4/24/99

Letter to the Editor (of the Wesleyan Christian Advocate):

I think that I have perceived in recent letters to the editor a doubt as to the sufficiency of the Golden Rule as it is presented in Matthew 7:12, namely that it is the law and the prophets, i.e., that it is essence of pleasing God. I get the sense that many United Methodists truly do not believe this, nor do they believe Genesis 3:22 where scripture indicates that humans know good and evil, and indeed in this regard are even like God.

Let's test this skeptical thinking by the following hypothesis: let us say that Matthew 7:12 and all Second-Commandment style verses have been removed from the scriptures and then further imagine that we learn about good and evil solely from what remains.

If this were true, then murder and long hair (for males) would be of the same sort, morally speaking (see 1 Cor. 11). And then by what basis could we think to rationalize away the commandment against long hair or for veils, as we are prone to do, but not that against murder?! For if we were willing to seek to dispense with the long hair commandment (where long hair, like homosexuality, is stated to be unnatural, per se), saying it were culturally based, we would with identical justification be able to ask ourselves: "I wonder why Paul speaks out against murder? Is murder really prohibited, or is this some cultural matter where people thought it were bad manners?"

If the Golden Rule were not presupposed (which is the plain sense of Genesis 3:22 and Matthew 7:12 when considered together), then how would we dare to differentiate among actions which are required (or prohibited) by scripture?! We would be as moral zombies and, accordingly, would quit taking blood transfusions, and start cropping men's hair closely, and we would applaud whenever some fanatic happens to kill some one, even an infant or an animal, in the city of Jericho (which God, we are told, ordered to be destroyed)!! How curious and bizarre!

But the reason that this is bizarre is because the hypothesis is false, and because we in fact do know the difference between good and evil already in advance; and this becomes clear to us when we begin to make principles of actions for ourselves (usually about the age of puberty), and we see that some principles that we would like to use are not suitable for a community, i.e., if others used these principles the ensuing actions would be detrimental to us, e.g., any one may lie or steal whenever perceived as profitable and safe. Thusly then we see that the Golden Rule is the only principle which could be utilized simultaneously by all members of a community (and indeed by a world). And so those who seek to deprecate this uncanny and marvelous rule and to append other stipulations, e.g., males must wear short hair, or males must not relate to males in a romantic way, or even: no one may commit murder, etc., do a great disservice to our faith and a dishonor to our Lord [as though he did not know whereof he spoke and were in need some correction and/or "amplification" in this situation (Sermon on the Mount) where he is knowingly speaking to the multitudes, i.e., to the world, i.e., where plain speech is needful].

By the way, I do not mean to suggest that sincere intentions regarding the Golden Rule end the matter; for I certainly believe in the Wesleyan dynamic and, in this case, that if a person will seriously seek to live by the Golden Rule, then eventually, if life be long enough, she or he will experience (and recognize) the touch of God in the Person of the Holy Spirit and will come to love and adore the Abba of Christ as a matter of course, whereby then the First Commandment is complied with, but now in spirit and in truth. For our God is eventful and redemptive and marvelous . . . and even surprising! and He requires compliance with the Second Commandment (making things right with our brother) before that of the First, e.g., before accepting our gifts of praise and thanksgiving (Matthew 5:23-24). And thus indeed does the Golden Rule encompass all, precisely as indicated by our Lord.

Finally, given the clarity of Paul's expression in Romans 12 through 14, it seems clear that his tirade against homosexual behavior in Romans 1 is a coded warning about unrestrained power. The emperors Tiberius and Caligula (whom Paul certainly would not want to mention by name and thereby bring persecution upon his fledgling churches) were both able to indulge themselves with women to such an extent that they turned in their jaded lust to their own sex, and so who are qualitatively different from the "run-of-the-mill" homosexual who has never perceived any other inclination. In any case, Paul certainly seconds Jesus' Golden Rule in Romans 13:8-10, and furthermore, in Romans 14, he reminds us that each person stands before Christ alone and that Christ's judgment in that moment is adequate of itself without any need for the advice of others. He then goes on to remind us all (including therefore our homosexual brothers and sisters in Christ) not to flaunt their freedom before those of us who are "weak in faith" and who think that the Golden Rule must be supplemented by additional rules and regulations. Romans 14 is the key to the homosexual question for our time and our church.

Yours in Christ!