Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: modern Christianity's lack of responses to Boswell
Message-ID: <4762@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Feb-85 11:15:24 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4762
Posted: Fri Feb  8 11:15:24 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 07:46:34 EST
References: <4935@fortune.UUCP> <4720@cbscc.UUCP>, <278@bbnccv.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 138


>[from Steve Dyer:]
>... To my mind, the topic is too aversive
>to many who should be reading the book, and the implications too
>frighteningly revolutionary to risk being persuaded by the evidence
>he presents.  In a curious way, modern Christianity is trying to neutralize
>Boswell's arguments without being "contaminated" by them, and that is
>to ignore them and feign ignorance of the book and its conclusions.

Steve,

I think you're going to have to wait a little longer to get a response
from the "traditional audience" for Boswell's scholarship.  Boswell's
book is only 3 or 4 years old.  There are other reasons besides willful
ignorance for the lack of response thus far.  The nature of Boswell's book
seems to be such as to require much time and effort for an effective
response.  Scholars are going to have to justifiy this effort.  I think
that the lack of impact of Boswell's book thus far upon Christian thought
and public opinion prevents them from justifying the time spent rebutting
Boswell's arguments.  A segment of that gay community has championed him,
but apparently not too many others have yet.  If I'm not mistaken, some
of the criticism in the early reviews of Boswell's book came from those
sympathetic to the gay cause, even from gays themselves.

It is easy to make outspoken Christian activists the heavies for injustices
brought agains gays.  But I think the resistance to gays is more pervasive
than that.  Rightly or wrongly, the general public is less than sympathetic
to the gay rights cause.  There are many people whose disdain for the gay
lifestyle stems from asthetics rather than any religious doctrine.  In fact,
I think homophobia has its roots in asthetic considerations for most people.
Doctrines are ofen used to justify and objectivfy those feelings of disdain.

I think that Boswell's book has simply not had enought influence yet to
push opposing Scholars into devoting time to a response.  It may be a poor
excuse for not responding (pragmatically rather than intellectually
justified), but that's human nature.  Would you be so concerned about what
Jerry Falwell says if you thought no one was listening to him?  Probably not.
There would be other things to demand your attention.  I think that as
Boswell's ideas continue to be championed by gays and are pushed more and
more into the mainstream, the responses from conservative Christian 
scholars will come.  It's too early for you to stand on Boswell's book
and claim victory.

>This is unfortunate, and it serves no one well in the long run.
>Scholarship never advances in a vacuum.  I am sure that most people
>who have read the book would like nothing more than to see some
>intelligent responses from the Christian mainstream and the dialogue
>which it would engender.  To present evidence against Boswell's own
>and argue it persuasively, is not necessarily to be labelled a
>"homophobe", nor do I think that label would dissuade anyone with a
>serious opinion of the work from presenting it.

I agree whole heartedly with the first two sentences here, but I have a
very hard time believing the rest of it, based on my own attempt at
dialogue in net.motss.  I'm sure you remember that, Steve.  Do you
want my perception of that experience?

You invoke a double standard when you demand that Christians should
lay their biblical beliefs that homosexual practice is immoral on the
table for open discussion while, at the same time, refusing to do so
(even on a non-religious basis) in net.motss.  I took my first (and
probably last) plunge into discussion in net.motss by responding to
a fellow who claimed a scientific basis for homosexual behaviour (i.e.
that it is an intrisic part of their nature).  I took issue with the
the idea that all homosexuals could claim this as a justification for
their sexual preference.

Then you entered the debate, Steve (as well as others who sent me
hate mail and insulted me in followup articles--you were more reasonable,
however).  At first you ignored the substance of my article and dismissed
my argument as being religiously based simply because you knew I was
an evangelical Christian from articles I posted in other newsgroups.
When I took issue with that we exchanged a few articles in discussion.
You entered the discussion claiming not to care whether homosexuality
was intrinsic or nurtured.  Yet when I suggested a means for nurturing
based on an established psychological model of reinforcing and negating
filters, you simply ridiculed it; claiming I made the whole thing up.

It wasn't long before I realized that discussion of the moral issues
connected with homosexuality was very unwelcome in net.motss.  When I
tried to bow out of the discusion early, you called me a coward;
claiming I started the discussion and should finish it.  I did continue
for another round or two.  In response to my last article (Really!)
you indicated that we could continue our discussion "off line" (i.e.
by mail).  I sent you mail indicating that I was willing to do this
and asking if you really meant what you said.  You changed your mind
because "we don't have much in common".  I agree that we probably don't
have much in common with regard to the issue at hand, but that is
the whole impetus for discussion.   You ignored my last letter to you,
I think.

The only thing I could gather from your actions and those of others in
net.motss is that your main desire was to stifle opposing argument in
that newsgroup.  You don't put your views of homosexuality on the table
for examination as readily as you expect "Christianoids" to put theirs up.
My impression is that you are for open and serious discussion only as
long it is not on your turf and the "ball" is in your opponent's court.
When you think you have good reason that discussion will advance your
cause, you are all for it.  When you are asked to consider your own beliefs
and values about the subject in question, it's a different story.

>So, Paul, the ball is squarely in the Church's court.  As good as
>are Ron Rizzo's summaries of the book and lectures by Boswell, I
>invite you again to pick up the original, if you intend to address
>its points.  It's in most college and religious bookstores (at least
>the liberal Seabury kinds) as well as your public library.  The reference
>is: Boswell, John, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality",
>University of Chicago Press, 1980.

I agree that the ball is in the Church's court.  I'm telling you why I
think it has not been tossed back as quickly as you would like.  Looking
through Ron's summaries, I have found enough exegetical errors to satisfy
me personally that Boswell's argument is probably not very sound.  Yet
I realize that I'm going to have to peruse the book to see if Boswell
is really making those mistakes.  Ron put a convenient disclaimer in his
articles saying that all errors in fact and interpretation belong to
him and not Boswell.  So responding to Ron's articles without reading
the book would probably be wasted effort.  Yet it will take more time
and effort to do it right.  On the other side of the coin, why are so
many gays who champion Boswell, holding up summaries like this as if
they ought to convice Christians that he is right?  If the summaries
to not constitute solid argument in themselves (as inferred by Ron's
disclaimer) why are opponents blamed for not responding to them?  The
only convincing value the summaries have is that Christians ought to
consider the book; not that they should be convinced that Boswell is
right.  Yet Richard Brower and even Ron defintitely seem to be expecting
the latter as well as the former.

I am not making any promises here to post a detailed examination of
Boswell's argument.  (If I do, I'm sure not going to post in in net.motss).
It's bound to be a long drawn out debate in any case.  Those kind really
wear me out though they are beneficial to me as a learning experience.
I will look fruther into Boswell's argument just to satisfy myself,
however.  I can promise you that.  I can't do anything about how other
Christians respond to (or ignore) Boswell.
-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd