SUPPORTING STATEMENT

By Donald M. Malone

For a Petition

To Conform the Discipline's Provisions on Homosexuality

with The Second Great Commandment,

as Elaborated by Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ


Introduction. In The New Testament and Homosexuality (1983), on page 7, New Testament Professor Robin Scroggs states that "...the so-called liberal...must come to terms with the biblical message and, as persuasively as possible, explain why he or she does not interpret or value its message as do others." That is the purpose of this supporting statement.

An approach used in this statement appears similar to one explained on page 9 of Professor Scroggs' book. It was "used by Luther, among others, and can be called the 'analogy of faith.' According to this principle, the heart of the Bible is its central message(s)-however the interpreter decides what is central. This primary gospel is then used as a principle to evaluate other more specific or less essential parts of Scripture. If these parts are consonant with the central message, they can be accepted; if not, they may be ignored or judged inferior to the primary revelation." (However, Scroggs' book does not attempt this approach. See page 124.) Consistent with this approach, the Delegates are urged to begin their application of the New Testament to persons of homosexual orientation with the passages identified by Jesus, Himself, as most important to living our earthly lives, rather than with passages in the Epistles of Paul which may have been mistranslated or misunderstood (more below). These passages identified by Jesus are "central."

The Second Great Commandment. The first three Gospels tell us that Jesus identified two commandments as the greatest (Mark 12:28-31; Matt. 22:34-40; Luke 10:25-28). According to the passage from Matthew, Jesus, when asked "which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" answered: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (All Biblical quotations are taken from the New International Version (NIV), unless otherwise stated.) Both these commandments came from the Old Testament (Deut. 6:5, and Lev. 19:18); note that Jesus also stated that the Old Testament, in effect, is subsumed within them. See also Romans 13:9-10, in which Paul stated, in part: "The commandments...are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

Elaboration by Jesus. Of course, the Second Great Commandment is rather general, as set forth in Mark and Matthew. Fortunately, Luke tells us that Jesus was asked: "And who is my neighbor?" This question is important to us because Jesus' response (Luke 10:30-37) can help us understand the limits of the commandment. It starts, but does not end, with a familiar parable which we call the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Because the parable is so familiar, and its central message is obscured by typical translations into English, its importance in defining the scope of the Second Great Commandment is not as apparent as it should be to many who read the Bible.

Christians often focus on how good the Samaritan was, getting a "warm and fuzzy feeling" inside when remembering the parable; few think of it as the answer to a question. Those who heard the parable when Jesus first taught it were Jews; their hearts were challanged, not warmed, by it. On page 135 of his printed study guide for an audio-visual Bible-study course entitled More Parables of Jesus (1987), Edward W. Bauman states: "we are in danger of missing the devastating impact of the [parable] on those who first heard it because the words, 'priest, Levite, and Samaritan' have little meaning for us today. In the time of Jesus, Jews and Samaritans hated one another with a searing hatred that was centuries old." This quotation is followed by examples, including, "the Samaritans were publicly cursed in the synagogues...." On page 160 of Rediscovering the Parables (1966), Joachim Jeremias states: "the Samaritans, between AD 6 and 9, at midnight during a Passover, had defiled the temple court by strewing dead men's bones; and there was irreconcilable hostility on both sides. Hence it is clear that Jesus intentionally chose an extreme example...."

Jesus used this "extreme example" in His answer to the question "And who is my neighbor?" He had His questioner specify that the Samaritan was the neighbor to the Jew, then told him, "Go and do likewise." Note that the questioner could not bring himself to use the word "Samaritan," (as Jeremias points out on page 161) indicating his enmity towards them. Thus, according to Luke, Jesus said that the second, of what He called the greatest commandments, meant that those He taught were to love even Samaritans, despite their actual loathing of them.

