Science in Christian Perspective
Journal Interviews...
Christian Answers on Homosexuality
Richard H. Bube, editor
Three distinguished Christian leaders agreed to respond to written questions concerning issues involved in homosexuality. Here we are pleased to share their responses with our readers. The participants, in alphabetical order, are Paul E. Larsen, S.T,D., Pastor of Peninsula Covenant Church, Redwood City, California; E. Mansell Pattison, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Social Science and Social Ecology, and Acting Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior of the University of California, Irvine; and John White, M.B., Ch.B., F.R.C.P.(C), Professor of Psychiatry and the University of Manitoba Faculty of Medicine, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
1. We see a large increase in our awareness of how many homosexuals there are.
Has there been an actual increase in the fraction of the population
that are homosexual
(what is this fraction?) or what other factors have caused this change?
Larsen: Homosexuality appears more prominently in the public
consciousness today
than previously. Part of this is due to its popularity as a theme in science,
medicine, psychology, and literature. The liberation of oppressed
classes inevitably
turns to the question of freedom for what has been previously called
deviant behavior.
The medical and behavioral sciences have recently tended to view homosexuality
as an alternate lifestyle, rather than a deviancy. Certain homosexual behavior
is sociopathic, that is, it derives from social acceptance and even
advocacy within
the culture. Herbert Marcuse has advocated it as a part of
"polymorphic sexuality."
It is seen as a revolt against the sociopolitical oppressions of our
time. Certain
extreme elements in existentialism arid feminism have practiced it as a symbol
of revolt against oppression. To this extent, homosexuality is more acceptable
in contemporary society and more widely practiced than previously.
Pattison: Probably not. There are no good historical statistics, so we can only
make educated inferences. It is reasonable to conclude that the
incidence of homosexual
character development may vary over time and place with different
social child-rearing
patterns, which may give rise to differences in incidence. But, this
is only conjecture.
The historical evidence is more available to suggest that the
practice of homosexuality
varies widely with social sanctions.
At the present time, in western society, there is increased social
tolerance for
public homosexual behav
mrs. Therefore, we are more aware of the presence of persons of
homosexual orientation
in our society.
White: Confusion may arise from lack of precise definition of the
terms "homosexuality"
and "homosexual", A homosexual is a person who has either adopted a
homosexual lifestyle or who engages in homosexual avtivity from time to time.
A homosexual lifestyte is one in which the sex object is of the same sex, and
is chosen either for erotic purposes only or else for both
companionship and erotic
purposes. Homosexual activity is any activity engaged in for purposes of erotic
arousal with a partner of the same sex for a sex-object.
I believe the data are insufficient to tell us conclusively whether
the increase
in homosexuality is real or apparent, though there can be no question
that homosexuals
are "coining out of the closet", Epidemiological surveys
represent either
biased samples (e.g. volunters such as in Kinsey and subsequent sex behaviour
surveys) or are subject to unknown errors from faulty self-reporting.
2. Is it valid to distinguish between homosexuality
as a "condition" as opposed to a "conduct"?
Larsen: The distinction is important and useful. It follows the
traditional theological
distinction between sin and original sin. The latter reflects the corruption of
the hiosocial heredity of man over which he or she has no responsible control.
The former concerns actual conduct over which the individual has a measure of
responsibility and control. An individual may have a predisposition
to homosexuality.
This is the fruit of original sin in
which the culpability is quite different from that of overt
homosexual seduction.
Pattison: I find it both appropriate and necessary to distinguish
between homosexuality
as a "condition" and as a "conduct". There are
numerous people
who have a homosexual disposition who never engage in any type of
homosexual behavior
or conduct.
White: I would prefer to view homosexuality as a form of behaviour. It is true
that there are conditions which may or may not he associated with it.
Many people
experience some degree of arousal with homosexual stimuli. The degree of such
arousal can be measured objectively (e.g. by measuring small changes in penile
volume in the male). However the capacity for homosexual arousal should not, in
my view be called homosexuality since it may or may not be associated
with homosexual
practices and is frequently compatible with heterosexual adjustment.
On the other
hand, because of the associated "condition" (arousability)
and because
of reinforcement, homosexual behaviour tends to he self-perpetuating.
3.
