Philip McPherson Rudisill
205 The Landmark
215 Piedmont Ave., Atlanta, GA 30308
404/351-9794 -- pmr@mindspring.com
1/24/00

To the editor of Faith and Values

I think you should publish the letter below. Some years ago I served on the Atlanta Manifesto Committee, established by your newspaper and the Christian Council of Atlanta--I was a representative of St. Mark United Methodist Church, and this was before the church had become so heavily gay. We did not come up with any new manifesto to salute the older one of the segregation era, as was hoped. This letter now represents that second manifesto, at least in a sketch, and you would serve an important societal role in enabling this manifesto to be disseminated, and you might find yourself as the precursor of a Second Manifesto, for this will also affect the political debate. It has to do with the liberation of the Christian conscience from its final bondage, namely to an externally imposed law, more recently to the scriptures. The letter now follows:

I was very much taken by Michael Glenn's challenge (Faith and Values 1/21/00) either to show that certain portions of the bible do not condemn homosexuality as understood today; or else to show that what Paul has to say on this subject is immaterial today. I propose to do both (although I will focus only on New Testament references):

First of all the Romans 1 "condemnation" of homosexuality is to be considered as part of a discourse by Paul to reveal the marvel of the new creation of God. Ordinarily one would think that the only choices for the world were the Libertine Roman and the Legalist Pharisee; but God had created his own choice, namely: the so-called righteous gentile; and, through the death and resurrection of Christ, had made a righteous, second nature available to all who, like Abraham, would simply take the gift and not quibble over a deal. And so in chapters 1 and 2 of Romans Paul begins conveying an insight into God's decision to create His own nature in the flesh. In this regard Romans 1 serves to expose the first of the two unacceptable options, and is designed to reveal the horror of the unrestrained, libertine world. Paul could have easily referred to the emperors, Tiberius and Caligula, by name [both of whom would turn from women to boys in a desperate attempt at arousal after thorough dissipation], but that would not have been politic for the fledgling church. The same example in the gay community would show that some member had become so dissipated through promiscuity that he had begun to seek out the company of women to see if he could revive himself sexually again. It was like deSade, following the inclinations of his lust, no matter where that might lead him, even into murder. And so it is not hard to see Romans 1 as dealing with an attitude and not with some physical encouplement between people. And now, having made the case against unprincipled liberty, Paul is ready to take on the other extreme, the Legalist Pharisee, and to show (Romans 2) that this is also not a choice. And so on with his plan.

But now, secondly, I want to say that it really doesn't matter what Paul had to say about homosexuality anyway; for we know what Paul wanted to say, and that was to tell the story of the righteous gentile, God's own gift to the world, the dedicated man who would come to love his neighbor in a natural way. Paul was deemed the apostle to the gentiles; and these gentiles were to enter into the Kingdom of God without any law and without any deal, but merely as beggars who had been given a second chance; and so for the gentile Christian the only law was the Golden Rule (Romans 13:8-10), the law of all laws and even the spirit of all laws (Matthew 7:12), and the gentile was expected to grow into this law through his own practice, until the second nature welled up, whereupon he would begin to feel a lively desire to help others. For the gentile Christian to give up this his birth right of liberty from law would be to take on a bondage for the first time and unnecessarily, and to give up the gift of grace, i.e., if anyone were to obey a law for no other reason than that it is a law, then that person subjugates himself to the entire law, and may expect a judgment of his conduct accordingly (as Paul makes very clear in Galatians).

A third question now arises of its own accord, namely: whether someone who is a practicing homosexual can have the internal, Abba/Father witness of the Holy Spirit. The general answer was given its best expression perhaps by John Wesley who, when asked how people can tell if they are under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, replied: "How do you know if the sun is shining? you open your eyes and look. Even so look into your own heart, and see if you honestly desire above all else to love God and to treat your neighbor as an equal, and whether you earnestly seek to trust entirely in Christ for your salvation." Therefore the gentile Christian, homosexual or not, can be assured in his heart of his own salvation without dependence upon the judgments of others (Romans 14:4); and then, thankfully, his only concern is how best to implement this sincere commitment to love God and others in the same what as God loves him. [It follows from the Golden Rule, by the way, that when the "other" is a fellow Christian, but a law-keeper who thinks that the Golden Rule must be supplemented by additional regulations (in order to be thoroughly pleasing to God), then the gentile Christian is not publicly to flaunt his liberty from such regulations, but to work gradually and lovingly to free the regulation-keeper from bondage to law. For, sadly, the non-gentile Christian is captive to his fearful conscience even as the gentile Christian is liberated by his own (Romans 14:22-23).]

Therefore, to summarize Paul's conception, the freedom given in the death of Christ is a gift to all who will simply take it; and the gentiles, not under the bondage of law, are free to seize upon this gift and to reap the new nature which arises from it. The question of homosexuality, like the question of blood (Acts 15), is a moot question for the gentile Christian. We can conclude, therefore: the bible is a history of the faith conveyed through the church, and not a law book by any means.

Sincerely,