This parable's challange, to those Jesus was teaching, parallels passages in His Sermon on the Mount. In Chapter 5 of Matthew, verses 21 through 48, Jesus repeatedly said: "You have heard that it was said.... But I tell you...." In each instance, Jesus set a higher standard of conduct than that of the passage of Scripture He started with, just as His parable set a higher standard for the Second Great Commandment. Indeed, the last example of this approach, appearing in verses 43 through 48, restated the message of the parable with stronger emphasis. In part, Jesus said: "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your heighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.... Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Quality of Translation. The "extreme nature" of Jesus' example is not clear to the casual reader of most translations of this parable. No doubt the English-language word "Samaritan" is an accurate transliteration of the Greek New Testament text, and of the Aramaic word Jesus used. But, as the quotation from Rev. Bauman above explained, it is not an adequate translation, because it fails to inform the reader of the impact Jesus' example had on those who listened. On page 751, The Oxford Companion to the Bible (1993) sets forth a "practical" objective for translation of the Bible as follows: "'The readers or hearers of a translation should be able to comprehend how the original readers or hearers of a text must have understood and appreciated it.'" The traditional English-language transliteration totally fails to achieve this practical objective.

Consequently, another word needs to be substituted for the word "Samaritan," so that the translation of this parable into English may place readers and hearers in the shoes of those who first heard it. Until a better word appears, the word "outcast" is suggested. Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition (1950) defines the word in part to mean: "One who is cast out or expelled; an exile; one driven from home, society, or country...." That is what Samaritans were to the Jews who heard Jesus teach this parable, which is why Jesus chose one of them to be a neighbor to the Jew beset by robbers, in order to be, as Jeremias put it, "an extreme example."

Today's Outcasts. The "extreme example" facing the United Methodist Church today, and most other denominations as well, is obvious from their treatment of those of homosexual sexual orientation. It seems clear, from provisions of the Discipline for the year 2000, that these persons are outcasts to a majority of the membership of our denomination. Despite some soothing provisions, they are barred from opportunities available to heterosexuals. They may not be accepted as candidates for ministry, ordained as ministers or appointed to serve in the denomination (¶ 304.3), nor may homosexual union ceremonies be conducted (¶ 332.6). These prohibitions, on their face, are not consistent with the Second Great Commandment, as elaborated by Jesus to include those as despised as Samaritans were in Jesus' time, nor with His Sermon on the Mount. This statement will show that the heterosexual majority of the United Methodist Church has not used the Discipline to manifest love as commanded by Jesus; instead, it is an instrument of discrimination and hypocrisy.

Defining Homosexuality in Biblical Terms. Discussions of difficult subjects become only more difficult when participants use imprecise meanings or apply different meanings to the same words. This topic will define the term "homosexual sexual orientation," and also substitute for it the simpler term "innate homosexuality." The definition is based on a passage in both the Old and New Testaments that describes one of the purposes of human sexuality, namely, to make one of two.

According to Matthew 19:4-6 (see also Mark 10:6-8), when asked about divorce, Jesus quoted Genesis 1:27, followed by Genesis 2:24, as follows: "at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh[.]' So they are no longer two, but one." This passage is at minimum a veiled allusion to the sexual union that supports and strengthens most marriages through thick and thin. Lawrence O. Richards' Expository Dictionary of Bible Words (1985), at page 433, explains the words "one flesh" as follows: "The Hebrew expression 'one flesh' includes sexual union but suggests far more. Husband and wife are united in their life on earth, sharing all experiences that come." Three paragraphs later: "Marriage not only serves to populate the earth through reproduction (Ge 1:28) but it is also designed by God to meet the need of human beings for sharing." It is interesting that Jesus did not quote Genesis 1:28, or otherwise mention the procreative purpose of marriage. He clearly did endorse the role of human sexuality in making one of two. See also the 1970 marriage manual of the United Methodist Church, To Love and to Cherish, which describes this role on page 72: "Sexual relationship is a union of two personalities, a physical expression of self-giving love. Even though we may not completely understand it, it can unite two persons in love and trust as nothing else can do."

Definition. In this statement, a person is deemed to have a homosexual sexual orientation, or to be "innately homosexual," if that person is incapable of achieving oneness through sexual relations, i.e. "one flesh," with a member of the opposite gender, but can only achieve it with a member of his or her own gender. It is important to note that this definition depends on a person's romantic or erotic feelings of attraction, i.e. a person's inner state, rather than on a person's actions. Consequently, the mere fact that a person has engaged in a homosexual act does not, by itself, make that person innately homosexual as this statement uses the term.

