Theology Matters

A Publication of Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry Vol 7 No 6 • Nov/Dec 2001

This issue of Theology Matters is being sent to every PCUSA congregation as a resource for you to use in the current and
on-going debate regarding homosexual practice. This all-church mailing has been funded by the Presbyterian Coalition.

The Bible and Homosexual Practice:

Theology, Analogies, and Genes

By Robert A. J. Gagnon

This article is adapted from Dr. Gagnon’s workshop at the Presbyterian Coalition Gathering on October 1, 2001, in Orlando.

A Theocentric and Christocentric Preface to makes righteous the person whose life is based on faith
the Sexuality Debate in Jesus. (Rom 3:21-26; cf. 1:16-17)

Here Paul proclaims that God is showing himself to be in

Light from Paul
the right, definitively and at long last, in the way that God
Let me say by way of preface what this debate on sexuality
chooses to be right, on the basis of saving people through
is about. It is not about us. It is about God. We have lost
Jesus Christ and through no other. The only way that
our way because we have converted the theocentric
message can ever be heard properly is if the preceding
posture of Scripture into an anthropocentric posture. We
material in Romans is also heard (1:18-3:20, especially
have made the satisfaction of human desires and
3:19-20), which brings people ultimately to one
aspirations paramount. Yet when we look at Paul’s letter
appropriate position, which is face on the floor, open to
to the Romans, we find that the first crescendo reached in
whatever way God chooses to redeem us because we have
the letter couches everything in terms of God’s
nothing to bring with us. With that overwhelming
righteousness:
gratitude—in a sort of theophanic experience, like Job
had—we receive what God has for us. Make no mistake
But now . . . God’s righteousness has been brought to
about it: God insists that God will be in the right and God
light, . . . that is, God’s righteousness through faith in
alone. And no one has any right to question that, because
Jesus Christ . . . , whom God set before himself as an
we are but dust. Much of the sexuality debate revolves
offering that makes amends by means of his blood,
around human demands about what God allegedly must
through faith, serving as a demonstration of his
do if God is to be considered loving and just, rather than
righteousness, . . . with a view to the demonstration of
his righteousness in the present critical time, in order
that he himself might be righteous and the one who Table of Contents

The Bible and Homosexual Practice:

Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon is Assistant Professor of New
Theology, Analogies, and Genes........ p. 1
Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author
Vote “NO” on Amendment H .................... p. 14
of the acclaimed book, The Bible and Homosexual
Repent, Remember, Overcome.................... p. 15
Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, Abingdon, 2001.

Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry Page 1

accepting with open hearts the singular way God has conflict as stereo-typical presentations of an “accepting
provided for acceptable sexual expression. God” or “accepting Jesus” would have us believe. At the
forefront is always “grace to become what God wants us to
That God would allow his own Son to die for us is the be” (so the center section of the first 11 chapters of
greatest possible testimony of his love for us, and at the Romans: 6:1-8:17), never “grace to free me up to do what
same time of the sole efficacy of Christ’s atoning death I want to do.” The latter is a truncated gospel; or, more to
(Rom 5:5-11). For if God could have done it any other the point, no gospel at all.
way, surely God would have taken another approach.
Indeed, the greatest theodicy question of our time does not Light from the Gospel of John
have to do with cataclysmic events such as the September I love the opening chapter of the Gospel of John—in fact
11th tragedy, as bad as such events are. No, the greatest the whole of the Gospel of John if you press me. But we’ll
theodicy question of our time is how a just God could confine ourselves for the moment to the first chapter.
allow his own Son to die for us. The answer to that Remember how Jesus meets Nathanael and he knows
question is resolved only in that boundless depth of God’s immediately who Nathanael is from a distance. Nathanael
love for us that we spend the rest of eternity unraveling. is just thrilled by this. Yet this is a sort of equivalent of a
“David Letterman stupid pet trick” in relation to what
Yet that boundless love is expressed in a profound and, for John is really getting at in the Gospel. Jesus adds: If you
us, often frustrating way. For God is not the Great Rubber think that is something, “you will see . . . the angels of
Stamp in the sky that puts the seal of approval on all our God ascending and descending on the Son of Man”
inner desires. A better metaphor is to view God as the (1:51). Now already Jesus had said with respect to
great plastic surgeon, with the caveat that God is not Nathanael, “Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no
interested in mere cosmetic surgery. God is interested in deceit” (1:47)—a play on words with Jacob’s alternate
deep-tissue surgery. God intends “by any means name “Israel,” the one who is the stereotypical trickster in
necessary” (to borrow a phrase from Malcolm X) to form the Old Testament. When Jesus speaks at the end of John
Jesus in us. Our whole destiny moves toward the goal of 1 about the ascent and descent of angels he once more
being “conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom 8:29), recalls the Jacob cycle, in what is called in contemporary
like Christ being dead with respect to carrying out sinful parlance an intertextual echo. Jacob had a dream at Bethel
urges but alive with respect to obeying God (Rom 6:1-14). (Gen 28:10-22; Jacob did not yet know it was “Beth-El”;
It is this that explains Paul’s exasperated yearning for the only later would he refer to the place as “the House of
Galatians that “Christ be formed in you” (Gal 4:19); that God”). Jacob dreamed about a ladder of God on which the
they, like himself, should learn to “no longer live” so that angels of God were ascending and descending. Jesus says:
Christ may “live in” them (Gal 2:20). Or, as Paul could You will see something greater, you will see the angels
say to the Corinthians about himself and his associates, ascending and descending on the Son of Man. Who or
we are “always carrying around in the body the death of what is Jesus comparing himself to? The ladder. That is
Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in an astounding text. The Jesus of John’s Gospel is basically
our bodies” (2 Cor 4:10). Or, as he could say about searching for metaphors in the Scriptures with which he
himself to the Philippians, “I suffered the loss of all could be compared. Not Jacob. Who is Jacob that Jesus
things, and regard them as excrement, in order that I may should be compared with Jacob?
gain Christ . . . that I may know him and the power of his
resurrection and the partnership in his sufferings, being Throughout the Gospel of John one finds a rejection of
conformed to his death” (Phil 3:8, 10). strict comparisons between Jesus and the great human
figures of Israel’s past. Instead we find comparisons with
That is ultimately what this whole sexuality debate is objects in the Old Testament that symbolize life itself.
about. It is about whether or not we have the right to Why the ladder? Because the ladder symbolizes a link
define for ourselves what we can do on the basis of desires between heaven and earth. And if you want to encounter
that we experience in life, or whether God has the right to heaven on earth it has to be through Jesus. Moreover, as
transform us into the image of Jesus as God sees fit. That an instrument made of wood it beautifully symbolizes the
is the alternative before each and every one of us, “my wood of the cross. Jesus becomes the link between heaven
way”—as Frank Sinatra once said but no longer says—or and earth most profoundly at the point of his death
God’s way. God “who did not spare even his very Son but (hence: “for you will see . . .”). Likewise, Jesus is likened
handed him over to death for us all, how can he not also in John 4 not to Jacob but to Jacob’s well because flowing
graciously grant us all [good] things with Jesus?,” Paul from Jesus’ glorification at his death and departure is the
asks rhetorically in Romans 8:32. And is it not also true living water that consists of the Spirit of Jesus (cf. 7:38-
by the same token that, even sometimes when it is painful 39). So too Moses is not the mold to which Jesus must
for us and contrary to our personal desires, God will conform. Compare Jesus not with Moses but with the
require of us what is ultimately in our best interest? That bronze serpent that Moses “lifted up” in the desert and by
denial of the urges of the flesh will sometimes be which people bitten by poisonous snakes lived; for nobody
tantamount to a death of sorts? God is utterly in earnest to ever looked on Moses and lived (John 3:14-15; cf. Num
make us look like Jesus. Grace and a demanding ethic, 21:6-9). Yet when people look on (i.e., believe in) Jesus
including sexual ethic, go hand in hand. They are not in “lifted up” on the cross, they live forever. Compare Jesus

