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

III. DISCUSSION

The group of theologians critiqued here can be regarded as the core representatives of the restrictive theology of homosexuality in the ELCA. Their stance may be summarized as follows:

      Biologically, the restrictive stance regards homosexual persons as afflicted by an inherent psychopathology characterized by obsessive sexual self-centeredness which results in lack of self-control uniquely manifesting itself in same-sex sexual child molestation, sexual promiscuity, and serious health problems.
      Theologically, homosexual persons are regarded as a sinful distortion of the “perfect” anatomical complementarity of opposite sexes evident in the creation accounts of the Bible. This is regarded as a unique consequence of the Fall which has survived since as a special manifestation of original sin (the “fallen” sexual orientation). It follows that that homosexuality is he devil’s intention, not God’s, and any intimate same-sex relationship, no matter how otherwise ideal is “an inexcusable rebellion against the intentional design of the created order.” [69]          

This damning biological-theological judgment of homosexuals is not usually stated directly. Rather it is inferred indirectly in a negative response to an affirming view leaving a direct meaning to be constituted by the reader or listener. In formal writing this restrictive stance is also more subtle rather than blatant and obscured by authoritative appearing academic style and credentials. However, when repeated in less formal written forms or small group discussion settings, the elements in this summary often are stated more explicitly. Some theologians in this group we critiqued may object that this summary is not representative of one or another’s individual’s view. But we think our conflation is reasonable for discussion because their self-defined unity makes it likely that many readers not only conflate their stance as we have summarized here but will extrapolate even more inaccurate conclusions from it. Nowhere have we found where these theologians have publicly taken issue with each another on any major points. We acknowledge that in attempting to critique about one thousand pages of writing in less than thirty pages, our representation of those critiqued is less than perfect. But we have attempted to be fair in representing important points well enough to give what we think is better balance to the discussion, especially as it relates to scientific evidence relevant to the health of gay and lesbian persons.

There are several points that deserve further comment about this restrictive theological formulation.

A. Some matters of intellectual integrity: biblical literalism and fundamentalism

Professor Gagnon asserts that “I cannot be a biblical literalist or fundamentalist and still retain intellectual integrity. However, I do not think that Scripture and the prevailing cultural sentiment are equal in value.” [70] In this statement, Gagnon reduces scientific evidence and experience regarding homosexuality to “cultural sentiment” which allows him to trump science with his interpretation of Scripture. But he does this selectively, not consistently. When science seems to agree with his view he cites it, when he does not agree with it he attempts to subvert it, and when he can make a source appear to support his interpretation he misrepresents it. Others in this restrictive group follow suit, although somewhat less frequently or less egregiously.

The restrictive theological formulation reviewed here is repeatedly buttressed by misrepresentations of scientific literature in a manner that would be regarded as unethical in any respected scientific context. Speculations in discussions about studies of homosexuals were cited as if they were conclusions, scientific statements written about pathological sexual disorders were used as if they referred to homosexuality and were conflated with it, statistics from specific health problems presented as if they were representative of all homosexual persons, some diseases of homosexuals were claimed to be independent of promiscuity when studies indicating otherwise were ignored, and outcomes from attempts to change sexual orientation were quoted as if they were much more frequently successful than the reports concluded.

Similar methods were used in biblical interpretations such as imputing meanings about sexual orientation into the texts which were not present, linking the Fall more tightly with homosexuality than with heterosexuality, and giving greater emphasis (implying likelihood) that homosexuals would not inherit the kingdom as compared to heterosexual adulterers. If a similar but “homosexist” reasoned system of bias were used to denigrate the morality of all of heterosexual society, defenders of the restrictive homosexual stance would immediately cry “foul play.” Such methods would not pass muster in any respected medical scientific presentations or publications. But in a church setting a large majority acts as if it can apply an “ends-justifies-the-means-ethic” which a small minority would never be allowed to do.

There is an inherent contradiction in this traditional restrictive stance. If science is irrelevant in the context of divine revelation that appears to disagree, why must theologians take scientific statements and misrepresent their accuracy in order to make science appear to support a particular biblical interpretation? One answer to this question is that there is less confidence in the biblical interpretation and more concern about the truth of the scientific stance than is alleged. Therefore, rather than just say science is irrelevant to this issue and stop there, science is dishonestly bent to fit a biblical interpretation.

