February 17, 2005

To the Editors of the White County Telegraph:

Dear Editor:

With regard to the letters to this paper concerning the proposed Gay Straight Alliance club at the high school, we need to remember that the rules and laws of the Old Testament are immaterial to a gentile Christian per the edict of liberation presented in Acts 15 and as interpreted by St. Paul in his letters.

For his part Paul was not able to imagine homosexuality any more than he could believe that the earth orbited about the sun or was spinning like a top.* For him all men were straight. Hence the same-sex sex which he so deplored in Romans 1 was obviously for him a demonic rebellion against law in general, beginning with the law of a man's own personal nature (that of a straight man) and then extending to the moral laws of right conduct. Paul will have been aware of the same sort of domination, same-sex sex that is practiced among many heterosexuals in the jailhouses of today. All such demonic and domineering acts were then, and remain so today, diametricially opposed to the spirit of Christ.**

[* Even as recently as the beginning of the 19th Century the acute philosopher, Immanuel Kant, was unable to imagine homosexuality and called same-sex sex a "crime against nature" and at least as "criminal" as solitary sex.]

[** It is worth noting that on its own there is nothing more queer or quirky about a homosexual than there is about a left handed person. Both sincerely profess an inclination at odds with about 90% of the population. It is also worth noting that the original meanings of left hand in English and French were “worthless” and “clumsy,” respectively. The Latin word for left hand is the root of the English word "sinister." It seems that historically left handers were considered much as homosexuals are today, i.e., as demonic rebels, and were bullied into the "closet" by the right handers.]

The practical aspect of Paul's gospel was remarkably simple. First, and consistent with the edict of liberation, he indicated that all things were lawful for the gentile Christian, and that the only question had to do with expediency, especially with regard to the three loves of Christ, i.e., God beyond measure, neighbor as self, and fellow Christian more than self. Secondly a Christian was to remain in his or her condition as called, unless change were both possible and desirable.

To illustrate this thinking in current terms, let us assume that a left handed, homosexual thief responds to the call of Christ to experience the new birth. He will of course give up his thievery, for that is incompatible with the law of love. But while he may give up his left handedness or his homosexuality if he wishes and if that is possible, he doesn’t have to; and Paul would prefer that he remain in his condition and serve Christ in that condition.

Paul’s failure to recognize the fact of a natural, homosexual inclination does not affect the authenticity of his doctrine any more than his failure to realize that the earth moves. Today we are coming to recognize that the natural occurrence of same-sex attraction is a reflex not unlike the reflexive preference for the left hand by some people. Hence today Paul would call for unions of Christian homosexuals just as he called for marriages of Christian heterosexuals, so that they might not burn with passion.

At the time of Paul it seemed natural for everyone to be straight because sexual energy was needed to fuel more children to offset the high mortality rate at that time. Today the situation is quite different; we need less people and less children. Thanks to the homosexual inclination, we could have up to 10% of our populations living in intimate and satisfying unions, but which would result in no children and would accomplish this without need for abortion or contraceptives or drugs or surgeries or even the most ineffectual of all: personal restraint (and all of these are highly unnatural). Indeed it could very well be that the homosexual, so decried by many Christians as a curse, is actually a blessing bestowed by a benevolent nature upon an ungrateful and undeserving world to mitigate the problems of overpopulation due entirely to the excesses of the heterosexual majority.

Philip McPherson Rudisill

Dear Editor:

With regard to the letters to this paper concerning the proposed club for homosexuals at the high school, we need to remember that the rules and laws of the Old Testament are immaterial to a gentile Christian per the edict of liberation presented in Acts 15 and as interpreted by St. Paul in his letters.

For his part Paul was not able to imagine homosexuality any more than he could believe that the earth orbited about the sun or was spinning like a top. For him all men were straight. Hence the same-sex acts which he so deplored in Romans 1 were to him obviously a demonic rebellion against law in general, beginning with the law of a man's own personal nature (that of a straight man) and then extending to the moral laws of right conduct. Paul will have been aware of the same sort of domination same-sex sex that we find in the jailhouses of today. All such demonic and domineering acts were then, and remain so today, directly opposed to the spirit of Christ. Even as recently as the beginning of the 19th Century the acute philosopher, Immanuel Kant, was unable to imagine homosexuality and called same-sex sex a "crime against nature" and at least as "criminal" as solitary sex.

It is worth noting that on its own there is nothing more queer or quirky about a homosexual than there is about a left handed person. Both sincerely profess an inclination at odds with about 90% of the population. It is also worth noting that the original meanings of left hand in English and French were “worthless” and “clumsy,” respectively. The Latin word for left hand is the root of the English word for "sinister." It seems that historically left handers were considered in pretty much the same boat as homosexuals are today, i.e., as demonic rebels, and were bullied into the "closet" by the right handers.

Paul's gospel is remarkably simple. First, and consistent with the edict of liberation, he indicated that all things were lawful for the gentile Christian, and that the only question had to do with expediency, especially with regard to the three loves of Christ, i.e., God beyond measure, neighbor as much as self and fellow Christian more than self. Secondly a Christian was to remain in his or her condition as called, unless change were both possible and desirable.

To illustrate this thinking in current terms, let us assume that a left handed, homosexual thief responds to the call of Christ to experience the new birth. He will of course give up his thievery, for that is incompatible with the law of love. But while he may give up his left handedness or his homosexuality if he wishes to and if that is possible, he doesn’t have to; and Paul would prefer that he remain in his condition and serve Christ in that condition.

Paul’s failure to note the fact of a natural, homosexual inclination does not affect the authenticity of his doctrine any more than not realizing that the earth moves. Today we are coming to recognize that the natural occurrence of same-sex attraction as a reflex is not unlike the reflexive preference for the left hand by some people. Hence Paul would today call for unions of Christian homosexuals just as he called for marriages of Christian heterosexuals, so that they might not burn with passion.

At the time of Paul it seemed natural for everyone to be straight because sexual energy was needed to fuel more children to offset the high mortality rate at that time. Today the situation is quite different; we need less people and less children. Thanks to the homosexual inclination, we could have up to 10% of our populations living in intimate unions, but which would result in no children and would accomplish this without need for abortion or contraceptive devices or drugs or surgeries or even the most ineffectual of all: personal restraint (and all of these are highly unnatural). Indeed it could very well be that the homosexual, so decried by many Christians as a curse, is actually a blessing bestowed by a benevolent nature upon an ungrateful and undeserving world to mitigate the problems of overpopulation due entirely to the excesses of the heterosexual majority.

Philip McPherson Rudisill