The Fruit Doesn’t Lie – a response to the Nashville Statement

Tags

#thefruitdoesnotlie, affirming, Christian, evangelical, Good Fruit, LGBT, LGBTQ, Nashville Statement, Serendipitydodah for Moms

Jesus said if you aren’t sure about something check out the fruit because “every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit”

People were asking Jesus a lot of questions.

They wanted to know what they should believe – who they should follow – who they should emulate and support.

They wanted to know who was right – who knew the true way? What prophets should they trust? What rabbi should they follow?

Instead of answering with a list of shoulds and shouldn’ts or naming names he offered a formula that would be useful to truth seekers throughout all of time.

Jesus advised those who were listening …

When you are not sure about a specific doctrine, or a certain theological point, or some Christian message you can simply check out the fruit that it is producing.

If it is producing good fruit then it is of God and true. Embrace and follow the teaching.

If it is producing bad fruit then it is not of God and not true. Abandon the teaching.

Scripture does not address most things specifically. Instead it gives us some guiding principles to live by. Then people come along and try to figure out how to apply those guiding principles to real life. When we get it right it mostly leads to whole, healthy, vibrant lives. When we get it wrong it mostly leads to broken, unhealthy, hopeless lives.

If a specific doctrine is mostly producing self loathing, despair, hopelessness, depression, isolation, shame, self harm and other such bad fruit then it’s a no brainer … it’s not good doctrine and we should abandon it.

The fruit doesn’t lie.

You can twist scripture.

But, the fruit doesn’t lie.

You can always find a verse to more or less say what you want it to say.

But, the fruit doesn’t lie.

You can always find a Christian leader to teach what you believe.

But, the fruit doesn’t lie.

You can always find a book that supports your point of view.

But, the fruit doesn’t lie.

**********************************************

This week a group of conservative evangelical leaders laid out their beliefs on human sexuality, including opposition to same-sex marriage and fluid gender identity, in a new doctrinal statement they titled the Nashville Statement

The statement grows out of a shame based doctrine that has proven over and over again to mostly produce bad fruit in the lives of LGBT people who wholeheartedly embrace it.

While it is true that there is an occasional story of an LGBT person who seems to be doing okay embracing anti LGBT Christian theology, it is disingenuous to stand in front of a tree and hold up a few good pieces of fruit while ignoring thousands of pieces of bad fruit laying on the ground surrounding the tree. 

The vast majority of LGBT Christians who embrace the idea that they must either change their orientation, deny their gender identity or face life long celibacy experience depression, hopelessness, shame, despair and self loathing. Many experience suicide ideation and some even end their life.

And the statement doesn’t just say that those who disagree with the anti LGBT doctrine are wrong.

The statement says that those who are affirming are outside of the Christian faith and that it is wrong to think of this as something that falls into the “agree to disagree” column.

They have stated it in such a way to make it clear that they see this as a non-negotiable.

Article 10 states:

WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.

WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.

 

That is a deep line in the sand they are drawing.

It seems obvious to me they are saying if you support the statement you should not be in fellowship with someone who does NOT support the statement.

It seems obvious to me they are saying if you are the parent of an LGBT child who is in a same sex relationship you should reject and separate from your child.

It seems obvious to me they are saying if you have family and friends who are affirming you should shun them.

**********************************************

Personally I don’t give a hoot what they think.

I am long past the point of recognizing evangelicals as those who have credibility or authority when it comes to my own life.

But I am deeply concerned about LGBT people – especially LGBT youth – and families with LGBT children who are a part of faith communities that support the statement.

The message is toxic and damaging and some parents will think they are doing the loving thing by abiding by it, when in reality they will be placing a tremendous and unnecessary burden on their kids that will be extremely harmful and might very well do irreparable damage to their precious children. 

The fruit doesn’t lie.

The message of the statement will surely tear families apart and drive people away from the faith.

The fruit doesn’t lie.

The message will produce depression, despair, shame, hopelessness, self loathing and even suicide.

The fruit doesn’t lie.

The message will not produce life – it will produce death – relational death, emotional death, spiritual death and physical death.

The fruit doesn’t lie.

**********************************************

ON THE OTHER HAND THERE IS SOME GOOD NEWS:

When you listen to LGBTQ Christians who are connecting with faith communities that affirm their relationships and identities you will find that they are experiencing a lot of good fruit in their lives. They are typically healthier in every way – relationally, emotionally, spiritually and physically.

The fruit doesn’t lie!

(If you would like to delve deeper into what scripture says and doesn’t say about same sex relationships check out this post which addresses the verses most often used to condemn same sex relationships.)

**********************************************

And there is more good news … there are a LOT of Christians who don’t support the Nashville Statement.

Here are two statements that affirm LGBTQ Christians, their relationships and their identities that were crafted by Christians in response to the Nashville Statement:

 

Here is the “God is Love” statement from The Liturgists that affirms LGBTQ relationships and identities in the church. Free free to add your signature and share this life producing statement.

and

Here is the Denver Statement from the House for All Sinners & Saints that also affirms  LGBTQ relationships and identities in the church which would be good to share as it will most assuredly produce good fruit in the life of many.

#thefruitdoesnotlie

**********************************************

And MORE good news:

If you are the mom of an LGBTQ kid there is a great online community you might want to join: 

Serendipitydodah for Moms is a private Facebook group for moms of LGBTQ kids. The group was started in June 2014 and presently has more than 2,100 members. Each day moms of LGBTQ kids gather virtually to share a journey that is unique and often very difficult. The group is a place where they share a lot of information, ask questions, support one another, learn a lot and brag on their kids. Our official motto is “We Are Better Together” and our nickname is “Mama Bears” The group is secret so that only members can find it or see what is posted in the group. The space was specifically created for open minded Christian moms who have LGBTQ kids and want to develop and maintain healthy, loving, authentic relationships with their LGBTQ kids. However, moms do not have to be Christian to be a member of the group. In addition to providing a space for members to share info and support one another, a special guest is added each month for a short time so members can ask questions in the privacy of the group. The guests include authors, pastors, LGBTQ people, bloggers, medical professionals and public speakers.

