In Years past, FOCL Point has made an annual appeal to its readers to financially support the ongoing work of FOCL. You may have noticed over the past couple of issues, that we have reminded you of our ongoing financial need. As you are aware, we do not send FOCL Point with a subscription cost, but rely on the gracious financial support of readers like you. If you are able to help with any amount, all funds will be used with good stewardship to continue FOCL’s mission.
A CRITIQUE OF RESEARCH INTERPRETATIONS
in JOURNEY TOGETHER FAITHFULLY
By Merton P. Strommen, PhD
I write this critique with regret. I had believed this report would accurately reflect the research information the Task Force has considered. I had expected to find an accurate account of what scientific research has concluded regarding homosexuality. Unfortunately, such information is not reflected in the document. Rather, the account of what research has discovered reads as though someone outside the Task Force or staff has written it.
CLAIMING RESEARCH ESTABLISHES INNATE ORIENTATION.
Session Five in the publication Journey Together Faithfully begins with a section entitled, “Scientific Research: Limits and Contributions.” Its first sentence reads: “The idea that people have a certain sexual orientation is a conclusion of modern psychology.”
If by that statement we are being told that psychological studies have now established that homosexuality is caused by a “gay “gene and that one is born homosexual—it is a false statement. Science has not established that point. On the contrary, the studies favor what is reported in the textbook for psychoanalysts published last year. The book entitled, Sexual Orientation and Psychoanalysis: Sexual Science and Clinical Practice, says the following: “At clinical conferences one often hears discussants commenting that homosexuality is genetic and therefore that homosexual orientation is fixed and unmodifiable. Neither assertion is true.” (Friedman & Downey,2002,p.39)
This idea of homosexuality being a “given” appears in many places in the publication. It reads as though the author wishes to convince all readers that homosexuality is a “fixed given” – something over which a person has no more control than being left handed. On Page 19 we read: “The ELCA recognizes that for some people homosexual orientation is a given and not in itself blameworthy.” True, it is not blameworthy; it is only the behavior that is blameworthy. But it is not true that science has now established homosexuality as a “given.” Most psychologists, including the American Psychological Association, view homosexuality as the result of various factors – social, familial, environmental – that it is developmental.
On page 22 we read: “… the Bible speaks to our present understanding of homosexuality as a fixed orientation rather than a perverse choice.” True, it is not in most cases the result of a perverse choice, but it is not true that it is a fixed orientation. Listen to what Simon LeVay, a gay researcher, who authored the study of brain structure differences between gay and straight men said about immutability:
“There are probably very few people who have not felt, at some time or other, some sexual attraction to both men and women. A person’s sexual orientation is not necessarily a fixed, life-long attribute. Sexual orientation can change. For example, a woman may be predominately attracted to men for many years, and perhaps have a happy marriage and children during that time, and then become increasingly aware of same-sex attraction in her thirties, forties, or later. This does not mean that she was concealing or repressing her homosexuality during that early period. To argue that she was really homosexual all the time would be to change the definition of sexual orientation into something murky and inaccessible.” (Simon LeVay and Elizabeth Nomas. City of Friends: A Portrait of the Gay and Lesbian community in America. 1999, p.5)
We bump into the document’s claim again on page 29 in the phrase: “. . . even if claims of modern research that certain people have a virtually innate homosexual orientation were true.” Modern psychology has not established homosexuality as something that is “virtually innate.” What the writer does not realize is that the existence of biological factors in causation of human traits, even genetically mediated ones, does not mean the trait is unchangeable or inevitable. There are numerous former homosexuals who experience life now as straight. And on the other side of the spectrum, LeVays’s description above is also accurate about former heterosexuals who now live as gays and lesbians.
This idea that homosexuality is a “given” for some people appears throughout the document (note: pages 30, 31,33). The conviction of the writer becomes obvious on page 33. “We know that homosexual orientation is a given for some people.” This is a repeated refrain throughout the document as though it has been established by scientific research. As a psychologist I object to this statement of fact. It totally ignores the research I have reported in my book, The Church and Homosexuality. It is an hypothesis that many men and women have attempted to establish without success and which many theologians and pastors have adopted on the basis of anecdotal information
THE CHILDREN OF LESBIGAY FAMILIES.
The document seems to to establish as fact that children raised in same-sex families show no significant development related to the sexual orientation of their parents. Here is one of its statements. (Page 31) ”Some would claim that there is considerable social research to show that gay and lesbian people are quite capable of stable, faithful, and loving relationships and, where there are children, the children display no adverse effects.”
It is true that some studies conducted several years ago (based on small samples averaging 60 children) did announce such results. But these studies have now been shown to be faulty. I presented a paper to the Task Force in April calling attention to the book published in 2001, No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting. The authors demonstrate that the forty-nine studies on same-sex parenting (some of which are much quoted) are so flawed that no generalization can reliably be made based on their studies.
