This subject addresses the biblical and moral perspectives on homosexuality within Christian preaching, often exploring themes of sin, redemption, and church discipline. Illustrations commonly use legal, pastoral, and personal narratives to discuss scriptural teachings and the tension between cultural acceptance and biblical authority (Romans 1:26-27). The topic engages with issues of identity, transformation, and the church's response to those who identify as homosexual (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
United Methodists retained 676-293 the prohibition against ordaining or appointing "self-avowed, practicing homosexuals." It reaffirms church's position that it does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers it "incompatible with Christian teaching." It will not fund any gay caucus or group. Also said AIDS is not a sin or curse from God.
Evangelical American Baptist churches in the San Francisco area are battling to expel four churches which accept homosexuality. The meaning of "Welcoming and Affirming" as stated by themselves is included, as well as news clippings about the proposed disfellowshipping.
(Issue contains several articles on AIDS)
Kent Cederberg called his father to tell him he had AIDS. Father Sven said, "Kent, have you worked this through with God? How do you stand with the Lord?" "That's all worked out," Kent said. "I asked him to forgive me and I know he has." "When God forgives, Kent, he forgets, and I can do no less. You don't have to tell me any of the details. I just want you to know that I love you."
One telephone conversation with his father was exceptionally special. Searching for a way to express his love, Sven said, "Kent, remember the story of the prodigal son? Focus on the father. He loved his son so much. When he saw him coming home, he didn't care what had happened. He didn't care if his son was clean or dirty. He just ran and threw his arms around him because he was home again. His son was home. I'm that father. That's us, and we love you." In the following days, Kent studied the parable in depth and the love of his heavenly Father. He was overwhelmed.
Kent Cederberg died May 26, 1987, age 24. The doctor arrived to confirm the death. "Doc," Sven said, "he's with the Lord. Do you have any sons, Doctor?" "Yes, two." "Go home and love them. Raise them in the Lord. Our son's with the Lord." The doctor's eyes welled up with tears. He left the room, forgetting to sign the death certificate, and Sven prayed, "Thank you, Lord, for speaking to the first person that entered the room after his death. Kent would have wanted that."
Poor Brooklyn preacher does funeral for AIDS victim. 25-30 homosexuals watched frozenly. Gave generic sermon, went to graveside. No one spoke. When he was done they didn't move. He turned to ask if there was anything further he could do for them, and one asked him to read the 23rd Psalm. A second asked for Romans 8. 'When I read to those men that nothing could separate them from the love of God, I saw some signs of emotion on their faces for the first time. Then, one after the other, they made special requests for me to read favorite passages of Scripture. I stood there for an hour reading Scripture to those homosexual men before we went to our cars.'
Homosexuals feel Christians despise them. But we must love neighbors. They need justice and non-discrimination.
Orientation must be distinguished from behavior. God does not expect them to be converted into heterosexuals. Not all prayers are answered. Tension led one Christian gay to commit suicide.
Homosexual orientation is inborn, not acquired. Biological factors cause it. Horomones may be a key. Most homosexuals do not choose it. Condition is due to fallen condition of Nature.
Romans 1 is not against "unnatural gays" but against all gay behavior. 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 may be against pedastery. Much preaching against homosexuality is due to homophobia and twists Scripture.
Covenants of love are possible among Christian homosexuals as long as there is no sex. It is not the same as marriage. Communities with this commitment are also possible. Cure for their loneliness.
The gospel is good news for homosexuals.
(Bibliography)
Writer defends equal rights for homosexuals, condemns Christian who is campaigning against it. Zaslow says it is mostly homophobia.
Buddhism teaches reality is an illusion; this can be realized by obeying an enlightened spiritual master. Can a master ignore the moral precepts of Buddhism? Osel Tendzin, leader of the Vajradhatu International Buddhist Church, largest branch of Tibetan Buddhism in the U.S., contracted AIDS four years ago but continued to have sex with men in the church. He was born Thomas Rich in Passaic, N.J. He has been asked to quit but has refused. Priest Yvonne Rand says, "There's a real confusion about whether Buddhism is or is not a tradition which emphasizes ethical behavior, particularly because of the way it's been taught in this country." In traditional Buddhism there is no doubt that sex with students, and between men, is sin.
[Discussion of Old Testament homosexuality laws from a moderate Jewish perspective]
One of the recent reviews of “The Bible Now” that was favorable on the whole criticized us on one point in our chapter on homosexuality. The reviewer said that we were liberals, with a liberal agenda, and that we had twisted the clear meaning of the biblical law to fulfill that agenda. We do what scholars are supposed to do. We go back to the evidence. So here’s the text and a summary of the evidence:
“You shall not lay a male the layings of a woman; it is a to’ebah” (offensive thing) (Leviticus 18:22).
“And a man who will lay a male the layings of a woman: the two of them have done a to’ebah (offensive thing). They shall be put to death. Their blood is on them” (Leviticus 20:13).
We just want to remind you first that this is just one point in a larger treatment of a very controversial subject, and there’s much more to the chapter. There are several points here that call for treatment: Why does the text prohibit only male homosexual acts and not female? Which acts does it forbid: only penetrative intercourse, or all acts? These are in that chapter, and they’re important, but they’re not the subject of this post.
The point on which we were thought to be “twisting” came up later in our discussion. We acknowledged that many people have recognized that these two texts pretty clearly do prohibit at least some kinds of male-male sex, but they have asked whether there is any legitimate “way out,” anything in the text that might provide for some change in the law. For example, one of our students once pointed out that it is, after all, impossible to lie with a man in the way one does with a woman -- namely, vaginal sex -- so no one can violate this commandment! That’s a clever, even fascinating idea, but why then would the commandment exist if it prohibits something that is impossible anyway? And besides, the plural phrase “a woman’s layings” (miskebê ‘issah) implies that many acts, not just vaginal sex, are included here.
Similarly, a daughter of one of the authors of this book pointed out that a homosexual man may not mind a commandment that tells him that he can’t lie with men the way he lies with women because he does not lie with women! This, too, is not a compelling argument, (though it’s clever). We considered other such arguments as well but found all of them inadequate. For left or right, liberal or conservative, gay or straight, we don’t think that we can define our way out of the question by looking for such loopholes in the law. The law really means what pretty much everyone has taken it to mean for centuries. Whatever view one takes, one must address the law fairly in terms of what it says.
So we sought to contribute another perspective that we believe can be helpful on this subject. The text identifies male homosexual acts by the technical term to’ebah, translated in English here as “an offensive thing” or in older translations as “an abomination.” This is important because most things that are forbidden in biblical law are not identified with this word. In both of the contexts in Leviticus (chapters 18 and 20), male homosexuality is the only act to be called this. (Other acts are included broadly in a line at the end of chapter 18.) So this term, which is an important one in the Bible in general, is particularly important with regard to the law about male homosexual acts.
The question is: Is this term to’ebah an absolute, meaning that an act that is a to’ebah is wrong in itself and can never be otherwise? Or is the term relative -- meaning that something that is a to’ebah to one person may not be offensive to another, or something that is a to’ebah in one culture may not be offensive in another, or something that is a to’ebah in one generation or time period may not be offensive in another -- in which case the law may change as people’s perceptions change?
When one examines all the occurrences of this technical term in the Hebrew Bible, one finds that elsewhere the term is in fact relative. For example, in the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis, Joseph tells his brothers that, if the Pharaoh asks them what their occupation is, they should say that they’re cowherds. They must not say that they are shepherds. Why? Because, Joseph explains, all shepherds are an offensive thing (to’ebah) to the Egyptians. But shepherds are not an offensive thing to the Israelites or Moabites or many other cultures. In another passage in that story, we read that Egyptians don’t eat with Israelites because that would be an offensive thing (to’ebah) to them. But Arameans and Canaanites eat with Israelites and don’t find it offensive. See also the story of the Exodus from Egypt, where Moses tells Pharaoh that the things that Israelites sacrifice would be an offensive thing (to’ebah) to the Egyptians. But these things are certainly not an offensive thing to the Israelites.
A former student of ours pointed out that right here in this text, in the broad inclusion of laws that are to’ebah at the end of Leviticus 18, are some that prohibit actions that the great patriarchs of the Bible had done. For example, Abraham marries his half-sister Sarah. He says:
“She is, in fact, my sister, my father’s daughter but not my mother’s daughter, and she became a wife to me” (Genesis 20:12).
But the law in Leviticus explicitly forbids such relations with a half-sister:
“Your sister’s nudity -- your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, born home or born outside -- you shall not expose their nudity” (Leviticus 18:9).
So what is not a to’ebah in the generation of the patriarchs has changed and become one in the generation of Moses. In a somewhat different way, the land itself can change from not being a to’ebah and can become a to’ebah as a result of the behavior of its residents on it. The prophet Jeremiah says:
“You defiled my land, and made my possession into an offensive thing (to’ebah)” (Jeremiah 2:7).
An act or an object that is not a to’ebah can become one, depending on time and circumstances. The word to’ebah does not automatically mean that something is immoral. Depending on the context, the period and the persons involved, it means that it offends some group.
Now, one might respond that the law here is different because it concerns an offensive thing to God -- and is therefore not subject to the relativity of human values. But that is actually not the case here. The Bible specifically identifies such laws about things that are divine offenses with the phrase “an offensive thing to the LORD” (to’ebat yhwh). That phrase is not used here in the law about male homosexual acts. It is not one of the laws that are identified as a to’ebah to God!
If this is right, then it is an amazing irony. Calling male homosexual acts a to’ebah was precisely what made the biblical text seem so absolutely anti-homosexual and without the possibility of change. But it is precisely the fact of to’ebah that opens the possibility of the law’s change. So, (1) whatever position one takes on this matter, left or right, conservative or liberal, one should acknowledge that the law really does forbid homosexual sex between males but not between females. And (2) one should recognize that the biblical prohibition is not one that is eternal and unchanging. The prohibition in the Bible applies only so long as male homosexual acts are perceived to be offensive. This could involve arguments and evidence from specialists in biology, psychology and culture. They are beyond our range of expertise as Bible scholars. Our task here has been to make the biblical evidence known.
*
[Original illustration at this number was deleted for being obsolete]
Value-neutral education is destroying American youth. Barbara Walters noted the decline of young people in a newscast. Colson says that the inversion of values is responsible. Moral standards and truth itself are reduced to personal choices.
One of a series in the issue dealing with homosexuals and the possibility of
changing. Interviews several leaders in the small movement.
"... an argument that makes some sense in our modern therapeutic society, but
none at all in biblical thinking [is] the claim that desires - particularly
sexual desires - have a fundamental claim on us, and that those who cannot
fulfill their desires must be unfulfilled."
#951
*
Looks at the study of homosexuality from a scientific viewpoint. The APA took it off the mental illness list in 1974 under pressure from gays, but in 1978 a survey found that 69% of the psychiatrists still believed that homosexuality "usually represents a pathological adaptation."
Genetic factors have not been proven, though hormonal changes before birth have caused homosexual behavior in animals. Nevertheless, Jones believes these factors may predispose without predetermining. Evidence shows some homosexuals can change but it is difficult.
Issue deals with homosexuality within the American Baptist Churches. In
October 1992 the General Board approved the statement, "We affirm that the
practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching." Many
American Baptists are ignoring the Bible and being motivated by cultural
trends.
Specific passages are analyzed, as well as scientific arguments. Homosexuals
can change, as Nathan Edwards testifies. He grew up as an American Baptist
pastor's son, and felt attracted to men. A pastor told him it was OK. Many
articles he read were from a pro-gay perspective and argued the Biblical
passages did not deal with homosexuality as it is today. Edwards argues it is
a gross injustice to say there is no need for change. An ex-gay ministry
called Whitestone in Boston has been helpful to him.