Email lizdyer55@gmail.com for more info about the group.

 

 

Advertisements

The Clobber Verses

Tags

#LGBTQFamilies, affirming, bible, Clobber Verses, God, Homosexuality, LGBT, LGBTQ, Moms of LGBTQ Kids, Same Sex Marriage, same sex relationships, scripture, Serendipitydodah for Moms, theology

I have a private Facebook group for moms of LGBTQ kids. The group is called Serendipitydodah for Moms and was created in June 2014 for moms of LGBTQ kids. The group has more than 1,700 moms and is a place where a lot of support and information is shared. A simple, but thorough, explanation of the seven scriptures that are often referred to as “The Clobber Verses” is one of the most frequently requested resources. The following is from a booklet written by Janet Edmonds and is one of the best explanations of “The Clobber Verses” I have come across. Janet uses and sites well respected, credible resources to compose a concise, thorough, easy to understand explanation of these verses. One thing I especially like is the short summary that is included near the end as I find it very easy to share with others.

Please note that I am sharing this with Janet’s permission.

An Analysis of the Seven Scriptures Often Referred to as “The Clobber Verses”

Some Christians believe the Bible tells us that homosexuals are sinners. The current trend of increased acceptance of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community is distressing to these Christians who sincerely want to follow the Bible. They feel it’s wrong to encourage homosexuals in any way because it would mean going against God’s Word. This is one of the main reasons some people have so much trouble accepting homosexuals. They are using the words that appear in the scriptures in the Bible, at face value, to condemn homosexuals. Does the Bible actually condemn caring, consensual homosexual relationships? What was the original intent of these laws, lessons and guidelines written in the Bible so long ago?

This booklet examines seven scripture passages sometimes quoted that appear to some individuals to take a negative view of homosexuality. The work of several authors will be used who have studied the Greek or Hebrew words that appeared in the original texts. In addition, these authors have taken into consideration the customs, beliefs, religions and cultures of the time the Bible was written, in order to explain the original intent of the authors, as they wrote the laws and stories of the Bible centuries ago.

When the Bible was written, the Hebrew culture basically ignored the concept of a loving, committed, adult, homosexual relationship. One author, James Brownson, has pointed out that the Bible is essentially silent in addressing the contemporary experience of a consensual, same sex relationship. (Brownson, pg. 41) In addition, the Bible doesn’t use any words that explicitly mean “homosexual”, nor does it specifically talk about rules concerning equal same-sex relationships. The question for us to answer is, what was the original intent of the ancient Jewish and early Christian authors who wrote the books of the Bible and how do these texts apply to homosexuals today?

The Bible is a living book and as Christians we can use the teachings of Jesus to help us interpret it. Author Adam Hamilton said that he believes it is acceptable to raise questions and to wrestle with the Bible when something in its teaching seems inconsistent with, among other things, the character of God revealed in Jesus Christ. (Hamilton, pg. 298) According to Jack Rogers, when we read the Bible through the lens of Jesus’ redemptive life and ministry, we can see that both the Old and New Testaments command us to accept those who are different from ourselves. (Rogers, pg. 15) We should remember that Jesus was often challenged to interpret difficult questions concerning laws of the scriptures.

Jesus teaches us that loving each other is far more important than strictly following Jewish laws. He said that the first commandment is to love God and the second commandment is to love others as you love yourself. This booklet will give people who want to follow God’s Word in the Bible an opportunity to see that the Bible does not condemn consensual homosexual relationships. This information allows people to dig deeper than just the face value of the words of these texts in the Bible. Included here will be research, historical facts and insights about the Bible from various authors that may be surprising to some readers. As Christians we know that God is always working on us and that lessons for us can be revealed through reading the Bible.  It is often from reading the words of the Bible that we are taught how to be the best we can be, so that we can truly love our neighbor, as we follow Christ.

All of us can admit that through the centuries Christians have made changes in the way we interpret the Bible on some important issues, such as slavery, the role of women and food laws. Jack Rogers asks, “How could most Christians for more than 200 years accept slavery and the subordination of women with not a hint that there was any other view in the Bible?” (Rogers, pg. 17) He explains that in the case of slavery, society accepted a pervasive prejudice and read it back into Scripture, with tragic consequences for those to whom these verses were applied. (Rogers, pg. 18) The text of I Timothy 6:1 requires slaves to “consider their masters worthy of full respect”. (Other similar passages that support slavery are found in Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 3:22-24 and 1 Peter 2:18.) In the ancient world, slavery was a given, but in the modern world we recognize that the master-slave relationship is a violation of the gospel and of human rights. Concerning women, I Corinthians 14:34-35 states that “women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” The author of this passage, Paul, may have originally had a point to make, but today if we took this lesson to heart, where would our churches be? Women are often the backbone of the leadership in our modern churches. The contributions and importance of women pastors and women leaders in our society are impossible to ignore. We have certainly changed our attitudes and left behind this instruction by Paul. In reference to food habits, most Christians have decided not to observe the kosher laws found in the Old Testament pertaining to clean and unclean food. So there are rules and laws written in the Bible that we no longer follow. Our interpretations of the Bible can be changed.

Whether we realize it or not, we are each interpreting Scripture and making decisions as to how strictly to follow the laws in the Bible every day. Can we change the way we interpret scripture passages that appear to condemn homosexuality just as we were able to change our attitudes on slavery, women and food laws, despite the fact that some Bible passages appear to be to the contrary? What were the original authors trying to teach us? Are there other ways to interpret these scriptures rather than assuming we know what these words from so long ago mean for us today? Knowledge of the ancient culture which surrounded the original authors will certainly help us answer this question by shedding light on what these passages meant to their original audience.

