From: John W Burgeson (jwburgeson@juno.com)
Date: Mon Jul 14 2003 - 12:11:48 EDT
This is a response to Wally Hick's post on June 12. Lost (but not
forgotten) during our recent move to Western Colorado.
Wally wrote, in part, as follows:
"Burgy has asked that we
consider his web pages in the
area of gay and lesbian
relationships. I have
attempted to do so below."
I really appreciate the attempt. But I do not see that you have engaged
my primary argument. I will, however, engage yours.
"1.) http://www.mlp.org/resources/Dissenting.htm
In this sermon, rev. Harold
Porter criticizes the General
assembly of the Presbyterian
Church ... .":
Your comments simply say you don't agree with Porter. That is OK, but I
did not see you address his arguments.
"2.) http://www.burgy.50megs.com/gay1.htm
In this discussion, Burgy
presents his position as
generally favouring the view
that loving gay and lesbian
lifestyles (the actions, not
the inclination) are not
sinful. His primary reference
is a book by the Catholic
Theologian Daniel Helminiak.
As in the above, this author
is taking a stand in
opposition to his own church.
I notice that he has a
foreword by Spong. (That says
a lot.) "
I hold no brief for Rev Spong, although on some issues I find his
thinking very stimulating. In any case, the argument you make here (Spong
is a bad guy and Spong wrote a foreword for Helmaniak's book and
therefore the book is bad) is hardly persuasive. Even bad guys sometimes
get some things right.
"Knowing nothing about
Helminiak, I did a web search
about him. I'll just note here
that Alamo Square Press
published his book. A Goggle
search indicates that this is
an organization that
dominantly publishes gay and
lesbian literature. It is not
a Christian publishing house. "
Your argument here suggests that if a book appears from an advocacy group
it is not to be taken seriously. Much of the early writings in the
antislavery and Civil Rights issues, of course, came from such groups.
And from a Tory standpoint, so did much of the wittings which resulted in
the independence of the USA. Likewise, of course, the books that
eventually resulted in women attaining equal status within the church and
society.
"Also from Googol, there is an
article by the ACLU on
http://archive.aclu.org/about/transcripts/helmin.html
At one point Helminiak
concludes: “I don't know the
Agnostic gospels, there's a
similar story in the Gospel of
Mark the young man runs away
and they get the sheet from
him, so he runs off naked.
Some scholars suggest that the
man was woken from sleep and
came out wearing a sheet which
they slept in in those days.
What was really going on,
again, we don't have the
evidence. I would not want to
suggest that Jesus was or was
not homosexual. We simply
don't know.”
That stuck me as inconsistent
with his contention that
opposition to homosexuality
was a Jewish thing. Jesus
would not have been accepted
if he were homosexual in
actions. I suggest that do
know that he was not. "
I pretty much agree with you here -- I would not have addressed the issue
as Helmaniak did. Of course, we can never be certain, but the evidence of
Jesus being homosexual (remember -- this is an orientation, not an
action) seems to be vanishingly small and the question itself an idle
one.
"3.) http://www.burgy.50megs.com/hmoral.htm
In this section, Burgy
presents the following chart
from a book by Joretta Jordan.
The suggestion is that this is
way we should analyse the
issues"
Level....HO..........HA.......................
How to counsel
1 Unnatural...Evil.. Change behaviour.
Both HO and HA are immoral
2 Diseased....Not justified.. Partners have no moral blame
Abstinence is recommended
3 Defective...permissible ..HO and HA are morally neutral
"Don't ask, don't tell" policy
4 Imperfect...justified ..Do not attempt to influence
HO and HA are morally neutral
5 Natural.....good ..HO being natural, HA is OK
Affirm and celebrate the relationship
I have a real problem with
this in that it does not
include what most evangelicals
would describe as their
position. Namely, that is that
a homosexual inclination is
not evil in itself but that
yielding to that inclination
is sin."
What you seem to espouse is a level 1.5. This would be:
1.5 Diseased....Not justified.. Partners have, however, moral blame
Abstinence is recommended
I agree with you that this level should have been included.
"4.) Liberals and Conservatives
Burgy, God bless him, is one
of my favourite Liberals."
Thank you. He does. BTW, I am quite a bit to the left of those most
people label as "liberal."
"However, the conclusions are
those drawn by a classic
Liberal and typify what exists
here in my State
(Kennedyland). In the school
systems, sex education is
taught. It used to be
conventional heterosexual
relationships but that is
changing. Now the gay and
lesbian techniques are
penetrating (excuse the word)
the teachings as well. Young
people are given telephone
numbers that they may call to
get information without their
parents knowing. All this is
good clean work in the minds
of a liberal but is a reason
to adopt home teaching, going
to a private Christian school,
or a moving to another State
(in the minds of some
Christians)."
The problems of educating the young are severe. I am unpersuaded,
however, that learning that the gay and lesbian lifestyles exist have too
much of an effect on adolescent sexuality. In the case of the two lesbian
couples I know, both have raised and are raising both male & female
children. None of these show any tendency to either condemn their
parents' lifestyle or to follow in it. Yet -- 2 anecdotes do not make a
persuasive argument, and I understand the problems. They go both ways.
How many home schools and Christian schools teach young earth geology, or
-- worse -- white supremacy? I hope they are few. I know them not to be
a null set.
"I still have a lot of trouble
with the notion of canned
philosophies. A liberal or a
conservative will rarely
consider the data objectively.
Instead, a notion consistent
with that canned philosophy is
arrived at and the search for
corroborating data is
constantly expanded. "
Pardon me -- that sounds a lot like a canned philosophy, Wally. That it
does describe some people, I will agree. I sincerely hope it does not
describe persons on this list.
"In this situation being
considered, the Bible clearly
labels homosexuality as sinful
and really has to be twisted
to say the contrary."
Of course, what you are saying here is your opinion. That's OK. But why
is it that so many good, reasonable, godly persons disagree with the
above? At the least, I must object to your use of the word "clearly."
"To argue
that a gay couple is
acceptable within the
Christian Church simply sets
aside the Bible as being
outdated in this respect. "
You mean they cannot even enter the worship service? Now THAT is farther
to the right than most debaters. On what possible basis would you keep
them outside -- and let the gossipers in? (or name any other sin).
"Why
not just argue thusly and
avoid the slight of hand? At
least then there can be a
sincere debate that might
eliminate the artificiality of
canned philosophies. "
Sorry -- you lost me there, Wally.
Once again, I suggest you failed to address my primary argument. Since I
posted it here a day or two ago, I'll refrain from repeating it.
Peace.
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 : Mon Jul 14 2003 - 12:52:13 EDT