5/20/98

To the Editor, the Wesleyan Christian Advocate:

Preface for the understanding of the editor of WCA (not prepared for publication)

I have composed and enclosed a letter which should aid in reconciling our church with regard to the homosexual issue, and speaks to both sides of this debate/confrontation. I think it is of extreme importance that our church not make the fatal mistake of associating sin with an action or a state per se as opposed with the intention of the heart, but this is what we are about to do if we exclude homosexuals, per se, from the life of the church. In my letter I call upon the homosexuals to make the sacrifice necessary to keep the church together, much as Paul asked the slaves of his own day not to seek freedom except in the heart, and to trust God to work the miracle of a new order

The importance of this subject cannot be overrated in view of the coming onslaught of the Islamic story which has an enormous appeal, but based entirely on a false premise, if my own thinking is straight in this matter. According to Mohammed the writers of the Old and New Testaments simply could not keep the story straight, e.g., about when the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples. Allah, to give a final, once-and-for-all remedy, simply seized the tongue and lips of a merchant by the name of Mohammed and formed his words Himself and had scribes writing everything down so there could never again be the least question of accuracy and reliability. Allah revealed, for example (and among a literal host of other things), that Jesus did not die on the cross, but that Judas was miraculously put in his place at the last minute and just in time to die there, which he deserved, but the confused and excited Christian writers dreamed up the Judas suicide story because they lost track of him and didn't. Etc. Etc. Now (according to the Islamics) the matter is very simple and every one can know exactly what they have to do to please God. Etc.

The Christian, unless we make the horrible mistake of trying to make things and actions holy and unholy on their own without reference to the heart, can dismiss the Islamic's entire thesis by indicating that while the story of Jesus is a bit garbled due to the excitement of the early followers and witnesses of the resurrection of this amazing man (and hence really bear witness to an enormous event in the lives of all of them), the obligations of man to God are so simple that children can grasp them, namely we are to love each other, in conscience and in truth, with the same intensity that we love ourselves; and all else will be a production of God Himself. And for this no priests are needed, nor rabbis, nor lawyers and scribes, nor any of the likes of Mohammed, but merely a thinking mind which is developed enough to conceive of principles of actions which could serve universally, which is precisely the role of the Golden Rule.

If the members of our church are determined not to allow homosexual unions to be blessed, then for heaven's sake let us do it (the prohibition) because we feel that the ideal relationship is man and woman and not because there is anything inherently sinful about two men in a sexual relationship. The former will enable us to avoid sanctioning these unions and at the same time to avoid turning us over to the mercy of the Islamic story tellers, for otherwise (with such things as homosexuality being evil on its own) they will be able to say: "See, the complexity of your (Christian) system is overwhelming and you must search out here and there and never be sure of what it is that you must do to please Allah. This is due to the faulty transmissions on the part of men, and not of God. But Allah is merciful and wants you to know precisely what you must do to please him; and so he has taken control of Mohammed's mouth . . . etc."

As long as we make sure that the Golden Rule is the arbiter of the conscience, and that it is the conscience alone that makes us fit to stand before our maker (like a child before his or her father), then our story becomes irresistible and we can proclaim a risen savior without have to worry about Islamics snipping at our heels. The Wesleyan conception is uniquely positioned to take the lead in this great missionary movement, if we will simply not stumble now over the homosexual issue. Deny homosexual unions, if you must (I say to the church), but don't do it because it is evil or sinful per se; for then God will have to raise up another church to finish his mighty work.

The body of the letter for publication now follows (it is somewhat difficult, but we United Methoidst are supposed to be old enough now to think):

By way of preface let me first remind the reader of the characteristic elements of the Christian as laid out by John Wesley, namely: a consciousness of sincerely desiring 1. to love God with one's total being, and likewise 2. to love neighbor as self, and then also of believing 3. that Christ takes these two continuing, sincere desires for the fact of their accomplishment, and for which reason we cannot be separated from God by any condition whatsoever; and then secondly the elements of the internal witness, namely: that coupled with the three above (which is the witness of our own spirit) we are able to cry Abba Father in all situations, even in those of our failure to love God and neighbor, and which is the Witness of God's Spirit, and constitutes the essential assurance of our salvation.

