mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (07/18/90)
I want to wind down my public involvement in the issue of homosexuality
and the church. I have been heavily involved in this issue in three
USENET forums recently (here, talk.relgion.misc and -- oddly enough --
rec.arts.sf-lovers) and the multiple involvments tend to leave me in
a position of maximal irritation and minimal spiritual return (to my-
self or others). I will try to keep further reaction to the previous
threads to a public minimum, and I propose to deal *only* in email
with whatever this article may generate, unless it reaches a conclusion
that I do not at all expect.
My challenge is very simple (though subject to some constraints that I
will note below; these are important constraints and you will need to
take them seriously if you accept my challenge) -- if you can show me
that homosexual acts are universally (i.e., without exception) sinful,
then I will publicly in this or any other forum you name confess my sin.
I will treat *all* email on this issue as being written in good will,
as also public statements in soc.religion.christian that manage to avoid
direct malice and prejudice. I will ignore notes that I take to be
written with malice, and also those whose only appeal is to beliefs that
I specifically disclaim in my items below.
That said, the constraints on what I will admit into consideration are
as follows:
1. I do not accept any modern prophet as speaking with the authoritative
Word of God. Thus, if (as I gather may be the case from discussion
in rec.arts.sf-lovers) a current or recent head of the LDS movement
says "all homosexual acts are sinful" I really don't give a damn,
though if said prophet specifies "reasons" they may be discussed if
otherwise withing the bounds of my constraints.
2. I do not regard Thomistic theories of "nature" as anything other than
a monstrous bogosity. Any Catholic condemnation based on such theory
I will regard as no better than flat-earthism or creationism. Papal
infallibility is (for me) already subsumed by point 1.
3. Speculative "anthropology" derived from fantasizing upon Genesis will
be met with what I understand to be the truth about human nature. I
will most definitely NOT accept human speculation (yours or mine) as
establishing God's truth.
4. I will, for this discussion, accept any reasonable exegesis of the
"Council of Jerusalem" passages in Acts 15 as admissible, though in
fact I have reservations about this as not being easily reconcilable
with what Paul says in Galatians. In consequence of this, I do not
regard Torah as defining for any gentile Christian what is and what
is not sinful.
5. Because of 4, I regard Jesus' statements to a *Jewish* audience about
obeying *Jewish* law (for example, in looking to the Pharisees as
"sitting in the seat of Moses") as moot in my (gentile) case.
6. I accept as a totally uncompromising demand on my whole being the law
that I must love God with my whole heart and mind, and my neighbor as
myself.
Absolutely *any* email I get that tries to observe these constraints, I
will answer with some attempt to explain the problems I see in traditional
Christian "morality." Email which seems to me to breach the constraints
I will answer with a mention of which constraint seems to be overstepped.
If, as I think, there is no convincing way to claim that homosexual acts
are in themselves sinful (which is to say, that homosexuals sin "by def-
inition" whereas heterosexuals sin in any of the myriad ways we are more
painfully and directly familiar with) the formal strictures against your
homosexual brothers and sisters make no more sense than excluding from
your churches and ministries those who take interest on bank accounts.
If you can trust a heterosexual ordinand to avoid heterosexual sins, and
ordinands with money to avoid the sins of greed, and others to deal in
their own agony and perplexity with the sins of sloth and anger and all
the others, it becomes the rankest hypocrisy to say that in this one,
unique area, my judgment is meaningless and you can decide my sin with
no need to know anything about me at all.
If you choose to post to soc.religion.christian on this matter, please
be advised that my nonresponse means that you have *not* given a cogent
argument. I *will* try to address such arguments in email, and I give
a blanket permission -- except where I explictly enjoin confidentiality
-- to quote my responses if you then wish to repost addressing matters
that I raise in criticism.
--
Michael L. Siemon We must know the truth, and we must
m.siemon@ATT.COM love the truth we know, and we must
...!att!sfsup!mls act according to the measure of our love.
standard disclaimer -- Thomas Merton