On page 11 of the second edition of Is It a Choice? (1999), Eric Marcus states, "Gay and lesbian people don't choose their feelings of sexual attraction, just as heterosexual people don't choose theirs. All of us become aware of our feelings of attraction as we grow...." Accepting that one is innately homosexual is not done lightly; on page 18, Marcus states: "The condemnation of homosexuality in our society is so great that many, if not most, gay and lesbian people pretend to be heterosexual, at least for part of their lives." See also pages 27-29. Such pretenses are regrettable, as they only add to the confusion in our society on the subject of homosexuality. Incidentally, on page 10, Marcus estimates "that approximately 5 percent of men and about half that number of women have a same-gender sexual orientation, whether or not they express it....But whatever the actual figures, there are certainly millions of gay and lesbian people in the United States."

On page 126, Scroggs states: "The ideal, at least, of adult homosexuality today, certainly within Christian groups, is that of a caring and mutual relationship between consenting adults." As will be explained later, Scroggs contrasts this ideal with homosexual practices during New Testament times. To show actual conduct supporting the ideal, Scroggs quotes at length the results of a 1978 study by A. Bell and M. Weinberg, including the following: "Our data indicate that a relatively steady relationship with a love partner is a very meaningful event in the life of a homosexual man or woman." While this may not be true for every innate homosexual, it also is not true, regrettably, for every heterosexual person.

Because this definition is based on feelings of attraction and the ability to achieve a lifetime sense of oneness, rather than actions, it's use does not condone homosexual activities between persons who are not innately homosexual, nor condone casual sexual activities regardless of the participants' orientations. Of course, for most of us in today's culture this sense of oneness cannot be achieved with just anyone; it must be with the "right" person, each drawn to the other in many ways, such as romantic, erotic, shared interests, mutual respect, etc. But if a person has come to the realization through experience with his or her feelings of attraction, introspection, prayer, and perhaps counseling that the "right" person must be of one's own gender, that person is innately homosexual.

Significance of Gender References. Some may object to the use of a teaching on marriage between a man and a woman to define innate homosexuality on the grounds that Jesus intended the passage to apply only to heterosexual sexuality. Surely, Jesus was talking about heterosexual marriage, as that was the subject raised by the question on divorce. But to infer that the passage cannot be used in any way to shed light on homosexual sexuality is to read one's own prejudices into the words of Jesus. Jesus did not speak like a lawyer (some will say, "Thank goodness!"); He did not pepper his teachings with conditions and whereases inapplicable to the matter before Him. He was not trying to write legislation or regulations; He was teaching those before Him directly and simply. He focussed on those He was teaching, e.g. using an "extreme example" to Jews in His parable explaining the scope of the Second Great Commandment (see "Elaboration by Jesus" above).

Luke 17:3 tells us that Jesus said: "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him." Is this passage inapplicable to women? Jesus didn't mention them, presumably because He was teaching a group of men at the time, and in the culture of the times the sins He had in mind were more likely to be committed by another man known by the one sinned against. In His description of the Last Judgment, Jesus, at Matthew 25:40, states: "'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'" Are we to understand from this passage that good done for women doesn't count at the last judgment? If there is any doubt, it should be answered by Jesus' response when He was specifically asked about the proper role of a woman, Mary, who was listening to His teachings while her sister Martha labored at preparations (Luke 10:38-42). In listening to His teachings, Jesus said: "Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her." We should not be quick to infer exclusiveness into the teachings of the One who taught: "Love your enemies...." (Matthew 5:44).

