Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: When SYSOPs Thunder Message-ID: Date: 30 May 91 04:32:09 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 110 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu SYSOP Chuck Hedrick charges that surely I know that most Christians believe that homosexuality it sinful..... In simple majorities, yes, but I am not accustomed to allowing majorities to shape my discourse, nor would anyone else be wise to do so, since most human beings fall into a variety of minority groups. Besides, many Christians disagree with the current majority view about homosexuality, and not just the 10 percent of those of us who happen to be gay or lesbian; and dissenters far more clearly define that part of the Church in which I serve than do those whom you cite, Chuck. Nearly 48 percent of the Episcopal House of Bishops, including the Presiding Bishop, when under great pressure to do so, refused to disassociate themselves from the actions of my bishop The Rt. Rev. John S. Spong when he ordained an openly gay person. The majority of the Christians in my diocese have voted overwhelmingly to support with money and time and personnel the Oasis, a lesgay ministry in the diocese. The members of my parish recently voted to become sustaining members (with a $500 pledge) to this ministry). An important Presbyterian commisssion recently released a daring report on this matter. The Hunt Commission of the Episcopal Church has released a similar report towards our own General Convention in July...., and Bishop Hunt has just published a foreword in my new book on this matter. Yes, if you want to count majorities, you still have the numbers for that ancient taboo, but I not under any obligation to let them define the terms of discourse when I speak. >While you may attempt to enlighten them on this subject, you should not be >surprised if their love for they refer to homosexual activity as sinful is >perhaps more along the lines of programs for drug addicts... Chuck, do you really expect me to believe any claim to love me that is thus grounded? I am quite willing to believe that people who hold such views _believe_ they love me; but Jesus did not use the Levites', the priest's, or the Samaritan's point of view to determine who treated the person in the ditch in a neighborly way: he used the point of view of the person in the ditch. In case you have not noticed, most people when hit over the head with the bible do not take that as a friend act, and those who still manage to respect the bible do not see that as the proper use of it. >I do not >see that it would make sense to consider them on that account to be >cultists. Can we not simply say that someone is wrong without >bringing in emotionally loaded (and ill-defined) terms like cultist? I have carefully defined cult as I am using it, and indeed it is an emotionally loaded term. I believe that heterosexist interpretations of the gospels are cultish, and when people have had some time to think about this novel statement, most will see that it is rather obvious: the good news is not just for those with heteroplumbing, nor is it conditional upon heteroplumbing. Heterosexuals, like the Jews of old, will find how much more of good news there is when they lose their false claims to an exclusive patent to it. It is wrong for people to indulge in the massive amounts of judgment of lesgay people manifested here again and again without making any effort to know lesgay people as friends and neighbors. I would never think to read the bible to find out about black people or any other group to which I do not belong, especially when those people claimed already to experience the Gospel in their own lives. I would first listen to them tell how their own spiritual journeys, and I would test those claims by the gospel demands. Few indeed are those who listen or move among us in a neighorly way. You ought to see the private male I get following my postings here. A major rhetorician has me send it to him for a project that he is doing on hate rhetoric. >I flatly refuse to believe that someone with the >intellectual capacity to be a Rutgers faculty member, and who has been >active in gay affairs for years, does not at least understand the >arguments of those who disagree. Rather than concern yourself with my IQ, you will get at my meaning much more quickly if you look at my rhetoric: of course I noticed the sexual possibility that I dropped out of the range of explanations I reviewed. I am quite aware that sexuality is the major, sometimes the only, dimension of my experience by which they define me; but I do not start with that premise, nor do most lesgay Christians whom I know. They may have their view, but they cannot control how I enter this conversation. I do not accept heterosexuals' narrow definitions about what constitutes "homosexual activity." I am manifesting homosexual activity when I write books, when I visit prisons, when I care for the sick, when I teach English syntax.... If you want to restrict homosexual activity to narrow genital expressions, you will simply not understand me of my people. Louie Crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu Associate Professor . . . . . . . . . . . . . .lcrew@draco.rutgers.edu Academic Foundations Department . . . . . . . CompuServe No. 73517,147 Rutgers: The State University of New Jersey. . . . . . 201-485-4503 h P. O. Box 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201-648-5434 o Newark, NJ 07101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201-648-5700 FAX Only a dead fish floats with the current. [My comments were not intended to suggest that the great number of people against you means you are wrong. Just that I would expect people to write with some understanding of the view of their audience. Jennifer Irani said > On campus, we have sought to love those who are not always >accepted--and that includes homosexuals. However, I do not have to >accept the sin to love the person. You claimed not to have any idea what sin she was talking about. This is simply silly, as is your misunderstanding of my term "homosexual activity" to include all activities of homosexuals. This group has enough problems of understanding without this kind of thing. --clh]