Another query to George and comments to Janice

George wrote, in part: "I think the church needs to accept the reality of

non-volitional homosexual orientation & find some responsible way to
recognize same-sex unions (not marraige) to help people with such
orientations deal with their conditions. OTOH I see no compelling reason

for the church to ordain non-celibate homosexuals."

I agree with sentence one, although I am not convinced one way or the
other on same-sex marriage. On sentence two, I comment as follows:

1. I am reasonably sure you (as would I) would welcome into church
membership people who are living with a same-sex partner. Not all
churches would do so, of course, but that's another thread.

2. If you would not ordain such people, you will have in your
congregation, two classes of people, one "first class," who can be
ordained (no matter what their particular sins) and one "second class",
who cannot be ordained, because of one particular situation, which some
Christians call a sin and other Christians claim is not a sin. I take it
as given that having two classes of member is not a "good thing."

Given these two statements, I turn your last sentence around. What is the
"compelling reason" the church should NOT ordain non-celibate
homosexuals?

The only reason I can come up with is to claim certainty on an issue that
good and devout and scholarly Christians can and do disagree upon. But
perhaps you can propose another reason.

Thanks.
-------------------
Replying to Janice (1):

I had posted: "Good Christians are to be found on both sides of the
issue; that
fact leads me to hold that none of the arguments are "irresistible."

Janice commented: " The criteria that makes a biblical argument
irresistible is the
use of sound hermenutics. Plenty of "good Christians" couldn't even
define the word let alone engage in them."

Ignoring the last sentence, which is, of course true but off subject, I
take it that your claim is that those favoring your preferred position
are, for the most part, "using sound hermeneutics" and all those on the
other side are not doing so. Perhaps so, I am unqualified to say. But I
am skeptical of such a claim.

There is one attribute I share with my friend, Glenn Morton. I like to
read stuff from people I don't agree with, who are making claims I do not
hold. I have done more than my share of this. I still may be wrong; I
accept that possibility.

---------

Replying to Janice (2)

Janice: "The reason why there are so many biblical illiterates is because
of
the fact that the church at large has failed in its responsibilities.
That's going to change."

I am puzzled. What do you mean by this? I agree (generally) with your
first sentence but I see no general force for change. In our little
church in Rico we strive always to rectify this condition; but it is a
general condition and a big problem.

-----------

Replying to Janice (3)

Don wrote: "The same sort of argument that Janice makes to justify
the condemnation of homosexual behavior can and has been made to
justify anti-Semitism, slavery and the subjugation of women."

I wrote: "Don -- that is true enough, but (speaking as the devil's
advocate)
that does not make them invalid. It is a good argument, to be sure,
but it does not go far enough.

Janice observed: "The argument used above is illogical, so it's not a
good argument by a LONG shot.. It's like saying that the best way to
stop misspelled words
is to get rid of pencils, and the best way to stop people from being
murdered is to get rid of guns."

Here is why I disagree: The argument is not illogical if one starts with
the assumption that same-sex intimacy may not, in some instances, be a
sin.

If one starts with the certainty that same-sex intimacy is, in all
instances, a sin, then I agree, the argument is illogical. It is because
of this that I wrote to Don as I did.

-

Reply to Janice (4)

I wrote: 'Janice -- I understand and respect your position (while, of
course,
disagreeing with it). It is held by many good Christians. I just
happen to believe that the arguments are not conclusive enough to
convict."

Janice asked: "Convict"? Of what?"

I was thinking of the tendency in all of us to convict others of sin when
we are innocent of that particular sin and to overlook our own failings.
Specifically, the action of calling all same-sex activity "sin." If all
Christians were united on this one, it might be different. That is not
the case.

----
Reply to Janice (5)
Janice: "You may have missed it, but the only thing I was addressing was
your 
claim that Paul didn't address the subject of  homosexuality - 
(forget the tap dance about the word- it's transparent).   
No, that was clear. But Paul could hardly have addressed "homosexuality,"
any more than he could have addressed quantum mechanics.
Janice: "Dr John Warwick Montgomery would not accept your personal
opinion on 
the subject as carrying any weight because you haven't backed it up 
with sound hermeneutics.  I can't either - for the same reason."
My personal opinion is not really relevant here, and the last thing I
would urge anyone to do is accept it just on my say so. Nor do I intend
"sound hermeneutics" for my training has allowed me to avoid such
subjects in the past; at age 74+ I am not likely to become another George
Murphy, who seems to have that discipline well under control. <G>
In any case, my original post was calling for precision in language,
nothing more. The word "homosexuality," in scholarly discourse at least,
refers to a condition, not an action. To use it as referring to an action
blurs the conversation and disrespects the other side. This is not a "tap
dance." 
-----
Question to Janice.
Now I have a question -- our librarian here has acquired a number of
"Bush Bashing" volumes in the past year (many by donations). She asked me
to find some "responsible" books on the other side -- recent ones (2004
and later). So far I have come up with nothing that pleases her (Ann
Coulter and Shawn Hannity books don't really qualify). Perhaps you (or
anyone) can recommend a couple of books of this nature. This is a serious
request; almost certainly I will read (and possibly review) any such book
she acquires. 
Thanks.
Burgy