Andrew Gould's Letter to the Editor ("Eil misunderstood views on homosexuality" 10/27), claims that I imply that Gould "consider[s] homosexuality a sin." If you would reread my article, Mr. Gould, you will find that I quoted your original article ("Clarifying Christianity" 10/24) each time I referred to your views. Since I let you state your views for yourself in my own article, I don't see how there can be any room for complaint. Furthermore, I wish you would do me the same favor in your article, because I don't know the part of my to which you are referring.
Secondly, Gould tries to distinguish between "denying" one's sexuality and "seeking to avoid" it. To me, these things are pretty similar. When I refer to this "denial" in my previous article, I am referring to the state of being a non-practicing homosexual. This means that yes, there are practicing homosexuals who are devoutly Jewish or Christian, even Catholics, and they do not see this as a conflict. Gould later says, "Although I disagree with it, I can respect the reasonable position that says that a marriage-like homosexual relationship is morally sound." The crux of my first Viewpoint is that you need to respect everyone's position, not just those that are close to your own. Gould commends me for my "unusual recognition that the nature of liberalism is tolerating minority views." But after mentioning this in the first paragraph, he seems to forget it for the rest of the article. How can you expect others to respect your views, Gould, if you don't respect theirs?
Neither of my articles is trying to change Gould's opinion that homosexual practice is a sin. I'm not going to try to judge who is right in this theological debate. I am only trying to show that there is no "right" answer about how the Bible should be interpreted or how to live one's life by it. Theological debates are as old as the Christianity itself. The Four Gospels are four accounts of the events of the life of Jesus, which interpret those events in different ways. The persecution and judgment of homosexual practice is equally varied.
In the 5th century CE, the church started burning people for homosexual practice. Is this what you mean by "traditional" Christian doctrine, Gould? It was done using Biblical justification, such as Leviticus 20:13, "If a man has intercourse with a man as with a woman, both commit an abomination. They must be put to death." Why do you deny this part of the Bible? Or do you think that it is right to put to death those engaging in homosexual practice? You state that you "implore the University not to discount the traditional position, which retains the worldwide and historical majority among Christians, as an evil and intolerable sentiment." I don't know of any research that establishes this "majority", and it brings up another issue: who is a Christian?
Anyone who goes to church every Sunday? Anyone whose family is Christian? Anyone who says he or she is Christian? Anyone who believes in John 3:16 and the Nicean Creed? In some ways, the Bible is to Christianity as the Constitution is to the United States. It is a rough outline that is often interpreted in different ways. Some parts of each document are even ignored or somehow circumvented on some occasions. For instance, did you know that the Constitution forbids Congress from levying taxes? Ask your parents how well the government has stuck to that one.
Some Christians, in fact, don't believe in the Old Testament (Gideon's Bible has no Old Testament). The New Testament sometimes directly conflicts with the Old Testament, as the Catholic Church has been quick to point out. It says that the Old Testament, where most of the passages on homosexuality are, is marked by blood and violence, while the New Testament is marked by peace and acceptance. For example, the Old Testament has circumcision as the mark of the covenant with God, while the New Testament has baptism. Some Christians, in fact, don't believe in the Old Testament (Gideon's Bible has no Old Testament). There are also elements of Christian worship that have nothing to do with anything in the Bible (Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, for example). How can we say that this is Christian when it's not in the Bible?
Every interpretation of the Bible and Christian practices places more importance on some things and less on others. It has to. It is everyone's responsibility, when they cite "traditional Christianity", or "what Christians believe", or "what the Bible says", to know what's actually in the Bible and the many different ways that it can be interpreted. Don't let anyone tell you how the Bible should be interpreted. Everyone should have a right to his or her own interpretation. Gould seems to make a distinction between Christian denominations that are "respectable" and those that are not, and in his Viewpoint he referred to "real Christianity (as opposed to the watered-down virtual-Unitarianism that often goes by its name)." In response to that, I'll leave you with a piece of scripture for you to interpret for yourself.
This is Luke 10:9-14. "Here is another parable that he told; it was aimed at those who were sure of their own goodness and looked down on everyone else. 'Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed this prayer: 'I thank you, God, that I am not like the rest of mankind - greedy, dishonest, adulterous - or, for that matter, like this tax-collector. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes on all that I get.' But the other kept his distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven, but beat upon his breast, saying, 'God, have mercy on me, sinner that I am.' It was this man, I tell you, and not the other, who went home acquitted of his sins. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled; and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.'"
David Eil is a sophomore who has not yet chosen a major.
