would be a very great comfort to me if I could be shown how someone claiming to get their moral views from the Bible could plausibly come to a view which appears to be diametrically opposed to what the Bible seems to teach. I'd have to eat a lot of crow, but I've been sufficiently unhappy this year due to my inability to do what I saw as a betrayal of my God that I am *eager* to eat that crow *if* I can do so with integrity. Every time someone refuses to explain to me, that just reinforces my suspicion that they haven't _got_ a rational explanation, but hold their views because it is expedient to do so. "Always be prepared to give an explanation for the hope that is in you"; if there is someone out there who thinks they know how come what appears to be Biblical teaching about sexual ethics (concentrate on the specific case of "may Richard O'Keefe visit a legal brothel"; no point in inviting people to jump on you without reading carefully what you write) can be safely disregarded, I *BEG* you to enlighten me. It matters. I _want_ to be convinced. -- I am not now and never have been a member of Mensa. -- Ariadne. [I don't know when you started reading, but homosexuality is a subject that typically comes up about once a year. I can well understand that some might not want to renew it. Since you ask how one can possibly believe that the Bible allows homosexual behavior, I will try to summarize the arguments we have heard in the past. First, at least in discussions here there is no question that it is prohibited by the Law and that Paul opposed it. Some classic passages cited on the subject are not relevant. E.g. in the Sodom story, what is involved in homosexual rape, which no one is proposing should be regarded as acceptable. Also, in some of Paul's lists of sins, there are words whose meaning is unclear that may or may not imply homosexual activities. However there are explicit OT prohibitions, and Rom 1:26ff makes Paul's attitude clear enough. So careful analysis will reduce the number of passages that should be cited on the subject, but does not change their import. Generally the argument is that (1) the OT Law is not binding on Christians; (2) Paul's beliefs and advice are not to be taken as a new Law; and (3) The sorts of homosexual relationships that typically occured in the 1st Cent. are not those being advocated by homosexual Christians. (They were often associated with pagan worship, and they often involved exploitation of slaves and children.) There is clearly a difference in attitude towards use of the Bible. Conservative Christians -- and I believe in this case we are talking about the great majority -- believe that we can look to the Bible for specific rules. Usually this means that (1) portions of the OT Law is taken to be moral rather than ceremonial, and still applies to us. (2) What Paul wrote to his congregations can be applied directly to the 20th Cent. unless there is very clear evidence that it was intended only for a specific circumstance. Liberal Christians interpret Paul as saying that the Law has been abolished for Christians, and that Paul's writings ought to be used to create a new Law, since they are often limited by the cultural context and his beliefs. This is a very basic difference in approach, so basic that the two parties generally are almost incapable of communicating usefully. It is obvious to our conservative readers that homosexual Christians are ignoring the clear voice of Scripture. It is obvious to our liberal readers that conservative Christians are ignoring the basic message of both Christ and Paul, and are turning words that were intended to free us from the Law into a new Law. I am slowly beginning to despair of these discussions. It would also be nice if sometime people would be satisfied with a summary of this sort. However past evidence shows that there are lots of people who are unable to resist responding to an argument they disagree with, even though all sides already know the response. --clh]