The Editor of the Wesleyan Christian Advocate.and the Atlanta Journal/Constitution.

November 22, 2004

Dear Editor:

Here are some additional thoughts on the subject of homosexuality that I have developed through provocative and productive prodding by Brother Wayne at First Church Atlanta. I am trying now to move beyond the entire question of choice, and am suggesting that whatever the origin of the homosexual condition, the fact is as it is, and that is the condition when called by Christ, etc., as indicated in the letter below. Of course in all I appeal to Paul.

The letter follows:

Let's accept the obvious condition of a person's state at the moment in which he is called by Christ. Let's hook him up to a machine and flash pictures and find his arousals and then we don't have to even ask if his sexuality were a choice, for now, whatever the origin, homosexuality has become simply his condition, his own reflex, his present nature. And he is called in that condition and is to remain in that condition unless he can change and unless he chooses to change. That is his right as a gentile Christian according to Paul; and indeed it is almost a duty for him to remain homosexual.

This is not a matter of a moral choice as when the thief steals; this is a matter of present, existing orientation, like a reflexive and impulsive preference for the left hand by some people. The Christian wife of the pagan husband should by all means remain married, although she is free to leave if problems develop, for she was called in that condition to serve Christ in that condition, and her husband may yet be saved. The slave not only remains slave, he becomes a cheerful slave. He may seek his freedom if he wishes, but it is better for him to remain a slave. If the homosexual wishes to change his orientation and present reflexes, and if he believes that is possible, then by all means let him change, for that is his prerogative according to Paul and it must be respected in Christ (Romans 14:4). But it is better to remain a homosexual.

The fundamental question for Christians is this: would you rationally group the homosexual with the thieves and murderers, or would you lump him more with the left handed people? While thievery and murder are contrary to the law of love, homosexual contact is no more contrary to that law than two left handers shaking hands with their left hands.The members at St. Mark Atlanta rightly consider homosexuals no more queer or dangerous than left handed people, and no more and no less in need of redemption than left handed people. And they have at that church a compelling testimony of a love of Christ. The homosexuals understand the law of love as well as heterosexuals, and respond to that law equally as well.

Paul's complaint about homosexuals must surely have been based on expediency, namely that all sexual impulse should be directed toward reducing the danger stemming from the very high infant mortality rate of his day, which is the opposite of our present situation.

But if we now should accept the homosexual in his condition like we do the left handed person, there is a practical consequence for the church. Since the youth are to marry if that is the only way they can avoid burning with passion, a means must be found by the church to warrant the homosexual making a general vow of chastity to Christ, as was urged by the Council of Jerusalem. I.e., looking forward to a possible relief from the burning, a relief in Christ, and in full equality and fairness with the heterosexual Christians. In other words, by accepting the homosexual as an equal in Christ, you would also have to give him a rationale for making a vow to chastity as a youth. By denying the homosexual a legally binding vow (in a marriage-like state) you deny him what he needs rationally in order to persuade himself to remain chaste, i.e., that chastity is not forever and that marriage is a valid promise of relief. Otherwise you always have "shacking up". And that is not expedient for any Christian.

The Christian heart of the homosexual and his need to marry are inexorably connected: either deny the testimony of homosexual Christians as to their heart and conscience in Christ, or make a means for them to join in an intimate, Christian union. And so it no longer matters whether homosexuality were a choice or not, for the die is cast: for now they are homosexual in their condition.

Some day the homosexual will be acclaimed as a miracle of God, given to an overcrowded world as a damper to child production, and resulting in less children, but in more love to the children remaining. Then all of us in North Georgia will point to our own Saint Mark as a star in our crown.

Yours in Christ. By the way my mother always told me to respect the Methodist Church, for it had fed us very well (my father was Edmund Daniel Rudisill, Jr. a preacher in the North Georgia Conference). I intend always to do this. I presume I am not out of place in this forum. We are the church of open hearts, open minds and open doors. I wonder if any church newspaper would have given me as much as exposure as you have done. You are a credit to the Wesleyans.