7/10/99

Dear Mr. Sam:

After having declared independence for the Christian conscience, in showing its dependence to the Golden Rule alone, I must still come back and wonder why Paul spoke about homosexuality as he did in Romans 1; and I think it just hit me this morning during my inspired meditations.

There is an example of human freedom which depicts a certain concept very well, namely the flamboyant homosexual. This can be an epitome for a certain mindset that Paul wanted to contrast from the acceptable mindset of Jesus. Here is how this works. The homosexuals see certain of their own members as flamboyant and who prance about on a stage for the benefit of showing their independence and freedom from all restraints, even from being laughed at as silly. Some of these flamboyant demonstrate such flamboyance also in the eyes of the general public (if not squashed underfoot by heavy boots, so to speak), i.e., they prance through the public eye without an apparent care for the judgments of the common herd. These flamboyant ones are often referred to as homosexuals by the herd. Therefore it is very possible that Paul had such common language terminology in mind as he sought to develop this contrast to the Jesus mindset.

Now associated with the flamboyant ones (but in all humans to a certain degree, and usually smothered due to fear of disclosure) is a willingness to treat others purely as toys for their pleasure (I remember experiencing this very same (albeit non-flamboyant) attitude myself in my own, very active homosexual life, when I was on the prowl). This means that as long as an erection is possible with regard to a certain person, that person has value in my eye; but as soon as my ejaculation is over with, that same person become immediately an obstacle to my further delights, and I must get rid of him as effectively and as soon as possible (unless I think he is worth a second erection, in which case I may rationally lay plans to get him again).

Now this attitude I characterize generally as market value and I have described a market economy where the human is simply another commodity, i.e., entirely disposable. This is the opposite of the Christ conception where every one counts, e.g., the no-count Barabbas is given a second chance, the thief on the cross is given a second chance (for peace), and even Judas much walk out himself, for Jesus does not force him out. And so the Christian is obligated to treat all of humanity, including those on death row, and susceptible at least to a second chance.

Now given this interpretation, let's see what follows: The flamboyant ones, in their (hopefully only temporary) madness, go on in their search of shock value not only to do these despicable things (of treating humans as toys), but also loudly approve those who do, and praise them for being on the ball about getting their rocks off. And now (we are beginning Romans 2) the Jews think they are better than these no-count gentiles (as the Jews will tend to speak of the flamboyant ones, and lump them (correctly) with all who go in for market economy without restraint), for they, the "righteous Jews" speak against this sort of behavior, but all the while still doing it. And so they think they are at least more moral than the gentiles, for at least they do not approve of it and speak against it to their children. But they still do it, and so they are not favored by God simply because they are Jews and think they are better by speaking publicly in a certain way.

No! Paul adds. There is the way of God, namely the "righteous Gentile" (also in Romans 2) and these people actually comply with the law of God (and justice, etc.) by their nature, doing naturally what is right. This is the promise of God and the solution to the problem (for otherwise we seem to be stuck between the Gentile and the Jew, but neither is acceptable, for both engage in market even if some of them (the Jews) hide it beneath a veneer of "right talk".

And then so on it goes as Paul begins to describe how it is that God comes to work this miracle in the life of the believer.

I need to bounce this off the heads of some of the homosexuals that I know to see if it rings true with them, this flamboyance bit, but I think it will, and, if so, then we will have shown that it is not necessary to think that Paul thought anything immoral about an act on its own as opposed to the motivation of that act, e.g., for good or for abuse. This will give a thorough consistency to Paul's talk and Paul's thinking (especially Romans 14 being merged into a single thought with Romans 1 and 2), and will enable the Christian fundamentalists to get off of the "some things are bad on their own" stand and get on the "what counts in the consciousness that one's conscience is controlled by the Golden Rule, and that it is this Rule that confirms one's relationship to Christ in faith."

What a day of liberty that will be, for then the world is ours for the taking. Today the Methodist, tomorrow the world. [you see that I still have great faith in the ability of the Methodist finally to think straight and consistent.]