Unfortunately, some of the writing here may be disturbing because by necessity it will focus on sexual relations. Many stories and parts of the Bible are disturbing, but we need to take a deeper look at these uncomfortable sections to learn what the Bible authors really meant and how this might allow us to compassionately interpret these scriptures for our lives today.

The Bible quotes are taken from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).

A brief SUMMARY about each of the seven Scripture passages can be found near the end of this document.

Genesis 19:1-14 and 24-26

The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 He said, “Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you can rise early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the square.” 3 But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; 5 and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.” 6 Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, 7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 9 But they replied, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came here as an alien, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near the door to break it down. 10 But the men inside reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11 And they struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they were unable to find the door. 12 Then the men said to Lot, “Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city – bring them out of the place. 13 For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it.” 14 So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, “Up, get out of this place; for the LORD is about to destroy the city.”. . . 24 Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven; 25 and he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. 26 But Lot’s wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

This story of Sodom and Gomorrah is about hospitality and the social requirement of helping visitors. When reviewed carefully it becomes evident that it is not a story having anything to do with homosexuality. The men in the town decide to do one of the most inhospitable things possible – rape. It would be unlikely for all the men of Sodom to be homosexuals, so why would they want “to know” (the euphemism used in the Bible to mean sexual relations) the two foreigners/angels except to have forced sexual relations with them. In the Near East during ancient times (and today in wars occurring in Africa and the Middle East) soldiers commonly used homosexual rape as a way of humiliating their enemies. (Miner & Connoley, pg. 5, citing Greenberg, pgs. 130, 147) The soldiers wanted to break the spirit of their defeated enemies and “treat them like women” by raping them. The practice was not driven by sexual desire, but by brutality and hatred toward the enemy. (Miner & Connoley, pg. 5) The sin of Sodom is about hard-heartedness, abuse, insult to the traveler, and inhospitality to the needy (Helminiak, pg. 46), not about committed homosexual relationships that exist today.

One of the most disturbing parts of the story occurs when Lot offers his two daughters “who have not known a man,” to the town crowd. The story assumes that Lot is expected by societal norms to keep the visitors safe and that they have priority over his own daughters. Lot’s offer makes graphically clear the value of women, relative to men, in that culture. In this story women are not protected, and women become the means by which men are protected. (deGroot, pg. 22; Dwyer, pg. 8) In addition, if the men of the town were homosexuals, Lot would certainly have known that they would have no sexual interest in his daughters. Adam Hamilton states that he doubted any of the men of Sodom would have considered themselves homosexual by our definition today. Genesis 18 tells us the people of Sodom regularly practiced evil. This attempted gang rape was just the latest in a long line of horrible things the people of Sodom had done. (Hamilton, pg. 268)

Sodom is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible (Isaiah 1:10-17 and 3:9, Jeremiah 23:14 and Zephaniah 2:8-11) but the sins of Sodom, as identified in those texts, are injustice, oppression, partiality, adultery, lies and encouraging evildoers. (Helminiak, pg. 49) Even Jesus makes reference to Sodom in Matthew 10:5-15 as he talks about the rejection of God’s messengers (Helminiak, pg. 49) but he, also, makes reference only to the town’s lack of hospitality. “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the Day of Judgment than for that town.” Jesus is teaching his disciples that they will face rejection and predicts judgment against those who won’t listen to God’s word. If the main lesson to be drawn from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is an anti-homosexual message, wouldn’t Jesus have mentioned that? Since he didn’t, we are drawn to the conclusion that the Genesis passage has nothing to do with committed, homosexual relationships as we know them today.

Judges 19:1-30

This is a story, even more disturbing than the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The two stories have many parallels. (To save space, only parts of this scripture will be included.) During the story, a man, his slave and his concubine (also referred to as his wife) travel to Gibeah, a Jewish city, where they thought they would be safe. They are finally taken in by an old man. This quotation starts with verse 22:

22 While they were enjoying themselves, the men of the city, a perverse lot, surrounded the house and started pounding on the door. They said to the old man, the master of the house, “Bring out the man who came into your house so that we may have intercourse with him.” 23 And the man of the house went out to them and said to them, “No, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Since this man is my guest, do not do this vile thing. 24 Here are my virgin daughter and his concubine, let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do whatever you want to them, but against this man do not do such a vile thing.” 25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine and put her out to them.

The story ends with the brutal rape and death of the concubine. The same lessons can be learned from this passage in Judges, as in the story of Sodom in Genesis, that rules and expectations of hospitality are the key theme, while homosexuality has nothing to do with this scripture. Rape, as a form of brutality and power, is another theme of both stories. The near rape of the two men/angels in Genesis 19 (the story of Sodom) and the gang rape of the concubine/wife in Judges 19 assist in shaping an understanding of how society should not act in Old Testament days. (Dwyer, pg. 19) The ancient authors wrote these stories to provide a powerful lesson that hospitality to the outsider was very important for the Hebrew culture. Here in Judges, there are no lessons whatsoever that are related to consensual, homosexual relationships.

Leviticus 18:22

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

To interpret these passages of Leviticus, it’s important to know that this book of the Bible focuses on ritual purity for the Israelites, and setting guidelines for the Israelites to distinguish themselves from their pagan neighbors, the Egyptians and Canaanites, who lived in the lands before they were settled by the Jews. This is shown in Leviticus Chapters 18 and 20 by three specific scripture passages (Leviticus 18:2-3, 18:24 and 20:23) that state that the Israelites should never do what the Egyptians and Canaanites did. (Miner & Connoley, pg. 10) Biblical historians tell us that the Canaanite religions (which surrounded the Israelites at the time Leviticus was written) often included fertility rites consisting of sexual rituals in their temples. Sex with temple prostitutes, family members, and homosexual sex was performed at the Canaanite temples and thought to bring good luck to help crop and livestock production. (Miner & Connoley, pg. 11).