Page 2 Theology Matters • Nov/Dec 2001

not with Moses but with the “bread from heaven” want. What you really want is Jesus, not even something
associated with Moses’ desert sojourn (John 6:32-51; cf. that Jesus gives. Consider the other totalistic metaphors
Exodus 16). Nobody ever ate Moses and lived; but the about Jesus in John’s Gospel, in addition to the Ladder
manna was the “bread from heaven” (Ps 78:24) by which and Well of Jacob and the Bronze Serpent and Manna of
people were delivered from death. Similarly, when people Moses. Jesus is not only the Good Shepherd but also the
believe that Jesus’ flesh was given for the life of the world Gate itself by whom alone one enters the sheepfold of
(i.e., accept him as Savior by virtue of his atoning death), God’s redeemed community (John 10). He is the Glory of
they live forever (6:51). God that appeared on Mount Sinai (2:1-12; cf. Exod
19:16-20), the Temple (2:19-22), the Vine of Israel (15:1-
But that is not all. Jesus intensifies that offence by talking 11), the Resurrection (11:25), and the Light of the world
about “eating my flesh and drinking my blood” (6:53-58). (8:12; 9:5). And he is the Way or Road (the Greek word
For a Jew in antiquity, to speak about drinking blood— hodos carries both meanings). “How can we know the way
which is reserved for God—is the height of blasphemy. It or road” to the place you are going, asks Thomas (14:5).
is intensely scandalous; it is intensely offensive. That Jesus responds, “I am the Way (or Road), and the Truth,
overlay of offensiveness and scandal is there by design. It and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through
is there to say: If you think you can do an end run around me” (14:6). Ultimately, Jesus is nothing less than the “I
Jesus in some way, you are sadly mistaken. This is the am” (8:58; 18:6; cf. Exod 3:14), the Word or Mind of God
one and the one alone through whom life is achieved and made flesh (John 1:14).
not just at any moment but at the moment of the cross
when Jesus makes amends for human iniquity. By virtue It is as if you drove up to a McDonalds and said, “I’d like
of his sacrificial death on the cross Jesus becomes the a cheeseburger and a coke, please”; and the person at the
sole, indispensable soteriological medium for the cosmos. counter responded, “I am a cheeseburger.” Now that
Period. The offensiveness of this exclusive claim is would probably be the last time you would see that person
underscored when the narrator notes that “From this point working behind the counter. But odd as it may sound, in
on many of his disciples drew back and no longer went effect, that is what Jesus is saying—although bread sounds
about with him” (6:67)—quite understandably. If one had better than cheeseburger as a staple of life. What Jesus is
any queasiness about the centrality of Jesus in God’s plan, saying is: “Your deepest yearnings are satisfied in me.
that would be the time to bow out. So Jesus turned to his Every human quest is stilled in me. You may think you
disciples and said, “Do you also wish to go away?” Peter want something else, but what you really want is . . . me.
in effect responds, “Well, this is really strange stuff, but You may think you want sex as you would like it, but
you have the words of eternal life. Where else are we to what you really want is . . . me.” That is what we are
go? Now if there were some other alternative, and fighting for with respect to the church in the sexuality
somebody else had the words of eternal life, I would be debate.
there. But that looks not to be the case, so we are staying
with you, the Holy One of God” (cf. 6:67-69). Because sex is neither a god to be worshipped nor an
essential component of authentic human existence, God is
What we are now being asked to do in the current able to restrict access to sexual intercourse in a host of
amendment A is to carve out a segment of our life— ways—to relationships that are monogamous, non-
sexuality—and say in effect, “I will be the master of my incestuous, adult, non-commercial, non-bestial, lifelong,
domain. I will dictate to God what I need in life to make and heterosexual. The only absolutely essential thing in
me happy.” That cannot be allowed in the church. Is it life is Jesus himself. A church that attempts to supplant a
any wonder that the metaphor of dying with Christ is used consistently and strongly held sexual norm in Scripture is
by Paul (and implied by John’s image of being “born from a church that has given up hope that Jesus is Answer
above,” 3:3, 7)? When have we ever known death to be enough. It is a church that refuses to accept the word from
painless? Death is not an easy experience, and the God that “My grace is sufficient for you, for [my] power is
metaphor is there to remind us that the human flesh does made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor 11:9). It is a church
not go quietly. We hear the gospel: “Jesus is Lord” (Rom that views self-fulfillment as more basic to the Christian
10:9; 1 Cor 12:3; 2 Cor 4:5; Phil 2:11; Col 2:6). The flesh life than denying oneself and taking up one’s cross (Mark
says, “Oh, thank you very much, that resonates exactly 8:34). It is a church, in short, that no longer believes that
with my personal interest.” Not exactly. That certainly God can bring life out of a dying to self. Therefore it
was not the way it worked in my case. I am sure it stands incredulous at the notion that Scripture could
probably was not in yours, and still is not in ours. The actually, and rightly, close off one whole form of sexual
flesh goes only kicking and screaming; it constantly expression to people with strong proclivities to only that
opposes the will of God because it sets its own will in one form.
place of God’s (Rom 8:5-8). It insists: “I want to do what
I want to do, when I want to do it, and with whom I want
to do it.” A Sensitive Issue
The gospel is there to tell us: You may think you want this The homosexuality issue is very difficult, and the reason
or that thing outside of Jesus, but it is not what you really why the issue is very difficult is its very personal nature. It
Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry Page 3
involves, for example, people’s children. But I think what b. The Bible disapproves of only exploitative forms of
often gets left out of the discussion is that it is not just a homosexual behavior (see the discussion of individual
question of feeling compassion for people who have Bible texts in my book).
homosexual passions. It is also a question of whether c. Homosexual intercourse is regarded as sin but a sin no
culture can impact the incidence both of self-identifying worse than any other sin, indeed less of a sin than
homosexuality and of homosexual behavior in the judging others (see pp. 69-70, 74-78, 94-97, 113, 117-
population. As I will attempt to show, cultural influences 20, 264-69, 273-84, 305-308, 331).
can have an enormous impact on those numbers. And an d. The church over the centuries has departed from
increase in homosexual self-identification and Scripture’s position on a number of issues. Given these
homosexual practice in the population will, in turn, analogous cases, what’s the big deal about
increase in the population the host of ancillary problems circumventing the Bible’s opposition to homosexual
that typically arise from such behavior (see pp. 452-60, behavior (see pp. 442-51, 460-69)?
471-79 of my book). We should feel as much for children
who, through vigorous societal endorsement of (3) The “New Knowledge” Argument. The claim here is
homosexual behavior, are encouraged at a crucial stage of that we have acquired some new insight recently that the
sexual development into cultivating homosexual self- biblical authors did not have, which puts at jeopardy their
identification and behavior, with its disproportionately viewpoint. This allegedly new knowledge has in view one
high risks to health, relational dynamics, and gender or more of the following claims:
identity. That is, we should feel as much for these children
as for children already beset by homosexual urges. a. The Levitical prohibitions of male same-sex intercourse
Moreover, feeling compassion for those already beset by are no more relevant today than a host of other
homoerotic impulses by no means mandates endorsement discarded purity regulations in the Holiness Code (for
of homosexual practice. Rather, true compassion for a response see pp. 113-28 of my book).
someone engaged in self- and other-harmful sexual b. The Bible rejects homosexual practice because it sees
behavior—whether it be homosexual behavior, incest, the purpose of sex as procreation, not sexual intimacy
plural unions, serial short-term unions, adultery, (pp. 132-34, 270-73).
commercial sex, adult-youth sex, or bestiality—requires c. The Bible’s opposition is based on misogynistic biases:
sensitive and caring efforts at helping the participants out homoerotic relationships threaten the heterosexual
of such behavior. paradigm of male dominance (pp. 138-42, 361-80).
d. Biblical authors were ignorant of the genetic
immutability of homosexual orientation, basing their
The Three Main Arguments For Supporting opposition on the misunderstanding that homoerotic
Homosexual Practice desires arise from overheated or excessive heterosexual
passions (pp. 384-432).
There are three main arguments for endorsing
homosexual behavior. These, then, are the three main arguments employed in
the church for justifying the acceptance of homosexual
(1) The “Love-Tolerance-Unity” Argument. This behavior despite apparent opposition from biblical texts.
argument is usually used as a preemptive first strike to cut
off an appeal to Scripture. It simply asserts: “Look, I know In the following remarks I am going to concentrate on two
what love is; I know what tolerance is; and I know what subset arguments from the list above: first on a subset of
unity demands: the affirmation of consensual, loving the “non-essential issue” argument, namely, the use of
same-sex erotic unions. Case closed, no matter what some alleged analogies for deviating from the clear word of
Scripture texts espouse on same-sex intercourse” (for a Scripture (2.d.); second on a subset of the “new
response see pp. 33-35, 210-27, 241-43, 282-84 of my knowledge” argument, namely, the contention that
book). modern understanding of homosexual attraction as an
immutable genetic condition renders the biblical view
(2) The “Non-Essential Issue” Argument. This argument passé (3.d.).
contends that sex, and certainly “homosex,” do not really
matter a great deal. To be sure, one can find a rejection of Beyond that it will have to suffice to assert here (and
same-sex intercourse in Scripture, but it is not a core issue answering to 2.a-c. above) that the Bible’s opposition to
or does not address the phenomenon of loving homosexual homosexual practice is pervasive (with no dissenting
relationships. This argument can take many specific voices in Scripture), absolute (with no exceptions for
forms: certain alleged non-exploitative forms), and severe (with
no indication that the behavior is anything less than an
a. Only a few isolated texts speak against homosexual egregious form of misconduct); moreover, that the rigor of
intercourse, and nothing from Jesus (for a response see its opposition exceeded anything else that developed in
pp. 432-41, 185-228 of my book). antiquity. The “big picture” of the Bible on the issue of
homosexual practice is the complementarity of male-