I think that I can truthfully say that it was the concept of "strong in faith" and "weak in faith" as technical (and not derogatory) language that enabled me to see that Paul's talk and his thinking were thoroughly united.

The solution finally became clear when I heart a seven or eight year old describe his word association to "gay". It was "two guys living together". And another say, "comical". It made be realize that certain words will have a certain reference, and it would be easy to think that Paul used the common word "homosexual" to reference what the homosexuals in general called "flamboyant" and then to tie into that term and that sight (of the libertine in extreme, the flamboyant and unafraid-to-show one) into the very common attitude of these flamboyant to treat other people, as I once did, as mere toys for amusement, and to realize that was the perfect contrast to the mind of Christ. And then it made perfect sense to use the "therefore" at the beginning of Romans 2, where the Jews mock righteousness by saying it had to do with compliance with the law in washing your hands after you abused someone and to listen respectively to the reading of the law and to parrot that law in one's public dealing.

What a revelation!

PS the key message of Jesus ot the Jews is this: God loves you so much, and wants to give to you, but not becasue you are children of Jacob and Abraham, but becasue you are childredn of Adam.

PPS (7/11/99 AM) You will remember

PPS (7/11/99 548PM) In short: Paul sees the flamboyant and calls them homosexuals, when he should have said "flamboyant." The object really being referenced by Paul, however, is the flamboyant attitude (and not "the flamboyant's attitude" or even "the flamboyant' attitude" although the latter become stereotypical) and which I call the market attitude, which is presently engaged in the predicted destruction of the earth. This attitude is 1. identical to the thinking of the Jews, only the Jews differentiated themselves from the gentiles by talking publicly against that attitude, and raising their children to speak ill of that attitude; and 2. diametrically opposed to the inclusion depicted by Jesus in his vicarious death for Barabbas, the no-count of Israel (and who was rejected of the gentiles).*

[* and then {to complete the thought} occasionally touches gentiles and makes them lovers of the law (of right), and does that to give us an example of what he is willing to do for us, as the ones who realize that we have been saved from sin and death by the man called Jesus].

There is another explanation which I have mentioned to you earlier, namely that the epitome of the selfish (market economy) attitude was found in Tiberius and Caligula, and so that they were, so to speak, the flamboyant of the market world. I like this thesis better for it does more justice to the text with regard to having "turned from the natural to the unnatural" for I think both of these guys go into homosexual behavior because they have become jaded, and so they have sold their souls to pleasure (as have many others) and the extent of that sale (= loss of soul) only become apparent with opportunity and daring.

And the transition to Romans 2 is also easy here, namely the two emperors will be merely the extreme exposure of the heart of man in general, i.e., they differ from us only in that they had the opportunity which is denied us due to our power (although also beccuase of our own timidy). And so then the Jew is doing the same thing, only he thinks he is good because he is talking against it.

And so then it would follow, having rejected both the gentile and the Jew, that Paul comes to the "righteous gentile," i.e., the divinely created hybrid of the truth (no hyprocrasy) of the gentile and the moral conception of the Jew. And (Paul goes on) God will do that also for us if we will but permit him. For he is even now doing it for me, and while I am far from perfect, I am not as far as I was, and I am on the way, and I have singing songs of praise. Etc.

Essentially then, regardless of the details, Paul is looking at an extreme and using the term for it which was vernacular and general, but which was the way he needed to speak, or also had to speak due to his own understanding, in order to communicate, i.e., he is given one example of the word, and that example is an extreme case, and that is then what he understands the term to mean, for it is the attitude exemplified in that extreme that he is condemning. And so (thank God!) Paul is not slipping back into material thinking (to the death of morality), but rather insists rightly on seating it entirely in the heart and conscience of the man. He is like the little boy interviewed on TV who thinks that "gay" means "comical."

I'll bet Paul had both in mind, the two emperors and also then the flamboyant in public and in private, i.e., those with no morals, i.e., those who laugh at decency and scorn it to each other.