Personal acceptance by homosexuals in evangelical churches is important. On
page 26 is a story of a young homosexual having an operation, and whose family
reconciled with him.
#2994
*
Barney Frank's struggles as a homosexual politician and his relationship with a male hooker. Attached article deals with our expectation of ethics in politicians.
A Lutheran church recently ordained avowed homosexuals. Writer believes they should be loved, but homosexual practice is a sin and should be labeled as such, instead of waffling.
Anglican bishop Alexander 'Muge of Kenya was to preach in church in California but remarked to the pastor that "homosexuals and lesbians have taken over the church leadership." Both the pastor and a female parishioner there said they were gay. He was not allowed to speak in the church. At a press conference 'Muge called the incident "the shock of my entire Christian life."
(see #1475) A task force of Presbyterians produced a statement promoting "justice-love" which overturns Biblical morality. Exerpts from the report are given.
Dr. Lance is professor of Old Testament interpretation at Colgate Rochester Seminary. His paper gives a thorough (and liberal) look at each Old and New Testament passage that deals with homosexuality. A key interpretive point for him is that consistency would require Christians to abstain from shrimp and adultery as well as homosexuality. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is essentially a story of rape, not perversion.
"An aspect of Paul's concept of homosexual relations has been thoroughly refuted by modern sexological study, vis., the idea that all persons are naturally heterosexual and that homosexual persons have consciously and perversely chosen to leave heterosexuality for homosexuality (Rom 1:26)."
"We have in fact modified a number of New Testament positions over the centuries. The issue of slavery . . . and the status of women in the church are perhaps the most often cited."
Homosexuals are usually rejected, but they seek acceptance and love - and
salvation.
The homosexual son of a California pastor once said,
"Christ first said to the adulterous woman: I love you.
Then he told her to change.
Churches do the opposite.
They say: Change, then we'll love you."
CT, 2/6/81, 37
A West Coast woman and her lesbian friend were at an outdoor flea market. She bought a bumper sticker that said, "Have a Nice Forever." The man who sold it to her asked if she knew Jesus Christ. She said no, and the man told her about his own life, his family, and his conversion to Christ.
She began to get very angry. Finally the woman butted in and said, "Sure God loves you. Why wouldn't he? You're dressed nice. You drive a clean car; you have short hair and a new baby. You're not a thief like me. You don't drink or skip town running from the law like me."
She was a thief, an alcoholic, a child abuser, and a homosexual. He didn't know that, so she threw it in his face. "I'm gay. A homosexual. Do you know what that means?" She was so mad she felt like hitting him, and actually did. She slugged him across the chest and he fell down.
He got up, put his hand on her shoulder, and said quietly, "Praise the Lord. What make you think you have a monopoly on sin?"
The woman could have handled any response but that one. He started talking again and she listened a long time. Finally she accepted Christ. She left her homosexual friend and her lifestyle. She said she has been tempted many times to return, and she did fall once. But after nine years, she believes she has conquered homosexuality, through the power of Jesus.
Research article attacks myth that homosexual teenagers are up to three
times more likely to commit suicide. The data comes from an activist and is
unsubstantiated.
#2611
*
The First Baptist Church of Granville, Ohio, was expelled from the state convention due to its condoning the homosexual lifestyle and sponsoring a “Gaylesbian Uprising.” This letter defends their actions, the acceptability of homosexuality in the church, and the principle of radical soul freedom:
Interpretation of the Bible is always filtered through “lenses.” The Crusades and slavery were justified from the Bible, Galileo was opposed, and Jews were slaughtered.
Specific texts dealing with homosexuality are discussed. Romans 1:26-27’s injunction concerning homosexuality as “against nature” is contrasted with other acts and conditions said to be against nature by Paul, such as long hair on men. Other passages on homosexuality can be translated various ways. The New Testament speaks of Jesus listening to sinners, and tells of unacceptable people being accepted. Application made to current debate.
Jesus radically re-interpreted the Old Testament and rejected valid Biblical themes in favor of apparently more basic biblical themes. Williamson refers to this as a more authentic interpretation. Loving God (Matt 22:26-37) is the primary principle. An example is given - the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus violated Scripture by touching and healing lepers. Jesus believed God not to prevent but to REQUIRE the uncompromising practical love of religious outcasts, even lepers, and this in the face of biblical tradition. Jesus shifts the focus from rules of ritual purity to an ethical commitment to God’s creation. Jesus lived as if notions of purity and defilement are imperfect expressions of God.
The wider religious community rejected Jesus in his day, and they reject the spirit of Jesus in our day. Even if homosexuality IS a sin, we should be gracious toward them because God is gracious toward us. Like the Pharisees in Matthew 23, conservatives lay heavy burdens on homosexuals.
One hundred and fifty years ago churches were disfellowshipped for siding with the "secular" social movement of abolition. Excerpts are given of prominent theologians who justified slavery back then, using the Scripture. Abraham owned slaves, Moses gave laws about them, Jesus referred to them in his parables and Paul gives instructions about them. Before 1860, ONLY tiny minorities of Bible-believing Christians EVER challenged slavery. First Baptist of Granville, Ohio, was part of the underground railroad back then, and is today helping homosexuals to be accepted.
#3598
*
Homosexual Baptist newsletter focusus on Baptist Peace Fellowship's
endorsement of homosexual rights, and how the ABC National Ministries was
forced to withdraw support for the Fellowship. A list of Welcoming and
Affirming churches is given on the back.
#3431
*
A Gay March in Washington parallels the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery:
A few years back Philip Yancey happened to be in Washington, D.C., when 300,000 gay-rights activists were having a march. He was standing on the sidelines directly in front of the White House when a startling confrontation took place. About 40 mounted policemen had formed a protective circle around a small group of outspoken Christian protesters. Thanks to huge, orange posters announcing hellfire, the tiny knot of Christians was attracting most of the press photographers.
The believers began shouting, “Shame-on-you-for-what-you-do.” Then they switched to, “AIDS, AIDS, it’s comin’ your way.” Yancey, along with everyone else in the crowd, had seen the group of marchers at the head of the column: a sad procession of hundreds of people with AIDS - some in wheelchairs, some covered with purple sores or gaunt faces. Philip Yancey couldn’t imagine how anyone could wish that fate on another human being.
How did the marchers respond to the Christians? Some taunted or mocked them. But one group came to the spot, stopped to face them, and sang, “Jesus loves you, this we know, for the Bible tells us so.”
The irony was unsettling. On the one side were “righteous” Christians. On the other were “sinners,” many of whom openly admitted homosexuality. Yet one side spewed out hate and the other sang of Jesus’ love.
2,000 years ago Jesus himself faced two contrary parties.... (John 8:1-11)
Sermon in John series. Woman caught in adultery. John 8:1-11
========================
KILL ALL THE ADULTERERS!
========================
I. Saints vs. Sinners.
II. The setup.
A. Adultery usually not given death penalty by Jews.
B. Usually a only a set-up could accomplish this.
C. Using shame as a weapon.
III. Turning the tables.
IV. Discomfort with this passage.
A. America is in moral decline.
B. Can we deal with sin?
C. A little bit of shame can be a good thing.
V. Jesus is serious about sin.
A. Go and sin no more.
B. Cross is ultimate expression of shame.
VI. Jesus is even more serious about God's love.
A. Jesus loves sinners.
B. Love is our greatest (and least used) weapon.
A real-life example of the cultural battle over the Bible and its teachings.
Back in April, Tim Neugent of Mena, Arkansas, was watching the TV program
"THE PRACTICE." In this particular episode the mother of one of the lawyers
decided she was gay. She wanted her son to go to court to help her get a
marriage license to marry her 'partner.'
Tim was irritated enough to write an email to ABC. He wrote:
ABC is obsessed (or should I say abscessed) with the subject of
homosexuality. I will no longer watch any of your attempts to
convince the world that homosexuality is OK. THE PRACTICE can
be a fairly good show but last night's program was so typical of
your agenda. You picked the 'dufus' of the office to be the one
who was against the idea of his mother being gay and made him
look like a whiner because he had convictions. This type of
mentality calls people like me "gay basher." Read the first
chapter of Romans (that's in the Bible) and see what the apostle
Paul had to say about it...
Jim did not expect to get a reply - but he did. The ABC online Webmaster
wrote:
How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a
book of stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of
years ago) and read the Declaration of Independence (what our
nation is built on) where it says "All Men are Created Equal" --
and try treating them that way for a change!? Or better yet,
try thinking for yourself and stop using an archaic book of
stories as your crutch for your existence.
I replied to them...
Thanks for your reply. Evidently, I hit a nerve from your harsh reply. I will share it with all with whom I come in contact. Hopefully, the Arkansas Democrat Newspaper will include it in one of their columns. And ... I will be praying for you.
___________________
TruthorFiction.com investigated and found this illustration is true; see http://truthorfiction.com/rumors/abc-practice.htm -
This exchange did occur, but ABC quickly apologized and said the comments were those of a particular person and did not reflect the views of the network. The Arkansas man who initiated the email exchange is Jim Neugent from the city of Mena. The example of the story below is pretty accurate as to what he says he wrote and the response he received. Additionally, however, he received an official letter from ABC stating that the offending email response had come from one of their "exfreelancers" who worked for the website. Mr. Neugent had directed his complaint to the webmaster and the reply came from the webmaster staff. In their letter, ABC said the insulting email was the act of an individual employee and "...not in any way reflect the views of ABC Television."
*
Homosexuality is not a mental disorder and it does not require a cure. That's the word from health professionals, and it's what they want our children taught in school.
A coalition of distinguished pediatricians, psychologists, and educators has mailed a booklet called "Just the Facts" to school superintendents around the country. But it turns out the booklet is short on facts and rather long on propaganda.
The authors represent the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Federation of Teachers, and the American Psychological Association, among others. They say they mailed the booklets because schools are being inundated with "inaccurate" information by conservative groups.
And just what is this so-called "inaccurate information?" Well, the booklet doesn't identify. But apparently it is the belief that homosexuality is a disorder that can be cured.
The booklet claims that reparative therapy and religiously-based transformational ministries are "likely to exacerbate the risk of harassment, harm, and fear" among homosexual teens.
Attempts to change a teenager's sexual orientation, says the booklet, has "little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation."
The authors also accuse reparative therapists of aligning themselves with "societal prejudices against homosexuality."
In reality, of course, when "Just the Facts" authors call certain information "inaccurate," what they really mean is that they disagree with it. Let's take a look at some REAL facts.
First, homosexuality DOES cause mental problems. A study conducted by Otago University's Christchurch School of Medicine in England confirmed that homosexuals are more likely to experience anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and to attempt suicide.
And then there's the claim that reparative therapy does not work. Wrong again. A Wall Street Journal article written by five secular psychiatrists found that up to 50 percent of those who seek treatment to overcome homosexuality "experience significant improvement." And religiously-based ministries like Exodus International report high rates of success, as well, with many former homosexuals going on to marry and have children.
So much for the "fact" that therapy doesn't work. Just as important as the facts the authors include are the ones they leave out: For example, the American Public Health Association reports that more than three-quarters of all homosexuals acquire a sexually-transmitted disease at least once.
It's evidence that the gay lobby is not really interested in the truth. Its real goal is to pressure schools to present homosexuality as normative -- and to paint anyone who opposes their agenda as an intolerant bigot. In reality, societies around the world and throughout history have universally recognized that homosexuality is NOT normative.