Professor Gagnon may not think of himself as a literalist or fundamentalist but his basic view of the texts seems very literal. What he adds to the texts with various conjectures and how he buttresses his views with scientific distortions might qualify by some views as fundamentalist. The prominent theologian Karen Armstrong has characterized some aspects of fundamentalism (whether in Judaism, Islam or Christianity) as driven by a “lust for certainty,” i.e., an intense need for an absolute truth to stand on and act by. [71] But if this need for certainty for the self must be built on or buttressed by a certainty about the faults of others (“God, I thank you that I am not as one of these”), it is likely fundamentalist. If the need for certainty is so intense that it distorts truth in order to buttress less than 0.1% of the verses of the Bible, it suggests an intense need to self-construct an appearance of certainty that diminishes authentic faith. But even if this concept seems a stretch, we think the type of biblical hermeneutics and non-biblical analysis that engages it that has been reviewed here is more subjective than objective.

B. The “easy way out”

Professor Gagnon describes the affirming stance as “a nice, easy way out.” [72] But a contrary case can be made that the restrictive stance is the easy way out. What morality code is easier to sell to and be bought by the majority of the church? The traditional, restrictive doctrine is a morality which focuses on less than 5% of its members but poses few limitations and inconveniences on the 95% majority, including not having to deal with homosexual persons (except for those who have gay or lesbians members in their families). It can also make most members feel better and more moral by taking a stance against homosexuality, and they can even blame the sexual and family problems of the heterosexual majority (e.g. 50% of marriages fail in ten years and one-half of children growing up in single parent homes) on the dubious conjecture that acceptance of same-sex fidelity will “wreak havoc on the institutions of marriage and the family.” [73] If this “scapegoat” doctrine doesn’t always sell, it will at least deflect attention away from the self-serving (heterosexist) biblical interpretations.            

But although this doctrine may find easy acceptance in much of the church, there are reasons to question how acceptable God may find it. C. S. Lewis has pointed out that God does not judge everyone primarily by externals but sees everyone in the context of differences in what they have been “given” (both biologically and environmentally - “raw material”) and what is in the heart (attitudes and motives). [74] For example, Jesus saw the widow’s mite in the context of her poverty and some of the Pharisees’ judgments in the context of their love of money. It follows that God may not be that impressed with a group morality centered on controlling a desire most have seldom, if ever, experienced, while neglecting the “weightier” matters of the law - justice, mercy, and faith (Matt. 23:23). Justice, mercy and faith are not served by a majority misrepresenting a minority group of persons in a way that unjustly denigrates them.

C. S. Lewis also put sexual morality in a prudent perspective by saying (contrary to Professor Gagnon) that the center of Christian morality is not here: “The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst sins are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power and hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.” [75]

C. Christian “no fault” morality vs. ethics of science

The “easy way out” provided for the restrictive stance is facilitated by the way it is self-perceived and presented: as if there is no down-side risk of its message to and methods on the health of homosexuals persons. The dangers that homosexual persons face as well as the alleged collateral dangers to society are judged all to be caused by homosexuals themselves, facilitated by an affirming medical and societal stance, with only the restrictive tradition keeping these problems in check. There is little or no acknowledgment of the testimonies of gays, lesbians, and medical health professionals which speak to the depressing effect of constant negative messages from one large segment in the church which both causes and facilitates dangerous homosexual behavior.

This risk-immune or “no fault” preaching assumption is foreign to scientific thinking. Scientists recognize that every new scientific advance comes with some negatives, every treatment involves some risks, and any advice may be misunderstood. In contrast, the restrictive theological stance in the ELCA assumes science “has nothing to say about God’s will for creation . . . what behavior is sinful . . . and science is not divine revelation.” [76] This theological formulation sees no biblical distinctions between the place of revelation in showing the absolute mysteries in God’s will for salvation and the role of reason and empirical evidence is discerning the relative differences in the realities and circumstances of judging ethical behavior.

Paul says absolutely, “for all have sinned,” “Jesus is Lord,” and “Christ died for all.” But he does not command: “All must be as I am.” Rather he writes, “This I say by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as myself am. But each has a particular gift from God . . .” (I Cor. 7:6). In this passage Paul is recognizing that to force the same rules on everybody for everything would entail some risk. The current restrictive theologies declare their irrelevance to science and their dislike for meaningful dialogue about relative risks and benefits by pronouncing negative theological judgments about science. But in this case they at the same time leave medical science to deal with many of the casualties of their negative pronouncements on a minority group in church and society. This makes the real intent appear to be a desire to keep the church “pure” by driving gays and lesbians out to leave them in dangerous places for the secular realm of society to deal with. From the perspective of those practicing an “ethics of the valley” where the causalities are suffering, this theological “ethics from the mountain” does not appear risk-free.

