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: <4785@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 12-Feb-85 09:09:16 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.4785 Posted: Tue Feb 12 09:09:16 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 14-Feb-85 00:57:43 EST References: <4935@fortune.UUCP> <4720@cbscc.UUCP>, <278@bbnccv.UUCP> <4762@cbscc.UUCP>, <329@bbnccv.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 68 [From Steve Dyer:] >Uh, Paul, you dredged up a lot of old stuff in your reply to me unrelated >to this particular issue, so I'll take that up with you "off-line", as we >like to say. Whether or not it's unrelated to the issue of communication on these sorts of issues is a matter of perspective, I guess. I was giving you my perspective. "Off-line" it is, then. >Regarding the purpose of summaries, I would expect them to act much like >trailers for movies, to stir up interest in actually reading Boswell's work. >On the more mundane level of debate, they also are doubtlessly an attempt >to address those peculiar few who are wont to use quotes from the Bible >even more carelessly. I don't think that Ron Rizzo assumes that the >debate is finished, only that it has not been addressed, and the arguments >used previously need not be responded to still one more time. Fine, I agree that if Christians are going to oppose homosexual practice on biblical grounds they should answer Boswell's arguments and not ignore them. It did seem like Richard Brower expected Christians to be convinced by Ron's summary, however, and it was in response to him that this discussion has gotten started. >The publication of Boswell's work was a major event in 1980. It was >reviewed in most newspapers and literary magazines. Why then the lack >of attention from any of the Christian press? Clearly it cannot be >their lack of interest in the subject. No one is claiming "victory" >as you describe, but the silence is disturbing (wasn't it Thomas More who >claimed that "silence implies assent"? That didn't help him either.) >In any event, you are right to note that with enough pressure and PR, >the work will eventually have to be addressed. I hope this has encouraged >you. While it is technically true that there has been no response to Boswell's book, it's not true that his arguments have not been taken in to account. There is one book that appears to have anticipated Boswell's book: _What You Should Know About Homosexuality_, Edited by Charles W. Keysor Zondervan, 1979 220pp. $6.95 (paper) Each chapter is written by a different person qualified to write in the particular areas of Old Testament, New Testament, Church History, Biology and Psychology, Civil Rights, and Church Ministry. Keysor is the founder of *Good News* magazine, a forum for evangelical renewal in the United Methodist Church. While the book is obviously not a direct response to Boswell's book, one of the authors does respond to some Boswell's previous writing in the United Methodist publication *News*. The rest of the book seems to pretty much deal with the same issues Boswell raises. It will be be interesting to see if Boswell takes the argument of this book into account. There probably wasn't time. The manuscript of Boswell's book was probably in its final form by the time this book came out. Still, it should provide a good contrast to Boswell. There are some very strong admonitions against homophobic attitudes in the book and critique of the bad attitude the Church has had toward gays. A much needed madate for changes in the Church here. Anyway, one interesting thing in the book was the reference to Boswell as a clergyman. Is this true? In what church was he ordained? Did he leave the ministry to take his post at Yale? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd ... or is it Paul DuBois? Oh! Now *I'm* confused!