From: John W Burgeson (jwburgeson@juno.com)
Date: Sat Jul 12 2003 - 10:42:05 EDT
Sheila wrote, in part: "Sin is sin. It is not a vice or an
addiction or a problem to be indulged but something we must each
overcome."
I agree. Part of the sin problem is our natural disposition to read into
scripture that which we already have been taught. The sin here is, of
course, adding to God's Word.
For years I simply accepted the teachings of my youth that Romans 1 was a
blanket condemnation of all same-gender intimacy. When I became friends
with persons who were involved in same-gender relationships, I had to do
the hard study of examining the scriptures in depth on the issues. This
study took a long time before I finally took a position of my own on the
subject.
My position statement is one which -- I find -- completely satisfies
neither side. But it is where I am. I've referred people on occasion to
where it may be found on my web site -- at www.burgy.50megs.com/gay1.htm
-- however, my site statistics indicate only a few people have dared look
at it (fear of being contaminated?). Hence, I attach it below:
------------------------
This is my statement on a delicate subject, one on which there has been a
lot of heat and little light generated in the past few years.
The issue is homosexual behavior and, in particular, one's attitude
toward it and relationship with persons who one is reasonably sure engage
in it. I have studied the issues fairly thoroughly during the past few
years, and have decided to take a position on it.
A key definition:. The word "homosexual" means a person attracted
sexually to persons of the same gender. Such a person may, or may not,
act on that attraction.
It is plain to see that scripture proscribes "perversions," and that
seems to include both homosexual and heterosexual perversions. But there
is the argument that when homosexual activity takes place only in an
adult loving long-term domestic relationship, such activity is NOT
proscribed by scripture, anymore than when heterosexual activity takes
place under the same conditions.
This argument does NOT claim that scripture condones such activity, only
that it is silent about it. The argument is developed well, I think, in a
book by the Catholic theologian Daniel Helmaniak; all the relevant
biblical texts are discussed. My notes and review on that book are on my
website, along with a similar set of notes on a book countering
Helmaniak's arguments by Thomas Schmidt. See page 2, section 10. Other
materials and links are also provided.
I've studied those books, and many more, and have engaged in internet
dialog on the subject extensively in the past years. I have come down on
the side of Helmaniak's position. I personally know a number of
homosexual persons, some of whom practice their attraction, and some who
do not. On the basis of both scriptural arguments and knowledge of
people, I must take the position, unpopular as it may be in American
Christianity, that the specific case I cite above is, as far as I can
discern, not a "sin" in the eyes of God.
Helmaniak's scriptural arguments are persuasive in convincing me that the
Bible does not proscribe that case; arguments from scientific findings
all indicate the homosexual condition is caused by a combination of
genetics and upbringing, most probably more the first, and that personal
choice seldom has anything to do with it.
In the end, I have to say my position is not 100% sure; I could be wrong.
I have two choices:
1. I can side with fundamentalist Christianity, Dobson and his FOTF being
one source I might follow, and declare that all homosexual activity of
any kind anywhere is a "sin" in God's eye's, or
2. I can declare that I find no reason to include the specific case I
cite above as "sin."
If I take position 1, and I should have taken position 2, I do grievous
hurt to some of God's people, falsely accusing them of sin where there is
no sin as far as God is concerned. When I do this, I have read into
scripture what is not there; I have added to God's word.
If I take position 2, I may, indeed, be wrong, but I have done no harm to
anyone. I have failed, it might be argued, to have studied and understood
God's word as much as I should, but then, that is probably true of all of
us anyway.
So even if I were 50:50 on the issue, I'd have to select position 2.
Feel free to challenge me on any of the above; I am used to talking about
it and I think I can respect all opinions. I'd be delighted if you'd
"buy" my position, but it is enough if you just hold it as a "live
option" in your own thinking.
John W. Burgeson
Stephen Minister
Denver, Colorado
8-7-2001
----------------------------
Thanks for the dialog, Sheila. I respect your position (once my own),
even though I disagree with it.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
www.burgy.50megs.com
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 12 2003 - 11:06:09 EDT