Page 4 Theology Matters • Nov/Dec 2001

female sexual bonds and the universally strong restriction Thirdly, one (the inclusion of uncircumcised Gentiles)
of acceptable sexual activity to heterosexual marriage. involves the non-commission of a positive ritual act
enjoined by Scripture on Jews. The other (homosexual
sex) is more basic still, involving the commission of a
The Argument from Alleged Analogies For negative moral act proscribed to Jews and Gentiles alike.
Disregarding Scriptural Views
Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, one has to do
The particular analogies that are most commonly drawn with welcoming people (Gentiles); the other has to do
for circumventing the biblical witness against homosexual with accepting behavior (same-sex intercourse).
practice are four. One has to do with a change to Old According to Acts 15, Gentiles were accepted into the
Testament Scripture, or its interpretation, already by the church on the basis of faith in Christ without any
first-century church: the analogy of Gentile inclusion. The concomitant acceptance of the behaviors, especially sexual
early church did not initially think Gentiles should be behaviors, that made Gentiles sinful in the eyes of
recipients of the message of the gospel, at least not apart Scripture and in the eyes of first century Jews. Indeed, the
from full observance of the Mosaic law. They learned to Apostolic Decree in Acts 15 specifically enjoined Gentiles
change their mind about that when they saw the work of not to engage in porneia (“sexual immorality”). And since
the Spirit in the lives of believing (but law-free) Gentiles. the Decree as a whole echoes the regulations imposed on
Likewise we should also change our minds on the issue of Jews and resident aliens alike in Leviticus 17-18, it clearly
homosexual behavior. Then, in a more contemporary vein, has the sin of homosexual intercourse in view, among
pro-homosex advocates argue that the church has changed others. There is a clear distinction here between people
its mind about such things as slavery, women’s and behavior.
ordination, and divorce/remarriage.
Fifthly, the one (the expansion of salvation for
uncircumcised Gentiles) has some Old Testament
precedent (see pp. 466-69 of my book), while the other (a
(1) Problems with the Gentile-inclusion analogy
positive assessment of same-sex intercourse) has none.
The main problem with the analogy is that it involves a
series of category confusions. Think in terms of two
Finally, the one (inclusion of uncircumcised Gentiles) has
headings here: one for the inclusion of Gentiles, and the
uniform New Testament approval: there is no New
other, for inclusion of practicing homosexuals. I’m going
Testament author who argues otherwise. The other
to try to point out ways in which they are not analogous.
(acceptance of homosexual practice) has no New
Testament support.
First of all, ethnic identity is based on an immutable
objective condition that is 100% heritable: ancestry. For
Consequently, there are a series of significant category
example, if two people of French ancestry have a child,
confusions that make any attempt at analogy between the
that child, 100% of the time, will be of French ancestry.
inclusion of Gentiles and acceptance of homosexual
(I’m not a doctor but I believe it works out that way.)
practice highly unconvincing.
Homosexual self-definition, however, is based on mutable
subjective desire that is not directly heritable. What this
We are not finished yet, however, with the problems in
means is that one (ethnicity) is a given of birth, always;
drawing such an analogy. There is also the problem of
while the other (homosexual identity) is not an inevitable
sloppy application. If one were to apply pro-homosex
product of one’s birth but rather is largely shaped by
arguments consistently, numerous kinds of immoral
familial and extra-familial cultural/environmental factors.
sexual activity could be justified, so long as:
Practically speaking, church and society cannot do
anything about the former but can play an important role
a) One demonstrates the presence of the Spirit in other
in affecting the incidence of the latter.
areas of one’s life.
b) Indisputable evidence cannot be produced that the
Secondly, one (being a Gentile) is a self-definition only
behavior in question harms each and every one of the
incidentally linked to sinful behavior, while the other
participants under all circumstances and in
(homosexual behavior) is a self-definition that is directly
scientifically measurable ways.
linked to sinful behavior. While first-century Jews could
speak of righteous or God-fearing uncircumcised gentiles,
Now these are simply naïve and unreasonable standards.
the concept of a righteous participant in same sex
With respect to the first point, is it impossible for a person
intercourse would have been a complete oxymoron. In
who solicits sex from prostitutes to give to the poor? No.
scriptural terms, same-sex intercourse was by definition
In fact, humans bifurcate their lives all the time, acting
sinful, not in some cases but in all cases. Gentiles,
nobly in some areas and ignobly in others. This is
however, only typically engaged in sinful practices; a
endemic to human nature. With respect to the second
distinction could be made, and often was made, between
point, is it true that every single case of plural marriage or
being a Gentile and engaging in sinful practices.
incest that we know of involves behavior that can be
demonstrated to produce personal distress or scientifically

Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry Page 5

measurable maladaptiveness in each and every one of the you, whatever condition in life you happen to be in.
participants in all circumstances? No. So basically you It is all the better if you can be released from slavery,
can drive a truck through this sloppily applied analogy. because then you have more free choices in your use
For the hermeneutical ground rules employed in the of time—not to do whatever you want, but to be
acceptance of homosexual practice you must ignore the enslaved all the more to Christ.
following factors: • In relation to the cultures of their day, the biblical
stance on slavery pushed in the direction of its
• The degree to which a behavior is categorically curtailment and eradication; as regards the biblical
rejected by the Old Testament in contradistinction to stance on same-sex intercourse a reverse situation was
the surrounding culture. in effect, pushing in the direction of expanding and
• The question of whether that rejection is strongly and deepening the ban on same-sex intercourse.
pervasively renewed in the New Testament, again in
contradistinction to the surrounding culture. It is time to recognize that slavery is really quite a silly
• Commonsense standards for sexual complementarity, analogue to choose, one that reflects poorly on the
avoiding the twin extremes of too much similarity (as hermeneutical acumen of those who apply it to the issue of
with incest) and too much dissimilarity (so bestiality). same-sex intercourse. Simply put, Scripture nowhere
• The statistically verifiable association between the expresses a vested interest in preserving slavery, whereas
behavior in question and a substantially increased risk Scripture does express a clear vested interest in the male-
in a host of negative ancillary effects. female model of sexuality. The homosexuality issue is put
on an entirely different footing by Scripture, where there
Regarding the first two points above, early Israel, early is not the slightest indication anywhere in the canon that
Judaism, and Christianity did not naively imbibe at the same-sex intercourse is anything other than a detested
cultural well on this issue; they were distinctly practice, a practice to be utterly eschewed by the people of
countercultural. We know of no other cultures in the God, Jew and Gentile believer alike, at all times and in all
ancient Near East or in the Greco-Roman world that stood circumstances.
more unequivocally opposed towards same-sex
intercourse. Early Israel, early Judaism, and Christianity
had to think long and hard about what they were doing to (3) Problems with the divorce/remarriage analogy
buck the cultural trends elsewhere. Divorce and remarriage also are a flawed analogy,
because:
So, if ignores the horrendous category confusions and the
problems with a consistent application of the naïve • The failure of the church to uphold the teaching of
corollaries for justifying homoerotic behavior, then, yes, Jesus on this issue may be just that: a failure of the
one could use the Gentile analogy. I wouldn’t. Let us be church. The church must ponder: Is it a virtue to be
clear here. There are a lot of other types of sexual more consistently disobedient to the will of Christ? If
behavior right around the corner and a number of which it were, then arguably there would be no obstacle to
one could make a better case for, including unions approving various multiple-partner unions, incest,
involving three or more partners and at least some forms bestiality, sexual infidelity, and solicitation of
of incest. If the church were to spend thirty years mulling prostitutes. Let us be done with the pretense that we
over the potential for such unions, believe me, the church are disciples of Jesus. Now, I do not pass any
could make a much better case for their acceptance than judgment on those already divorced and remarried.
the one that some have attempted to make for homoerotic Some things are done and can’t be undone. But if a
unions. person has not yet been divorced and remarried, and
that person wants to be a disciple of Jesus, the basic
rule of thumb Jesus gives is this: If you decide to get
(2) Problems with the slavery analogy divorced, you have basically one option: be a eunuch
Slavery is a very poor analogue because: for the Kingdom of God for the remainder of your
life. No other sex with anybody. If the church held
• There is no scriptural mandate to enslave others, nor that position—with an obvious exception for physical
does one incur a penalty for releasing slaves. endangerment and perhaps special consideration for
• Slavery is not grounded in pre-Fall structures. those divorced against their will—the number of
• Israelite law put various restrictions on enslaving divorces and remarriages would decline dramatically,
fellow Israelites (mandatory release dates, the right of especially divorces and remarriages initiated by the
near-kin redemption, treating as hired laborers rather husband. This is Jesus’ teaching, a teaching that
than as slaves, no returning runaway slaves), while Jesus had to think long and hard about since it bucked
Paul in 1 Cor 7:21 and Philemon 16 regarded the entire cultural trend, not only in the Greco-Roman
liberation from slavery as at least a penultimate good. Mediterranean basin generally but also in the Israel of
The highest good, of course, is having your moral his day. To Jesus sex mattered. The view going
purpose in place, and nobody can take that away from around today that sex did not matter for the various
authors of Scripture and for Jesus has no basis in
Page 6 Theology Matters • Nov/Dec 2001
 Scripture itself. In both Testaments it matters, and it • Although the contemporary church has gone further
matters significantly, along with idolatry and than much of the New Testament witness in affirming
economic exploitation, a formal triad. the ordination of women as church pastors, there are
• While there is some diversity within the canon on the a number of positive precedents for putting women in
question of divorce (for example the allowances for leadership roles, in both Testaments: Miriam, judge
adultery and marriage to unbelievers by Matthew and Deborah, Huldah, and Esther among others in the
Paul respectively, to say nothing of the OT), there is OT; the women involved in the ministry of Jesus; the
no diversity of any sort within the canon on the example of Priscilla and other women who served as
question of homosexual behavior. co-workers of Paul’s (Rom 16:1-7, 12, 13, 15; Phil
• Unlike the self-affirming view of homosexual unions 4:2-3). There are no such precedents for homosexual
put forward by pro-homosex apologists, divorce is behavior anywhere in the Bible.
still recognized as a mark of the sinful failure of those • The Pauline baptismal formula “there is no ‘male and
who perpetrate it. The church does not, and never female’” was never intended as a formula eradicating
should, celebrate divorce. Yet we are being asked to all antinomies between good and bad forms of sexual
celebrate homoerotic unions as a mark of the glorious orientations and behaviors. Nor can it be made to say
diversity of human sexual behavior. There is no such a thing in our contemporary context without
parallel here. validating the wide array of sexual “orientations”
• Most importantly of all, it is precisely the unrepentant available in human society, including orientations for
and repetitive character of homosexual practice that sex with animals, family members, children, or
sets it apart entirely from divorce. The church works multiple sex partners.
to prevent members from perpetuating a cycle of • As with the slavery analogy, it is helpful to compare
divorce and remarriage; it takes an especially dim the biblical view to the prevailing views of its own
view of multiple divorces by the same person. A cultural world. Once more: while the Bible’s
“serial divorcer,” certainly one who spoke glowingly treatment of women looks reasonably affirming when
of divorce as a gift of God, would not meet with the compared to its cultural context, the situation is
church’s approval (and would have a hard time being exactly the opposite with respect to same-sex
ordained to church office). The point of comparison intercourse.
here with same-sex intercourse is that the two sins of
divorce and same-sex intercourse are forgivable and What then are the best analogues? If it is not women’s
that it is possible to restore the perpetrators to ordination, if it is not divorce and remarriage, if it is not
wholeness—but not by encouraging them to slavery, if it is not Gentile inclusion, what is it? And why
perpetuate the behavior in question. The church does are these other, better analogues never introduced?
not say to the divorcé(e), “That was a good thing you
did, getting divorced. We’ll continue to provide the
necessary support so that you can perpetuate the cycle The Best Analogies to the Bible’s Opposition to
of divorce and remarriage with a minimum amount of Homosexual Practice
negative side effects.” Yet that is exactly how The best analogies to the Bible’s opposition are—
advocates of same-sex intercourse view the church’s obviously—those that most closely match the most salient
role vis-à-vis practicing, self-avowed homosexuals. features of the biblical view of same-sex intercourse:
Homosexual persons are asking the church to look the
other way as they engage repeatedly and approvingly 1. sexual behavior (i.e., not just thoughts but behavior,
in acts that Scripture categorically regards as sin of a and behavior that is sexual in nature)
very severe nature. 2. that is proscribed (i.e., not just enjoined, a more basic
sin of commission rather than sin of omission)
What kind of analogy, then, is divorce? Not much of one. 3. by both Testaments, at least implicitly,
4. pervasively within each Testament, at least implicitly
(i.e., not just an isolated position in each Testament),
(4) Problems with the women-in-ministry analogy
5. severely (i.e., strongly proscribed), and
Finally, women in ministry is a bad analogue because:
6. absolutely (i.e., no exceptions, so far as we know),
7. with the proscription making sense.
• As with the Gentile-inclusion analogy, the analogy
with women involves significant category confusions.
That is where one is going to find the best analogues for
Being a woman is an immutable genetic condition
what we do with respect to homosexual behavior. The
always given in the womb. It is not a mutable
strongest parallels are not Gentile inclusion, slavery,
condition like the existence of homosexual passions,
divorce, or women in ministry, but rather incest,
which can be elevated, reduced, and sometimes even
bestiality, adultery, prostitution and soliciting prostitutes.
eliminated. In Scripture’s view, too, being a woman is
Of course, all of these remain prohibited in the church
not a self-definition directly linked to sinful behavior,
today.
as is erotic desire for a person of the same sex.

Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry Page 7

Incest provides a particularly good parallel. Both We will first examine Paul’s thinking on the subject in his
incestuous relationships and homosexual relationships historical context, then delve into socio-scientific data.
are:

1. Regarded by authors of Scripture with similar On Paul’s thinking:

revulsion as extreme instances of sexual immorality; 1) A number of Greco-Roman sources suggest at least a
2. Capable of being conducted in the context of adult, partial congenital basis for homoerotic attraction—and
consensual, long-term monogamous relationships; some of these same sources still argued that same-sex
3. Wrong partly on the assumption that they all involve intercourse was contrary to nature. We are not the first
two people who are too much alike; culture to theorize this view of causation (see pp. 384-85,
4. Wrong partly because of the disproportionately high 392-95 of my book).
incidence of scientifically measurable, ancillary
problems arising from many such relationships. 2) It is improbable that Paul was unaware of the existence
of men whose sexual desire was oriented exclusively
It cannot be demonstrated that incest, conducted between toward other males. For example, there existed in the
two consenting and committed adults, produces first-century Roman world people called cinaedi (Latin
scientifically measurable harm and/or personal distress to plural; singular cinaedus; derived from Greek kinaidos,
the each and every participant in all circumstances. Yet pl. kinaidoi, “butt-shaker”). These were adult males who
the church does not validate any types of incestuous perpetuated an effeminate appearance in order to attract
unions, no matter how “well” such unions are done; and it male sex partners. Moreover, they were exclusively
certainly would not ordain a person involved in a attracted to other males. Philo, a first-century Jew, was
committed and consensual incestuous union. Why, then, quite aware of their existence. Since the cinaedi appear
should we validate certain types of homosexual unions frequently in the literature of the period, it is highly
and ordain self-affirming participants in homosexual unlikely that Paul was unaware of their existence.
intercourse?
3) In antiquity “excess passion” never constituted an
If the church follows Scripture in treating a host of sexual independent critique of same-sex intercourse. Passion was
behaviors as significant violations of the moral life even judged as excessive (e.g., the passion for sex with
when personal distress and/or harm cannot be proven in animals) on the basis of other criteria about behavioral
all cases; and if too Scripture itself invites a closer limits. Otherwise, how could one determine which
comparison between these proscriptions and the passions were in excess? There has to be some prior
proscription of homosexual practice, then how credible is determination that something is wrong with the behavior
the appeal to Gentile inclusion, slavery, in question in order to determine that it constitutes excess
divorce/remarriage, and women’s roles? Not very credible. passion. Paul likely viewed any transgression of God-
The argument from analogies refutes rather than confirms ordained boundaries to be—by definition—an overheating
the notion that same-sex intercourse should be treated as a or excess of desire, in the sense of desiring something that
non-essential matter. God did not ordain humans to desire by virtue of creation
intent and design.
From here we segue to one of the “new knowledge”
claims. 4) It is not possible to deduce from Paul’s remarks in Rom
1:24-27 that Paul believed that every single individual
who engaged in same-sex intercourse also experienced
The Argument From the Bible’s Alleged heterosexual desire at one time (much less that idol
Ignorance of the Innate and/or Immutable worship was a necessary prerequisite for homoerotic
Character of Homosexual Desire behavior!). Paul was referring to collective entities, not
individuals, and to widespread effect, not origin.
Many claim that Scripture’s opposition to same-sex inter-
course is grounded in an obsolete notion about the origin 5) It is illogical to think that Paul only condemned
of homoerotic passion; namely, that all who engage in sex participation in homosexual acts by those “naturally”
with members of the same sex do so as bored attracted to the opposite sex. For, if we were to draw that
heterosexuals looking for additional novel sexual conclusion, we would have to draw that same conclusion
adventures. Since we now allegedly know that for other sexual behaviors that Scripture opposes. In that
homosexual passions constitute a distinct “orientation” event we would have to assert that Scripture expresses
that is given at birth, often exclusive, and generally opposition only to acts of incest, bestiality, and adultery by
immutable, we can disregard Scripture’s opposition. This those not constitutionally predisposed to committing such
view thus banks on the assumption that Scripture opposes sins. Incidentally, it is worth pondering that the
same-sex intercourse solely because it believes homoerotic overwhelming majority of men are constitutionally
passions to be manufactured in participants who have predisposed to have multiple sex partners. It may be true
other options for sexual fulfillment. of many women as well but it is especially a problem for
men (the off-the-charts promiscuity of homosexual men,
Page 8 Theology Matters • Nov/Dec 2001
even in relation to homosexual women, is stark testimony (1) A homosexual brain?
to this reality). In a world that sanctioned and provided
cultural incentives for high numbers of sex partners, men Despite the rush to judgment by the media in the past
generally would have little problem with having sex with decade, there is no conclusive evidence that male
large numbers of women. But that is not what God calls homosexual brains differ from male heterosexual brains,
us to do because it is self-destructive and other-destructive much less that such alleged differences are present at birth
behavior, even when it is consensual. or that they mechanistically determine sexual orientation.

