Dear Editor,

Philip Warren is disappointed in the quality of my responses to Dean Waldt. If he wants something with more biblical substance, I recommend Tricia Dykers Koenig's article "Reformed Bible Reading and Amendment 01-A" on the Covenant Network website. I haven't advanced biblical arguments in these letters, not from any lack of confidence in Scripture, but because others have already done this so well, and I assume their labors are widely known. There are many internet resources available on this issue, particularly if you're willing to surf in waters away from your home shore.

Many, of course, oppose homosexuality because of their study of Scripture. The Bible supports both positions, and persons of good will are on both sides. Eventually, though, you must decide whose arguments have more merit. It's not comfortable to sit on the fence for too long, unless you put soft chairs on it; but then it becomes more a lounge than a fence.

I used to oppose homosexuality. My mind began to change when I read J.S. Mill's Essay on Liberty. He argues that a society can only restrict the liberty of an individual when that person is harming others; apart from that criterion, individuals should be free to do as they choose. His essay opened my eyes to the ways large groups control and constrict the small groups within them, often from the highest of motives. Reading Mill sent me back to the Bible with a mind ripened for new patterns of thought. Some time later I was reading Romans 13 in daily prayer and was taken with verse 8: "One who loves another has fulfilled the law." It occurred to me that this principle--love fulfills law--transcends its context on duties to the state and could validate same-sex love, if that love were in a responsible, monogamous relationship. Not all gay love is so, but neither is all heterosexual. Some will call this interpretation a verse torn from its setting to suit alien purposes. So be it. Any writer who quotes takes the phrase from its original context and sets it to work in a new argument. The New Testament writers themselves do just this. Anyway, the change in me took place slowly over several years and included acquaintance and conversation with many, gay and straight.

I'm aware that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, as that teaching has been commonly held by the faithful. The voting on Amendment A shows that. The rule of faith weighs against same-sex intimacy. But the rule of love bends toward it. Hopefully it will bend more in the future. Perhaps in the process the rule of faith itself will grow longer and wider. History shows that Christian teaching travels over time, changes, and adapts to new settings.

Originally, I offered a response to Mr. Waldt because the tone of his letter was so angry, strident, and hostile. His second letter confirmed the first. This can't be stressed enough: the Holy Spirit is not a hostile spirit, since its fruit must be "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." This is not about being nice--so much more is at issue here than niceness. Vladimir Lossky said, "The true end of the Christian life is the acquiring of the Holy Spirit." Erasmus said, "Gentleness enables you to receive the divine Spirit."

Sincerely,