READERS on Writers

The article "St. Paul on Sodomy," by Rev. Kenneth McIntosh (April, 1958) brought several lengthy replies. Excerpts from some of these follow, to form another of our series under the above heading.

"Brother Grundy" writes: The article on Saint Paul is a good example of the needless anguish that can be caused by faulty translations of the Bible. The use of the word "homosexual" in the Revised Version (I Cor. 6:9, 10) is unhistorical, misleading and unjustifiable.

The word connotes indifferently those who commit homosexual acts, which the Church regards as sinful, and those who possess a homosexual constitution, condition or sensibility. The latter state is morally neutral. Neither St. Paul nor the Christian Tradition generally has, until recently (see D. Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition) paid any attention to this distinction, or that between inversion and perversion. But Paul was doubtless referring to those who indulge in homosexual acts for mere pleasure, for money or a bad motive. He seems to be aware of the Stoic doctrine of the Connate Logos and therefore could not admit that there could be such a thing as a truly homosexual nature. Here he merely spoke for his time. The real homosexual may therefore conclude that the Christian Tradition has really nothing to tell him about himself and he can feel free to look for guidance in other quarters. Here he may find Instructed Good Taste a better guide than half-digested Greek metaphysics or Hebrew eschatology.

Mr. N. of Chicago writes: I do not write as a reformer nor a crusader, for I lack the qualities of either of these, but as a Christian, an American and a free, educated person. History is filled with accounts of those who have fought for Christianity, the American Republic, the Negro, but there is none willing enough, strong enough, or "man enough" in the homosexual world to stand up in behalf of his own people and principles, so therefore, strangers to this camp must lift up the torch of human rights and liberty to these slaves of personal, social and religious bondage.

Why? Because they are so deserving? No, no man deserves liberty, except he who will defend it. I do not propose that either you or I condone any immorality, lawlessness or un-Christian virtue, but I seek fair and just treatment for all people regardless of race, color, religion, or personal feelings.

Society, as it stands today, offers nothing to the homosexual but denunciation. Économically we approve, by our silence if nothing more, of barring them from every line of endeavor-yet we admit he must work to live-or turn to crime. In education we would deny him schooling, yet we claim education should be denied no one. In religion, we deny him the altar of love and mercy and the open door of acceptance-yet we preach that religion is free to all men-that God is compassionate.

The only justifiable path for us to tread in the sight of God and the light

17