To Bible readers of today, the word “abomination” conjures up disgust, horror, or evil, but to the ancient Hebrews the word we translate as “abomination” simply meant unclean, taboo, or forbidden. The Old Testament uses the word “abomination” in reference to numerous things that were forbidden for the ancient Israelites, many of which make little or no sense to us today. For example, the Bible declares it an “abomination” to sow a field with two different kinds of seeds, or to weave a cloth from two different kinds of fibers (Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11). It also uses the word “abomination” in Leviticus 11 in reference to a long list of foods that the Israelites were forbidden to eat, including shrimp, crab, pork, rabbit and many kinds of birds. (Helminiak, pg. 58) In discussing the Levitical texts that declare it an “abomination” for a man to “lie with a male as with a woman,” Jack Rogers points out that all these texts were concerned with “ritual purity” and were intended to distinguish Israel from its pagan neighbors. (Rogers, pg. 69; Helminiak, pg. 58) Rogers sets this concern over and against the teachings of Jesus, who is concerned not with ritual purity, but with purity of the heart (Matthew 15:10-20). (Rogers, pgs. 68-69; Brownson, pg. 42).

It is difficult to recapture the meaning of “clean” and “unclean,” “pure” and “impure,” as it was viewed in ancient Israel. (Helminiak, pg. 57) The ancient Hebrew people had very particular ideas about man and woman in relation to purity laws. Men were not allowed to touch women during menstruation (Leviticus 15:19). For a man to have sex with another man was to mix and confuse the standards of maleness and femaleness, and go against the accepted gender roles and disrupt the ideal order of things and thus was unclean, taboo or forbidden. It was against the purity laws and was therefore, by definition, an “abomination.” (Helminiak, pg. 58) The predominant topic of the Book of Leviticus was holiness and Chapters 17-27 are instructions from priests to the people of Israel. (Dwyer, pg. 24) If the Israelites did not follow these rules, they would not be holy and according to their ancient views, a consequence of not being holy would be the loss of the land that was being gifted by God. (Dwyer, pg. 25) Keeping the land given to them by God was an enormous priority and that’s part of the reason that the penalty of death was attached to breaking purity laws as written in Leviticus 20:13.

In addition, the growth in the number of people within the Israelite community was crucial to the survival of Israel. (Dwyer, pg. 30) Hartley argues that this is one of the chief reasons for these rules about sex and sexuality. The survival of the nation of Israel was at stake if it did not reproduce in appropriate numbers. (Dwyer, pg. 30, citing Hartley, pgs. 298-299) The androcentric (male-centered) mentality of the time and the cultural and societal need to increase the population of God’s chosen people led the priestly authors of Leviticus to want to control women’s reproductive capabilities, as well as to protect “the seed,” thereby increasing procreation. (Dwyer, pg. 31, citing Cooper & Scholz, pg. 38) Again, this may have been why the authors decided to attach the death penalty to what could be seen as men wasting their “seed.” For a man to act as a woman, and to act in a manner that did not keep the power-center in the man, would be shameful. This action would bring humiliation not only upon the man but on Jewish society and would interfere with how power was structured and understood. This type of behavior would challenge the patriarchal system that existed in that society and culture. (Dwyer, pg. 29)

An important point to remember is that these verses of Leviticus were saying, “Do not participate in the kind of immoral sex that was done in pagan temples because it is unclean and taboo in our Hebrew society and does not keep us different from the pagan societies that surround us.” Back in ancient times it’s understandable why the Israelite authors of Leviticus would include these rules in their writing, but for today it is evident that they were not referring to a committed, consensual, homosexual relationship.

Romans 1:18-27 18

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.  19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; 21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened.  22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Miner and Connoley suggest that in this scripture the author, Paul, is moving through a logical progression. He is talking about heterosexual people who refused to acknowledge and glorify God, began worshipping idols, were more interested in earthly pursuits than spiritual pursuits and gave up their natural, i.e., innate, passion for the opposite sex, in an unbounded search for pleasure. (Miner & Connoley, pg. 14) The behavior Paul was addressing here is explicitly associated with idol worship (probably temple prostitution) and with heterosexual people who, in an unbridled search for pleasure (or because of religious rituals associated with their idolatry) broke away from their natural sexual orientation, participating in promiscuous sex with anyone available. (Miner & Connoley, pg. 14)

Dwyer points out that in the Greco-Roman community to which Paul was writing, sexual relations between males were a given. These sexual relations between men were a part of the cultural life, the religious life, and the political life. (Dwyer, pg. 55, citing Byrne, pg. 65) But these were not the committed homosexual relationships that we see today. In that culture, their only perspective was that “natural intercourse meant the penetration of a subordinate person by a dominant one.” (Dwyer, pg. 55, citing Jewett, pg. 176) The laws at the time in Rome allowed a master to demand sexual services from any slave, male or female. “Intercourse between masters and their male slaves was normal and in accordance with the standards of a male-dominated society.” (Dwyer, pg. 55, citing Jewett, pg. 180) Roman culture was very hierarchal with those in power having free reign to act out sexually as they pleased among those who were of a lower cultural and societal standing. In Romans 1, Paul was speaking to the Gentile Christians and setting forth a counter-cultural stance that differed from the conduct of the surrounding community. (Dwyer, pg. 55) Paul is not talking about mutuality or love in a homosexual relationship. He is talking about the use and misuse of power and authority, and how that impacts one’s relationship with God. (Dwyer, pg. 57) Paul is saying that early Christians must worship God appropriately, not “use” each other in a sexual or other inappropriate way.