If you have a child in public school, find out if "Just the Facts" is influencing the curriculum. And if so, you ought to challenge it with school authorities.
Thankfully, some school officials are evaluating the booklet for what it's worth -- and filing it, so to speak, in the round file. Among them is Antioch, California schools chief Lee Jenkins, who dismissed "Just the Facts" as mere "opinion." "Probably," he says, "the most reliable source is former homosexuals who have given up that lifestyle."
Absolutely right, Mr. Jenkins. It's a fact gay lobbyists don't want you to hear.
___________________________
Copyright (c) 1999 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.
*
According to neuroscientists led by Dick Swaab of the Netherlands Institute for Brain Research, one tiny region in the brains of six male-to-female transsexuals is only 52 percent as large as in other men — and almost exactly the size of the region in female brains. Other research has also seemed to strengthen the biology-is-destiny camp, at least for sexual orientation. A 1991 study found differences in the brains of gay and straight men. In 1993 scientists reported evidence of a “gay gene.” In 1995 a region of the X chromosome, long enough to contain 200 genes, is linked to homosexuality.
But instead of clinching the case for predestination, the studies are prodding scientists to search for how experiences influence sexuality. Neurobiologist S. Marc Breedlove of the University of California, Berkley, suggests that transsexuals are not born with a brain that tells them they are really female, but social and other experiences — how friends and parents treat them — might make these men feel they are women. These experiences might then feed back on the brain. Three decades of research “have made it clear that experience can dramatically alter the structure and function of the brain.”
Even a “gay gene” might not mean that homosexuality is predestined. As Hamer admits, it is only “in some families but not in all” that gay brothers inherit the suspect stretch of the X chromosome; in many gays this DNA is absent. That suggests that the DNA is not necessary for homosexuality. In fact, it may not be sufficient, either. Of identical twins in which one brother is gay, the other twin is gay only about half the time- even though he has the identical DNA.
Clearly, experiences, relationships and happenstance — this hodgepodge called environment — play a role in shaping sexuality. Psychiatrist William Byne of New York’s Mount Sinai Medical Center spins a theory in which a gene that makes a boy avoid rough sports might hurt his relationship with a father who adheres to sex-role stereotypes, but not with a more enlightened father. The impaired relationship might induce brain changes that make the first boy gay but not the second.
(None of the studies on gay brains, gay genes or transsexual brains has been replicated by other labs.)
Statement of Concern from Biennial in Charleston, WVa, (later one?) which lists five statements on human sexuality from a biblical perspective. #3437 *
Hand in hand, a man and a woman face each other in a rite defined by centuries of Christian tradition.
Before God, each vows to take the other as husband or wife, “to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death.”
At least, that’s the way the marriage ceremony reads in the Episcopal Church’s 1979 Book of Common Prayer.
Here’s the corresponding passage in a gender-neutral “Rite for Commitment to Life Together” created by a powerful coalition of Episcopal leaders. Hand in hand, a man and a woman, or two men, or two women, say to each other: “I … take you … to have and to hold from this day forward, to love and to cherish as my companion, lover, and friend. Amen.”
The first shots have been fired in the next battle over the modernization of rites used at altars across the nation.
Truth is, some Episcopalians still mourn the death of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. Now, church leaders are laying the groundwork for a new prayer book — as early as 2006. Right now, debates over the rite stuff are being held far from the pews. Last summer, the church’s 71st General Convention directed its Standing Liturgical Commission to go ahead and prepare a “rationale and a pastorally sensitive plan” for prayer book revision. The same commission is preparing a 1997 report on same-sex unions.
Anyone who thinks these issues will not become intertwined knows nothing about Protestant politics in the 1990s.
Thus, the national Association of Diocesan Liturgy and Music Commissions has already circulated its gender-neutral rite. This will surprise many Episcopalians, since last summer’s General Convention specifically said that no such liturgy should be created until that step was approved by another convention.
Don’t worry about it, says the introduction to the new liturgy, because this test-flight rite wasn’t prepared by a body that is officially tied to the national hierarchy. Also, it notes that the Book of Common Prayer says local bishops can approve the creation of rites “when no service or prayer has been provided in the Book.” The ritual, and educational materials defending it, was prepared by many nationally known Episcopal leaders, including influential seminary professors and three bishops.
The “Rite for Commitment to Life Together” openly claims the status of a marriage ceremony, as in this opening passage: “The celebration of a life together is a time for good wishes, feasting and joy. Jesus shared such an occasion in Cana of Galilee where … Jesus gave a sign of new beginnings by turning water into wine. The bond between two people shows us the mystery of the union between God and God’s people.”
While avoiding many scriptures used in traditional marriage rituals, this rite does include sweeping references to unity and love, such as these words in Romans: “Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with brotherly affection.” Some biblical figures — such as King David and Jonathan, and Ruth and Naomi — are cited as participants in same-sex covenants.
The bottom line: This is a first draft of images and doctrines that many in the Episcopal establishment want to see included, in some way, in a new Book of Common Prayer.
It’s time for the church to face reality, say the creators of the new liturgy, because the “institut ion of heterosexual marriage is in crisis” and homosexuals yearn for God’s blessing on their relationships. Besides, this train has already left the station.
“Commitments on the part of lesbians and gay men have been celebrated in Episcopal churches in every diocese of the church,” says the rite’s introduction. “Some … have been approved by the diocese, some have been celebrated with the tacit approval of the diocesan bishop, many with the bishop enunciating a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, and others done surreptitiously.”
–––––––––––––––––-
Terry Mattingly teaches communications at Milligan College in Tennessee. He writes this weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.
(c) Copyright 1995 by Terry Mattingly. RNcn.xolNM2085
#3715
*
How should Christians respond to homosexuals’ public presence?
Twenty years ago, most homosexuals guarded their sexuality as a shameful secret. Today homosexuals march into the White House to see the President, who hopes to secure their votes in the next election. Homosexuals have emerged from the shadows not as perverts but as co-workers, family members, and political operatives. Unwilling any longer to remain hidden, they have framed their public appeal as a matter of civil rights. Homosexuals are ordinary people, they say, despised for an attribute as accidental as skin color. Should they not be free from prejudice? Should they not teach school, adopt children, fight as soldiers, become pastors like any other person? Isn’t that the American way?
Christians who think hard about homosexuality — and surely we must — have found this hard to answer. To begin with, scholars have argued furiously about the Bible’s message; many contend that it says nothing about modern homosexuality at all. Even if we agree about the Bible’s prohibitions, we have the difficult task of applying its message in a way that meets a new situation. It is one thing to condemn homosexual behavior, another to offer pastoral care to those with fierce homosexual longings. And even if we know how to treat homosexuality in the church, we have further questions of how to apply the Bible’s message in a pluralistic society.
First, what does the Bible say? Thankfully, as two of these books show, a degree of clarity has emerged after much vexed exegesis. Thomas Schmidt, who teaches New Testament at Westmont College, gives a persuasive, detailed, verse-by-verse response to revisionist critics. He shows that the biblical injunctions clearly apply to homosexuality as it is practiced today and not only to its forms in the ancient world.
Another New Testament professor, Marion Soards of Louisville Seminary, may be more helpful for the general reader. Soards writes to his own Presbyterian church’s confused situation, but his brief, lucid overview of the biblical evidence will aid anyone seeking a pathway through conflicting claims.
Soards has a habit of putting matters into perspective with only a few sentences, and doing it convincingly. After reading his summation of John Boswell’s work, for example, it would be difficult for anyone to quote Boswell as an unchallenged authority on the history of homosexuality and the church. Soards gives no detailed prescription for the church (neither does Schmidt), but he makes clear that both Old Testament and New consider homosexual behavior “outside the boundaries of God’s intentions for humanity.” From the beginning, God intended for sexual union to be experienced within marriage between man and woman.
WILDFLOWERS AMONG WHEAT
It is not easy to apply such an answer today, however. Why such one-note absolutism? Why can’t we simply live and let live — appreciating, as Andrew Sullivan poetically puts it, the wildflowers among our wheat?
As Schmidt sees it, these are questions born of individualism, while sexuality is a communal endeavor, with each of us bearing responsibility toward others for the way we live. Homosexual behavior undermines marriage, he says. Unlike the celibate person, who, though unmarried, testifies to the good of marriage, the active homosexual pursues sexual union according to his own private principles of individual self-fulfillment. Like adultery, homosexuality cannot be judged just by how it seems to the individuals involved. It must be considered in the broader context of what it does to the whole community’s understanding of sex. Same-sex intimacy offers an alternative “good” that undermines a community’s marriages, Schmidt contends.
This is an argument that Andrew Sullivan, editor of “The New Republic,” takes up from the other side. It is refreshing that he even recognizes the issue of communal interests. Unfortunately, he argues the issue within strict categories of his own invention, which (while they enable him to answer every argument that he imagines) do not fit the actual content of Schmidt’s (and many others’) position.
Sullivan’s book aims to deal with the politics of homosexuality, which he describes in four categories: Prohibitionist, Liberationist, Conservative, and Liberal. Sullivan is brilliant at many points. His recounting of how liberals have found themselves at odds with their own principles is particularly illuminating. However, his book is weakest in considering positions furthest from his own, those that would discourage rather than defend homosexual practice. For reasons unclear, Sullivan identifies the Prohibitionist position with the Catholic church and/or religious fundamentalists. To my knowledge, the modern Catholic church does not favor laws that would prosecute homosexuals; and while I do not doubt that there exist Christian fundamentalists who would seek to root out homosexuality through punishment and incarceration, Sullivan cites none and would, I suspect, have to concede that this punitive stance represents a minority view within fundamentalism rather than a consensus. Sullivan — who comes from a devout Catholic family and is himself a practicing Catholic — tries to do justice to a biblical understanding of homosexuality but is clearly out of his depth. He seems to have swallowed Boswell whole.
That aside, Sullivan compellingly puts forward the great fact that all of us, Christian and non-Christian alike, must confront: homosexuals exist. If they have not (Sullivan to the contrary) existed at all times and places, certainly they exist in our time and place. While all three of these authors accept that the cause of homosexuality must be more complex than a “homosexual gene,” they all acknowledge that homosexuality is a condition homosexuals “find themselves in” — they do not consciously choose it.
Sullivan is very good at explaining the difficulty of the homosexual’s position. Remembering his first adolescent experiences with sexual desire, he writes, “It was like getting on a plane for the first time, being exhilarated by its ascent, gazing with wonder out of the window, seeing the clouds bob beneath you, but then suddenly realizing that you are on the wrong flight, going to a destination which terrifies you… And you cannot get off.” He says that a homosexual teenager learns that “the condition of his friendships is the subjugation of himself.” Sullivan hopes that a more tolerant culture may develop in America, yet he believes that homosexuality is bound to be marked by deception and hiding, simply because homosexuals are a small minority and the issue is such a fundamental one. Homosexuals, he says, can never be “just like other people.”
DEEPER THAN FAIRNESS
Schmidt widens and darkens this portrait, giving a well-documented account of the experience of homosexuals. He demonstrates from a thorough review of the evidence that “Promiscuity among homosexual men is not a mere stereotype, and it is not merely the majority experience — it is virtually the only experience.”
In a group of ten randomly selected homosexual men in their thirties, he summarizes, only one is faithful to his partner, and he will not be within a year. Four have never had a relationship that lasted a year, and only one has had a relationship that lasted more than three years. Six regularly have sex with strangers; three participate in orgies. Three are currently alcoholics; five have a history of alcohol abuse. Five regularly use at least one illegal drug, three are multiple drug users. Four have a history of acute depression, three have contemplated suicide, two have attempted suicide. Eight have had sexually transmitted diseases, three are HIV positive, one has AIDS.