6) In terms of Paul’s understanding of nature, Paul There are a number of problems with concluding that
distinguished between innate passions perverted by the male homosexual brains differ from male heterosexual
Fall and exacerbated by idol worship on the one hand— brains. Simon LeVay’s 1991 study of an area of the
and, by the way, one does not have to create a statue to hypothalamus known as INAH3 in 41 cadavers contended
worship idols—and material creation that was left that INAH3 was two times larger in the heterosexual
relatively intact despite human sin on the other hand. males than in the females and homosexual males.
There is a whole series of behaviors and passions listed in However, his study was inconclusive at numerous points:
Rom 1:29-31, following the reference to same-sex
intercourse in 1:24-27, that certainly have some innate • It was a single-author study; multi-author studies are
basis. People do not choose to be covetous or envious, for best for checking the accuracy of measurements.
example. They are simply born with an innate proclivity • The study involved an extremely small sample size,
to feel bad when others have attractive things or persons rendering suspect any broad generalizations.
that they do not have. That does not mean that • LeVay made problematic assumptions about the
covetousness and envy are natural or in accordance with sexual orientation of the subjects prior to death,
nature in the Pauline sense. So the innateness of assuming heterosexual orientation for cadavers whose
homosexual passions would not subvert Paul’s view of medical charts did not specify homosexual
them as contrary to nature since by nature Paul meant orientation. If all six of the “heterosexuals” who died
God’s intended design for creation untouched by the of AIDS—this at a time when AIDS was even more
introduction of sin into the world (i.e., the anatomical, of a homosexual disease than it is in the United States
procreative, and interpersonal complementarity of male- today—were in fact homosexuals then the average
female sexual bonds as more secure heuristic clues than size differences of the INAH3 for the two groups
innate passions). would not be significant.
• Several of the homosexuals had an INAH3 larger
7) Current theories of homosexual development are than that of the average heterosexual male, while
essentially compatible with Paul’s own view of sin. In several of the “heterosexual” males had an INAH3
Romans 5 and 7 Paul speaks of sin as an innate impulse smaller than that of the average homosexual male.
operating in the human body, transmitted by an ancestor • LeVay’s study has not been replicated.
human, and never entirely within the control of human
will. This is precisely how homosex-affirming advocates Even if brain differences between male homosexuals and
describe homosexual orientation. And Rom 1:24-27 itself male heterosexuals were to exist, it would not establish
talks about God “giving over” people to pre-existing that these differences arose prior to birth rather than
passions for members of the same sex, passions which, subsequent to birth. Plastic structures in the hypothalamus
apart from God’s help, are beyond control. If Paul could might be altered by any one of a number of post-natal
be transported into the twenty-first century and told that factors:
homoerotic desires have (at most) a partial and indirect
connection to innate causation factors, he doubtless would
• The AIDS virus and use of AIDS drugs
have said either “I could have told you that” or at very
least “That fits well into my own understanding of sin.” • Early childhood trauma or sexual arousal
• Other aspects of sexual behavior such as promiscuity
and contact with fecal matter
• Level of physical conditioning (sports, exercise)
On current socio-scientific data:
Here we will focus on four main areas in which socio- • Stress levels
scientific data impacts on the question of whether
homosexual desires are congenital and immutable: (1) the Any one of these, or a combination thereof, might affect
alleged existence of a distinct homosexual brain; (2) the the size of INAH3. In this case, differences could be
alleged existence of a special homosexual gene; (3) assigned to distinctive environmental and behavioral
indications of childhood factors in sexual development; patterns after birth, perhaps even well into adulthood,
(4) indications of the cultural malleability of homosexual rather than to conditions before birth. The notion of
desire. someone being born into some immutable condition
impervious to the effects of environment and personal
behavior would be (to mix metaphors) dead in the water.

Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry Page 9

(2) A homosexual gene? (prone to imitation, higher trait-related environment,
higher rates of child abuse and same-sex peer
More important has been the attention given to the ridicule, more likely to experiment sexually with each
homosexual gene issue. Studies testing for genetic other and to be behind in both physical development
influence have to date demonstrated, at most, only an and social skills). Ideally, identical twins raised in
indirect and subordinate role of genes in the development separate households should be studied to minimize
of homosexual orientation. Here there are two types of the influence of similar familial and environmental
studies of note: (a) those that look for a particular gene conditions. For obvious reasons it is difficult to find a
sequence in homosexuals; and (b) those that check for large enough sample size. However, a 1986 study of
sexual orientation concordance in identical twins. four sets of female identical twins raised in different
households, where at least one twin identified as
(a) As regards two so-called “gay gene” studies by Dean lesbian, found that in all four sets the co-twin self-
Hamer (like LeVay, a scientist who also happens to be identified as heterosexual.
homosexual), one published in 1993 and the other in • Unheralded were the following culture-determined
1995, the following caveats need to be kept in mind: results: concordance rates for non-identical twins
were 2 to 3 times higher than that for non-twin
• These studies applied, at most, only to a very limited siblings despite the fact that both groups share the
segment of the homosexual population: homosexual same genetic similarity (50%); non-twin biological
brothers who had homosexual relatives on the brothers had the same concordance rate as adoptive
maternal side of the family. A high percentage of this brothers. These differences obviously had nothing to
test group allegedly had a particular genetic sequence do with genes.
in the region of the X chromosome known as Xq28. • The studies showing a roughly 50% concordance rate
The results did not apply to other male homosexuals; were riddled with sample bias: volunteers were
and none of the lesbian sisters checked carried the recruited through advertisements in gay publications.
chromosomal marker in Xq28. • Most importantly, J. Michael Bailey (author of some
• In the more carefully conducted second study, two of the earlier studies) in his most recent study,
thirds of the pairs of homosexual brothers beyond published in 2000, corrected the sample bias of earlier
what would have obtained merely at random did not studies by sending surveys to a third of the twins
share the Xq28 variation. named in the Australian Twin Register. This
• The media hoopla about a so-called “gay gene” is improved study reported that in only 12.3% (not 50%)
vastly overdone. There are no single-gene dictated of the identical twin pairs in which at least one twin
behaviors in humans. Moreover, other studies testing was non-heterosexual was the co-twin also non-
for genetic influence on behavior (e.g., cigarette heterosexual (the concordance for non-identical twins
smoking, criminality, alcoholism) attribute to genes averaged only 4%). In other words, almost nine out of
only a secondary and indirect role. Even Hamer ten times, when one identical twin was non-
himself has admitted: “There will never be a test that heterosexual the co-twin was heterosexual. Bailey
will say for certain whether a child will be gay.” concluded:
• Finally, a 1999 study by Canadian researchers, using • “Concordances from prior studies were inflated
a larger sample size, detected no significant due to . . . [sample] bias.”
connection between the Xq28 variation and • “In contrast to most prior twin studies of sexual
homosexual orientation. orientation . . . ours did not provide statistically
significant support for the importance of genetic
(b) The information from identical twin studies is even factors.”
more revealing. Most people have probably heard about a • This new study, in contrast to Hamer’s “gay gene”
series of identical twin studies that were done in the early study, suggests that “any major gene for strictly
1990’s, which indicated that when one identical twin self- defined homosexuality has either low penetrance
identified as non-heterosexual the co-twin did likewise or low frequency”—i.e., weak influence.
roughly 50% of the time. The studies were hailed by the
media as proof of the dominant genetic basis for So while not discounting altogether genetic influence in
homosexual behavior. The conclusion was premature. the development of a homosexual identity, the studies to
date suggest that the influence is not major.
• In terms of genetic makeup identical twins are 100%
identical. Yet even a non-critical acceptance of the What factors, then, are likely to play major roles in the
findings indicates that 50% of the time genes did not development of homosexual identity and behavior? Two
dictate concordance in sexual identity. factors are likely to play pivotal roles: societal
• The studies did not subtract cultural influences microstructures (i.e., influences from the child’s
arising from being raised in a similar environment; immediate network of relationships, sometimes in
nor did it take into account the distinctive combination with indirect innate factors) and societal
socialization of twins, especially identical twins macrostructures (i.e., influences from the larger cultural