Judging What to Believe. Some delegates may be unwilling to accept that there is such a thing as innate homosexuality, as defined above. They may feel that homosexual activities are performed solely by rebellious people who want to defy fundamental religious and cultural norms (see Marcus, page 11). Indeed, some persons may be so motivated for their actions; but, they are not innately homosexual. Nevertheless, if Marcus' estimate of numbers is at all reasonable, too many persons claim innate homosexuality for their claims to be dismissed lightly. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:1-2), Jesus said: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged...." The Abingdon Bible Commentary (1929) reviews this passage on page 967, saying "To arrogate to oneself the function of a censor of other people's conduct, especially when one's own life is far from blameless, has a demoralizing influence on character. It breeds arrogance and a sense of superiority-the deadly enemies of humility and self-examination and the sworn foes of tolerance and kindly sympathy." In the next paragraph, the commentary says of verses 1 & 2, "In exercising the sacred function of judgment we must ever remember that we are to appear before the august and holy tribunal of God."

Admittedly, science is still uncertain in many ways about innate homosexuality. Nevertheless, according to Scroggs, at page 12, "While there does not appear to be agreement amongst psychologists or sociologists as to cause, there is broad agreement among some of them that 'the genuine [innate] homosexual condition, or inversion,...is something for which the subject can in no way be held responsible....'" See also Marcus, pages 13-14, for determinations by professional associations that innate homosexuality is not a mental illness. While some persons say they have overcome homosexual inclinations, others' efforts have failed and led to serious consequences (Marcus, pages 142-143, chronicling an effort that eventually was ended by suicide). Delegates who dismiss this professional opinion and personal testimony, according to the passage from the Sermon on the Mount quoted above, run the risk that their understandings of themselves will be equally dismissed by God. Put another way, a person who insists on proof beyond a reasonable doubt that innate homosexuality exists and that innate homosexuals "can in no way be held responsible" for their condition may be required to prove his or her own worthiness beyond a reasonable doubt when appearing "before the august and holy tribunal of God," an impossible task for most of us.

Innate Homosexuals are Different-the Implications of that Difference. The difference, that has led the United Methodist Church to exclude innate homosexuals from important indicia of love bestowed on the heterosexual majority, is that innate homosexuals are incapable of achieving with a member of the opposite gender the sense of oneness with a lifetime partner that heterosexuals take for granted, if the "right" partner is found. This really is the only difference (see Marcus, pages 19-22). On page 20, Marcus states: "By and large, gay and lesbian people, like all people, come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and ages, as well as degrees of masculinity and femininity." Yet some feel that homosexual actions are inherently wrong for all people, regardless of their circumstances. To the extent that social forces based on these feelings drive innate homosexuals into pretending to be heterosexuals (see Marcus, page 18), they are being driven from what Scroggs calls "inversion" to "perversion." On page 12, Scroggs explains a line of argument to the effect that a person "with a homosexual orientation" "may be called an invert" [inferentially while engaged in homosexual acts]. "In contrast, a pervert is said to be a person who engages in acts contrary to his or her orientation. Thus a heterosexual person who engages in homosexual activity is a pervert, just as a[n innate] homosexual person would be who engages in heterosexual acts." Those who encourage innate homosexuals to engage in heterosexual sexual acts are encouraging them to engage in sin, because such an act cannot lead to the sense of oneness which is one of the purposes of human sexuality.

Some accept that there are innate homosexuals, but take the position that they must avoid all sexual acts, even though heterosexual sexual acts are appropriate within heterosexual marriage, because homosexual sexual acts are deemed always wrong. This posture by heterosexuals in effect says, "we can have this sense of oneness promised by both the Old and New Testaments, while you can't, because of the differences from us inherent in your innate homosexuality." Heterosexuals who take this position are not loving innate homosexuals as they love themselves, because they deny to homosexuals an opportunity which they take for granted for themselves. To the extent that the Discipline supports or enforces this approach, it is contrary to the Second Great Commandment, as elaborated by Jesus, as well as His Sermon on the Mount (explained above at pages 1-3).

Alternatively, heterosexual United Methodists are using the Discipline to place a heavy burden on innate homosexuals, while offering them no constructive way to experience their innate sexuality. Jesus condemned Pharisees for this approach in Matthew 23:4, as follows: "They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them." It is ironic that the Discipline requires careful consideration to avoid barriers that would "impede the full participation of people with disabilities" (¶¶2532.6 & 2543.4c & d). As further irony, the Discipline, ¶ 161G [first sub-paragraph], recognizes "that sexuality is God's good gift to all persons [emphasis supplied]." Yet those who are differently enabled from heterosexuals by virtue of innate homosexuality are burdened further by the Discipline, and are told in effect that there is no way they can use this "good gift" and be compatible with Christian teaching.