This portrait, like the more personal one that Sullivan offers, should surely elicit compassion. These are sufferers. But it should also remind us that the “homosexual issue” is much deeper than a matter of “fair treatment.”
Fair treatment is all that Sullivan asks for at the political level. He proposes simply that homosexuals receive equal treatment under the law — no more, no less. For him this includes — and demands — the legalization of homosexual marriage. Conservatives, he says, should face the fact that homosexuality exists and encourage steps to domesticate it. He is eloquent in describing the homosexual’s longing for lasting intimacy that cannot (by society’s laws) be fulfilled. He presents a wonderful vista of what marriage would offer.
But he seems not to realize that marriage is prelegal and preceremonial, that law does not create marriage but only regularizes it. Where was the law in Eden? Marriage would surely exist very much as it does whether or not it were officially recognized. Where it does not exist, the legal opportunity hardly can create it. (Today’s urban ghettos are a horrid proof of that.) Homosexual marriage — exclusive and lifelong sexual relationship — is virtually nonexistent, as Schmidt’s summary of the evidence shows. Homosexuality is not simply a different flavor of sexuality, it is a different type, following its own nature.
Sullivan, surprisingly, acknowledges that legalized “domestic partnerships” undermine traditional marriages, yet seriously suggests that homosexual marriages would enrich heterosexual relationships through “greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets,” by which he means adultery. Perhaps this reveals the degree to which he does not know what he is talking about when he talks of marriage. Open marriages, as studies have consistently found, are those with the bottom falling out.
If “marriage” is not an answer to homosexuality, and “fairness” is too simple a prescription, how should Christians treat homosexuality? I suspect a great many Christians wish it would simply go away. They would be happy to live and let live, so long as homosexuals stayed in the closet and left others blissfully ignorant of their condition. That, however, is not really an option for those who care about pastoral ministry.
People who “find themselves homosexual” need help to find a pattern of life that is fruitful and appropriate for their condition.
Surely the ancient and biblical tradition of celibacy is relevant, even if our society is reluctant to acknowledge it. (Sullivan apparently cannot even imagine it. He treats singleness as synonymous with promiscuity.) Some progress in ministry has been made, particularly by “ex-gay” groups, but in most churches, homosexuals are still invisible and uncared for.
As to public policy, Sullivan’s book is an excellent spur to thinking through various issues, from gays in the military to laws against prejudice in private housing. (Sullivan is for the former, against the latter.) Sullivan’s positions will be anathema to most conservatives, but he covers a range of issues acutely and, for the most part, fairly.
Christians face the problem of influencing a public order that does not necessarily share our basic values. We cannot turn America into the church, but how far can we push our sexual values, or accept others’ that we believe are destructive? Conservative Christians, clinging to Scripture, have sensed that the welfare of marriage and the family is involved in the way our nation treats homosexuality. We know what the Bible teaches. We have at least some idea how homosexuality should be treated within the church. In the public sphere, we are a long way from home.
Books reviewed:
“Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality,” by Andrew Sullivan (Alfred A. Knopf, 209 pp.; $22, hardcover)
“Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexual Debate,” by Thomas E. Schmidt (InterVarsity, 240 pp.; $10.99, paper)
“Scripture and Homosexuality: Biblical Authority and the Church Today,” by Marion L. Soards (Westminster John Knox, 84 pp.; $9.99, paper). Reviewed by Tim Stafford.
Copyright (c) 1995 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazine ctcurrmrj5TD0515B6r
#3554
*
An evangelical minister who conducted the funeral of an AIDS activist has
been vilified by homosexual activists and castigated in secular press reports
for discussing eternal salvation at the service.
John Hopkins, 43-year-old associate pastor at a 2,200-member Associate
Reformed Presbyterian church in Columbia, South Carolina, had developed a
friendship with Robert Parker, Jr., a member of the church. Hopkins
officiated at his funeral December 28.
At the end of the service, according to his sermon manuscript, Hopkins asked,
"Is he in heaven now? No one on earth has authority to judge." Hopkins went
on to say that the church believes "homosexuality is one among many sins, and
for anyone to know God's grace, love, forgiveness, and mercy he must turn
from everything the Bible lists as a sin."
Around 20 offended homosexuals walked out before the service finished.
The following day, in a front-page story, the Columbia State reported that
Hopkins had launched a "half-hour diatribe" against Parker's lifestyle,
saying "homosexuality is a mortal sin" and that Parker "might be in hell."
Hopkins told CHRISTIANITY TODAY that he wanted to expose a false assurance of
salvation at the service because Parker did not believe he needed to repent
of what he believed was genetically-based homosexuality.
Later, homosexual activists held a ceremony for Parker, with several clergy
assuring mourners that Parker is in heaven.
Hopkins has received several harassing phone calls, including threats that he
would be "brought to ruin" and the church would be "stampeded" with
homosexual activists if there is no public apology. He also has received
support from some pastors who thought his remarks were too restrained. Both
Hopkins and the church have issued statements extending sympathy to Parker's
family.
Copyright (c) 1995 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazine
#3558
*
The Baptist Peace Fellowship added homosexual rights to its agenda and had its status downgraded by American Baptists. The sub-title is, "Commentary on biblical fidelity and sexual orientation: why the first matters, why the second doesn't and why Baptist Peace Fellowship members should care."
Three lines of defense are given:
1. It is the right thing to do.
2. They have a ready-made opportunity to practice their calling
as reconcilers within their own household.
3. The question of biblical authority has to be addressed.
The Sodom and Gomorrah story is interpreted along Boswell's lines. Slavery is seen as a parallel issue, and inconsistency between the Bible and fundamentalist interpretation (jewelry, veils, etc.) is pointed out.
When Peter associates with Cornelius the centurion, he is associating with a religious pervert. At the council in Jerusalem, some of the fundamentalists are upset that these converts are not being required to believe the Bible is literally true. The missionaries (Paul) have gone soft on the "law of Moses." The more conservative leaders argue that you either believe all of the Bible or none of it. Either it's authoritative or it's not. And the Bible (the "law of Moses") commands circumcision - the texts are plain, their meaning is indisputable.
Finally, Peter stood up and said, in effect: "I know what the Bible says. What I'm telling you is that I've seen indisputable evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of these Gentile-perverts. God has cleansed their hearts by faith and has made no distinction between them and us. We don't exactly have a perfect track record when it comes to being faithful to the Bible ourselves."
Peter was on to something important. His was a precedent-setting theological argument: clear evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit - evidence attested to in the Bible - overrules any particular regulation. The regulations, in other words, are in service to the Spirit, not the other way around. I call it the "Jerusalem Protocol." The idea is ancient and deeply biblical: "The only thing that counts is faith working through love," according to Paul (Gal. 5:6). Fidelity to the Bible, to paraphrase Jesus, can be summarized in two intertwined statements: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind" and "your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:37-40).
Is homosexuality compatible with Christian faith? Is heterosexuality compatible with Christian faith? Uncircumcised, or circumcised? Neither question, I would suggest, is relevant. To quote sacred Scripture, "We believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will" (Acts 15:11).
#3600
*
Using his parents’ love as an example, Mike Hawkins, of the Christian AIDS Network, said individuals need love and personal acceptance to break away from a homosexual lifestyle.
Hawkins’ father, Marlin, is controller for the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma. His mother, Patsy, works part-time for the BGCO. They are members of Council Road Baptist Church, Bethany.
“My parents told me they could not accept my lifestyle, but they would never stop loving me,” said Hawkins, a former homosexual who has AIDS said in an address at Oklahoma Baptist University, Shawnee. “A lot of people quoted 1 Corinthians 6:9 to me, trying to get me back on the right path, but that only made me want to stay (a homosexual) because it sounded like rejection. But they never read verse 11 to me.
“Verse 11 says I can be washed,” Hawkins said. “It says I can be free.”
Hawkins said he came to a point in his life where he believed he was born homosexual. As a pre-school child, his only playmates were girls and by the time he had started school, he could not relate to the games other boys were playing.
By the time his junior high and high school years had rolled around, he had already been labeled “queer.” He said he wanted friendships with other boys, but every time he attempted to have one, he was ridiculed.
“I desperately wanted to have male friends,” Hawkins said. “I wanted that so badly. I later mistook that as a homosexual longing. It wasn’t so much a choice, but a trap I fell into that Satan had set.”
Hawkins used the illustration of a washing machine that was sure it was a television until it looked at the instruction manual and found out differently.
“We have an instruction manual from our Creator, too. It’s the Bible. I was not born that way ... so how do I get out of it?” asked Hawkins. “I couldn’t do it. But then I realized I wasn’t supposed to do it. I was supposed to release my life to God. I work with people who are struggling to get out of that lifestyle. God can change your heart and your life when you can’t do it yourself. I stand before you today 100 percent homosexual-free by the grace of God.”
Hawkins said it was the love of his parents that first inspired him to make a change.
“No matter how much I hurt them or deliberately made them cry, they were there for me,” Hawkins said. “They told me they could not accept my lifestyle because of what God’s Word says, but they would never stop loving me.”
In December 1991, Hawkins was hospitalized with an AIDS-related disease. He and his parents, who had kept his homosexuality a secret, decided they would need the support of their friends.
“As we began to tell people, instead of the rejection we had expected, and instead of people running away from us, people came running to us,” Hawkins recounted. “The church was incredibly supportive. All those years we carried the burden alone, but when we needed Christians to be Christian, they were.
“And no one asked how this happened,” he said. “When people you know have AIDS, don’t ask them how they got it. That question sends the signal, ‘depending on how you got the disease determines how I will respond to you.’”
Hawkins said he has occasionally had trouble dealing with the fact that he has AIDS.
“I would say to God, ‘Why me? You knew beforehand that I was going to come out of this; why did you let me get this disease?’” Hawkins said. “But Paul says in 2 Corinthians 12:7, that when I am weak, then I am strong. For me, AIDS doesn’t stand for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. It stands for Adventure In Divine Submission.”
________
Fink is a newswriter at Oklahoma Baptist University. Copyright (c) 1995 Baptist Press
There is a common myth about homosexuality: that it is a condition one does not choose and for which one is not responsible.
A homosexual becomes one by a series of choices. These choices may seem imperceptible to him because they are not at first conscious choices to overt homosexual activity. Most frequently they are those of social attraction, for reasons other than sexual, to a person of the same sex. As the friendship becomes more intimate, some sexual stimulation occurs and if there is not a prior commitment to the wrongness - or at least undesirability - of homosexual conduct, this develops into overt acts.
The pattern, if not abruptly broken off, develops more rapidly if the person or persons with whom the novice associates is already practicing homosexual activity. As the friendship deepens, the values and lifestyle of his friends are accepted. Then one day he "discovers" that he really has a preference for homosexuality. This is entirely because of the conditioning that has taken place and has no basis whatever in his genetic, anatomic, or physiologic make-up.
________
Dr. Lorne Brown works at the University Health Center in Lincoln, Nebraska
Alan Medinger grew up with a distant father and was early-on attracted to other men. He married, had two daughters, and then entered into a secret homosexual lifestyle that lasted ten years. Except for this one great, dark area in his life, Alan had it all together. He was successful in business, a pillar of the church, and had a wonderful family, including foster children they took it. Theologically, he had it pretty well figured out. All men and women commit sin, and this was his particular area of weakness.