D. A compassionate Christianity

It goes without saying that both a restrictive and an affirming stance on homosexuality would hope to be judged compassionate, and any such group claiming to be Christian would want this set in some framework of both law and gospel. The way the restrictive stance claims this high ground deserves comment and again Professor Gagnon’s work will be cited because the other theologians included in this review articulate the same views in one way or another.

1. Compassionate denunciation of homosexuality
Professor Gagnon appropriately starts with the “love neighbor as self” theme but quickly makes it clear this means zero tolerance for any intimate same-sex relationships: “If a person is about to touch a live wire or encourage others to do so, it is not a kindness to affirm that person’s behavior or to remain silent.” He recognizes that the circumstance of being homosexual is difficult, which should “evoke our concern, sympathy, and understanding, not our scorn or enmity. . . For homosexuals, a denunciation of homosexuality may feel like an indictment of homosexuals. Regrettably, some of this pain may be unavoidable in the hope of doing away with the greater pain of being outside of God’s redemptive plan.” [77 - italics added]

Several points about this version of compassion are noteworthy. Neither Professor Gagnon nor any of the other theologians show much evidence of empathizing with what it must be like to be in the place of the homosexuals they are concerned about. None of them offered their personal testimonies of how they came to realize their own sexuality and what they would have done if they had they discovered themselves to be homosexual. Other theologians have done this and we could make the following description our own: “Did we choose? No. Like other heterosexuals, neither of us can recall a time when we decided to be straight. . . It just was. . . No. we could never change. This is who we are . . . it is no more a choice for them (homosexual persons) than it is for heterosexuals . . . change is not possible for one who has known only attraction for others of the same gender.” (78) In contrast to this testimony and its implications, the theologians critiqued here do not appear to view a “loving neighbor as self” discipline to include a testimony about the role of choice in their own sexuality and what they think it might be like if their sexual attraction to women were like their sexual non-attraction to men.

There is also little expressed concern in this theology for a deep-seated human desire in most persons for an intimate, consensual, and mutual relationship which for homosexuals is thwarted by societal hostility even though in its best expression of a committed relationship a variant desire has the same health benefits that are true for heterosexual relationships. Rather, the centerpiece of their compassionate theology is a biblically based cold-hearted denunciation of homosexuality by those whose own heterosexuality is equally chance-determined and undeserved. “Scripture presents only two choices. . . become involved in a lifelong monogamous heterosexual relationship or remain celibate. [79] Practically, this makes celibacy the only option for almost all homosexuals.

2. Compassion-enhanced promiscuity
Compassion has a special dimension when one recognizes that unusual distressing circumstances of others are partly due to the actions of oneself or one’s own group. No acknowledgment is made by these theologians of the fact that almost all homosexual persons are born into and raised in heterosexual homes and despite this how many heterosexuals persons aggravate the pain of most homosexual persons, often unknowingly. Professor Gagnon and the other theologians cited do not seem to recognize what it must be like for homosexual persons to listen to these negative judgments.

Professor David Balch summarizes Professor Gagnon’s characterization of gays and lesbians as follows: “He refers to their ‘depraved sexuality,’ (244), ‘degenerate passions,’ (250, n. 12), to gays ‘disgusted by their self-debasing conduct’ (263), their ‘transparent self-degradation.’ to which ‘Paul has a ‘visceral response,’ (269, 286, 289, n. 56). Gagnon relates the gay / lesbian lifestyle to ‘incest, prostitution, bestiality, adultery, and pedophilia’ (279, n. 44, 283), as a ‘particularly revolting sin’ (283) that is ‘heinous.’ (311).” [80] These are not uplifting descriptions for immature homosexual young people to hear about themselves and such theological descriptions cannot be censured from church discussion.

Professor Gagnon asserts that “in the horizontal dimension of human existence, it matters how humans act in relation to one another.” [81] It is easy to write negative judgments of gays and lesbians on paper, but these theologians offer no concrete advice on how to “act in relation to one another” in delivering their message face to face in the church. It is realistic to recognize that if the restrictive stance reviewed here is to be delivered by others in a church setting where it is presumably needed most - to young adolescent youth, most of the time the person delivering the message will not know who in the audience is homosexual. One is not likely to find out such information by asking for a show of hands in a confirmation class, especially where homosexuality is routinely disparaged. However, most of the gays and lesbians present in such meetings will secretly either know or strongly suspect their own sexuality.