Finally, it must be noted that most heterosexuals do not condemn all heterosexual acts; instead they consider the context in which the acts occur (e.g. within marriage is good; rape, adultery, promiscuity, abuse of young people, etc. are all bad. (See also the Discipline ¶ 161G, Human Sexuality). Heterosexuals who make these distinctions for heterosexual acts, while condemning all homosexual acts, regardless of the circumstances and orientation of the persons involved, commit the sin of hypocrisy. Matthew 23:27-28 explains how egregious this sin is.

Comparing the Discipline to the Teachings of Jesus. Under provisions of the Discipline on homosexuality, the heterosexual majority does not love innate homosexuals as its members love themselves. Because these provisions deny innate homosexuals lifetime committed relationships which include the sense of oneness available to members of the heterosexual majority, they are inconsistent with the extent or scope of love described in both the Second Great Commandment as elaborated by Jesus, and the Sermon on the Mount. The scope of our denomination's love for those who are differently enabled by virtue of obvious physical disability is great. Those of us who can walk do not say to those who are wheelchair bound, "We love you as we love ourselves when we say that everyone who wants to worship in our sanctuary must climb these stairs; after all, that's what we do." Yet our heterosexual majority denies the sense of oneness, available through committed monogamous exercise of human sexuality, to those who are differently enabled by innate homosexuality. The scope of the United Methodist Church's love for those who are differently enabled varies with the majority's degree of hostility towards the enablement, contrary to Jesus' teachings on love of even those who are loathed. Finally, these same provisions place a burden on the lives of innate homosexuals, denying them the exercise of human sexuality with the only people with whom they can achieve the objective of becoming "one flesh," while encouraging heterosexuals to achieve the same objective within matrimony, contrary to Jesus' condemnation of hypocrisy. Supporters of these provisions cite other passages of the Bible to justify them. In an effort to keep common understandings of certain passages from deterring adherence to the teachings of Jesus, this statement reviews those in the New Testament, relying upon both a better understanding of homosexual practices in New Testament times, and the "analogy of faith" (See Introduction, page 1).

Old Testament Passages. While Scroggs discusses passages from the Old Testament on pages 70-75, he concludes on page 124 that: "our primary focus must be on the statements in the New Testament rather than the Old." This posture is supported by Jesus, in his explanation of the Great Commandments, and by Paul as well (see The Second Great Commandment, page 1), and is consistent with the "analogy of faith" approach, centered on Jesus' priorities. That is why this statement reviews only the New Testament specific references to some type of homosexual behavior; all are in the Pauline Epistles.
 

The Epistles of Paul. The New Testament passages interpreted by some as condemning all innate homosexuals, and prohibiting all homosexual acts, are 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Romans 1:24-27; and 1 Timothy 1:10. What they actually refer to is not as clear as proponents of this interpretation believe. As will be seen, this review relies heavily (but not exclusively) on Professor Scroggs' 1983 book, The New Testament and Homosexuality. To Scroggs (page 122), the ultimate issue "is the legitimacy of using New Testament judgments about a particular form and model of homosexuality to inform decisions about the acceptability of a contemporary form of homosexuality, which projects an entirely different model. Since the models are so different, some would say mutually exclusive, it cannot be a foregone conclusion that the New Testament can be helpfully used in today's discussion without seriously violating the integrity of the New Testament itself." First, it must be understood that by "New Testament," Scroggs means only the three passages from Paul's epistles identified above (pages 99-100). Second, by "contemporary form of homosexuality," Scroggs means "a caring and mutual relationship between consenting adults," as quotations on page 4 above show. The third point, what Scroggs means by "New Testament judgments about a particular form and model of homosexuality," will be sketched out briefly below; for details, consult Professor Scroggs' book.

