6/17/98

To the Editor of the Wesleyan Christian Advocate

On Monday I sent you a letter for publication entitled "Let's get to the fundamentals, quick". This letter was premature, for it contained not only numerous misspellings, but was deficient in other ways as well. I hope you will not publish it. The basic message, but in a more positive style and intention, follows:*

[* The last paragraph here could be eliminated for the sake of space, but contains an important message which could be of particular help to the predominately black churches among us.]

In dealing with questions of diversity within the faith, there must be a reconciliation which is consistent with doctrinal integrity. So it is now in the United Methodist Church where the fundamental question is not so much homosexuality as rather: may any behavior or action be required of a Christian even if that Christian is unable to derive such behavior from the Golden Rule? I.e., may an external source of authority, e.g., scripture or priesthood, be imposed upon the conscience of the Christian?

Jesus teaches his Jewish listeners nothing new with regard to knowledge of good and evil, for this is already contained not only in the Jewish psyche (Lev. 19:18) but in that of all adult humans (Genesis 3:22) . What is new is two fold, namely: 1. the neighbor is now any person in need (and not merely a fellow Jew); and 2. this Golden Rule is now the pinnacle of all moral knowledge and from whence therefore all good actions must be derivable (Matt. 7:12). And so as a member of the Christian community I have a right to expect each adult adherent to be able to derive his or her behavior from the Golden Rule, or at least show that the opposite conduct cannot be so derived. Thus and for example, if I wish to condemn homosexual behavior as immoral (and not merely as repulsive), I must be able to derive heterosexual behavior from the Golden Rule. For otherwise, if I submit to some scriptural injunction, then I have effectively abdicated my own responsibility as a Christian to make such choices and instead have opted to enslave my conscience to another (1 Cor 10:29), e.g., that long hair is shameful for me due to Paul's pronouncements on this subject which are included in the scripture (1 Cor. 11) or that eating idol food is wrong (Acts 15), etc., etc. It was from such slavery to scripture as a law book that Jesus sought to free us via Matthew 7:12 in the first place (consider also the characterization of Jesus as a law breaker, though not a sinner, in John 5:18).

Now if some behavior that I can in conscience engage in is rejected by other Christians either because they find scriptural injunction against it (even though they cannot make the required derivation from the Golden Rule) or because they find it repulsive, then while I cannot as a servant of Christ permit their conscience to rule my own, I can keep from flouting my liberty to their detriment, and hence hide my behavior in accordance with Paul's admonition in 1 Cor. 10 with regard to idol food and in Romans 14 in general. [It is remarkable that the secretiveness of the Christian here is in diametric opposition to the secretiveness of the legalist of Romans 2, even though both are one in keeping secrets; for while I act in secret in order to avoid undermining the faith of my weaker brother or sister in Christ, and thus in compliance with the Golden Rule, the legalist does in secret that whereof he is ashamed, i.e., sin, and therefore which is in violation of that same Rule.] Thus while we are free to accord with the Golden Rule in conscience, that same Rule makes us mindful of the weakness of our brothers and sisters to the extent that we modify our actions accordingly. The homosexual United Methodist needs to keep this in mind in our present time.

By the way one result of keeping the moral simple is to arm ourselves adequately to deal with the coming onslaught of our fellow humans of the Islamic persuasion. Their prophet maintained that it was necessary for God to put him into a trance and to seize control of his tongue and have scribes write down his utterances because the Jewish and Christian scriptures were hopelessly confused and people did not know what God required of them. But if we assert that the Golden Rule alone is the arbiter of the conscience and of the internal witness, we undercut this argument entirely and make their prophet appear (and rightly so) as a well meaning man who was shocked by the corruption of a church which had come to be politically correct due to its "conversion" into a State Church by Constantine the Great, and because of which and in contrast to which he (Mohammed) had sought to make things very plain and very straightforward; but which we see was not necessary at all, given a proper understanding of the gospel message and the unusual simplicity of its moral teaching. But this only works if the Golden Rule alone (and not scripture and not priesthood) is the sole standard. [For those concerned about the First of the Two Great Commandments the Wesleyan asserts that the faith surrounding the sincere and active desire to implement the Golden Rule results in an experience of growth of love in our hearts which in turn leads to an expectant hope for continuing perfection and this in turn brings us to God in a spontaneous worship in spirit and truth.]

Philip McPherson Rudisill, Atlanta

pmr@mindspring.com