If the traditional message gets more demon-focused going from Gagnon to Saltzman as is suggested above in Part 2, it will likely get more radical in the third and fourth transmission as over-heard by young closeted homosexuals in church hallways or at dinner tables. Such messages will have a coercive effect in making homosexuals who hear it deceive others as about their sexuality. This could possibly even cause them to try to “perform” heterosexually and promiscuously to prove to their peers that they are heterosexual. Would this outcome be “compassionate Christianity” ?

3. Compassionate self-deception
Professor Gagnon’s restrictive view of homosexuality asserts that those with an affirming view of homosexuality are engaged in self-deception, self-serving sophistry, circular reasoning and blatant dogmatism. [82] While it is true that ignoring many things the Bible says may be a form of self-deception that leads to adverse consequences, the reverse is also true. Ignoring evidence from science because of contrary biblical texts can result in a form of self-deception. The classic case is, of course, the Church’s condemnation of Galileo. This historic event could in a simplistic way be viewed as demonstrating that just because the Bible says God causes the sun to rise and the rain to fall ...,” this does not mean that the earth is fixed and the sun “moves” rather than vice versa. The biblical narrative is set in the “natural” world where everything is not as it seems. The phenomenological rather than scientific description of what seems natural does not impair or invalidate the central message about God and human persons except as humans at times mistakenly interpret the significance of certain texts. It may be part of God’s purpose to allow time to reveal new understandings which are different but not false.

A major challenge for all homosexual persons is “to thine own self be true” about their sexuality because they are a minority who have to face their sexuality in a way that is different from the majority. Most of them first face this self-questioning silently and secretly as adolescents. Those who later choose to try reparation therapy must frequently again ask questions of themselves about their sexual orientation. When the context for reparation is a faith-based ministry where “the key factor for change is motivation” and “deep-seated commitment” [83], the client is left doing a frequent self-assessment where failure of change looms as a faith based negative judgment of lack of commitment, lack faith, and eternal damnation. [59] In this situation, few should be surprised if the result for some is increased depression and suicidality. Nor should it be surprising that even Dr. Spitzer noted that at least some of the respondents in his study may have “constructed elaborate self-deceptive narratives.” [84 ]

It is hardly compassionate to be an instrument of causing others to become increasingly depressed, suicidal, or temporarily in a state of self-deception. This is not healthy. This is one of the reasons that for medical counseling it is recommended to start with a neutral position as to outcome of sexual orientation. [85] In this context, the client will most likely be true to self. The testimony about who homosexual persons say they are at any point in time should be respected but it should also be recognized that this judgment might not be final. At a synod conference, one gay person described himself as a “recovered deceiver” - another way of stating he was finally “true to self” after years of trying to be what he was not (which included a failed marriage).

Is it possible for any of us to think of our stance toward others as compassionate when it is not? Can one engage in a self-deceptive judgment about one’s own compassion? How is one to judge? With respect to homosexuality there is one observation which seems very relevant to these questions. The most common circumstance where heterosexual persons with an indifferent or hostile stance toward homosexuality change relatively quickly to an affirming stance is when a respected son or daughter comes out to them about their homosexuality. This is where compassionate love exists at its deepest, least abstract, and most authentic level. Most such parents (or siblings) we know would view those with a restrictive theology such as that reviewed here as the ones engaging in self-deceptive, and self-serving sophistry and literalist dogmatism. We think this observation is relevant and worth noting.

4. “Compassionate” exclusion of homosexuals from the church
These observations are not to suggest that all of the psychological distress and the negative behavior of gays and lesbians can be attributed the opprobrium of the traditional restrictive teaching of the church. But in our judgment these negative effects are real for many gays and lesbians and those promoting a restrictive theology seems to be in a state of denial by not directly addressing this negative aspect of their stance. This denial substitutes psychological hypotheses and attempts to undermine science as a way of explaining the psychological and health problems of gays and lesbians.

The restrictive premise seems to be that the more negative and damning the message, the fewer young persons that will turn out homosexual or engage in risky behavior. But no evidence can be offered that this method diminishes the number of persons who are or will be self-recognized as homosexual. Rather, experience both in churches and in mental health counselor’s offices indicates that this approach forces many gays and lesbians into the closet and then out of the church, only giving an appearance of fewer homosexuals in the church. In our view this is the cold, hard reality of what the church does to a minority which it promised at their baptism to welcome as members of the priesthood of all believers. It is hard to call this outcome compassionate. This in turn undermines claims that the church, like Jesus, is in the business of a ministry of special concern for those marginalized by much of society.