Adam Hamilton’s view is that when Paul takes up the issue of same-sex relationships in Romans, he seems to have in mind ritual sexual encounters tied to pagan worship/idolatry and the idea that what was natural or normative was clean and what was not natural was unclean and sinful. It has been thought by many that Paul was describing ritual prostitution practiced in some of the pagan temples. Hamilton goes on to say that if this is what Paul was condemning, then most would agree with his condemnation of these practices. But these practices, and the motivations behind them, are very different from two people of the same sex, sharing their lives as loving companions. (Hamilton, pgs. 270-271)

Some people interpret Romans 1:26 as referring to female-to-female sex, that is, lesbianism. Helminiak supports a very different interpretation. According to Helminiak, verse 26 refers to women and men engaging in sexual practices that were not the ones people normally performed in that culture. (Helminiak, pg. 79) He believes the Greek phrase para physin, translated as “unnatural” in Romans 1, would more accurately be translated as atypical, unusual, peculiar, out of the ordinary, or uncharacteristic. (Helminiak, pg. 80) The passage would therefore mean “simply that both the women and the men gave up the expected way of having sex for something else, whatever it might be.” (Helminiak, pg. 87) So Paul’s mention of “out of the ordinary” female sex might refer to heterosexual sex during menstruation, sex with an uncircumcised man, heterosexual oral or anal sex, or anything else that would not be considered the standard or expected way of having heterosexual sex. If verse 26 actually does refer to lesbianism, the passage is quite puzzling because lesbianism is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible, including the parts of Leviticus (discussed above) that declare sex between males to be an “abomination.” Brownson thinks that sex between females is not mentioned elsewhere because, unlike male-to-male sex, which was linked to pagan cultic practices, there were no assumptions regarding honor and shame surrounding sex between women, as there were if a man did something a woman was supposed to do. (Brownson, pg. 272) The bottom line here is that translation difficulties make the meaning of Romans 1:26 uncertain, and its supposed ban on sex between women is not supported anywhere else in the Bible. For these reasons, the Romans passage should not be relied upon as support for a blanket condemnation of lesbian sex. (Helminiak, pg. 89)

According to Rogers, Paul’s condemnation of immoral sexual behavior cannot be appropriately applied to contemporary gay or lesbian Christians who are not idolaters, who love God and who seek to live in thankful obedience to God. Today we know of gay and lesbian Christians who truly worship and serve the one true God and yet still affirm in positive ways their identity as gay and lesbian people. Paul apparently knew of no homosexual Christians, as we do today. (Rogers, pg. 76, citing Siker, pg. 143) Condemning the LGBTQ community was not Paul’s intent.

I Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers – none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

In this passage, Paul lists several types of people he regards as sinful, and there are two words in the original Greek text that are relevant here, malakoi (the plural of malakos) and arsenokoitai (the plural of arsenokoites). Many people do not realize that the Bible does not contain a word equivalent to our English word “homosexual.” (Brownson, pg. 273) The concept of homosexuality, in the sense of a sexual orientation or in the context of a caring relationship toward others of the same gender, was unknown in the ancient world. Instead, this I Corinthians list of vices includes words that reflect sexual roles that were part of male behavior in the culture of the first century. (Brownson, pgs. 273-74)

The first word is malakoi, which literally means “soft” and is translated in the NRSV as “male prostitutes.” (Miner & Connoley, pg. 18) In terms of morality, during the first century, malakos referred to attributes such as laziness, degeneracy, decadence or lack of courage. (Miner & Connoley, pg. 17, citing Martin, Arsenokoites and Malakos, pg. 124). In the patriarchal culture at that time, being “soft like a woman” was a common insult. (Miner & Connoley, pg. 17) First century Romans believed that any man who was more interested in pleasure than in duty, was woman-like. So Paul may have been referring to men who were weak or effeminate, such as those unfit for military service. In fact, the King James Version translates the word malakoi as “effeminate.”

Malakoi was also sometimes used to refer to male prostitutes, particularly young boys who were the passive partners in sexual relationships with men. (Dwyer, pg. 63) It was common at that time for married heterosexual men to keep a boy, often one who had been captured and castrated, for sexual pleasure. (Dwyer, pg. 63) So Paul may have been referring specifically to male prostitutes rather than soft men in general (Miner & Connoley, pg. 18), and this would certainly be appropriate on a list of sins. Of course, this sort of abuse would be abhorrent and intolerable to modern Christians, but it does not refer to consensual relationships between same-sex couples.

The second Greek word used here is “arsenokoites,” translated in the NRSV by the ambiguous term “sodomites.” Arsenokoites is a composite of two Greek words, arseno, meaning “male,” and koites, meaning “bed,” with the connotation of sexual intercourse. (Miner & Connoley, pg. 18, Helminiak, pg. 109) But when these two parts of the word are put together, the meaning is unclear. It may refer specifically to a man who has sex with another man, or it may be referring to a man who has sex with anyone, outside of marriage, including possibly a woman. Think, for example, of the English word “understand.” It is composed of two words, “under” and “stand,” but its meaning does not relate either to the act of standing, or to being under something. (Rogers, pg. 70)

One way to learn a word’s definition is to analyze it in other contexts. However, the word arsenokoites is extremely rare, appearing in only one other place in the Bible, I Timothy, which will be discussed below. The Greek word, arsenokoites, is not found anywhere else in Greek literature prior to the first century, when these passages of scripture were written. It appeared in only a few writings after that, most of which were derived from the vice list which appears in I Corinthians, without any context to shed light on its meaning. (Miner & Connoley, pgs. 18-20; Brownson, pg. 42)

There are, however, a few stories in non-Biblical Greek literature that suggest the word arsenokoites refers to instances where one male uses his superior power or position to take sexual advantage of another. (Miner & Connoley, pg. 20) Many scholars therefore conclude that the term refers to forcible male-on-male sex, or to sexual exploitation involving prostitution. (Miner & Connoley, pgs. 20-21; Helminiak, pgs. 109-110; Rogers, pgs. 70-71, citing Martin, Arsenokoites and Malakos, pg. 121) In fact, several scholars emphasize the link between these two terms (malakos and arsenokoites) and the common Greek practice of pederasty, which is the sexual use of younger boys (possibly the word malakos) by older men (possibly the word arsenokoites). (Helminiak, pg. 110) In this context, these words are certainly appropriate on a list of sinful vices.