He tried to keep it under control but the compulsion was increasing. His marriage crumbled. His wife began attending a prayer meeting and "let go" of him emotionally and spiritually. Alan himself attended a prayer meeting and was told by the friend who invited him, "What the Lord has for you is far better than anything you could imagine." When Alan heard that a great peace came over him.
As the large group of two or three hundred people were praying and praising God aloud, he quietly surrendered his life, including his homosexuality, to Jesus Christ. He admitted his helplessness, that his life was a wreck, and that he was will to let Him do whatever He would with his life. His fantasies disappeared, he felt a love for his wife Willa that he never knew was possible, and God was no longer a faraway scorekeeper to him. He was a Savior who had come down from His heaven and brought him salvation. Alan no longer feels inadequate around straight men and has assumed headship over his family.
He avoids temptations like literature and movies that would arouse him and has found that the desires from that part of his life are steadily decreasing.
By age 23, Gene Chase was dedicated to active Christian evangelism and teaching in his church - and equally diligent in pursuing furtive homosexual encounters out of town. ...
Good article on "inborn" argument concerning homosexuality. [Followed by outlines on issue, and overheads with Bible passages]
I. Arguments for inborn homosexuality.
A. Based on several recent studies. (see below)
B. Conclusions made from research:
1) Homosexuals are born that way.
2) Homosexuality is a normal condition.
3) What is normal cannot be immoral.
4) Therefore, prohibitions against homosexuality make no sense.
C. Four essential questions.
1) Were studies conducted in an unbiased and fair way?
2) What are the true implications of the results?
3) Are the results accepted almost universally by the
scientific and medical communities?
4) Are the results compatible with biblical truth?
II. Agendas and outcome.
A. Many of the researchers are open about their homosexuality.
1) Their goal is to educate society.
2) Randy Shilts: "It will reduce being gay to something like
being left-handed."
B. Counter-concerns of evangelicals.
1) If something is genetic in origin, does this make it normal?
a) What about birth defects?
2) Should the standard for normality be determined by what is
inborn?
3) Facts must be examined, and also what they imply.
III. Simon LeVay and hypothalamus research.
A. One-third smaller in homosexuals than in heterosexual men.
1) But can this area be accurately measured?
2) Is size critical, or the number of neurons? (Newsweek)
3) Does size determine homosexuality, or vice-versa?
a) Neurophysiologist Kenneth Klivington of Salk Institute:
"You could postulate that brain change occurs
throughout life, as a consequence of experience."
b) A "feedback loop" could affect the organization of the
brain.
c) Therefore, are homosexuals born with a smaller
hypothalamus or does the size decrease later in life?
B. Methodological questions:
1) The sexuality of the cadavers may not be certain.
2) The number of bodies was small, and the study has not been
replicated.
3) LeVay is conservative in his own assessment - "perhaps and
maybe." (Time magazine)
IV. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard and identical twin research.
A. Higher incidence among identical twins (52%) than fraternal
or adoptive.
1) Therefore something in genes must cause homosexuality.
B. Methodological questions:
1) Study is flawed because twins were raised in same environment.
2) Pillard concedes, "There must be something in the
environment."
C. Opposite results from a similar British study.
1) March 1992 "British Journal of Psychiatry" reports only 20%
of homosexual twins had a homosexual co-twin.
2) Conclusion: "Genetic factors are insufficient explanation
of the development of sexual orientation."
V. Evident facts.
A. Differences may exist in the brains of some homosexual men.
B. However, the suggestion that homosexuality is therefore inborn
is interpretive and arguable.
C. The implication that society should therefore accept homosexuality
as common, normal, and morally neutral cannot be supported from
the medical facts alone.
1) "Different" does not mean "inborn."
2) "Inborn" does not mean "normal."
D. Society often acts from basis of bias.
1) LeVay's and Pillard's studies garnered much media attention,
while a study that found a gene present in 77% of
alcoholics and absent in 72% of non-alcoholics was ignored.
(Published in the "Journal of American Medical Association")
#4020
*
Article on scientific findings on homosexuality by a homosexual writer.
I. Psychology.
A. Psychologists cannot distinguish homosexuals from heterosexuals.
B. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed it from
its diagnostic manual.
II. Neurobiology - brain structures.
A. In rats, "the default brain" for both sexes seems to be female,
and the introduction of testosterone produces maleness.
1) Known as sexual differentiation of the brain.
2) Rat male and female brains are different (sexual dimorphism).
B. Research of Simon LeVay.
1) The human hypothalamus is dimorphic, not just with sex but
also with sexual orientation.
2) Possible problems with research:
a) Small sample size.
b) Great variation in individual nucleus size.
c) All the gay men had AIDS.
d) No replication by other researchers.
3) Status is tantalizing supposition.
a) Human brain sexual dimorphism itself is disputed.
b) Establishing a distinction is not the same as finding
a cause.
III. Endocrinology - hormones.
A. Hormone alterations in rats causes sexual changes.
1) Human studies have found no significant differences in
hormone levels of heterosexuals and homosexuals.
2) Prenatal hormone exposure is unproven as an influence.
B. Research of Richard Pillard.
1) He speculates that Mullerian inhibiting hormone, which
defeminizes a fetus, may have brain-organizing effects.
Its absence or failure to kick in sufficiently may
prevent the brain from defeminizing.
2) In this view, gay men are basically masculine males with
female aspects, including perhaps certain cognitive
abilities and emotional sensibilities.
3) Gender-atypical play in prepubescence may indicate hormonal
influence.
C. Caution: if the prenatal-hormone hypothesis is correct, we
might expect to see prenatal endocrine disturbance (genital
abnormalities) in a large proportion of homosexuals, but this
is not found.
IV. Genetics.
A. Fruit flies exposed to radiation can become "fruitless."
1) The gene is recessive.
B. Richard Pillard and identical twins.
1) Concordance rates:
a) 11% for adoptive brothers.
b) 22% for dizygotic twins.
c) 52% for monozygotic twins.
2) "The findings suggest that homosexuality is highly
attributable to genetics - up to 70%."
a) Other factors would also be responsible.
V. Ramifications of science.
A. Biological factors play a role in determining sexual orientation.
B. Potential for abuse.
C. "Five decades of psychiatric evidence demonstrates that
homosexuality is immutable, and nonpathological, and a
growing body of more recent evidence implicates biology in
the development of sexual orientation."
D. "One cannot justify discriminating against people of the basis
of such a characteristic. Yet it would be wise to acknowledge
that science can be a rickety platform on which to erect an
edifice of rights."
#4021
*
John Paulk will never forget the 1986 Gay Pride Parade in Columbus, Ohio. A well-known female impersonator, he was riding in the back of a red Mustang convertible dressed in a white linen suit and blond wig.
"Candi, we love you," a man yelled. "You're the most gorgeous drag queen in Columbus." John smiled and waved.
Suddenly, John heard chanting and screaming ahead and spotted a small crowd of people waving Bibles over their heads. Some held signs with such messages as "God hates fags" and "Turn or burn."
"Why don't you hateful people leave us alone? We're not hurting you," John thought, as an eerie sickness gripped his stomach. Then another thought struck him: "Who would want to follow a God like the one they're displaying?"
Six months later, a pastor who had befriended John at the print shop where he worked invited himself to John's apartment. Although John suspected the minister was coming to talk about God, he consented.
That night, they prayed together as John committed his life to Christ. He soon left his homosexual lifestyle as he became deeply involved in the church. Today, John and his wife, Anne (a former lesbian), live in Portland, Oregon, where he is preparing for a career in Christian counseling.
Though John still occasionally struggles with temptations and memories of the lifestyle he left, with the help of God and his Christian community he is well on his way to wholeness. Thousands of other men and women -- all of them previously involved in homosexuality - have experienced similar changes in their lives. And almost all of them say that it was a group of Christians, demonstrating genuine love and concern, who made the difference.
HALF THE GOSPEL
"The church of the 1990s must decide if it wants to meet the relevant needs of today's society," said Sy Rogers of Exodus International during a seminar at Park Avenue Baptist Church in Titusville, Florida, on ministering to homosexuals. "If your church is equipped to minister to the needs of your society, you will be relevant; if not, you will be irrelevant."
In Matthew 28:19, Jesus tells His disciples, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations." The word nations means "people groups." Today, the homosexual population is among the last of the unreached people groups. And this people group even includes some who are in our churches.
Stories of those struggling with homosexuality are rarely as sensational as John Paulk's. Often, those who struggle are sitting quietly in the pew on Sunday morning, not involved in the homosexual subculture or a homosexual relationship. They hurt alone as they experience the internal chaos of conflicting desires. "Almost 100% of people who come into my office have a church background, but they couldn't find help for their same-sex attraction within the local church," says Rick Hughes, director of Eleutheros Ministry in Winter Park, Florida. Hughes is attempting to reverse that trend. When he speaks at conferences on the subject, he is often met with indifference and intolerance. Once, he wanted to conduct a short seminar on homosexuality for a local congregation, but the pastor refused.
"We don't have that problem here," the pastor said. Unfortunately, he was unaware that three of his church members, as well as someone on his staff, were in counseling at Eleutheros for their homosexual tendencies.
Churches that do realize the need to address homosexuality are often confused about how to handle a problem that has become so emotionally and politically charged. Homosexuality is tearing apart many denominations across the country. A growing number of conservative denominations have pro-gay groups that attempt to promote a theology that affirms their homosexual activities. Even some conservative Christians are faltering in their convictions as they discover homosexuality among family members and church friends.
"Homosexuality is the divisive issue of the '90s," says author and speaker Joe Dallas, who directs Genesis Counseling Services in Orange, California. And, he believes, many congregations are presenting only a "partial gospel" to men and women who are involved in gay relationships.
"Homosexual behavior is pronounced unbiblical, but no one offers a solution," Dallas says. "We cannot preach against a particular sin without offering an alternative." Dallas compares this situation with the pro-life movement, whose leaders have discovered the effectiveness of offering practical help -- such as crisis counseling and emergency housing for pregnant women -- in addition to saying, "Don't kill your unborn child."
WAGING THE BATTLE
Some Christians have turned to politics to stem the growing international homosexual-rights movement. Mary Heathman has felt the tension throughout Colorado over Amendment 2, a state constitutional amendment designed to prevent homosexual-rights ordinances. As director of Where Grace Abounds, a redemptive ministry to homosexuals in Denver, Heathman has heard angry remarks from both church members and pro-gay leaders as they tangle over this amendment, which was passed by voters but later overturned in the courts. "Church people get into politics for various reasons," Heathman says. "Some are very loving and don't lose sight of the individual, but others are fighting the battle with the world's mindset rather than remembering the spiritual warfare involved." Heathman says one of the biggest problems with some legislation intended to combat homosexual rights is that it isolates one particular sin. "If we're going to be balanced, we need to be talking about sexual sin in general, not just homosexuality."
Joe Dallas remembers how the fight looked from the other side of the fence. Ten years ago, Dallas was a homosexual-rights activist and a student minister at a pro-gay Metropolitan Community Church in Southern California. "The gay churches are full of men and women who know better," Dallas says. "But they feel they have nowhere else to go. And nobody has ever shown them convincingly that there is a way out of this particular sin."
Few evangelical Christians, Dallas adds, are willing to "stop and listen for a moment to a homosexual's pain." The pro-gay church movement, which offers loving acceptance of both the person and his or her behavior, is an attractive alternative to some members of the homosexual community who perceive the evangelical church as judgmental and "homophobic."