Is it meaningful to speak of an individual choos
ing either to become or not to become homosexual? If the answer is yes, what do
we do with many cases where the individual testifies he/ she became
aware of their
homosexual tendencies long before any awareness of choice was present?
Larsen: Overt and practicing homosexuality is the product of both voluntary and
involuntary forces. Early predispositions to homosexuality tend to be
involuntary.
But there are certain critical moments of choice, acceptance, and acquiesence
which involve true freedom. Eventually, however, this freedom is lost
in the vice
of habit.
Pattison: Yes and no. Like a great many of our human behaviors, homosexuality
as a predisposition develops out of our earliest childhood
interactions and socialization
experiences. Thus, one does not "choose" to adopt a
homosexual predisposition.
However, there is great plasticity in our capacity to change
behaviors and dispositions
which we have acquired in our childhood socialization. Even so with
"choosing"
whether to practice homosexuality or not to practice such.
Further, there is a current mythology, popular even in scientific circles, that
one cannot deliberately change one's sexual orientation. My careful review of
the experimental and observational literature reveals some curious
lack of attention
to available data. In his original study of male homosexuality back
in 1947, Alfred
Kinsey pointedly observed that there was great plasticity and a large degree of
change in sexual orientation that naturally occurred in his population samples.
Sex researchers are just now beginning to again acknowledge a
significant capacity
for change in sexual orientation.
It must also be noted that there are degrees of homosexual
proclivity. Among persons
with mild to moderate degrees of homosexual inclination, the capacity to change
sexual orientation is high. For those persons with very intense and long fixed
homosexual orientation, the probability for change is low.
Therefore, our answer is a qualified and relative one. Many more
persons can significantly
change their sexual orientation than has been commonly acknowledged. Yet, not
all persons have the same capacity or potential for change.
White: Homosexuals do not always mean the same thing when they speak
of deciding
to become homosexual. Semantic confusion again raises its head. If one thinks
of homosexuality exclusively as a condition, then decision is irrelevant. One
cannot "decide" to become what he already is, any more than one can
decide to have cancer. One can, however, choose a lifestyle on the
basis of one's
sexual feelings.
4. What is the best current understanding of the cause of homosexuality? Have
genetic bases been definitely ruled out/in?
Larsen: It appears that homosexuality has a multiple etiology, that is, it may
arise from a number of causes and even be a symptom of quite
different problems.
Some forms may have a genetic origin; some male homosexuality may result from
an overly dominant mother or an overly punitive father. It can result
from early
homosexual seduction. It can be a part of the existential revolt
against all prescribed
and predetermined roles. At root it becomes the most obvious symbol
of man's rejection
of God's will, as Paul clearly state in Romans 1.
Pattison: As I read the evidence, I find it unequivocal, that
homosexual orientation
arises primarily from early socialization experiences. This may be reinforced
or abated by later peer social experience. This is not to say that some genetic
influence may not be delineated. But genetic factors alone do not
determine sexual
object preference. And it is quite fallacious to assume that genetics determine
behaviors, because there is no evidence that any genetic factor alone
determines
any human behaviors. (In contrast, in animals, genetics may indeed
determine specific
behaviors.)
White: I know of no satisfactory etiological theory. Genetic factors have to my
knowledge neither been ruled out nor established. Unusual
methodological problems
arise for epidemiological surveys (e.g. homosexual parents of
homosexual offspring
are unlikely to acknowledge their own problem). Environmental factors
seem often
to play a part but their precise nature and role are disputed.
5. Is there a "natural" sexual state for the human
being, or are sexual preferences formed by ex
perience in all eases?
Larsen: There is a "natural" state of sexuality for hu
mans if by "natural" one means "in accord with God's
intention",
This "natural" state is heterosexual inclination, although in the New
Testament celibacy seems to be a special calling evidenced by either diminished
sexual inclination or successful sublimation.
Pattison: Implicit in this question is the concept of "bisexuality".
The original formulation of bisexuality in early psychoanalytic theory has been
discredited. A more adequate conception of sexuality must take into
account eight
variables.
First is a genetic sexual identiy. This is the male XV or female XX
sex chromosome
pattern. There are aberrant sexual chromosomal Tatterns such as the XXY and XXX
patterns and even occasional XYY and XXXYY patterns. Despite much
research, there
is no clear correlation between sex chromatin patterns and adult
sexual behavior.