I note further that to love God means to comply with his commandments gladly. But his commandments (practically speaking) are that we are to love our neighbor as we love ourselves (Matthew 7:12); but since we cannot by our own strength do this gladly, and yet since we are required to do so by our commitment to, and our belief in, Christ, we can expect this capacity to be given to us via grace and we look forward to its manifestation in our lives, which state or process is called sanctification. Once we begin to see the promised transformation of our flesh and emotions such that we are able to love neighbor with increasing facility we turn to God in spontaneous and growing wonder, love and praise. And thus the attaining of the Second Commandment by the work of God in our lives leads to the attaining of the First Commandment, and we worship Him in truth and in spirit (and not merely formally as we did when only babes in Christ).

I note further that in Romans Paul declares (chapter 13) that the Christian even complies with man's law only through conscience (and not fear of punishment*) and indeed as a function of the Christian's intention of manifesting the Golden Rule in all of his life; for as Christians we walk now in the light of the day of Christ. Thus the Golden Rule teaches us how to be pleasing both to man and to God (see the latter part of Matthew 7:12).

[* and surely because man's (proper) law facilitates social intercourse, e.g., learning what safe speeds are in school zones, inhibiting criminality, etc.]

And now to a final point (and presented in chapter 14): the weak in faith (while no less dear to God and no less assured of their salvation through their faith) are those who are not able (or willing) to live entirely by the Golden Rule as outlined above, but are anxious to find other, specified dictums for compliance, and thereby, in their weakness, seek supplements to the the simple, clear and universal teaching of our Lord in Matthew 7:12. But be this as it may, the strong in faith are not to press these weaker ones so much as to cause them to falter. Both the strong and the weak are certified in their respective consciences (14:22) and it is sin for anyone, strong or weak, to do what they honestly think is wrong (14:23). Thus the strong in faith are captive to the Golden Rule alone in conscience, but are called upon by Christ to respect also the conscience of the weaker in faith and not to do publicly before them what is offensive or debilitating to them (1 Cor. 10:27-30).*

[* It is worthwhile to note in passing that this "secretiveness" on the part of the Christian is in diametric opposition to that of the stereotypical legalist in Romans 2, for while the former acts without sin and for the sake of love (of his weaker brother), the latter seeks to hide his private, sinful practice behind a facade of formal and public self-righteousness, i.e., hypocritically, to avoid punishment).]

Now to the conclusions for our current day: the internal witness is superior to any declaration of the church (thanks to Luther for enunciating this so clearly) and even of scripture in the role of a law book (thanks to Paul for this in Galatians). This is a simple fact. Therefore (and now I address especially the homosexuals among the United Methodists): we are not to press the weaker in faith (however we understand that) to permit or sanction homosexual unions, for this will violate their conscience and, if they give in without being convinced, will cause them to sin (Romans 14:23)--instead let us live without the blame of our own conscience and pray for the strengthening of the faith of all members, including our own.

As a post script to the homosexual reader: while I cannot wish in any way to "materialize" sin in our faith by suggesting that any practice, e.g., non-circumcision, homosexuality, long hair for men, etc., per se is sinful (and whereby I would effectively negate the clear teaching of our Lord and his apostles that it is the heart alone that is holy or unholy), I can tell you from long, personal participation in both the homosexual realm (20 to 25 years) and more recently the heterosexual realm (15 plus years) that my long relationship with my wonderful wife (for whom I constantly thank and praise God) has convinced me that of the two relationships the heterosexual has a much greater chance of mutual happiness than the homosexual due, perhaps, to the complementarity entailed in the former as opposed to a certain competitiveness in the latter (and consistent with Genesis 2:18-25). And so therefore while I cannot recommend the heterosexual relationship on the strength of morality (for that remains always a matter of conscience and strength of faith, and the master can make each man stand before him [Romans 14:4]), I certainly can do so on a basis of prudence and personal happiness, at least to the extent that my own experience can be generalized.* [For further discussion contact me at pmr@mindspring.com.]

[* Comment as of April, 2000: I am now even less sure that my own experience can be universalized as I may have suggested here. But the critical point remains, namely: there is no moral reason for two gays not to enter into a committed relationaship.]

Yours in Christ!

Philip McPherson Rudisill