Homosexual Practices During New Testament Times. On page 126, Scroggs states: "...in the Greco-Roman world, there was one basic model of male homosexuality." On page 18, he states: "The class we know about [that is, the one that wrote the texts available to scholars today, see page 17] practiced a very specific form of homosexuality. It is named pederasty, literally the 'love of boys.'" In addition (on page 27), "many adult pederasts were or would be married and carry on sexual relationships with both sexes." As Scroggs describes these homosexual practices, there was in fact a spectrum of relationships. At the "higher" end, the emphasis was on education and a kind of mentoring, with sexual activity nonexistent, or at least secondary. But, where sexual activity did occur, the adult male was the one gratified, while the youth was not (page 32). As some adult males exploited their passive youth more, educated them less and switched youthful partners more often, one moves down the spectrum, finding it anchored at the other end by activities between adult men and what Scroggs calls "effeminate call-boys," who mostly were really young male prostitutes (page 40). It should be obvious that these homosexual acts are not the relationships sought by Christian innate homosexuals today, and that many participants then were not necessarily innate homosexuals.

Scroggs is convincing in his analysis of the passage from I Corinthians, concluding that the phrase "nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders" is intended to refer to pederasty between effeminate call-boys and their adult clients. The Greek word translated in the NIV by the words "homosexual offenders" is actually intended to refer only to the active adult male role in a coupling with a young male prostitute (pages 108-9), not to any other homosexual activities, and certainly not to innate homosexuals who avoid prostitutes ("Nothing could be further from the model aspired to by the gay community today." Page 109). Similarly, he concludes that the Greek words from the passage from I Timothy translated in the NIV by the words "for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders" "would thus fit together and could be translated: 'male prostitutes, males who lie [with them], and slave-dealers [who procure them].'" (Page 120; the analysis starts at page 118; the square brackets are Scroggs'.) The NIV does not link the Greek word translated as "slave traders" with the two preceding words. Scroggs responds in a footnote, pointing out that "Should 'kidnapper' ["slave traders" in the NIV] not be related to the preceding words in some fashion, it would be unique in this list, since all the other words have some connection with a previous or following word."

It is not as clear from its wording that the passage in the first chapter of Romans is based on the pederastic model. Scroggs describes, starting on page 92, Hellenistic Jewish literature apparently linking all major Gentile vices with worship of idols. The two verses of Romans referring to some form(s) of homosexuality are part of a larger discussion of the consequences of worshiping idols, rather than the real God, starting at Romans 1:18. Scroggs argues, beginning on page 109, that Paul (1) may have been influenced while crafting the passage by this Hellenistic Jewish literature, and (2) did not intend to set rules of conduct. Whether or not this is so, Scroggs is convinced that Paul had pederasty in mind in his condemnation of male homosexual acts motivated by "lust" in Romans 1:27. Romans 1:26, in condemning unspecified acts of "lust" by women, may have been intended to show that both women and men suffered from worshipping false gods. The word "lust" shown in quotation marks above is the word used by the NIV in translating Romans 1:26-27.

In addition to Scroggs' analysis, two more points should be considered. Paul, for all we know, may have been referring to homosexual acts (whether or not pederastic) performed as part of rites of worship of pagan gods. If so, we should expect Paul, raised to have no other gods before the one true God, to condemn the acts for that reason alone. Also, it should be noted that Paul refers to "lusts," not the kind of love that makes for a sense of oneness in a lifelong relationship. Consequently, Paul's statements in Romans, whatever they do mean, do not clearly condemn the kind of monogamous lifelong committed relationships sought by Christian innate homosexuals today.

Interpreting Paul in the Light of the Teachings of Jesus. Those who interpret the Pauline passages discussed above as condemning all homosexuals and forms of homosexual acts are placing Paul at odds with Jesus' elaboration of the Second Great Commandment, and His teachings about loving one's enemies in His Sermon on the Mount. At least one of Paul's teachings on women is a source of real trouble in a sister denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention. The Convention is under the sway of those who wish to institutionalize the following passage from 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." We know from Luke 10:38-42 (see Significance of Gender References, page 5) that Jesus had no such view of women as inferior (fortunately, neither does the Discipline). Oddly, other teachings in the same epistle reflect equality (e.g., chapter 7, verses 3-5). To the extent Paul is interpreted as urging such treatment, those who follow Jesus must dismiss the passage under the "analogy of faith," saying either that Paul is being misunderstood, or that he misunderstood Jesus. The latter is not such a terrible criticism, because Paul didn't have the benefit of the Gospels as he carried out his ministry; we do, and must be guided accordingly.
 