Page 10 Theology Matters • Nov/Dec 2001

environment in terms of expectations and sanctions). For (4) The Cultural Malleability of Homosexual Desire
both factors individual choices and decisions can
significantly affect the origin and intensity of homoerotic Both sociological and psychological data confirm at least
impulses. With respect to an ultimate outcome of some cultural malleability in the manifestation of
homosexual self-identification, such choices and decisions homosexual desire. For example:
may be direct and conscious, or they may be incremental,
indirect, and largely unconscious. • David Greenberg’s 500-page cross-cultural study, The
Construction of Homosexuality (University of
(3) Childhood Factors in Sexual Development Chicago, 1988), demonstrates wide variance in both
the incidence and form of homosexual behavior
A number of individual life circumstances in childhood across cultures ancient and modern. Greenberg, who
may contribute to the development of a homosexual is thoroughly supportive of homosexual relationships,
identity: concludes:

• Children who exhibit a high degree of gender The years some homosexuals spend trying without
nonconformity have an increased likelihood (though success to conform to conventional expectations
not an inevitability) of exhibiting homosexual regarding gender and sexual orientation tell
behavior as an adult (so say LeVay and Hamer, against the most extreme claims of sexual
among others). Gender nonconformity may serve as a plasticity. However, in the absence of any evidence
middle term between genes and brain development on linking the peculiar sexual practices of Melanesia
the one hand and individual responses to with genetic difference, it is reasonable to suppose
environmental factors on the other (e.g., familial that if a bunch of Melanesian infants were to be
relationships, peer socialization, cultural gender- transported in infancy to the United States and
norm markers). adopted, few would seek out the pederastic
• Daryl Bem, a homosexual professor of psychology at relationships into which they are inducted in New
Cornell, has proposed the “exotic becomes erotic” Guinea, or take younger homosexual partners
theory: individuals develop sexual attraction for when they reached maturity. Similarly, American
those whom they find to be dissimilar to themselves children raised in New Guinea would
in childhood. In this scenario, gender nonconformity accommodate themselves to the Melanesian
precedes homosexual identity. practices. Where social definitions of appropriate
• According to some psychoanalytic thought, a child’s and inappropriate behavior are clear and
perceptions of distancing on the part of the same-sex consistent, with positive sanctions for conformity
parent and/or later by same-sex peers may intensify and negative ones for nonconformity, virtually
yearnings for same-sex acceptance and affirmation to everyone will conform irrespective of genetic
a point where they become sexualized. This may well inheritance and, to a considerable extent,
be the single most important factor, though not a irrespective of personal psychodynamics. (p. 487)
necessary one. Perceived difficulties in opposite-sex • The 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey
relationships (parental and/or peer) may also play a (NHSLS), conducted mainly by University of
role. Chicago researchers (Laumann, et al.) and still the
• Another factor in some homosexual development may most significant study of sex in America, found that:
have to do with relatively early sexual arousal. Self- o Urban males were nine times more likely to self-
identified homosexuals and bisexuals are three to identify as homosexuals than rural males; urban
nine times more likely to have experienced sex as a females 2.5 times more likely than rural females.
child (usually with an adolescent or adult male) than o Females who were college graduates were nine
their heterosexual counterparts. times more likely to identify themselves as
• Finally, human initiative in the face of cultural lesbian or bisexual than females who were not
permissiveness cannot be discounted. The greater the educated beyond high school; for males the figure
latitude for sexual experimentation, especially in the is two times more likely.
period from late childhood through adolescence and o The researchers concluded that their results did
early adulthood, the greater the incidence of self- not “fit with certain analogies to genetically or
identifying homosexuals. biologically based traits such as left-handedness
or intelligence.” Rather, “an environment that
The last point underscores that fact that individual life provides increased opportunities for and fewer
experiences do not occur in a vacuum but rather are negative sanctions against same-gender sexuality
shaped and even precipitated by broader cultural may both allow and even elicit expression of
influences. It is to that concern that we now turn. same-gender interest and sexual behavior” (p.
308).
• Other data suggests that lifetime sexual orientation
shifts along the Kinsey spectrum, both minor and
major, are the norm for those who experience any sort
Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry Page 11
 of homosexual desire (and particularly so among is not only someone who never experiences a desire for
lesbians). Moreover, even the majority of those who sex with women other than his wife. The true ex-
identify themselves as “exclusively homosexual” have homosexual (or, more precisely, ex-”homosexer”) is
been sexually aroused by members of the opposite sex someone who, by God’s grace and the power of the Spirit,
at some point(s) during their lives (so say the studies no longer acquiesces to homosexual impulses.
by Alfred Kinsey, Bell and Weinberg, the Family
Research Institute, and the NHSLS researchers). (b) Both the level of incidence of homosexual desire and
• Reparative therapists and transformation ministries fluctuations in its intensity and degree of exclusivity can
report some success in achieving for motivated be affected by:
clients considerable to complete change from
homosexual to heterosexual orientation—a rate of • The degree of cultural incentives, opportunities, and
success comparable perhaps to that achieved by indoctrination for or against homosexual behavior;
Alcoholics Anonymous. • Experiences at various points in an individual’s life,
including the degree and character of parental and
(5) Caveats and Qualifications peer-group affirmation (especially same-sex), early
sexual arousal, sexual experimentation, unsolicited
In making the above points, I do not contend that self- erotic encounters, exposure to the homosexual
identified homosexuals can be easily rid of homoerotic subculture, the availability (or absence) of sex
desires. Disordered sexual “orientations” of any stripe, not partners or satisfying sexual relationships, and
just homosexual ones, do not change easily. This includes vulnerability to outside influences (owing to
orientations toward multiple sex partners, sex with personality type, stress, etc.);
members of the inner family circle, sex with children or • Therapeutic intervention.
adolescents, sex with animals, commercial sex,
sadomasochistic sex, and coercive sex. Patterns of sexual The different types of change possible and the existence of
arousal wired in the brain by life’s experiences are usually various external mechanisms for producing change
not easily removed, even after years of therapeutic combine to put homosexual proclivities on an entirely
intervention. Ironically, those who argue that homosexual different footing than race or sex. Furthermore, the
behavior should not be disavowed precisely because it is behavior arising from homosexual desire is associated
resistant to change would—to be consistent—have to with a disproportionately high rate of health problems
contend that non-monogamous relationships be accepted (sexually transmitted diseases, mental health issues) and
for male homosexual relationships. For statistical of non-monogamous and short-term relationships, as well
evidence to date strongly suggests that male homosexuals as with an annihilation of basic societal gender norms.
have extraordinary difficulty, relative even to lesbians, in These negative effects cannot be explained away by one-
forming monogamous unions. sided appeals to societal homophobia (for which see pp.
452-60, 471-89). So, since church and society can play a
No, my point is more basic: homoerotic desire is not like significant role in reducing the incidence of homosexual
race or anatomical sex. It is not a fixed, immutable behavior in the population, they can and should do so.
birthright. It is closer to an entrenched (but not
irrevocable) taste than to physical differences impervious
to cultural shifts. This can be perceived by reviewing (a) Summary and Concluding Thoughts
the different levels of change that are possible for
homosexual tastes and (b) the different mechanisms for We may now summarize the main points of this article.
inducing change.
First, we looked at texts from both Paul and John to show
(a) It is erroneous to restrict the meaning of change in this that arguments favoring homosexual behavior overturn
context to the complete eradication of homosexual desire. not only Scripture’s explicit teaching on such but also
As we have seen above, change can include: other basic principles enshrined in Scripture. In insisting
that God and Christ could not possibly deny one whole
• A reduction or elimination of homosexual behavior; form of consensual sexual expression, pro-homosex
• A reduction in the intensity and frequency of arguments not only ignore parallel instances where the
homosexual impulses; church denies consensual sexual activity but also give only
• The experience of heterosexual arousal (whether in subordinate weight to the theocentric posture of Scripture,
place of or in conjunction with homosexual arousal); the basic Christian paradigm of grace amidst cruciformity,
• Reorientation from exclusive or predominant homo- and the image of Jesus as the sufficient Answer to all
sexuality to exclusive or predominant heterosexuality. life’s desires.