A corrective to the widespread acceptance of these studies came in 2001 in a provocative article published in the American Sociological Review, April, 2001. Its title asks: “Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” The authors, two sociologists at the University of California, Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, report that statistical evidence found in eighteen of the best studies, shows that parental orientation is positively associated with the probability their children will attain a similar orientation. They add, theory and common sense support such a view. Children raised in religious homes tend to be religious and children raised in homes where parents smoke are likely to smoke. The authors contend that children raised by lesbian co-parents should and do seem to grow up more open to homoerotic relationships. (Stacey & Biblarz, 2001, p.178)
(See my article “Use and Abuse of Research” submitted to the Sexuality Task Force and placed on the Website: www.churchmoraldebate.com.
FURTHER OBSCURATION
The document leans again to favor the gay belief system in its discussion of the percent of population that is gay or lesbian. On Page 28 we read: “There is some disagreement among researchers on how prevalent this orientation is in the population. Estimates range from two to ten percent.” It should be noted that gays want people to think they represent 10 percent of the population.
True, Kinsey came out in his report that the incidence was 10 percent, but he did not use a random sample, but rather a highly selected group. His figure has been disallowed as credible for a number of years. In my book I call attention to three major studies. The one by the University of Chicago is the one and only truly scientific survey carried out in the United States. It is the basic reference for researchers in our country. This study fixes the percentage at 2.8 for homosexuals and 1.4 for lesbians. Two larger studies, a British interview of 18,876 and a French study of 20,055 people, both identified 1.1 percent of the population as having had a same-sex experience “in the past year.” There is no reason to say that researchers give estimates up to 10 percent. The only time 10% is used is when referring to large cities (e.g. San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Minneapolis).
I am left with no other conclusion than that the point of view of the writers of this document has caused them to ignore certain research information that has been available to them. They have chosen to give the impression that their conclusions (which favor a gay belief system) are research based.
Thus this study document fails to provide two points of view regarding the findings of research. Rather, what has been written reinforces the belief system of those favoring the ordination of non-celibate gays and the blessing of same-sex marriages.
Consider also the Background Essay on Biblical Texts, where Hultgren and Taylor use social science type conclusions to establish their theological argument. What they conclude provides encouragement for those who are ready to disallow the imperative of scripture.
HULTGREN-TAYLOR AS SOCIAL SCIENTISTS
In their Background Essay on Biblical Text :for Journey Together Faithfully, they present a careful review of the Biblical texts related to the subject of homosexuality. Then they become social scientists by averring or suggesting that homosexual behavior in Paul’s time was not the same as today. They venture that male coupling today is a permanent, committed and loving relationship that differs from homosexual behavior in Paul’s day. On the basis of this observation they question, “whether there is any direct correlation between what Paul knows, envisions, or imagines as same-gender sexual behavior within this topos and what the church is facing in our time (permanent, committed, and loving relationships between persons of the same gender).” This observation becomes a pivotal statement in their argument with clear implications. In effect they are saying that the Biblical witness regarding homosexuality does not apply to the issue before the ELCA today. Therefore, scripture should not be regarded as the determinative authority.
When these two authors assume the role of social scientists and make statements that compare two periods in history, they are obligated to provide documentation. It is justifiable to ask them: How do you know what Paul understood about homosexual behavior in his time? What evidence do you have that enables you to compare homosexual practices at the time of Paul with homosexual practices today? We know from John Boswell’s review of documents from that period of history that he estimates half the men in cities such as Rome, Sparta, Athens, etc were involved in same sex behavior.
Hundreds of studies currently available provide a fair indication of homosexual behavior today. From these one can conclude that promiscuity is common for homosexuals and that only a small percentage of male partnerships are permanent. Three major studies attest to this fact. One can also conclude from current writings that most gay partnerships do not reflect a“committed, loving relationship.” Gay and lesbian leaders themselves are conscious of the large percentage of partnerships that end up in domestic violence – far more than the 11% of households reporting violence against women. (Consult the book written by two men who were consultants to Gay and Lesbian organizations, David Island and Patrick Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them.) The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that male coupling today does not meet the stereotype of permanent, committed, and loving relationships. In all probability, there were as many loving and committed same-sex relationships in the time of the Apostle Paul as exist today.
These two study documents encourage the idea that one is born with a fixed homosexual orientation, that it is the equivalent of a heterosexual orientation, and that homosexuality today is radically different from what Paul forbids in Romans 1.
GROUPTHINK
Is the ELCA Guilty of Groupthink?
Groupthink is a concept that refers to faulty decision-making by a group. Groups experiencing groupthink do not consider all alternatives and they desire unanimity at the expense of quality decisions.
Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a decision. Negative outcomes of groupthink include: Examining few alternatives; Not being critical of each other's ideas; Not examining early alternatives; Not seeking expert opinion; Being highly selective in gathering information; Not having contingency plans. Symptoms of groupthink include: Having an illusion of invulnerability; Rationalizing poor decisions; Believing in the group's morality; Sharing stereotypes which guide the decision; Exercising direct pressure on others; Not expressing your true feelings; Maintaining an illusion of unanimity; Using mindguards to protect the group from negative information. Some solutions are: Using a policy-forming group which reports to the larger group; Having leaders remain impartial; Using different policy groups for different tasks; Dividing into groups and then discuss differences; Discussing within sub-groups and then report back; Using outside experts; Using a Devil's advocate to question all the group's ideas; Holding a "second-chance meeting" to offer one last opportunity to choose another course of action.
NEWS - AP
British Columbia church closed for opposing gay marriages
December 29, 2003
The battle is a little more visible. When the ELCA passed CCM, it introduced the possibility of a polity that would allow, if fully implemented, bishops to have the authority to close congregations for non compliance of synodical instruction. Remember in the last FOCL Point the passage of the constitutional amendment that allows synod to ‘take’ back congregation property for any reason. The question is whether or not we’re seeing the ELCA’s future in this action of the British Columbia diocese.
TORONTO —— An Anglican church in Canada has been closed for refusing to support same-sex unions in defiance of its bishop, a newspaper reported Tuesday. But the Rev. James Wagner of the Holy Cross said he would celebrate Mass on Christmas as planned despite the decision by Bishop Michael Ingham to "terminate" the church in Abbotsford, British Columbia, the National Post reported.
"As far as the diocese is concerned, we do not exist. We are a non-entity," Wagner said, "but I will not abandon these people. I will continue to pastor and pray for them in the midst of this crisis." He said Ingham's decision to close the church was a surprise because "it's so close to Christmas." Ronald Harrison, executive archdeacon of the Diocese of New Westminster, said Holy Cross brought the closure upon itself by seeking episcopal oversight from another bishop. By declaring itself "independent," the church lost its funding from the archdiocese and eventually Ingham had to close it, Harrison said.
Ingham's decision to sanction same-sex unions and related issues involving homosexuality have caused deep divisions in the worldwide Anglican Communion. Two months ago Anglican leaders met in London at a crisis conference called largely because of dissension over the choice of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire, the United States, and Ingham's approval of same-sex unions.
Presbyterian Pastor Says He Will Stand for Truth -- Even at Cost of His Ministry
By Jim Brown and Jenni Parker
December 29, 2003
(AgapePress) - A Bible-believing minister in the Presbyterian Church USA may be stripped of his ordination credentials for criticizing leaders in his denomination and accusing them of denying the authority of scripture.
A committee in the Presbytery of Western North Carolina is recommending that Pastor Parker T. Williamson be removed from his position as CEO of the Presbyterian Lay Committee and editor-in-chief of its publications.
The Presbyterian Layman, a magazine that Williamson edits, recently urged Presbyterians to withhold undesignated gifts to the denomination because of its support for partial-birth abortion, homosexuality, and other practices that violate scripture. The pastor and editor has long spoken out against what he perceives as apostasy in the denomination, both vocally and in print.
A Presbytery of Western North Carolina committee recently voted to approve a recommendation to place Williamson on "inactive status." Presbytery officials call the action administrative rather than disciplinary, and claim they are concerned about the minister's character and conduct. But he believes the church leaders are simply worried about losing money.
According to Williamson, denomination officials have put up with the biblical stance of his ministry since its inception in 1965. But now that money is involved, he contends that things have "reached a new level."
"We have criticized the leadership of this denomination for its abandonment of scripture as the authority for the church's faith and life," the pastor says, "and they are having a hard time tolerating the existence of the critic."
The Presbytery of Western North Carolina's Committee on Ministry voted in a closed session on December 9 to approve a recommendation to withdraw its validation of Williamson's ministry. Next the matter will go before the full presbytery at a January 31 meeting at First Presbyterian Church in Asheville, North Carolina. The outspoken minister says he is prepared to defend himself.
"I intend to argue the case there. I'm fully prepared to lose my ordination if that's what it takes in order to stand for what clearly is God's truth," Williamson says.
Should the presbytery concur with the committee's decision, the minister would be placed on ‘inactive’ status and lose his speaking and voting privileges at presbytery meetings. And if Williamson's ministry were not restored to active status within three years, then his ordination would be revoked and his name would be stricken from the presbytery roll.
Williamson became a member of the presbytery in 1971 and served as pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Lenoir, North Carolina, before he was hired by the Presbyterian Lay Committee in 1989.
2003 AgapePress all rights reserved