Another possible meaning derives from the fact that in the Septuagint (the Greek translation from Hebrew of the Old Testament), the two words arseno and koites are used separately in the Leviticus passages, previously discussed, that refer to a man lying with a man. (Dwyer, pg. 63) This raises the possibility that arsenokoites may be a shorthand way, in Greek, of referring to the acts forbidden in Leviticus. (Helminiak, pg. 111) It’s possible that I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 (discussed below) may be repeating the prohibition in Leviticus 18:22, which (as we have seen) was specific to Jewish purity laws.

In short, no one is really sure what the words malakos and arsenokoites mean in this I Corinthians passage. The most that can be said, with any certainty, is that the passage appears to condemn sexual abuse and exploitation (Helminiak, pg. 113), a position with which all modern Christians should readily agree. Given this uncertainty, the varying English translations of these obscure Greek words are a very slender reed on which to rely in condemning all homosexuals as sinners. (Helminiak, pg. 107) Ancient abusive sexual practices should not be used to justify the condemnation of consensual, committed, same-sex unions today. (Brownson, pg. 43) The meanings of the words are too vague to justify this kind of sweeping negative generalization about homosexuality based on Paul’s list of sinners. (Rogers, pg. 71, citing Nissinen, pg. 118)

I Timothy 1:8-11

8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. 9 This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, 10 fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching  11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

These verses from I Timothy are similar to the passage from I Corinthians 6:9-10, discussed above, in that they contain a list of various sinners. Were the authors specifically saying that homosexuals, in an equal relationship, were sinners, too? Again, we must go back to the original Greek words and culture of the time to help us understand if the author’s intent had anything to do with caring homosexual relationships of today.

The relevant Greek words that appear in verse 10 are pornos, arsenokoites and andrapodistes. (Dwyer, pg. 76) Over the centuries, these words have been translated into English in a number of different ways. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV, quoted above) translates them as “fornicators, sodomites, slave traders.” The King James Version (KJV) uses “whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers.” The New American Standard Bible (Updated) (NASB or NAU) uses “immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers,” while the English Standard Version (ESV) uses “sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers.” The New International Version (NIV) uses “for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders.” These varying translations illustrate the difficulties inherent in grasping the original meaning of this passage.

The first word, pornos, refers to a male having sex outside of marriage, that is, fornication or adultery. (Dwyer, pg. 76)

We have already discussed the second word, arsenokoites, and the difficulties in translating it, in the preceding section on I Corinthians. To review, the only relative certainty is that this word refers to male same-sex relationships that involved some level of exploitation, inequality or abuse. (Brownson, pg. 43, citing Martin, Sex and the Single Savior, pg. 43) It would be wrong to compare this kind of abusive same-sex relationship to a committed, loving, homosexual relationship.

The third Greek term, andrapodistes, is translated as “slave traders.” In the first century, both girls and boys were commonly kidnapped or captured and sold into sexual slavery. (Helminiak, pg. 113; Brownson, pg. 43) This may be why the word occurs next to arsenokoites in the list of sins in I Timothy 1:10, since both involved sexual exploitation. Many scholars believe that the three terms in this list belong together: kidnappers or slave dealers (andrapodistes) acting as pimps for their captured and castrated boys (pornos) to service the men (arsenokoites) who use these unfortunate male prostitutes. (Brownson, pg. 274)

The author of I Timothy was certainly condemning the stock list of vices drawn from the culture at large. Scholars are in agreement that the lists from both I Corinthians and I Timothy were not originally Paul’s. (Helminiak, pg. 112) He used these lists to encourage the early Christians to be good people by reminding them of the evils of the day, including same-sex behavior that involved exploitation, inequality or abuse. (Helminiak, pg. 112) Must all homosexual people be considered sinful just because the sex acts of first-century people known as malakoi and arsenokoitai were regarded as such? It is justified to have a negative view of these abusive ancient sexual practices. But this attitude cannot be carried over to justify the condemnation of consensual, same-sex relationships. It is too much of a leap from this passage of scripture to a blanket condemnation of same-sex relationships that are equal, committed and loving.

A SUMMARY of Each of the Seven Scriptures Often Referred to as “The Clobber Verses”

As we have seen, the seven Scriptures sometimes claimed to be about homosexuality are not at all related to the consensual, committed same sex relationships we see today.