Ultimately, in terms of Christian self-definition, the true Second, we analyzed the appeal made to a set of analogies
ex-homosexual is not only someone who never for disregarding Scripture’s stance on homosexual
experiences homosexual impulses, just as the ex-adulterer behavior: the analogies of Gentile inclusion, slavery,

Page 12 Theology Matters • Nov/Dec 2001

divorce and remarriage, and women in ministry. We • What the church’s energy and resources should be
found such analogies to suffer from significant category invested in. The extraordinary energy that the church
confusions and sloppy hermeneutical application. We has expended in efforts to secure endorsement of
argued, too, that the Bible’s stance on bestiality, adultery, homosexual behavior should be diverted instead to
prostitution and soliciting prostitutes, and especially exploring ways in which those homosexually
incest constitute much closer and more reliable analogues. inclined, as well as all others who cannot obtain
sexual intimacy within the bounds of Scripture’s
Third, we addressed the claim that the Bible’s alleged parameters, can have their intimacy needs met
ignorance of the innate and immutable character of through acceptable avenues.
homoerotic desire renders its stance on homosexual
practice irrelevant for our own times. We noted that the The enormous burden of proof incumbent on those who
notion of homoerotic passion having perhaps a partial would circumvent the clear biblical witness has not been
congenital basis is entirely consistent with Paul’s met. Approval of homosexual behavior would not be an
understanding of sin; furthermore, that socio-scientific act of love and tolerance but a harmful and intolerant
evidence to date indicates that congenital factors in the disregard of God’s loving guidance for abundant life.
development of homosexual desire and identity are largely
indirect and subordinate to cultural factors. There is little
basis for contending that homosexual desire is to be A Prayer for the Church
likened to race and sex. The church’s stance can exercise In words taken from, and inspired by, Ephesians 4:1-5:20:
a marked effect on the incidence of homosexuality.
Lord, may we walk in a manner worthy of our calling,
We offer the following concluding thoughts: with all humility and gentleness, with patience,
bearing with one another in love. May we earnestly
• The early church’s critique of an idolatrous view of endeavor to keep the oneness of the Spirit and of the
sex. Jesus, Paul, and the first-century church faith by means of the bond of peace and common
generally did not view sexual intercourse and sexual adherence to the apostolic teaching on sexual holiness,
gratification to be God-given rights, nor did they as on other matters. May we as Your body arrive at an
regard sexual intimacy as the highest good. adult knowledge of Christ, no longer being blown
Homoerotic relationships were more prevalent in about by teachings that depart from Your word. May
their cultural world than ours. Yet they accepted one we put off the old humanity, deluded into approving
and only one model for acceptable sexual forms of sexual desire that You have rejected, and
relationships: a lifelong, monogamous union between clothe ourselves with the new humanity, embracing
one man and one woman. In so doing, they were not with a renewed mind the standard for sexual
deficient in the exercise of love and compassion. wholeness that You have established for our benefit.
Conversely, those today who insist that love dictates For, as You have warned us, no one who engages
the acceptance of homosexual behavior are not more unrepentantly and repeatedly in a form of sexual
loving than Jesus, Paul, and the authors of Scripture intercourse deemed immoral by apostolic teaching will
generally. have any inheritance in Your kingdom of light. Help
• Viewing the relationship needs of homosexuals in a us, Lord, to expose to the light of Your word the lie
broader context. There is an unfortunate tendency in that diversity in types of sexual unions is an absolute
current church discussions to isolate the intimacy good, remembering our own sin and need for daily
needs of homosexuals from all others. The fact is that repentance. May your church quickly restore the
Scripture’s carefully defined vision for acceptable penitent, thereby maximizing salvation to the many.
human sexual expression—and that of any civil Amen.
society whose law contains vestiges of that vision—
leaves a lot of people bereft of sexual intimacy
through acceptable channels. For example, there are
twice as many people in the United States today who The Bible and Homosexual Practice:
have had no sex partners since age 18 than there are Texts and Hermeneutics
people who classify themselves as (non-bisexual) by Robert A. J. Gagnon
homosexuals (so the NHSLS study). Probably most of (Abingdon Press, 2001; 520 pp.; hardcover, $49)
the former are not celibate by personal preference.
There is no guarantee in life that suitable sexual Available at a 30% discount from www.Amazon.com
partners will be available. And there should be no or the Cokesbury Bookstore at Pittsburgh Theological
recourse to a philosophy of “sex by any means Seminary ([email protected], 412-362-1691)
necessary,” which in the end could only have
destructive consequences for society as a whole.

Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry Page 13

 Vote “NO” on Amendment H
By Carol Shanholtzer

Amendment H is a rewrite of the entire chapter G-14 of churches (with representatives chosen by their sessions)
the Book of Order (“Ordination, Certification, and and Ministers. To give vote in presbytery to these
Commissioning” ), which is accompanied by related particular elders solely because of the training and
changes in other parts of the Book of Order. The stated certification they have received is not appropriate.
intent is to make G-14 shorter by eliminating procedural
details. Instead, procedures will be determined by each 3) “Constitutional questions” (“ordination vows”) for
presbytery (which may use “advisory handbooks” which officers will be moved out of the Form of Government
will be prepared by General Assembly entities in G-14 and into the Directory for Worship (proposed W-
consultation with the Office of the General Assembly and 4.4003) The ordination vows define crucial requirements
middle governing bodies). for ordained office, and affirmative answers to the
constitutional questions are mandatory for ordination and
The concept of a less detailed Book of Order is a popular installation of Deacons, Elders, and Ministers. Having
one. However, in this particular case, the proposal also 1) these questions in the Form of Government (where they
allows for temporary pastoral relationships to be made are now) emphasizes the role of these questions as
permanent, 2) makes significant changes in the status of defining requirements for ordination and ministry, and
Certified Christian Educators, 3) moves the makes them an appropriate focus for one contemplating
“constitutional questions” (“ordination vows”) to the or preparing for ordained office. Moving the questions to
Directory for Worship and requires them for persons who the Directory for Worship makes the ordination vows
are not necessarily officers, and 4) also opens the door to appear to simply function as liturgy in a special worship
other significant changes in ordination. The proposed service. Even though all three sections of the Book of
revision should therefore be defeated. Order are part of our constitution and the questions
remain mandatory in this draft, the Form of Government,
1) The proposed amendment allows any minister Directory for Worship, and Rules of Discipline have
serving a church in a temporary pastoral relationship different roles, and where items are placed does impact
to serve that church in a permanent relationship with how they are understood and interpreted. Constitutional
the approval by 2/3 of the presbytery. The Association questions for officers belong in G-14.
of Stated Clerks writes, “The proposed amendment would
permit any minister serving a church in a temporary 4) Proposed W-4.4003 gives broader application of
pastoral relationship (Interim pastor, or associate pastor, “constitutional questions” (“ordination vows”) as
organizing pastor, stated supply, or temporary supply) to “Constitutional Questions to Officers and
serve that church in a permanent or designated pastoral Commissioned Persons”. Currently affirmative answers
relationship with approval by a two-thirds vote of the to the constitutional questions (“ordination vows”) are
presbytery.... The amendment also makes the designation required only for officers: Deacons, Elders, and Ministers
of temporary pastoral classifications discretionary on the of the Word and Sacrament. (They also are now required
part of the presbyteries.” for Commissioned Lay Pastors, but by definition these
persons must already be Elders.) The rewrite will
2) Proposed G-14.0704c will give Certified Christian mandate the “constitutional questions” for the ceremony
Educators voice and vote (vote only if they are elders) recognizing and commissioning someone a Certified
in presbytery. Currently they do not have vote in Christian Educator (whether or not that person is an
presbytery. The proposed wording does not even require elder). Certified Christian Educators don’t have to be
that these elders have to be employed as a Certified elders, so this is the first case in which the “ordination
Christian Educator in the presbytery to have a vote there. vows” are required by the Book of Order for someone
Our polity specifies (G-11.0101) that a presbytery consists who is not an officer. This begins a blurring of the
of all the churches and Ministers of the Word and distinctions between “officer” vs. “non-officer” and
Sacrament within a certain district and that when a between ordination to a lifelong office in the church vs.
presbytery meets, each church shall be represented by one recognizing someone’s particular accomplishments in
or more elders commissioned by the session. meeting requirements for receiving certification as an
educator. It is appropriate to recognize those
Giving a vote to elders because they are Certified accomplishments, but the ceremony should not appear to
Christian Educators impacts the number of elders who be the same as ordination to a lifelong office.
can be commissioned by their sessions to vote in
presbytery through redress of imbalance. 5) Content of ordination exams could be changed
without consent of the presbyteries. Currently the Form
Giving vote to Certified Christian Educator elders also of Government (G-14.0310d) specifies the content of each
departs from the concept that a presbytery consists of ordination exam. The proposed change will leave only