Second is the primary gonadal sex, i.e. presence of either testes or ovaries.
The degree of development of the gonads may be influenced by the sex chromatin
pattern. The gonads, in turn, are a source of differing hormones.
Third is the hormonal sexual pattern. Usually, this is determined by
a combination
of pituitary and gonadal hormonal output. Thus, there is typically a
male hormonal
pattern and a femal hormonal pattern. But in cases of dysfunction of
either pituitary
or gonadal excretion, there may be aberrant hormonal sexual patterns
at variance
with the genetic and gonadal sexual identity.
Fourth are the secondary vestigial sexual organs. In embryonic development, the
vestigial uterine apparatus remains as apparently useless hits of tissue in the
male; while vestigial testicular structure remains in the female.
Thus, in early
embryonic development there is bisexual anatomic structure which is decisively
resolved in embryo by the influence of genetic and hormonal factors.
Fifth is the external sex organs. Their development occurs in embryonic growth,
and is primarily determined by hormonal patterns. Thus, when there is hormonal
imbalance or aberration, there may be an apparent (although not real)
difference
between the appearance of the external genitalia and the genetic and hormonal
sexual identity.
Sixth is the sex of assignment. That is, the named gender of male or
female. This
source of gender identity is critical to self identification and is relatively
fixed in the second to third year. It is virtually impossible to change the sex
of assignment after the fourth year.
Seventh is core gender identity. This is the internalized sense of
sexual identity
as male or female. It is acquired in the fourth to seventh years of life. This
period is critical ill the development of Trans-sexuality, that is, the person
who has all acknowledged body identity of one sex, but a psychological identity
as the opposite sax. This is not to be confused with homosexuality, which is an
erotic attraction to the same sex.
Eighth is gender role behavior. That is, identification with the cultural norms
of expected behavior of a male or female. There is great variation
here. One may
appropriately identify with behaviors of the opposite sex without any
homosexual
component, i.e. erotic attraction. On the other hand, some homosexual persons
are attracted to role behavior of the opposite sex without sexual
attraction-the
transvestite.
In sum, the concept of sexual identity is complex. There are a series
of interrelated
sequences of biological, psychological, and social sequences that eventuate in
a sexual identity. Sexual attraction is a consequence of the
development of sexual
identity. In turn, homosexuality is a reflection of a disturbance in
the developmental
sequence of sexual identity development.
White: The question of whether a "natural" sexual orientation exists
is surely philosophical rather than scientific. The functional
relationship between
male and female sexual apparatus would suggest a "natural"
orientation,
provided one views survival teleologieally. I would prefer to urge that at this
point Christians accept a revealed purpose for sex and acknowledge
sciences limitations.
6. In what sense should homosexuality be regarded as (1) a condition
of an individual
like his height or eye color, (2) a malfunction of an individual like physical
or mental disease, (3) a spiritual rebellion indicating sinful
perspectives?
Larsen: The Christian perspective does not permit homosexuality to be viewed as
a simple, amoral genetic variant. It is a moral, social, and often
psychological
malfunction with some analogy to a physical disease. The moral and
spiritual wrongdoing
is more obvious in homosexuality than in an inflamed appendix. But
physical disorders
are themselves ultimately linked to the sin of man which has led to
genetic weakening,
and the loss of resistance to disease.
Pattison: The condition of homosexuality is a developmental
aberration in my view.
However, it is not necessarily a static and irreversible aberration. In a large
number of persons, I believe that homosexuality is reversible.
In contrast, the practice of homosexuality must be assessed as any
other behavior
in moral terms. As a Christian, I believe that the practice of homosexuality,
under any condition, is sinful behavior.
White: Once again everything depends on a definition of homosexuality.
Homosexual behaviour is sinful behaviour.
Homosexual feelings represent psychosomatic malfunction in some degree.
7. Should one expect the consequence of Christian conversion on the homosexual
to be transformation into a heterosexual?
Larsen: Conversion does not necessarily mean the loss of homosexual
inclinations
Conversion does not necessarily mean the regeneration of lost arms
and legs, the
end of ill temper, heterosexual lust, or laziness. It is accompanied
by the 'sealing
of the Spirit" which evidences a noticeable moral and spiritual
change. This
is but an indication of the ultimate perfection of the Christian. There may be
a miraculous deliverance. Sometimes, however, homosexuality may be
conquered over
a longer period. At other times it remains like Jacob's limp. It is no longer
practiced, but has been transcended and sublimated in Christian sainthood.