Dallas says that too few conservative churches acknowledge the high price paid by many homosexuals who become evangelical believers. Suddenly these men and women are confronted with the reality of leaving close friends, long- term partners, a supportive community, and perhaps even a gay-related job or career to follow Christ. And too often they get no sympathy from church friends who think they should "just repent and be done with it."
Jeff Konrad still remembers the anguish of leaving his homosexual partner almost 10 years ago. "I ached physically from all the emotional turmoil. But several Christian heterosexual men made themselves available any time of the day or night. I'm alive today because those guys loved me."
After receiving Christ, a homosexual desperately needs church support to stay free from sin. A conversion experience doesn't immediately erase homosexual desires. As with any Christian who struggles with temptation and who bears the consequences of a troubled past, accepting Christ is only the first step in the journey toward wholeness.
Many who have been away from the homosexual lifestyle for years still struggle with temptation, though usually less frequently. Many get married and identify more with heterosexuals, but that doesn't guarantee complete freedom from occasional homosexual desires.
The majority, who remain single, have the added struggle of remaining celibate. That's why continued encouragement and accountability from the church is so important to keep them on the path toward wholeness.
BREAKING THE SOUND BARRIER
Churches can provide a supportive atmosphere by being willing to break the silence that surrounds this issue in many evangelical congregations. When Ken Korver, associate pastor of Emmanuel Reformed Church in Paramount, California, realized that several men in his singles group were dealing with homosexuality, he confronted the issue head-on from the pulpit. Korver preached a sermon on 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, where the apostle Paul identifies homosexual behavior as sin, but a sin that can be forgiven. "This church is a place where broken people are welcome," Korver told his congregation. "But we are not to remain in brokenness; we must move forward into God's design." Then he requested anyone fighting homosexual temptations to talk to one of the pastoral staff.
"We let people know we'd walk with them through the process of healing," Korver recalls. Soon a group of ex-homosexual men were meeting weekly. Then Korver took the healing process a step further: He set up a mentoring program in the church, holding three-hour training sessions for straight men who wanted to better understand homosexuality. The names of 50 "graduates" of these sessions were made available to the former homosexuals, who could request an accountability partner to befriend them.
"Forming this kind of mentoring relationship is essential to getting beyond an 'ex-gay' mind set," Korver explains. "When the men who are overcoming homosexuality are accepted by other men in the church, a huge amount of healing occurs."
Other congregations throughout the country have had similar success in ministering to homosexual men and women. During the past two decades, Church of the Open Door in San Rafael, California, has earned a widespread reputation as "the church where homosexuals find healing."
This fellowship of 100 adults located 20 miles north of San Francisco is a spiritual home base for Love In Action, one of the oldest ex-homosexual ministries (founded in 1973). LIA runs a two-year discipleship program that attracts participants from around the world. Many become permanent members of Open Door, having left churches where they felt no support for resolving their sexual identity issues.
One recent program graduate, an attorney and former bank vice-president from Virginia, stood in front of the congregation to extend his thanks for their support. "This is a church where you don't have to whisper the word homosexual," he said. "I know my life will never be the same because of the love I've experienced here."
At the beginning of each program, members are introduced to the congregation in a special evening service. Afterward, church members are encouraged to come forward and commit to pray for one or more ex-homosexuals. Program leaders recognize that many church members want to offer support, but don't know how. So prayer cards are distributed, giving specific suggestions: Send the program member a birthday card, invite him to your house for dinner, phone him periodically to offer encouragement, include him on a family outing, have him bring a potluck item to your house for a holiday meal.
At Discovery Church in Orlando, Florida, church members, elders, and church counselors are trained to minister to ex-homosexuals by praying for them and providing strict accountability. "We generally set [those struggling with homosexuality] in a same-sex ministry group with two or three trained people," says elder Barry Johnston. "The leaders offer encouragement, practical help, and friendship. This also affirms their gender identification in a non-threatening way. "We require strict accountability, too. In a secure environment, we ask about their thought life, their reading materials, the movies they see." The leaders also ask them, "Are you staying free and moving in the direction God created for you?" Then they place them in the mainstream of the church by discreetly and wisely directing them into a place where they can minister.
Beyond formal ministries, churches can often minister to ex-homosexuals by changing attitudes and becoming aware of the sensitivities of those struggling with homosexuality. "I've been around people in the church who have made jokes about people who are gay," says Brad Grammer, who directs Face-to-Face, a ministry to homosexuals at First Evangelical Free Church on Chicago's North Side. "It really hurt, because they didn't know I have struggled with homosexuality."
Grammer says that another way churches can help is to offer discipleship relationships. He believes that if the church is functioning as it should by offering honest, encouraging relationships to those struggling with homosexuality or any other sin, there may be less of a need for formal groups. People also need more information about homosexuality to help them understand those who struggle with the issue, Grammer says.
UNWANTED HARVEST
Mona Riley, wife of Open Door's senior pastor, says there is potential for a great spiritual harvest in the homosexual community, but "it's an unwanted harvest. We don't want to reap it. Christians aren't sure if they want to spend eternity with these people." Revival has to happen in the church first, she says, "before it's going to happen in the gay community."
Riley sees a "hardness in the heart of the American church" toward people who have been involved in homosexual behavior. "We need to be trained in compassion," she says. "We have judged this particular sin to be worse than every other, but I don't see that in the Scriptures."
Leaders of ex-gay ministries around the country recognize hidden barriers that prevent churches from embracing those struggling with homosexuality. The foremost one concerns AIDS, says Chuck Therrien, director of ReCreation Ministries in Manchester, New Hampshire. Church members fear contracting the disease by casual contact, such as touching an infected individual or sharing restroom facilities. Despite assurances from health experts, these fears persist.
Therrien says church members also fear that former homosexuals will molest their children or seduce young people into the homosexual lifestyle. "But why would they recruit someone into a lifestyle they despise and are desperately trying to overcome?" he reasons. Therrien also points out that most adult homosexuals are sexually drawn to other adults, not children. And though such abuse is unlikely, churches should already be equipped to prevent any kind of child sexual abuse, homosexual or heterosexual. Such precautions should ease the fears of church members and leave them free to minister to whoever walks through the church doors.
Church leaders who have taken the risk of venturing into this type of ministry have seen their churches affected positively. "Our people are proud that we are a church that is true to the Bible, but living it out in progressive ways," says Ken Korver. "We are not compromising truth, but the congregation is thrilled that we are living out grace."
There is also widespread support at Church of the Open Door for the Love In Action program. "Our people are excited to be on the cutting edge of this issue," says senior pastor Michael Riley.
The staff of these churches and specialized ministries to homosexuals insist that they are not doing anything different or unusual from the ordinary discipleship offered in any evangelical church. "All you need to know is how to love and speak the truth," Joe Dallas says, "and you've got all the tools necessary for ministry to these people."
John Paulk, the former female impersonator, agrees. After becoming a Christian, John moved to California to be come part of LIA. He attended Church of the Open Door and found unconditional support, especially from the men in the church. "Heterosexual men befriended me, prayed for me, and invited me into their homes for fellowship. They treated me with genuine respect and affection. It's really that simple. They loved me into wholeness."
========
Bob Davies is executive director of Exodus International (San Rafael,
California), a worldwide coalition of redemptive ministries to men and
women overcoming homosexuality. He is also co-author, with Lori
Rentzel, of Coming Out of Homosexuality (InterVarsity Press, 1994).
Melody Schiaing, a free-lance writer from Titusville, Florida, and Karen
Beattie, associate editor, also contributed to this article. To contact
Exodus International regarding homosexual ministries in your area, write
P. 0. Box 2121, San Rafael, CA 94912 or call (415) 454-1017.
Religious trends during the past few decades have made today’s debate over homosexuality almost inevitable. In a growing number of denominations, the Bible’s moral statements are increasingly seen as irrelevant to our culture. The latest findings of science and an individual’s personal experiences are treated as higher authorities than the Scriptures.
Discussions about homosexuality frequently center around a few isolated Bible passages. Often overlooked is the foundational teaching on human sexuality found in Genesis 1: “So God created man in his own image ... male and female he created them” (v. 27).
Jesus based His teachings against divorce on this passage (Matt. 19:4-6). God created man and woman for each other, and ordained sex only in the context of a lifetime commitment. The opening chapter of Genesis explains why fornication, adultery, and prostitution - as well as “homosexual marriage” -- are all distortions of God’s original plan for sex.
Some scholars have offered new interpretations for specific biblical passages that prohibit homosexual acts. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19), Lot’s visitors demand to “know” the angelic visitors (v. 5, KJV). The explanation that they wanted merely “to get acquainted with” the strangers makes Lot’s response most puzzling: “Don’t do this wicked thing” (v.7). The context supports the traditional interpretation of homosexuality, and other biblical passages link Sodom with sexual immorality and perversion (2 Peter 2:7; Jude 7).
In Leviticus 18:22, God clearly commands, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”Pro-homosexual scholars argue that Christians are no longer under the Mosaic law. But we must carefully distinguish the dietary or ceremonial laws (abolished in the New Testament - Mark 7:19; Heb. 10:8-10) from the moral laws (reinforced in the New Testament and still applicable today -- Mark 7:20-23; Matt. 5:27,28).
Differentiating the two types of laws answers the question, “Why do Christians quote the Old Testament on homosexuality, then ignore the commands that prohibit eating shellfish or wearing clothing of mixed fibers?”
The important distinction between these laws is reflected in the Old Testament penalties for breaking them: Disobedience to the ceremonial laws resulted in uncleanness (Lev. 11:24, etc.), while breaching the moral law meant death (Lev. 20).
The first chapter of Romans is usually considered the most thorough and clear condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible. It also contains the only specific reference to lesbianism. But some people claim that Paul’s statements are “culturally bound,” addressed to first-century believers and therefore not applicable today. But God declares that His moral laws do no change and that His Word “stands forever” (Isa. 40:8).
What did Paul mean when he stated that homosexual acts are “unnatural” (Rom. 1:26,27)? Contrary to what a person feels is natural? Not necessarily. Many homosexuals say that they have always felt attracted to others of their own gender. But we live in a fallen world; sin has distorted our perception of truth (Rom. 1:18). So what someone feels is “natural” can still be wrong. Paul was referring to the natural order as God originally created it.
Those who practice homosexual acts receive “in themselves the due penalty for their perversion” (Rom. 1:27). Homosexuals reap a bitter harvest of emotional and physical suffering. Though AIDS is not necessarily a direct judgment from God, it certainly is a devastating consequence of sin.
First Corinthians 6:9 mentions “homosexual offenders” in a long list of people who will not inherit the kingdom of God. This passage seems clear -- until the discussions begin about the exact meaning of the original Greek word.
Does “arsenokoitai” refer to lustful, uncommitted male prostitution or to a loving, permanent relationship? The literal meaning is “a male who lies with a male.” There are no qualifications. All homosexual behavior is forbidden, no matter what degree of love or lust is involved.
What about Jesus’ silence on this issue? There are many sexual behaviors that He did not address (incest, rape, bestiality). That doesn’t mean they are permissible. Jesus always upheld the Old Testament law (Matt. 5:17-19), which strictly condemned homosexual acts. And He affirmed celibacy as the only legitimate alternative to heterosexual marriage (Matt. 19:12).
=====
For more extensive article on homosexuality and its myths, see c:\word.wrk\bible-st\homomyth.doc.
[Holwick: AWAB stands for "Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists." W&A stands for "Welcoming and Affirming." They welcome homosexuals into their congregational life and accept them as they are; homosexuality is not considered a sin (unless, perhaps, it involves violence or promiscuity). About 30 American Baptist churches identify with the movement. This is how one of their churches describes itself.]
