Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site bbnccv.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxb!mhuxr!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!bbnccv!sdyer From: sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: modern Christianity's lack of responses to Boswell Message-ID: <278@bbnccv.UUCP> Date: Sun, 3-Feb-85 22:16:05 EST Article-I.D.: bbnccv.278 Posted: Sun Feb 3 22:16:05 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 8-Feb-85 03:47:23 EST References: <4935@fortune.UUCP> <4720@cbscc.UUCP> Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, MA Lines: 38 Actually, the responses to the arguments in Boswell's book have not been forthcoming from what one would consider the traditional audience for this scholarship: Protestant and Catholic moral theologians, Bible scholars and Church historians. Some early reviews took issue with his background as a medieval historian, unspecialized in some of the particular times covered by his book, the early Christian era up to the 14th Century, but these were all rather ad hominem and unsubstantive, and glaringly evasive of any discussion of his conclusions. So far, there have been NO articles disputing any of his major points. Clearly it cannot be his credentials which would prevent him from being taken seriously, an assistant professor of history at Yale, and the book published by the University of Chicago Press. 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. 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. 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. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA