HETEROSEXISM, HOMOSEXUAL HEALTH, AND THE CHURCH
Charles R. Peterson, M.D. and Douglas A. Hedlund, M.D.

I. ELCA RESTRICTIVE “SCIENCE” OF HOMOSEXUALITY [3]

A. “Nature” (biology) as a component of homosexuality

1. The inherent pathology of homosexuality
Professor Gagnon states that “there is something pathological about homosexual orientation itself” (which specifically denotes that homosexual orientation in persons who do not engage in erotic acts is pathological and denotes that heterosexual orientation is not). He asserts that two articles and an editorial in a 1999 issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry “support this conclusion.” [4] In fact, the researchers in neither of these studies reported this conclusion. Both articles demonstrated that there is an increased risk of depression and suicidality in homosexuals compared to heterosexuals but contrary to Gagnon’s assertion, neither concluded that this was due to an intrinsic pathology.

In the discussion (not the conclusion) of both articles, the authors speculated about multiple possible causes (which included intrinsic pathology as well as the more likely role of societal hostility) but Gagnon formulated his conclusion quoting only one of the multiple theories of possible causes discussed in the articles and in the editorial. Both of the articles and the editorial made it clear that the methodology did not allow a conclusion to be derived about any cause of the observed differences. But despite this Gagnon quoted both selectively and out of context from the discussion in order to state the unwarranted conclusion he desired (e.g., quoting a sentence without a following qualifying sentence which discounted its significance). This misrepresentation made homosexuals appear more defective than the studies reported.

2. The problem of pedophilia
Consistent with this inherent pathology hypothesis, Professor Gagnon alleges a “problem of pedophilia and its role in ‘recruiting’ homosexuals into the fold.” [5] Responsible homosexual adults do not “recruit” young homosexual boys “into the fold.” Furthermore, by focusing on homosexuals as child molesters rather than placing this issue in any statistical the context of the broad problem of child molestation related to types of perpetrators Gagnon is inferring that homosexuals are a major problem. He does this by making pedophilia appear to be a substratum of an inherent pathology of homosexuality by inappropriately conflating diagnostic distinctions and citing medical sources on pedophilia.

As noted in the definitions section, pathological (fixated) pedophilia, unlike homosexuality, is a pathological mental disorder and in scientific literature about pedophiles a “homosexual (adjective) pedophile (noun)” is not a homosexual who molests children but a “fixated” pedophile who prefers boys (30%) rather than girls (70%) with little, if any, erotic interest in adults. It is also important to note that a small percentage of both heterosexuals and homosexuals molest young boys but because heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by 25:1, the total number of boys molested by heterosexuals and pedophiles outnumbers by many times (>10X?) those molested by homosexuals. Thus the single place where any child is at greatest risk of being sexually molested is in an outwardly heterosexual household. (Over 95% of all child molesters self-identify themselves as heterosexuals.) The failure of Professor Gagnon and some of the other theologians critiqued here to put any discussion of homosexual molestation of boys in this context while conflating homosexuality with perpetrators of child molestation comparatively denigrates homosexuals and exonerates heterosexuals.

Both Professor Gagnon and Dr. Strommen implicate pedophilic behavior in causing young boys to become gay which is inconsistent with substantive contrary evidence. For example, Gagnon refers to the Etoro tribe in New Guinea where all boys go through an adult-child male sexual relationship. [6] He uses this as an example of extreme cultural variations to support his view that cultural norms are more important than “genetic determinism.” However, Gagnon describes this practice in the singular, indicating that “the boy” gives up the practice as an adult, neglecting to point out that all boys in this tribe were put through this practice and later essentially all men gave up this practice. A study of hundreds of men found only one adult homosexual. (Dr. Simon Rosser of the University of MN cited this study at the 2004 Wordalone conference.) Dr. Gagnon fails to mention this in his book, most likely because this contradicts rather than supports his assertion that childhood same-sex experience is a significant cause of homosexuality.

3. Sexual promiscuity
a. Promiscuity vs. committed unions
Professor Gagnon repeatedly characterizes homosexuals as afflicted with a rampant sexual promiscuity due to “an endemic dearth of long-term monogamous relationships.” [7] Thus he recognizes the obvious relationship between promiscuity and the absence of a committed relationship for both homosexuals and heterosexuals (noting Paul in 1 Cor. 7:2-5). [8] But unlike heterosexuals, Gagnon concludes that long-term relationships will not work for homosexual couples because of an inherent psychological pathology:

      Male homosexual relationships are plagued both by the absence of a female partner to curb excesses of male sexuality (prone as it is to visual stimulation and extremes in pluriform sexual behavior) and by an insatiable yearning for the completion of gender identification, which translate into inadequate self-control.” [9]
      These deficiencies include . . . an obsessive centering on self that may occur when sexual intercourse can be obtained without having to learn how to relate to a sexual ‘other’ and when erotic attraction is directed toward the very physique and traits that one shares in common with another; shame and guilt over one’s abnormal and unnatural sexual practice (a realization that stems from visible evidence of same-sex discomplementarity or the inability to relate properly to the opposite sex, not from “internalized homophobia”). [10]
      An ethic [for homosexuals] which embraces only monogamous, lifelong unions between members of the same sex will, it seems, encompass such a tiny fraction of the homosexual population that heterosexual acceptance of homosexual unions in theory will appear to homosexuals as rejection of such unions in reality. [11]

Writing as a theologian with his own made-up psychopathology of homosexuality, Professor Gagnon appears to be unaware of the following easily available information from a standard textbook:

      The majority of gay men and lesbians report being in a committed romantic relationship with surveys indicating that 45 to 80% of lesbians and 40 to 60% of gay men are currently in such relationships. From 8 to 14% of lesbian couples and from 18 to 25% of gay male couples report that they have lived together for more than 10 years. In contrast to stereotypes of gay men and lesbians, they clearly form and maintain intimate same-sex relationships. While same-sex marriage is still legally prohibited, many same-sex couples live in relationships that are as enduring and emotionally significant as any heterosexual relationship, in spite of discrimination against these relationships, the absence of rituals and laws that support them, and the denial of equal protection and benefits to these couples. [12]

Clinical experience shows that there has been a reduction in homosexual promiscuity and associated medical problems in lesbians and gays living in committed same-sex unions. This is implicitly acknowledged by Dr. Strommen in his division of gays and lesbians into several groups, beginning with this one:

      The first group consists of devout gays and lesbians who are active in our congregations, people living in committed relationships, and contributing to the welfare of our country. They include pastors, theologians, professional people, and devoted citizens. Many are children of church members, children of pastors, children of people we know and respect. Without question most of these people in their hearts have reconciled their orientation with Scripture and have found a way of coping with their same-sex attractions. (italics added) [13]

b. Committed unions vs. antigay commitment doctrine
We are concerned that neither Professor Gagnon nor any of the other theologians critiqued here seriously addressed the important question of whether homosexual promiscuity is more likely the result of a non-affirming or even overtly antagonistic and possibly verbally abusive church and societal environment which drives a majority of young homosexuals out of church and community even before they “come out.” This link between church hostility and negative health consequences for homosexual persons has been discussed in both scientific and theological literature for decades but is at most casually dismissed by this group of theologians by such concepts as blaming promiscuity on discomplementarity, “not internalized homophobia.” [10, cited above] Whereas these defenders of gay suppression argue that environmental social influences are most important in producing homosexual orientation, they speak and write as if persistent denigration of homosexuals such as that by Professor Gagnon cited here has little or nothing to do with discouraging successful same-sex committed unions.

One is led by these authors to believe that most homosexual persons suddenly and glibly decide to “come out” and join a “gay lobby” with in-your-face demands for equality as a rebellious act against the church. In this these theologians ignore the fact that most adolescent homosexuals know their sexual difference by age 13, do not tell anyone for several years while they go through a lonely development of a “soul” forged out of pain, struggle, self-loathing (internal homophobia), a sense of abandonment and often, depression. A significant component of this has been seen as compounded by the church’s message and its “subjective” interpretations of biblical texts. [14, 15]

The material reviewed here validates this reality by noting the negative misrepresentations of both scientific literature and biblical texts. Professor David L. Balch, speaking at the 2004 Wordalone conference, also cited examples of the negative inflammatory language that Professor Gagnon used which has been the same type which has been “culturally lethal” in the torture and killing of may different minority groups in the last 2000 years. He then noted how this type of language is likely related to many murders of gays and lesbians in the past few years. [16] Our concern here is the effect of the more subtle but more pervasive negative language in promoting homosexual promiscuity as described by Jung and Smith:

      The responses of gay children to these negative messages vary. One is self-hate so strong it results in suicide. Another strategy is sexual amnesia . . . or anesthesia (better to be numb than gay and hypocritical) . . . ultimately the obligation to be sexually authentic creates a spiritual crisis . . . they frequently experience God as a sadistic, unloving Father: “God abhorred me because I was homosexual, did not accept or welcome me into his house as I was and told me through the apostle Paul that I deserved to die. It’s hard to bond with such a Father. . . Gay and lesbian people are constantly accused of promoting promiscuity. Does fidelity make sense only for heterosexual lovers?”
      We believe that a mutual promise of lifelong commitment remains morally important for sexual relations - whether gay, lesbian, bisexual, or straight . . . If fidelity is essential to gay love, we can reasonably argue that heterosexism (rather than homosexuality) lies behind the high incidence of gay promiscuity . . . When love and fidelity are irrelevant to the morality of one’s sexual lifestyle, and covenanted unions receive no social, legal, or ecclesial support, it would be easy to live out, as a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, the judgments of heterosexism. Summarizing this point of view Paul Jersild writes: “There can be no doubt that the prevalence of promiscuity among gays is encouraged by the public ostracism and the consignment of the gay life to a nether world that fashions its own morality of despair and self-hatred.” In a heterosexist world homosexual people must live with the nearly constant disparagement of who they are . . . For these reasons it appears quite reasonable to suggest that the level of promiscuity within the gay community is primarily a product of heterosexism. (italics added) [17]

Professor Gagnon supports his psychological theory by selective studies citing the high prevalence of homosexual promiscuity. These studies are either out-dated (pre-1973), have small samples, are from studies of patients with AIDS, are from the gay Advocate magazine, or are from some of the most sexually promiscuous population centers in the world. [18] The logic behind this premise is like comparing the average age of obituaries in “first-home” suburbs of young adults to retirement communities and concluding that suburbs are more dangerous places to live because people living there die at a younger age.

Even with positive descriptions such as that of Dr. Strommen and that from The Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry cited above, these theologians will not accept these descriptions as positive indicators and goals for church and society to work toward for the benefit of all gays and lesbians. Instead of focusing on the positive realities of many gays and lesbians, their negative emphasis creates fear that homosexual persons in churches are like their negative descriptions from selected sources. The effect of this is to make lesbians and gays in the church feel unwelcome and leave. To invite those in faithful relationships to selected meetings but not to worship services or to relate to them only in their homes and not in church is a “welcome” which is not welcoming. [19]

4. Serious health problems associated with homosexuality
Professor Gagnon claims one of his purposes is to improve the general health of homosexual persons but he does not put this in proper context. He uses scientific data about gay health problems to argue against equality for lesbians and gays in the church. In eight pages on “dearth of long relationships” he never explicitly linked health problems to promiscuity (although he cited statistics about numbers of partners from AIDS studies). [20] In five pages on health problems he acknowledged that “high relationship turnover” might be a factor but discounted “societal homophobia” as a reasonable cause of gay promiscuity, choosing to again attribute this to “inherent” (or “endemic”) deficiencies. [20] Rather than directly confronting the question of a causal link between church and societal hostility to gay promiscuity and the link between promiscuity and most gay medical problems, Gagnon skirts these relationships to implicitly emphasize his theory of inherent psychopathology as a cause of most gay medical problems.

Gagnon's reason for avoiding these links seems obvious. If he acknowledged the link between his own hostile comments about homosexuality and the serious medical problems of the gay community, it would mean his negative messages about homosexuality might become more exposed as the probable root cause of many gay medical problems. A negative message about the minority is easier to market than a message which implicates his doctrinal theories as a representative of the majority.

Dr. Harrisville goes further in specifically attempting to dissociate gay medical problems from promiscuity by asserting that an above average incidence of rectal cancer in gays is due to ano-rectal intercourse per se rather than infections related to promiscuity. [21] Like Professor Gagnon, this fits his construct because it would mean a committed male relationship would not reduce the risk of rectal cancer (he also assumes all male homosexuals engage in ano-rectal intercourse, which is not true, as noted later). With these assumptions, he can then advocate celibacy as the only practical health option for gays.

However, we believe Dr. Harrisville used selective (and likely outdated) sources for his claim because our own quick search turned up two substantive studies on men and women who never had ano-rectal intercourse but had AIDS from other sources and/or other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) but also had a high rectal cancer risk. One of the studies specifically noted a correlation between promiscuity and the incidence of cancer and another went so far as to suggest that “anal intercourse itself does not carry an increased risk.” [22, 23] The failure to at least do balanced reporting is evidence of a deliberate attempt to use selectivity to support a negative premise about homosexuals.

Besides misrepresenting the cause of gay health problems, the health issue of gays and lesbians is misrepresented in other ways. Reports about selected problems are used to implicate the character, habits, and health of all homosexuals, and sources are used which themselves are widely recognized as repeatedly misrepresenting health and other aspects of homosexuality. A good example of the latter problem is the work of Paul Cameron, a psychologist whom Professor Gagnon cites 17 times in his book, as well as citing the work of the Family Research Institute which Cameron heads. [24] Dr. Strommen also cites Cameron when he claims that “the gay life span, even apart from AIDS and living with a long-term partner, is shorter than that of married men by more than three decades.” [25] This statement has been judged as clearly false.

B. “Nurture” (environment) as a component of homosexuality

1. Social factors vs. genetic factors
The previous section documents that Professor Gagnon views homosexuality as so immutably promiscuous that homosexual committed relationships are unlikely to be an effective deterrent to promiscuous behavior. According to most correlation studies, the more immutable a disposition the more likely a genetic cause. Yet when he explicitly addresses the cause of homosexuality he regards the inherited genetic (“nature”) component to be very weak compared to environmental factors. [26] Dr. Strommen’s views are essentially identical. [27]

Empirical evidence and clinical experience show that sexual orientation is very resistant to change, but behavior congruent with any orientation is conditioned by positive or negative social factors and quite malleable to personal commitment. One may indeed choose between promiscuity and fidelity, but one cannot simply and easily choose to change one's sexual desires. This is true for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. The contrary restrictive position is that once it is decided that sexual orientation should be changed, this course should be vigorously pursued. This is based on a theory that orientation is “learned” and therefore can be changed. The means for this change is reparation or reorientation therapy, especially as found in faith-based ministries. These therapies are endorsed by all four theologians critiqued here.

2. Reparation therapy
Reparation therapy is one of the most controversial aspects in the current homosexuality debate, so this issue needs more than a brief comment. One likely reason for the controversy is that conditions which can be “cured” (or “chosen”) are not candidates for special or equal rights. The strong endorsement of reparation therapy by restrictive theologians and others stands in direct opposition to an APA statement critical of reparation therapy (APA.com). The APA position has been endorsed by the AMA, by most relevant US medical specialties groups, and by the World Health Organization (WHO).

The APA position on reparation therapy is based primarily on 100 years of history and a half-century of psychoanalytic, behavioral, and other reparation treatments by thousands of psychiatrists. One sub-type of psychoanalysis (e.g. Socarides - a psychiatrist cited by both Gagnon and Strommen) which was tried and failed was an embarrassment to most credentialed psychoanalysts. (He described his patients who failed as sociopathic and worse.) Gerald C. Davison at SUNY at Stony Brook did exemplary work in a series of behavioral therapy trials (1960’s) trying to alter homosexual orientation. His trials, however, were not successful. He concluded that dissatisfaction with homosexual orientation was likely a function of internalized social (including religious and medical) stigma causing him to shift his research to the social factors and ethical issues involved in requests to change sexual orientation. [28]

Since the 1970s cognitive behavioral theory and practice have become predominant in psychology and psychiatry. In contrast, the old psychoanalytic Freudian theory of homosexuality as arrested sexual development has generally declined but has remained as the seeming dominant basis for religion-related reparation methods. For example, in the space of four pages supportive of reparation therapy, the words psychoanalysis, psychoanalysts, and psychoanalytic are found nine times in Dr. Strommen’s book. [27] The Eagles’ Wings reparation program in Minnesota seems based on a psychoanalytic type theory of removing early-life psychological “root causes” of homosexuality.

Most psychiatrists gave up on reparation therapy not because there was no evidence of some change in a few homosexual patients but because there was more evidence of harmful psychological effect on many as a price for some change in a few. Many “ex-ex-gays” from current and former programs end up in psychiatrist’s and psychologist’s offices. Some psychiatrists think reparation therapy should be banned but the majority think that would be too extreme.

a. Studies of reparation therapy outcomes by convenience sampling
Negative experience with reparation therapy is supported by anecdotal evidence from attempts of reorientation by multiple non-medical groups. In one study by Shidlo and Schroeder, 202 clients were solicited voluntarily from multiple reorientation therapy groups and were interviewed by phone. 13% reported the experience of reorientation as positive, but only 4% claimed some change in sexual orientation. Within the 87% who rated the experience as negative the most frequent problem was worsening depression, and 11% (22 respondents) had suicide attempts during or after therapy. At conferences, the defenders of the restrictive view were quick to jump on methodological weaknesses of convenience sampling which was used in this study. [29]

Convenience sampling seemed quite OK, however, when a subsequent study by psychiatrist Dr. Robert Spitzer reported what on the surface seemed high success rates. [30] This Spitzer study was then touted as refuting the Shidlo-Schroeder study. For instance, Dr. John Lefsrud, one of the minority group of psychiatrists supporting faith-based reparation therapies, summarized this study simply as: “Robert Spitzer has just published an article in Archives of Sexual Behavior (Oct. 2003), based on his personal research of 200 participants, which reports a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation through therapy.” [31] And Dr. Roy Harrisville III reported the results of this study as: “247 people were interviewed by telephone and 200 respondents reported changes from homosexual orientation lasting five years or longer after undergoing therapy. Only 11% of the men and 37% of the women reported a complete change. None of the respondents reported that the therapy was harmful.” [21]

These two summaries of the Spitzer study misrepresent by oversimplification and by implying that technical truths from a limited group represent a universal reality. The Harrisville summary makes it appear as if a random solicitation like the Shidlo study showed an 81% success rate without harmful effects. However, this is a serious misrepresentation because the Spitzer study entry criteria required that all clients interviewed have a self-identified significant change toward heterosexuality lasting at least five years. Therefore by study design 100% had to have had successful therapy and all others were excluded. The 47 “failures” suggested by Harrisville’s report were those respondents who failed to meet the entry criteria. Since clinical failures were not included, conclusions about the frequency of failures and harmful effects in persons with failed outcomes cannot be derived from this study.

Even so, it took Spitzer 16 months to recruit the 200 eligible for the study's phone interview despite repeated notices sent to promoters of therapy (NARTH) and to therapists in every section of the US and Europe. This, according to Spitzer, suggests “the frequency of successful outcomes meeting the criteria of the study are rare . . . obviously this study cannot address the question of how often sexual reorientation actually results in the substantial changes reported by most participants in this study.” An unanswered question is that if there are “20,000 former homosexuals” now living happy heterosexual lives as these theologians assert, [21, 32, 33] why was it so difficult to find 200 for the study?

b. Rare success in finding evidence of change in sexual orientation
Dr. Spitzer's “rare” success is a far cry from 81% success. He concluded “there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.” In scientific terms, this is not a strong conclusion. “Evidence of change” is not the same as “proof of change,” and one of the author’s concluding implications is that more research is needed “to further determine reparative therapy’s risks vs. benefits.” Spitzer even acknowledged that exaggeration or even lying by the respondents could not be excluded with the methodology used. This is a strong qualifier.

Other facts not reported by Harrisville and others are that 50% were having opposite-sex intercourse at the time of starting therapy and half of these rated its physical satisfaction at least 8/10. This suggests that some clients were toward the bisexual part of the orientation spectrum. This would not likely be representative demographics of most gays and lesbians of concern to the church. Also not noted is the fact that the average duration of therapy for those who completed it was 4.7 years and for those still in therapy the average was 12 years, suggesting that change was neither quick nor easy.

If both the evidence of change and the evidence that such change is rare are accepted, the second (Spitzer) study is more complementary than contradictory to the first (Shidlo and Schroeder) study cited above. The 200 clients in Spitzer’s study likely came from the 4% sector of post-reorientation clients who reported some success in the Shidlo study. Serious harm from therapy is not likely to be found or reported by those who judge their therapy successful, so the lack of harm in the Spitzer group does not mean, overall, that success in some is not accompanied by harm in others who received the same therapy.

If the relationship of successful change in sexual orientation to suicide attempts in the first (Shidlo) study (1:2.8) were applied to the second (Spitzer) study, there would be over 500 unsuccessful suicide attempts as a by-product of 200 successes. Even if it is conservatively estimated that only one out of 10 (instead of one in five) suicide attempts is successful, it would mean that in reparation therapy programs there is at least one successful suicide for every four successful outcomes from reparation therapy. The fact is that because of the methodology limitations in both studies no one can really say what the suicide risk is or how it compares to the suicide risk without therapy.

c. The burden of proof for reorientation efficacy
The glaring gap in the faith-based reparation therapy programs is their failure to report all outcomes on significant series of consecutive clients, including good results, dropouts, failures and complications. Outcome statements such as that attributed to Joseph Nicolosi as being “the same as for any kind of psychotherapy: one-third success, one-third improved, and one-third unsuccessful,” are not helpful without good documentation, especially for the one-third unsuccessful group. [33]

Some of the theologians critiqued here criticize the medical community for not continuing research on reparation therapy. However, in medical contexts accurate documentation of all outcomes is fundamental both for ethical informed consent and as a prerequisite for funding and approval of research projects. Without such basic information, studies on such therapies would not receive approval of ethical institutional research review boards (IRBs). The burden of proof of efficacy is therefore not on the critics but on those doing the therapy. Failure to comply with basic quality standards suggests that the outcomes are not as good as usually claimed, and many programs know some of their clients ended up in secular mental health professional offices. There are no valid studies that can place the success rate of reparation therapy sufficient for opposite-sex marriage over 1 -2 %.

If the misrepresentations of these Shidlo and Spitzer studies and the others cited here reflect the quality of the reparation therapies in question, there is good reason to question the integrity of these programs. In addition, the way all these misrepresentations pit a restrictive stance against equal rights for homosexuals qualifies the misrepresentations as being a heterosexist stance.

 3. Opposite-sex marriage, celibacy, or same-sex unions?
There are three alternatives to a sexually promiscuous life for homosexual persons: opposite-sex marriage, celibacy, or same-sex unions. Opposite-sex marriage has been tried by many homosexuals, usually related to covert coercive church and societal influence. But such marriages seldom work except for those who tend toward the bisexual part of the biological continuum of sexual orientation. Nevertheless, the advocates of the restrictive stance try to promote the hope of changing sexual orientation through reparation therapy. But even if reparation therapy is accepted as working for a few (1-2%), these are not the kind of numbers one would chose as a primary basis for public or institutional policy. Furthermore, creating false hope is ethically worse than presenting realistic hope.

Enforced celibacy has a poor track record, as is evident in the recent problems in the Catholic Church. We especially note David France’s book, Our Fathers: The Secret Life of the Catholic Church in an Age of Scandal, New York, Broadway Books (2004), which suggests that enforced celibacy causes a regression to pedophilic behavior by both homosexual and heterosexual priests. (Girls were also abused, pp. 419-422, 524.) It should also be noted that the doctrine of celibacy is disparaged many times in The Book of Concord and even in the Large Catechism. [34]

Since both history and current evidence indicate that neither opposite-sex marriages nor perpetual celibacy are effective deterrents to promiscuity for most homosexual persons, the positive evidence of the effectiveness of committed unions therefore remains clearly the best option as a health-promoting deterrent to promiscuity for gays and lesbians who do not feel capable of a celibate life. But as noted above, Professor Gagnon and the other theologians critiqued here choose to ignore or seriously discount medical experience and instead base their case against committed unions on abstract, unproved, and poorly documented psychological theories, selected statistics, and negative stereotypes of homosexual persons.

The methods of engaging science used by the theologians reviewed here suggest an uncertainty of scriptural relevance, which creates a need to bolster their theology with an appearance of science. In a personal letter promoting the Spitzer reorientation study, one of these theologians commented: “By the way, Spitzer is not a Christian.” The obvious implication is that this added to his credibility. The reverse side of this coin is that being a Christian immediately raises some question of objectivity and honesty that undermines credibility. Professor Gagnon writes that “I cannot be a biblical literalist or fundamentalist and still retain intellectual integrity.” [35] But he and others didn’t hesitate to cite many times a psychologist on the faculty of Pat Robertson’s Regent University as well as others with fundamentalist connections. [36]

We agree with Professor Gagnon that intellectual integrity is a Christian virtue. There appear to be some differences, however, between what he and most scientists think constitutes intellectual integrity. The following exerpts are from the Research and Publication section of the Third Edition of the American College of Physicians (ACP) Ethics Manual:

"The basic principle of research is honesty . . . (scientists) must not misrepresent ideas of others . . . scientists can proceed with confidence only if they can assume that the previously reported facts on which their work is based have been reported accurately . . . using language that does not invite misinterpretation or unjustified extrapolation."

Click to continue
Part II: ELCA RESTRICTIVE THEOLOGY OF HOMOSEXUALITY