Dear Editor:

I thank Dr. Tilford for taking the time in responding to my letter. He answered quite well his thoughts on so-called "homosexual behavior." Although I take issue with his statement "All homosexual activity is an abomination according to the Bible" since the Bible does not use the word homosexual at all and such a concept was not really known in those ancient times like it is today.

Putting that aside, I did not get a full answer to my question that he quoted: "what constitutes acceptable intimate behavior between two people (gay or straight) who are single?". The straight side of the equation was completely ingnored expect for his reference to Paul's First Letter to Timothy which would lead me to conclude that only a married man with children should be ordained in the PC (USA). I find it hard to believe that most people in the PC (USA) would agree to such a conclusion. And I should hope they would have problems with the question of women in the church and favorable references to the PCA in that matter.

In the interest of further dialog (another Presbyterian tradition), I will point out Dr. Tilford's statement: "There are fundamental biological complementarities between men and women that reflect God's design for human sexuality." Dr. Tilford ignores the fact that sexual expression is not limited to nor necessarily includes intercourse. As I have expressed before we have the intimate touching, kissing, and other forms such as oral sex (forgive me for being so explicit). For many those are the only forms and intercourse is not the only thing or may not even be involved at all. So the question here is where is the proof that these other forms of expression are not compatible biologically between two people of the same sex? How is it different when this is done between two people of the opposite sex?

And of course we have the emotional aspect of deep love between two human beings. This is something that transcends biology for it is in many ways like our faith in God. We certainly don't limit God to simple biology or humanity's views of the world do we? If we did we wouldn't believe in God. So why should we do the same with the expression of love between two human beings?

In closing, the reference I made to the Presbyterian tradition of agreeing to disagree goes back to the theological debates of the 1920's. It is my understanding that a sort of compromise was reached. Being that our Presbyterian system is similar to that of the United States where compromises are also common I don't see how one can say this is not Presbyterian. For we don't have the traditions of where a king (or pope) or princes (bishops), or others in power or individuals (Dr. Earl Tilford or Deacon Earl Apel) have the absolute say. Praise God for that!

Yours in Christ,