_______________________________________________________________________
W&A Congregations in Profile: Lake Street Church, Evanston, Illinois
By David Gregg (Minister of Education and Congregational Life)
Lake Street Church is probably well defined by its roots in traditional liberal Christianity and its struggle to transform them. Our desire to reintegrate prophetic witness, spiritual depth, high commitment, and a thriving community is a simple one but has led us on quite a journey.
"First Baptist Church of Evanston," as it was called, spent most of the 70's aging and shrinking. By 1980, this once significant ABC church was nearly decimated, and something needed to change. So the church called Robert V. Thompson, only thirty at the time, to be a "magic bullet" pastor. But there was a difference: unlike many churches looking for institutional salvation, Evanston was willing to change. And it worked: the church began to come back.
The main strategy was a program of liberal activism. Debates on becoming a sanctuary church-voted down-led to a homeless shelter in the church basement. The church expanded its ecumenical work and founded agencies serving people with AIDS, inner-city latch-key kids, and those lacking affordable housing. The church found new life as a place for liberal firebrands. But there was something missing. Like many activist churches, FBC-Evanston discovered their roots to be in shallow soil. Discovering the overly external nature of this latter-day social gospel, the church began asking how progressive, intellectual, post-modern Christians could become spiritual.
The church undertook a wide and serious exploration of some recent spiritual re-discoveries: Goddess spirituality, shamanistic paganism, and Gnosticism. These explorations struck some as profound and others as "New Agey," but they deepened everyone's commitment to spiritual openness in new, even radical ways. These explorations have evolved into committed inter-religious work. For four years, the church has celebrated World Wide Communion Sunday, not as an ecumenical holiday but as an inter-faith one. We invite members of Hindu, Native American, Jewish, Buddhist, Moslem, and Sikh communities to join us at the communion table, because we believe it is what Christ would do in our present Metro-Chicago setting.
As we were expanding the limits of our openness, tensions with our Baptist roots surfaced. We were ambitious about growth; and it became obvious that our name, First Baptist Church, was a major obstacle. The repressive Baptist caricature scared people away before we could say "not that kind of Baptist." So, we changed our name, and everything changed. Finally people would listen to us explain our commitments to openness, spiritual development, and progressive public witness. The congregation grew dramatically as people discovered what we tried to tell them all along: that our combination of a definite, non-dogmatic witness with a commitment to radical openness was just what they were looking for.
Of course, many were worried we would grow away from the Baptist tradition. In fact, just the opposite has occurred. We have spent more time talking "Baptist" since the name change than we ever did before. Then, we had to explain it away. Now, we can simply explain it. Once we do, people become enthusiastic about our allegiance to Baptist principles. There is still too much baggage for many to call themselves Baptist. But all celebrate the Baptist principles by name. It has been a painful irony that, just as we have grown in awareness of our heritage, that heritage itself is under such assault. But our congregation is now more committed, not less, to preserving our traditional values and asserting them anew in our denomination.
Not much of this touches on our W&A stance. It has been an important but ultimately minor emphasis. In large part, this is because, as near as I can tell, the inclusion of sexual minorities is not an issue but a given. When the church voted to join AWAB, the motion passed with no opposing speeches and only one vote against. We offer gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people a church community in which variations in gender and sexual identity are not a big deal. This perhaps makes us a poor choice for people beginning to struggle with integrating religion and sexuality. But it represents our vision of the Kingdom as a place where everyone is included, enfranchised, and "main streamed" - because the main stream is so very wide.
*
Because he pulled back from the edge of disaster, worship leader Dennis Jernigan wants others to know they can be free in Christ.
That message comes forth in his concerts -- including a recent appearance at the Baptist General Convention of Texas' evangelism conference -- and his new book and album, "This Is My Destiny."
"It can all be summed up in the title," said Jernigan, a lifelong Southern Baptist. "I believe that's one of the highest forms of praise to God" -- "to declare who I am in Christ because of what he's done."
A graduate of Oklahoma Baptist University, he has been nominated for two Dove awards and written a number of popular praise songs, including "Great Is the Lord Almighty," "Thank You," "I Belong to Jesus" and "You Are My All in All." In addition to singing at the Texas conference in Fort Worth, Jernigan last year led a Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary chapel service. The seminary appearance generated an invitation to return and more than a dozen letters. The correspondents told him the service helped free them from bondage to sin and find new joy through faith in Christ.
However, there is a crucial element to his testimony that tends to upset some, he said -- his homosexual activity as a teen and college student. While he can't offer any statistics, he said a "network" of men and women were involved in this sin at his college in the late 1970s and early '80s. Several of his acquaintances, among them two close friends, died of AIDS in the past decade.
In a poignant story that appears in the book, Jernigan tells of finally confessing his problem to a Christian leader. But the man, who was married, responded with an invitation to become intimate. After their encounter, Jernigan went home, turned on a space heater and lay down next to the fumes. But the thought of dying scared him so badly he turned off the gas.
Soon after at a Christian concert, the lead singer said, "There's someone here who has done something; you're afraid if anyone knew, it would be awful. God wants you to know he sees and loves you anyway." "I had the deep impression she was talking to me," he said. That night, he said he placed this habit on God's shoulders, put the old self in the grave and began a journey toward wholeness.
Despite years of same-sex relationships, the Oklahoma native maintains he was born again at age 9 when accepted Christ as Savior but didn't know all that meant. Some church members dispute the claim, saying he couldn't have been a Christian and engaged in homosexuality. Others question why he must talk about the past when it is so distasteful. The singer also generates occasional picketing by homosexual rights groups, some declaring that he "spreads hate." But Jernigan insists the only way others will know about his triumph is if he talks about it. Had he known there was hope for those dealing with homosexuality, he said he would have sought help long before he did.
"So much healing has happened in my life, I feel like I was never homosexual," said the father of nine children, who range in age from 4 to 14. "I'm totally heterosexual. I've been born again. The book is about the process of what I've gone through personally. I'm more free than I ever thought I could be. I hope to help somebody else escape bondage."
While Southern Baptists correctly take the stand that homosexuality is wrong, Jernigan said they need to be more sensitive to those who struggle with it. As a sensitive child, he faced classmates' taunts and often heard crude remarks about "gays" at church. Members' condemnation of homosexuals convinced him, somehow, this sin was too vile for God to forgive, he said.
Jernigan said it doesn't take experience with this lifestyle to help someone overcome it, just a willingness to encourage and help the individual. "I finally confided in a friend who said, 'I'll walk through it with you, whatever it takes,'" he recalled. "It was the love of God and this friend's lovingkindness that led me to repent and help soften my heart."
And while he isn't proud of what he did in the past, the songwriter said he wants to let others know that their setbacks shouldn't prevent them from serving God, either. "When you get set free from prison, all you want to do is praise the one who got you out," Jernigan said. "That's why I do what I do. I know what it's like to be bound up, so I want to praise the one who set me free."
*
The British media say the Scottish Episcopal bishop of Edinburgh has defended his outspoken views on atheism as an acceptable alternative to faith, drug taking, homosexuality and promiscuity and dismissed calls for his resignation.
In his book, Godless Morality, Bishop Holloway says promiscuity may not be immoral and that religion should not feature debates on ethics. He also calls for the legalization of cannabis and champions the cause of homosexuals. Two weeks ago he admitted to experimenting with marijuana and called for a Royal Commission to consider its decriminalization.
In a letter to all clergy in his diocese, the Most Rev. Richard Holloway said that he had responsibility to "encourage theological reflection upon the challenging issues of the day." Recently, a group of traditionalist priests within the Scottish Episcopal Church accused the bishop of contradicting Christian belief.
In response Holloway said in his letter: "I believe that I represent a considerable body of people who have left the Church. There is a Church in exile out there, consisting of good people who have left us because they can no longer believe the Church's doctrine or ethics as traditionally interpreted."
BEHAVIOR NOT HELPFUL
Holloway, 65, conducted a confirmation service August 29 in the Borders town of Duns where the rector, the Rev. Chris Martin, had questioned the bishop's suitability to remain in his post. Martin said, "His behavior is not helpful for those of us who are responsible for ministering the Gospel to our parishioners."
In 1998, Holloway said he could fill the Scottish Episcopal Church with "sexual refugees." He was criticized for failing to uphold the traditional line on homosexuality adopted by the Anglican Lambeth Conference with the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey.
In 1996, Holloway admitted that at times he does not believe in God and described atheism as a "truer faith than much that passes for belief." He admitted feelings of "absolute atheism" where he became convinced that there was no God and no afterlife. "Real atheism is as much an intuition as faith itself and is like it in many ways. It has some good arguments to support it," he said.
*
An evangelical response to the issue of whether we should welcome, accept, and affirm homosexuals who claim to be Christian [the theme of a movement within the American Baptist and other denominations]:
If you mean recognizing the issue of homosexuality and sexual orientation and the struggles surrounding then, yes, I agree. If you mean providing an atmosphere wherein as many people as will listen (including those in homosexual relationships) can hear God’s magnificent, forgiving love spoken through the Gospel (specifically, Good News) then, yes, I agree. If you mean recognizing that anyone who names Christ as Lord and Savior is still going to struggle with sin, and maybe even continue in some form of deeply ingrained, habitual sin after receiving salvation, then, yes, I agree. If you mean that new believers need room, time, space, nurture, mentoring, and lots of Christian patience and love in order to grow in the faith then, yes, I agree. If you mean that I can still recognize the value and unique contributions of people with whom I disagree sharply then, yes, I agree.
However (and you knew there was a “however” coming, didn’t you?), if it means accepting a completely revised doctrine on the legitimacy and acceptability of active homosexual relationships based upon new theological and sociological preconceptions and constructs, then I do not agree with you. If it means accepting the legitimacy of ordaining clergy who are in an active homosexual relationship, or accepting into full church membership those who are in an active homosexual relationship, then I do not agree with you. At the same time, this is not a rejection of the Christian love ethic. It is a recognition that we ALL, especially those confessing Christ as Savior, have a responsibility to denounce sinful behaviors in our lives and live in a manner consistent with the wishes and will of our heavenly Father. (And I emphasize that the power to accomplish this is not mine, but the power of God Himself as I allow Him to live in me and work through me).
It is not normal or healthy for a culture to talk about sex this much. From Pride month to education to companies telegraphing their commitments to inclusion and diversity, to just about every commercial, movie, or TV show produced today, sexual identity is treated as if it is central to human identity, human purpose, and human happiness. And this vision of life and the world is especially force-fed to children, who are essentially subjects of our social experimentations.
If the energy spent talking about sex is disproportionate, it’s important to know there were some who saw this coming. The best example is Oxford sociologist J.D. Unwin. In 1939, Unwin published a landmark book summarizing his research. Sex and Culture was a look at 80 tribes and six historical civilizations over the course of five millennia, through the lens of a single question: Does a culture’s ideas of sexual liberation predict its success or collapse?
Unwin’s findings were overwhelming:
“Just as societies have advanced [and] then faded away into a state of general decrepitude, so in each of them has marriage first previously changed from a temporary affair based on mutual consent to a lifelong association of one man with one woman, and then turned back to a loose union or to polygamy.”
What’s more, Unwin concluded,
“The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.”
Unwin saw a pattern behind societies that unraveled. If three consecutive generations abandoned sexual restraint built around the protections of marriage and fidelity, they collapsed.
Simply put, sexuality is essential for survival. However, sexuality is such a powerful force, it must be controlled or else it can destroy a future rather than secure it. Wrongly ordered sexuality is devastating for both individuals and entire societies.