1. Genesis 19:1-14, 24-26: The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is an example of what happens when God’s people do not live up to God’s expectations. It is teaching a lesson about the importance of hospitality to the stranger. The cruel men of the town were planning to rape the visitors and were definitely not homosexuals.
2. Judges 19:1-30: This story parallels that of Sodom and Gomorrah and provides an example of how the townspeople plot to rape the visitor. It is yet another example for the ancient Jewish culture of how not to act by showing the extreme inhospitable behavior of the town. Some mistakenly interpret the townsmen’s behavior to be somehow related to homosexuality, but this was an example of the brutality of one group of men toward a group of visitors.
3. Leviticus 18:22 and … 4. Leviticus 20:13: These texts state that a man should not lie with another man, and that if they do it is an abomination. The rules were meant to set the Israelites apart from the Canaanites and Egyptians who at that time participated in fertility rites in their temples that involved different forms of sex, including homosexual sex. Male-to-male sex was seen to mix the roles of man and woman and such “mixing of kinds” during ancient times was defined as an “abomination,” in the same way that mixing different kinds of seeds in a field was an abomination. This scripture occurs in a section of Leviticus called “The Holiness Code” which has as its main purpose to set out laws to keep Israel different from the surrounding cultures. (Helminiak, pg. 54)
4. Romans 1:18-27: The behavior Paul was addressing here is explicitly associated with idol worship (probably temple prostitution) and with heterosexual people who searched for pleasure and broke away from their natural sexual orientation or their natural ways of having sex (both male and female) and participated in promiscuous sex with anyone available or used methods not culturally accepted. (Miner & Connoley, pg. 14) In the surrounding culture it was common for men of a higher status to take sexual advantage of male slaves or male prostitutes. Here Paul is instructing his readers to keep pure and honor God. Paul is talking about the use and misuse of power and authority and how that impacts one’s relationship with God. (Dwyer, pg. 58) Paul didn’t have in mind specifically prohibiting consensual same-sex relationships because they were never considered in his cultural context.
5. I Corinthians 6:9-10: Paul’s list of sinners includes malakoi and arsenokoites. Malakoi means “soft” and is also interpreted as male prostitutes. Arsenokoites is difficult to translate, but it probably refers to a male using his superiority to take sexual advantage of another male. Paul is right to condemn these sexual activities, but this has nothing to do with a consensual homosexual relationship.
6. I Timothy 1:8-11: This passage is similar to I Corinthians, above. This time it is a list of sins (as opposed to sinners) and includes the words pornos, arsenokoites and andrapodistes. Pornos most likely refers to a male having sex outside of marriage. Arsenokoites can probably be defined as male same-sex relationships that involved some level of exploitation, inequality or abuse. Andrapodistes can be translated as “slave traders.” Scholars believe that the three terms were used together in that slave dealers (andrapodistes) would be acting as pimps for captured boys (pornos) who would be taken advantage of by powerful men (arsenokoites). (Brownson, pg. 274) These are sins that certainly need to be addressed, but this Bible passage does not relate to homosexuals in a committed relationship.

An Example from the Bible of Affirmation of a Sexual Minority:

Acts 8:26-39 – Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch

26 Then an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Get up and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (This is a wilderness road.) 27 So he got up and went. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury. He had come to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was returning home; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over to this chariot and join it.” 30 So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 He replied, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him. 32 Now the passage of the scripture that he was reading was this: (Isaiah 53:7-8) “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and like a lamb silent before its shearer, so he does not open his mouth. 33 In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.” 34 The eunuch asked Philip, “About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” 35 Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus. 36 As they were going along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?” 38 He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.

When the New Testament was written, the term “eunuch” meant a man who, for a number of possible reasons, was incapable of or disinterested in having sexual relations with a woman. In Matthew 19:11-12, Jesus described three types of eunuchs:

• those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,
• those who have been made eunuchs by others, and
• those who have been eunuchs from birth.

The first category to which Jesus may have been referring would include men (such as Roman Catholic priests) who take a vow of celibacy in order to serve God.

The second category would include those who are incapable of fathering children due to castration or injury. (See for example Deuteronomy 23:1, “one whose testicles are crushed”.)

The third category, those who are born eunuchs, would have been understood in Jesus’ day as including men with stereotypically effeminate characteristics and behavior. Jesus thus acknowledges that some people are sexual minorities from birth. (Rogers, pg. 131)

This does not mean that all eunuchs were gay but such men were commonly associated with homosexual desire. (For a more detailed discussion, see Miner & Connoley, pgs. 39-46).

Eunuchs were often placed in charge of the harem in royal households because they had no sexual interest in the ruler’s wives and concubines. The resulting access to the royal household sometimes enabled such men to move into trusted senior government positions, and this was apparently the case with the Ethiopian eunuch discussed in Acts 8. He is described as the official in charge of Ethiopia’s entire royal treasury.

When Philip encountered the eunuch, the man was seated in his chariot reading Isaiah 53, a passage he may well have connected to his own situation. (Rogers, pg. 132, citing Jennings, pg. 155) As a eunuch, he probably felt humiliated and marginalized from the rest of society to some degree. (Rogers, pg. 132, citing Jennings, pg. 155) He had perhaps even been mistreated by the religious leaders in Jerusalem, where he had gone to worship. (Miner & Connoley, pg. 43) Miner and Connoley suggest that the eunuch may have been familiar with Isaiah 56:3-5, a nearby passage that makes great promises to eunuchs who keep God’s commandments. (Miner & Connoley, pg. 43) Ancient prohibitions in the Old Testament barred eunuchs from entering the Temple or a worshipping congregation (Leviticus 21:16-23; Deuteronomy 23:1). (Rogers, pg. 133) But in Isaiah 56:4-5, the Lord specifically welcomes eunuchs who hold fast God’s covenant. (Rogers, pg. 133) The passage states:

For thus says the Lord: To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.

The Ethiopian eunuch was a trusted official, but definitely a sexual minority and possibly a homosexual. Yet an angel of the Lord and the Holy Spirit specifically directed the apostle Philip to seek out this man. Philip knew the Ethiopian was a eunuch, but there is no record that he questioned the man about what kind of eunuch he was, the gender of his preferred sexual partners, or whether he had chosen to be celibate. Instead, Philip simply proclaimed the Gospel and the Ethiopian accepted the good news immediately, thereby becoming the first recorded Gentile convert to Christianity. When the Ethiopian asked to be baptized, Philip again saw no barriers and asked no questions. He simply got out of the chariot and baptized the Ethiopian eunuch on the spot.