Page 14 Theology Matters • Nov/Dec 2001

the titles of the exams listed in the Form of Government cumbersome reading in some sections. Nonetheless, the
(proposed G-14.0305), thus making it possible to change chapter is functional and familiar. Improved clarity and
the content of the exams without the approval of conciseness of some paragraphs is not worth the cost of
presbyteries. opening the door to new interpretations of ordination
requirements and confusion about the ordination process
6) This is not the time to adopt sweeping changes of during this time in which ordination standards are being
unknown significance to the Ordination chapter of the repeatedly challenged in our church.
Book of Order. Any time wording is changed, the
meaning changes (whether intended or not) and potential Carol Shanholtzer is an elder in Minneapolis, MN
interpretation by church courts can change. The current
chapter G-14 has been amended a number of times and is

Repent, Remember, Overcome:

A Proposal to Renew the Church
By Susan Cyre
Our church government at times is used to promote a faith leadership. The New Testament has a more fully
that contradicts Scripture and our Constitution. Some developed description of church government with its
decisions of the General Assembly and the General headquarters in Jerusalem. When disputes arose in the
Assembly Council do not reflect Scripture and the early church, they were decided by the higher governing
Constitution, and do not reflect the faith of the majority of body speaking to the individual congregations.
Presbyterians. We have seen occasions when the voice of
lower governing bodies is silenced with a process that has The Westminster Larger Catechism explains God’s active
been distorted and manipulated. There have been other role in church government and therefore God’s intent for
occasions when the actions of lower governing bodies church government.
have been in direct opposition to the mandate of higher Q 45. How doth Christ execute the office of a king?
governing bodies and to the Constitution itself. A. Christ executeth the office of a king, in calling out
of the world a people to himself; and giving them
Our form of government makes us connectional. What officers, laws, and censures, by which he visibly
one governing body does affects us all. According to the governs them; ...and powerfully ordering all things for
Book of Order, we all participate in any constitutional act his own glory, and their good ...” (7.155).
of any of our governing bodies. When those acts subvert
the intention of the constitution and the faith we hold in Christ chooses to execute his office as King through
common, we have a natural desire to want to disassociate imperfect church government and imperfect leaders.
ourselves from what we regard as unfaithful acts. We Because church government is God’s plan, he has
consider emotional withdrawal, or taking actions to limit provided leaders. 1 Cor 12:28 includes “administrations”
the power of government, or even departure to another or governance as one of the gifts of the Spirit given to the
denomination. church.
Before we take such actions or even before we seek to
The Westminster Confession affirms that “the Lord Jesus,
reform our government, we need to remind ourselves of
as king and head of his church, hath therein appointed a
the purpose of government and the relationship between
government in the hand of church officers....” It concludes
theology and polity—between doctrine and practice.
with a reference to Matthew 16:19, “to these officers the
These considerations of purpose and relationship will give
keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed, by virtue
us a framework for reform. They will show us that reform
whereof they have power respectively to retain and remit
is possible and they will help us focus our efforts for
sins, to shut that kingdom against the impenitent... and to
reform. The same connectionalism that affects us when
open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the
there is defiance of the Constitution by a governing body,
gospel...” (6.170).
can strengthen our reform efforts. When one governing
body rejects our Constitution it affects the whole Body.
Jesus governs by speaking through his Word in the church
Likewise, when one governing body is faithful, it can
to “bind” and “loose” –to denounce sin and to extend
begin to restore the whole Body.
grace. As believers are united with Christ, they enter into
his roles of prophet, priest and king—proclamation,
Church Government is a Divine Mandate intercession and governance. However, we don’t enter
Church government is a divine mandate going back as far into those roles individually or autonomously. Those roles
as Exodus 18 when God directs Moses to establish elder

Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry Page 15

may only be properly exercised within the corporate body secure the just, speedy and economical determination
of the church, the Body of Christ. of proceedings.

Doctrine Drives Polity Church government is not a program agency, but an inter-
Ministers (5.096-7) and church officers (6.169-70) have relatedness established by God for our benefit. It is
been given the keys to the kingdom, however, since the through church government that the keys to the kingdom
Fall, their ability to govern is tainted by sin. Therefore, are administered. Church government is not a hindrance
church government was established by God both to to the Gospel but is in fact a safeguard to the Gospel.
restrain human sinfulness within the body of believers and
to provide checks and balances on leaders who are also Church Government Demonstrates our Unity
subject to sin. Presbyterian government with its sessions, presbyteries
and General Assembly demonstrate to the world our
James Madison’s description of the theological connectedness as the Body of Christ. We give witness to
implications of human sinfulness on the newly formed God’s word that “there is one body and one Spirit, ...one
federal government can also be applied to the church. He Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.”
wrote, “But what is government itself but the greatest of (Ep 4:4-6) When an elder, clergy, session, or presbytery
all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no departs from that Lord, faith, and baptism, the church
government would be necessary. If angels were to govern governs by exercising discipline so that unity might be
men, neither external nor internal controls on government restored and the world might see our unity.
would be necessary. “
What Reforms are Needed
Church government was instituted by God because we are If government is provided by God for our blessing, what
not angels but sinners. We need the restraint of do we do when governing bodies act in opposition to
government upon our sinful natures. And in turn we need Scripture and the Constitution? How can we go about
to hold our governing officials accountable, lest their reforming church government so that its practice reflects
sinful natures affect their ability to govern in accordance its beliefs?
with God’s word and will. Thus, theologian David Hall
concludes, “Polity is a divine gift, betokening the grace, There are three areas that need to be addressed. We will
care, and love of the Savior for the church.” address these areas more fully in future issues of Theology
Matters:
The extensive and important nature of governance is 1) There must be an assurance of fitness for leadership at
explained in the Preamble to the Rules of Discipline in every level of church government. Those who govern—
our Book of Order. Although the following appears as clergy and elders—must know and accept God’s Word as
the Preamble to the Rules of Discipline which includes revealed in Scripture. They must know and accept the
specific judicatory remedies, the Preamble describing doctrines of the church as expressed in the confessions.
“discipline” should be understood in the wider role of
church governance and not just particular judicatory 2) Lower governing bodies must have free and open
remedies. access to higher governing bodies to hold them
Thus, the purpose of discipline is to honor God by accountable, to redress wrongs, and to facilitate changes
making clear the significance of membership in the to advance the mission of the Gospel.
body of Christ; to preserve the purity of the church by
nourishing the individual within the life of the 3) Higher governing bodies must hold lower governing
believing community; to correct or restrain bodies accountable to the Gospel which is given
wrongdoing in order to bring members to repentance expression in our Confessions. Teaching must be sound
and restoration; to restore the unity of the church by and practice must conform to teaching.
removing the causes of discord and division; and to
Susan Cyre is editor of Theology Matters and pastor of Dublin
Presbyterian Church, VA.

The Rev. Dr. Kari McClellan is President Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry NON-PROFIT
of Presbyterians for Faith, Family and ORGANIZATION
Ministry (PFFM). Rev. Susan Cyre is
P.O. Box 10249 U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Executive Director and Editor of Blacksburg, VA 24062-0249 AUTOMATED
Theology Matters. The Board of MAILING
Directors of PFFM includes 12 people, SYSTEM
Change Service Requested
clergy and lay, women and men. PFFM
is working to restore the strength and
integrity of the PC(USA)’s witness to
Jesus Christ as the only Lord and Savior,
by helping Presbyterians develop a
consistent Reformed Christian world
view. Theology Matters is sent free to
anyone who requests it.

Page 16 Theology Matters • Nov/Dec 2001