Unwin’s conclusions can be boiled down to a single issue. Are people living for the future, with the ability to delay gratification, or are they focusing only on the here and now? When a culture fails to restrain its sexual instincts, people think less about securing the future and instead compromise the stability, productivity, and wellbeing of the next generation in the pursuit of sexual pleasure.
Unwin claims that he had no moral or ideological axe to grind in this research. “I make no opinion about rightness or wrongness,” he wrote. But his work is nevertheless profound, as are his conclusions, which we seem to be living out in real time.
According to Pew Research, almost 90% of children lived with two married parents in 1960. By 2008 that number had dropped to just 64%. Over the same period, the percentage of kids born to unmarried women rose from 5% to 41%. There is really no question of how this impacts children. Studies show that teens from single-parent or blended families are 300% more likely to need psychological assistance, twice as likely to drop out of high school, and more likely to commit suicide. They end up with less college education and lower-paying jobs than their parents and are more likely to get divorced themselves.
This is not because children from nontraditional homes have less potential or less value. Nor do stable two-parent families guarantee outcomes for children. Statistics do not determine the future of an individual, but they can identify the future of a society. On a civilizational level, the future is a matter of math.
The early days of the sexual revolution reframed the morality of sexual behavior, but today it’s gone further, undermining the already fragile identity in the rising generation, fraying it in the various directions of the ever-growing acronym of sexual identities. Anywhere from 1 in 5 to nearly 40% of young people identify as LGBTQ today. Or, in the case of one junior high class in the Northeast I heard of recently, “all of them do.”
Christian faithfulness in this cultural moment must involve the protection of children and a commitment to the future of society. At the very least, that means speaking up, especially when it is unpopular to do so. Along the way, we will have to reject the “inevitability thesis,” the notion that all is lost and that things will only get worse so nothing we do matters. With courage and unconditional love for our neighbor, we continue to speak the truth.
And we will need to remind ourselves and each other of something that should be obvious but is not: The ideas and behavior of the late sexual revolution are not normal. Nor is our fascination and focus on sexuality as the central defining factor in human existence and value.
Human sexuality is not some arbitrary construct like a speed limit. It is as much a part of the fabric of life as gravity. We may deny that, but we will not avoid the pain of hitting the ground if we do.
________
Copyright (c) 2022 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.
A Resolution on Homosexuality by Rev. Ronald Troup - October 1992
BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS
We believe that God made human beings as male and female; that it is His plan that our sexual natures should be fully expressed between a man and a woman within the bonds of marriage. (Genesis 1:27; 2:18-25; Exodus 20:14,17; Proverbs 5:15-19; Matthew 19:4-6; Hebrews 13:4)
We believe that human beings have fallen into sin; that the taint and pollution of sin is found in all of us, in all parts of our lives, and from the beginning of our existence; and that sin expresses itself in our resisting God's plans for us. (Genesis 3; 8:21; Psalms 51:1-6; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 1:18-3:20; 7:14-24)
We believe that God has not left us to perish in our condition of sin; that in Jesus Christ the problem of sin is decisively dealt with; and that those who are living in Christ can be free from the compulsions of sin and can be free to live as God intended. (John 3:13-18; Romans 5:6-11; 6:8-14; 8:1-4; Galatians 5:13-25; 1 Peter 1:18-21)
WE RESOLVE THAT --
All of us have known and continue to know the disordering effects of sin in our lives; that we all continue to stand in need of God's help to resist temptations and in need of the Holy Spirit's work to remake us. (Matthew 6:13; Romans 8:1-17; 12:1-2; Colossians 3:9-10; Philippians 2:4-6; 1 John 1:5-10)
Homosexual behavior is a form of sin; whenever mentioned in Scripture this behavior is always warned against, and this behavior breaks the pattern of sexual expression established as God's plan for humanity. (Leviticus 18:22-23; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Jude 7)
Those of us who are tempted to homosexual behavior need the same help from God and help from God's people as those of us who are tempted to other sins. (Galatians 6:1-10; Ephesians 5:1-20; Philippians 2:4; Colossians 3:12-17)
*
In recent days, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that pitted the rights of parents against those of grandparents. In 1993, Brad Troxel committed suicide, leaving behind two daughters. His parents wanted to maintain their close relationship with the girls, especially after the mother told them she was going to remarry. But the mother felt her in-laws' demands interfered with her rights as parent.
So the Troxels sued under a Washington statute that allows any non-parent visitation rights if the court deems it to be "in the best interest of the child." All fifty states have similar statutes. But Washington's Supreme Court overturned the law, ruling that it threatened the authority of the mother.
So the grandparents appealed to the United States Supreme Court; but if the reaction of the justices during oral arguments is any indication, the Troxels are not likely to prevail there, either. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor called the Washington law "breathtakingly broad." And Time magazine noted that under this law even nannies and soccer coaches could win visitation rights.
Ironically, this case comes to our attention just days after the Vermont Supreme Court, in order to extend benefits to same-sex couples, stripped traditional marriage of its special legal status. The court ruled, as you may recall, that any two people living together are entitled to the same legal protection as a man and woman joined together in holy matrimony. This startling decision effectively deconstructs the institution of marriage.
The juxtaposition of these two cases indicates the moral schizophrenia we have succumbed to as a society. For years we have been told that autonomy is the ultimate goal of life. People can do as they please. But this mindset has led to a rise in divorce, remarriage, and so-called blended families. And more and more states have enacted domestic partner statutes. So now we see lesbian couples adopting children, and "Heather Has Two Mommies" is a text in many schools.
But can't we see what we've done? By deconstructing the family and saying that any two adults can constitute a family, we have trivialized the very institution of marriage and destroyed the basis of society. Suddenly we're seeing all sorts of aberrations. People dissolve marriages at will, and grandparents are forced to sue for the right to see their grandchildren.
But when the courts act in the place of what used to be settled by moral consensus, we end up with the tyranny of judges and lawyers telling us what to do. The courts begin to micromanage human affairs and the result is impossible moral dilemmas like we see in this case.
Should parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit? Of course. Should grandparents be able to see their grandchildren? Again, of course. There was a time when Mom and Dad would take the kids to see Granny for Sunday dinner. Now they meet her in the courtroom.
And this is why Christians have to make a better case to our neighbors for why the traditional family is so important. If you contact us at BreakPoint, we'll provide with important material you can use.
If we fail to act, we put at risk the most essential institution of civil society and invite judicial chaos, or worse.
___________________
Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.
*
Printed in the Summer Catalogue- July 17-21 at the Graduate Theological Union Cooperative summer Session, Berkely, CA.
Queer Preaching - G. Penny Nixon
"This advanced preaching course is open to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered [g/l/b/t], and other preachers who want to explore subjects such as incarnational preaching (how to use our queer bodies in preaching), queer hermeneutics and preaching, mystical experiences and preaching, truth-telling and self-revelation in preaching, and using the 'g/l/b/t canon' as preaching tool. The class consists of daily lectures, small group work, and daily clinics in the practice of preaching. This is a laboratory class in which participants receive individual coaching and feedback in preparing sermons; class size is limited to 12. Early registration is recommended. (Students must have afternoons free for the scheduling of preaching clinics.) Prerequisite: previous homiletics class."
__________________________
What I really want to see is a course in "Baal Worship 101 - Basics for Caring & Compassionate Child Sacrifice."
Pastor John Mazarella
*
[A Baptist pastor] appeals to the fact that he has gay and lesbian friends, who, if I can make a gross simplification, are "nice." Because they are nice, they don't seem to fit the tone of the texts that condemn homosexuality.
I understand. I really do. I have nice homosexual friends too. I minister to and have Bible studies with both homosexual men and lesbians.
But their being nice does not change the truth of the Scriptures that call all homosexuality a sin.
I have other friends who are not Christian. They are nice too. In fact, some of them are "nicer" and more loving than most of the members of my church. It would be tempting for me to think the passages of Scripture that claim they are children of and captive to satan do not apply to them. Nor would I want to believe that they are bound for hell. But the Scripture clearly teaches they are.
I would do my nice friends a disservice if I looked at how nice they were and concluded they really didn't need to hear about Jesus and his salvation.
Nor would I do my homosexual and lesbian friends any good by telling them that because they are nice, the Scriptures on homosexuality do not apply to them either.
One final comment: All that glitters isn't gold. Some nice people aren't so nice behind closed doors. One of the most extensive studies on homosexuality by A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg found:
73 percent of gay men had over 100 partners
58 percent of gay men had over 250 partners
41 percent of gay men had over 500 partners
26 percent of gay men had over 1000 partners
Pastor Glenn Wade
San Diego
*
Last Tuesday [March 21, 2000], hundreds of homosexual activists gathered outside of Paramount Pictures' headquarters in Los Angeles. They were there to protest a newly syndicated television show hosted by Dr. Laura Schlessinger.
The stated motive for the protest was opposition to what the marchers called "hate speech" by the talk- show hostess. But what's really going on here is the attempt to suppress all opposition to homosexuality.
Schlessinger, an Orthodox Jew, has a radio audience of 18 million. A big part of her popularity is due to her insistence on strict standards of right and wrong. Callers are often told to take personal responsibility for their actions; and Schlessinger speaks out against our culture's moral decline.
She has addressed homosexuality with sincerity and candor, telling listeners that homosexuality is a "deviant behavior" and "a biological disorder." But she insists that homosexuals are "entitled to love and respect" just like everyone else.
Hoping to build on Dr. Laura's success, Paramount signed her to an hour-long daytime broadcast picked up on more than 160 TV stations, reaching 90 percent of American households.
And that's when the fur began to fly. Activists demanded that Paramount cancel the show. And if they refused -- which they have so far -- then the activists would boycott the show's advertisers.
Gay-rights groups consider Schlessinger's views on homosexuality -- views shared, incidentally, by millions of Jews and Christians -- as hate speech. David Lee, the producer of the sitcom "Frasier," told protestors at last week's protest that Paramount has behaved "irresponsibly by giving a platform to a woman who is hurting the gay community, literally."
His word, "literally," is in reference to the activists' contention that even raising moral objections to homosexuality inevitably leads to violence.
Yet, for her part, Dr. Laura recently issued a statement in which she denied any intent to "hurt anyone" or contribute to "to an atmosphere of hate or intolerance."
Of course that is not her intent. But this protest isn't about intolerance. It's one more attempt to purge from public discussion all views on homosexuality that differ from those of the activists. It's an example of what Jean Bethke Elshtain of the University of Chicago calls "liberal monism."
Unlike pluralism, which our founding fathers promoted and which tolerates many views on a subject and invites discussion of different points of view, monism is intolerant of opposing points of view. It excludes the possibility of good-faith dissent, seeking instead to impose its own brand of orthodoxy on the rest of us.
And the liberal and gay activists seem oblivious to the absurd irony in all of this. Take the case of the government official in Europe who denounced Mr. Haider, the Austrian with a Nazi past who was elected to office in his country. "We will not tolerate intolerance," he thundered. And he did it with a straight face.
If you want to express your support for Dr. Laura, call us here at Breakpoint and we'll give you the information you need to contact Paramount studios.
The tactics being used against Dr. Laura today show how vicious gay rights activists can be. And if they succeed in silencing her, just imagine what they'll do to those who don't have 18 million loyal fans.
________________
Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.
___________________
Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.
*
I once saw a local Boston TV talk show that featured homosexual teenagers talking about their lifestyles. They were part of a high school group that was helping people of this sexual preference accept themselves. One even professed faith. When asked if he felt there was a conflict he said, "No, my God is a God of love.
He accepts me just the way I am. Other people shouldn't judge me!"
Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.
Donate