Pattison: Not necessarily. I have seen no instances where Christian conversion
has somehow automatically changed sexual orientation. Quite the reverse. In my
recent study of Christian exgays, we found that change in sexual
orientation came
gradually as these Christians developed a Christian way of life and developed
Christian maturity.
White: Conversions I have observed have never changed homosexual orientation or
feeling, though they have at times been associated with changed
patterns of sexual
behaviour.
8. Is there some intrinsic reason why a lifelong commitment of love between two
homosexuals is impossible? If it were found to exist, should it be broken up on
Christian grounds as sinful?
Larsen: The Covenantal understanding of human relationships which underlies all
that the Scripture teaches makes a lifelong homosexual commitment an
act of continued
disobedience to God. Such a relationship is obviously preferable to homosexual
promiscuity. But grand theft is preferable to armed robbery, and that does not
make it an acceptable moral option. Even from a psychological perspective the
rejection of one's own sexual form represents a blocking of an area of reality
that can never be construed as healthy or normal.
Pattison: This question revolves around the concept of love. Love should not be
confused with eroticism and lust. All of us love people without
eroticism or lustour
parents, our relatives, our children, our close friends. There is 00 reason why
"love" should not exist between persons of the same sex.
On the other hand, a life-long love commitment involves other variables. I can
think of many examples of life-long love commitment which is immoral
or destructive.
For example, a sadomasochistic marriage may endure for many years in which the
loving wife is regularly beaten by her loving husband. In parent-child
incest there
is long-standing intense love relationship between the partners. In
these instances,
the presence of mutual love does not justify the nature of the relationship.
Therefore, I find no necessary justification of an erotic relationship between
homosexual partners based on the ephemeral appeal to "love". Further,
I personally do not accept the concept of a Christian homosexual marriage. On
moral grounds, I find this a contradiction to the normative biblical
view of marriage
as between man and woman.
White: I know of no intrinsic reason preventing a lifelong commitment of love
between two persons of the same sex. However, while both love and
commitment would
mitigate its sinfulness, the relationship would still be wrong.
9. Within the framework of evolution, homosexuality appears to be an
aberration.
Is this a valid perspective?
Larsen: Unless one is attempting to derive ethical norms from
evolutionary theory,
the idea has little more than a fortiori value. The attempt to wed evolutionary
naturalism to a natural law ethic is, in my opinion, a futile exercise.
Pattison: I do not find this proposition intellectually appealing. Why appeal
to evolution? It seems an unnecessary speculation beyond verification
on scientific
grounds. From a sociological point of view, however, I would propose
that homosexuality
is a social aberration that is ultimately dysfunctional to the perpetuation and
maintenance of a viable society.
White: (See 6 above). There are those who would suggest that homosexuality is
an evolutionary norm protecting the race from the dangers of overpopulation. As
you can see, one can argue whichever way one wishes with an
evolutionary model.
10. Is homosexuality something like alcoholism, i.e., a condition and
a practice
originally chosen, then proceeding to the situation where the original choice
is lost, finally leading to a "cure" that requires total
abstinence?
Larsen: The analogy is inexact. Homosexual inclination may not be
originally chosen.
There are inevitable critical moments of free choice as in alcoholism. Freedom
is lost through reinforced habit-formation. Unlike alcoholism, total abstinence
from homosexual acts is practiced not simply to avoid new
habituation, but because
chastity is always a Christian imperative.
Pattison: No. Quite the reverse. As one develops psehosocia1ly, a
person acquires
more capacity to alter one's sexual object choice and is less
constrained by
early socialization. Further, a cure does not involve abstinence from
sexuality,
but rather the capacity to respond appropriately to a heterosexual object.
However, promiscuous heterosexuality is no more morally or
psychologically desirable
than promiscuous homosexuality. Many homosexual persons attempt to prove they
are heterosexual by engaging in heterosexual sex behavior. This is a
superficial
and fleeting maneuver doomed to failure. Mature heterosexuality
involves the capacity
to sustain a committed love relationship with one partner.
White: I believe that alcoholism and homosexuality have some common behavioural
features and that probably total abstinence is the only solution for many (if
not most) homosexuals. There are, however, exceptions.