Professor Dan O. Via has rebutted many of Professor Gagnon’s theological arguments much more effectively than we could hope to. But he also recognizes the negative effects of the traditional church stance on the health of homosexual persons by quoting from the distinguished New Testament scholar Dale Martin. Professor Martin also identifies himself as a homosexual person:

      Any interpretation of scripture that hurts people, oppresses people, or destroys people cannot be the right interpretation, no matter how traditional, historical, or exegetically respectable. There can be no debate about the fact that the church’s stand on homosexuality has caused oppression, loneliness, self-hatred, violence, sickness, and suicide for millions of people. If the church wishes to continue with its traditional interpretation it must demonstrate, not just claim, that it is more loving to condemn homosexuality than to affirm homosexuals. Can the church show that same-sex loving relationships damage those involved in them? Can the church give compelling reasons to believe that it would really be better for all lesbians and gay Christians to live alone, without the joy of intimate touch, without hearing the a lover’s voice when they go to sleep or awake? Is it really better for lesbian and gay teenagers to despise themselves and endlessly pray that their very personalities be reconstructed so that they may experience romance like their straight friends? Is it really more loving for the church to continue its worship of “heterosexual fulfillment” (a non-biblical concept, by the way) while consigning thousands of its members to a life of either celibacy or endless psychological manipulations that masquerade as “healing”?
      The burden of proof in the last twenty years has shifted. There are too many of us who are not sick, or inverted, or perverted, or even “effeminate,” but who just have the knack for falling in love with people of our own sex. When we have been damaged, it has not been due to our homosexuality, but to your and our denial of it. The burden of proof now is not on us, to show that we are not sick, but rather on those who insist that we would be better going back into the closet. What will “build the double love of God and of our neighbor?” (86)

E. The health related “fault line” in the divided church

From a medical perspective, our view is that the church divide is defined predominantly by an underlying different view of homosexual promiscuity with a policy question which reflects different views of the role of committed same-sex relationships in deterring sexual promiscuity and the related negative health problems. The divided stance on this issue has negative effects on the total law-gospel witness of the church, especially when some of the methods in the debate may reasonably be judged as uncompassionate. We suggest that it would be more productive and better for the total witness of the church to start with the following proposition which all should be in agreement: Sexual promiscuity is bad for physical, mental, and spiritual health of all persons no matter what the sex or gender mix.

Within this context we also suggest that the church address the question of the best way to inhibit promiscuity for all persons and why it should be different for homosexuals than for heterosexuals. This could be a significant first step in coming to agreement on the question of blessing same-sex unions. This could also apply to the question of ordaining otherwise good homosexual candidates who make the same vows of sexual fidelity to someone of the same sex as heterosexual candidates do for partners of the opposite sex. Our view is that the best deterrent to sexual promiscuity for all persons no matter what the sex or gender mix is a committed monogamous relationship with another sexually and otherwise compatible person.

The contrary most restrictive theological view is that the physical, mental, and spiritual health of all homosexuals is best if they are committed to celibacy or have successful reparation therapy such that they can achieve a successful opposite sex-committed relationship (“marriage”). We have presented reasons in this critique why we think a committed monogamous relationship is better for the total health of most persons rather than enforced celibacy or reparation therapy for homosexual persons. The biblical interpretations used to stand against this are understandable, but like many others this does not mean that they are the best, and in our view the theology and teaching derived from them should not be regarded as “no fault” (without risk), both temporally and eternally.

Those who vote against blessing or affirming committed monogamous unions for homosexual persons should at least recognize that a negative vote may have a significant collateral negative effects on the health of homosexual persons which will likely become more evident in the years to come. Evidence supporting a stance favoring the affirmation of homosexual committed monogamous unions because of the likely significant health effect is presented in this critique.

We do not think that a negative vote on affirming same-sex unions will make the issue homosexual equality go away. Our experience over many decades of dealing with homosexual colleagues and patients gives us confidence that more and more gays and lesbians will seek and find success in long-term committed same-sex unions despite a lack of church blessing or legal rights. We also expect that many in the heterosexual segment of society will continue to improperly misrepresent, scapegoat, and denigrate gays and lesbians for reasons of prejudice rather than for reasons of sound biblical theology and proper ethical concern. Our hope is that the ELCA will not be a part of such activities in the future.

James wrote, “If you really fulfill the royal law, according to the scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you do well. But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it” (James 2:8-10). No one can be completely impartial but within the context of our goal of addressing implications of church policy on the health of gays and lesbians we have tried to make a constructive contribution to the dialogue.

Click to continue
Part IV: CONCLUSIONS