While it is hard to "interpret around" Paul's statement about the behavior of women in church, and thus to escape the appearance of conflict with the teachings of Jesus, the same is not true of the references to some form of homosexual acts in the three Pauline passages discussed above. The latter are not clearly condemnatory of the sexual relationship desired today by Christian innate homosexuals; rather, they are interpreted as being so by those who regard being different from the "norm" as a sufficient basis for condemnation. Those who so interpret Paul do him no favor, because they are putting Paul again at odds with the teachings of Jesus.

Tradition. Tradition is one of the four parts of the United Methodist Quadrilateral, but it certainly should not outrank the teachings of Jesus where there is a conflict. There was a time when tradition supported the enslavement of Africans, based on differences in appearance and culture from which they were deemed inferior to the white majority. More recently, tradition, and the Discipline with its Central Conference, supported racial segregation. From these examples, it should be obvious that invoking "tradition" to justify excluding a class of people-who differ in some way from the majority of our denomination-from the love God wants us to give to all of our neighbors is neither good for those who exclude, nor for other traditions that are worth keeping.

Disgust. Some heterosexuals maintain that some homosexual practices are so disgusting to them that the practices must be wrong. Do they devote equal energy to ensuring that heterosexuals avoid these "disgusting" practices? Does the United Methodist Church examine heterosexual candidates for ordination carefully to exclude any that have engaged or may engage in these same practices heterosexually? If not, hypocrisy is again being committed, contrary to the frequent admonitions of Jesus. Do we not find public display of most heterosexual practices disgusting and pornographic, while finding them acceptable in private in matrimony? Yet the heterosexual majority is unwilling to apply this distinction to the innately homosexual minority, again committing hypocrisy.

We may contemplate with disgust the process by which one has a hole (stoma) cut through the wall of the abdomen, to which a portion of the small intestine (ileostomy) or large intestine (colostomy) is attached, and from which waste products are collected in a plastic bag. Nevertheless, these procedures are necessary responses to diseases such as ulcerative colitis, or rectal cancer. As long as the patient is reasonably discrete in the management of the process, most United Methodists put this potential source of disgust out of their minds. Some of us may be disgusted by seeing a partially paralyzed person being hand-fed in public, and question whether the public should be subjected to what is sometimes an unpleasant-looking sight. Yet, as United Methodists, we know the disabled have as much right to eat in public as we do, and, that any such feelings must be squelched. Thus we are willing to put aside any feelings of disgust that might arise when a person's different enablement is an obvious physical disability. Yet the heterosexual majority is unwilling to do the same for those differently enabled by innate homosexuality, denying them the opportunity to experience "God's good gift" to support a lifetime monogamous relationship. The heterosexual majority of our denomination is unwilling to love innate homosexuals as much as it loves its own members, or as much as it loves the physically disabled, violating the Second Great Commandment, the Sermon on the Mount, and Jesus' numerous criticisms of hypocrisy.

Conclusion. Provisions of the Discipline on homosexuality, identified in the body of the petition, are inconsistent with the Second Great Commandment as elaborated by Jesus, and other teachings of Jesus noted above. Portions of the Pauline Epistles condemning some kinds of homosexual acts are condemning acts in contexts so different from relationships envisioned by Christian innate homosexuals today, according to Professor Scroggs, that it seriously violates the integrity of the New Testament to use those passages to condemn current relationships. In any event, under the "analogy of faith," Pauline passages should not be used to contradict the central teachings of Jesus. Thus, this statement urges adoption of amendments to make these provisions consistent with the teachings of Jesus. The Delegates are reminded of the urgency Jesus imparted in the parables of the Supervising Servants (Matthew 24:45-51) and the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1-13); the Discipline should be amended at this General Conference, if those teachings are to be honored.\