11. How much relative effort should be spent by a Christian in
getting a homosexual
to cease
homosexual practices, as compared to helping
him/her develop a lifelong homosexual love re
lationship (if such is possible-see S above)?
Larsen: There is no limit to the earnest effort to be expended to the ceasing
of homosexual practices. If therapy helps the client to see the importance of
lifelong covenants as the only truly satisfying relationship, it may be of interim
value. But to encourage a lifelong homosexual commitment would be to deny the
person the chance of real healing in the biblical sense.
Pattison: This question touches on a major issue of Christian social concern at
present. Because homosexuals have been ostracized and discriminated
against, they
experience low self-esteem. Thus, one attempt to gain self-esteem is to replace
Gay is Bad, with Gay is Good. It is tempting to support this effort
at self-esteem.
But, I believe this effort is misguided, for it reinforces 'a homosexual life
style that is only halfredemptive. I strongly urge that churches
actively support
Christian homosexuals to totally divest themselves of the homosexual life style
and gay scene.
My research data on ex-gays strongly supports our view that the Gay
is Good scene
is a halfhearted compromise. And it fails to open the homosexual
person to participation
in personal nonerotic loving relationships with persons of both sexes
within the
Christian Community.
What we have found is that the iIia/or factor producing change in
homosexual orientation
in a sample of ex-gays, was the healthy maturing experience of loving Christian
relationships with both men and women in a Christian context, where
they experienced
mature love without erotic expectations, requirements, or demands.
Therefore, when the Christian community supports the Gay is Good
concept, we are
in fact depriving our homosexual Christian colleagues of the very opportunity
for growth, maturation, and change, which is possible within the
Christian community.
Finally, I find no biblical justification for the support of any
type of homosexual
relationship.
White: I cannot accept lifelong homosexual commitment either on moral grounds
or as a practical possibility. Without the buttressing of social convention it
is foredoomed to failure, but should be discouraged not because it is
impractical,
but because it is wrong.
12. What is the prescribed course of action for a Christian
homosexual who wishes
not to be a homosexual?
Larsen: A Christian homosexual must profoundly reflect on the question of Jesus
to the paralyzed man, "Wilt thou be made whole?" This wish to change
needs to be ritualized in some formal covenant in which there is
clear accountability
and opportunity for renewal within the Christian community. In many instances,
the knowledge of the problem should be confined to a small but
healthy community
of accountability. The homosexual should then seek the counsel of a qualified
and effective Christian psychotherapist. If there is no Chris
tian therapist available, then one should be sought who
believes homosexuality is a curable deviation. Heterosexual marriago must never
be undertaken as a therapeutic device. The development of authentic
spirituality
as well as a life of broadbased interests are vital to real healing.
Pattison: Based on our experience with ex-gays, the most important factor is to
provide loving experiences for homosexuals within the Christian community where
they can grow in Christian maturity and learn to develop themselves as mature
persons.
They should be encouraged not to participate in homosexual lifestyles, but to
engage in manifold Christian centered activities.
They should not be pushed to change their sexual feelings and
attractions. Rather,
they should be encouraged to develop non-erotic loving relationships.
Where possible,
I believe that whatever change in sexual orientation will occur, will come as
a consequence of maturing wholesome personal relationships within the Christian
community.
In conclusion, I should like to state that my prior pessimistic attitude toward
change in homosexual orientation has been drastically changed in the past four
years as a result of my personal research on change in homosexuals
who have become
Christian and become active participants in supportive Christian
communities.
I would like to urge our churches to openly welcome our homosexual
Christian colleagues
into fellowship, and provide the type of nurtnraot discipleship which
I have observed
to have such profound impact.
White: A Christian homosexual wanting not to live as a homosexual needs
a) The understanding and help of a Christian experienced in the temptations and
social implications of his problem.
b) Expert assessment and advice on the advisability (in the individual's case)
of behavioural methods of sexual reorientation.
c) To accept lifelong sexual abstinence if sexual re
orientation is not possible.
d) An entre into warm and intimate Christian fellowship, ideally of a kind that
accepts him/her, for what he/she is.
Such fellowship must provide on-going emotional and spiritual support and the
sense that the homosexual member is a contributor to the fellowship,
and not merely
a lame duck.