It is difficult to overstate the significance of this story about the Ethiopian eunuch to our modern quest for Biblical insights into homosexuality. The Holy Spirit could have chosen anyone to be the first Gentile Christian, but the Holy Spirit chose an African, sexual minority who showed faith. (Rogers, pg. 134) The conversion of this man of unconventional sexuality was of such great significance to the early church that it is included in the Books of Acts. The Bible’s unmistakable message here is one of inclusiveness and of God’s love for all people, regardless of their sexual preferences.

Conclusions:

Many Christians want to remain faithful to God’s Word through the Bible. This has caused Christians who read the Bible without background information or cultural context, to have difficulty accepting homosexuals. They see gays and lesbians as sinners who need to change and repent or remain celibate. But when we study the seven scriptures typically used to condemn homosexuals, it’s evident that none of them have anything to do with consensual homosexual relations. At no place does the Bible refer to equal homosexual relationships, simply because such relationships were not recognized by Hebrew society when the Bible was written. Rather, the authors of the Bible directed the seven passages at the ancient Jews or early Christians to teach them to follow purity laws, to worship God and not idols, to be holy and honor God, and not to exploit vulnerable people sexually. These scriptures do not pertain to loving, homosexual relationships today.

When interpreting Scripture, we can use the teachings of Jesus to redirect us so that we can understand how to apply these scriptures to our lives today. Rogers states that we need to read the Bible through the lens of Jesus’ redemptive life and ministry and accept those who are different from ourselves. (Rogers, pg. 135) When the Bible seems to teach us something that causes us to be unfair to the human rights of others is exactly when we need to re-evaluate and use the principles of Jesus to interpret these scriptures. Jesus was radical in many of the ways he interpreted the Hebrew scriptures he had learned as a boy. The New Testament scriptures show that Jesus regularly put the importance of the human individual over the ancient Hebrew scriptures and laws.

Whatever the specific behaviors the Bible is condemning, the seven passages studied here cannot be used to condemn committed same-sex unions today. These ancient texts are speaking against pagan practices, abuse, and violations of what back then were commonly embraced standards of decency and “normality.” As such, these scriptures do not refer to committed, mutual and loving same-sex unions. The Bible is actually silent when it comes to addressing the ethics of committed, consensual same-sex unions. Some may be tempted to think that these seven passages might be construed as referring to homosexuality, but as we dig deeper we see that they were rightly condemning other things: gang-rape, temple prostitution, idolatry and pederasty (sexual relationship between adult male and adolescent boy). (Hamilton, pg. 271) These were the concerns that the Biblical writers were condemning, and rightly so. These practices and the motivations behind them are very different from two same-sex people sharing their lives together in a covenant relationship. (Hamilton, pg. 271)

As a society that obtains much of our moral guidance from the Bible, we need to move beyond these seven scriptures sometimes used to condemn homosexuals. We know that these scriptures were written for the Jewish people long ago, and for the early Christians for purposes very different from those for which some try to use them today. With confidence we can interpret these ancient Bible passages using compassion and love as our guide, as Christ would ask us to do.

References:

Brownson, James V., Bible, Gender, Sexuality, Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2013).

Byrne, B., Sacra Pagina Series, Vol. VI: Romans (The Liturgical Press, 1996).

Cooper, A. and Scholz, S., Global Bible Commentary, Ed. Patte, D. (Abingdon Press, 2004).

deGroot, C., “Genesis” in The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary (InterVarsity Press, 2002).

Dwyer, John F., Those 7 References, A Study of 7 References to Homosexuality in the Bible (2007).

Greenberg, David F., The Construction of Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press, 1988).

Hamilton, Adam, Making Sense of the Bible: Rediscovering the Power of Scripture Today (Harper One, 2014).

Hartley, J.E., Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 4: Leviticus (Word Books, 1992).

Helminiak, Daniel A., What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, Millennium Edition (Alamo Square Press, 2000).

Jennings, Theodore, The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament (Pilgrim Press, 2003).

Jewett, R., Romans: A Commentary (Fortress Press, 2007).

Martin, Dale B., Arsenokoites and Malakos: Meaning and Consequences (Source: Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture (Westminster John Knox Press, 1996)).

Martin, Dale B., Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation (Westminster John Knox Press, 2006).

Miner, Jeff and Connoley, John Tyler, The Children Are Free, Reexamining the Biblical Evidence on Same-Sex Relationships (Life Journey Press, 2011).

Nissinen, Martti, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective (Fortress, 1998).

Rogers, Jack, Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality, Explode the Myths, Heal the Church, Revised and Expanded Edition (Westminster John Knox Press, 2009).

Siker, Jeffrey S, “Gentile Wheat and Homosexual Christians: New Testament Directions for the Heterosexual Church,” in Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture, ed. Robert L. Brawly (Westminster John Knox Press, 1996).
***********************************************************

The author, Janet Edmonds, is a longtime member of Bethesda United Methodist Church in Bethesda, Maryland. Currently, the official policy of the United Methodist Church does not allow self-avowed practicing homosexuals to be ordained ministers, nor does it allow United Methodist clergy to officiate at same-sex marriage ceremonies or to hold these ceremonies in United Methodist churches. In addition, The United Methodist Book of Discipline currently states that, “The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.” Janet wrote this booklet in September 2016 to help people understand that the Bible doesn’t say that homosexuality is a sin and with the hope of someday changing these United Methodist rules. As Christians, we are asked to seek justice. It is the author’s hope that this booklet will help to bring justice for LGBTQ individuals who have been condemned far too long.

***********************************************************

Serendipitydodah for Moms is a private Facebook group for moms of LGBTQ kids. Our official motto is “We Are Better Together” and our nickname is “Mama Bears” The group is secret so that only members can find it or see what is posted in the group. It was started in June 2014 and presently has more than 1,500 members. For more info email lizdyer55@gmail.com

Moms of LGBTQ kids respond to Beth Moore

Tags

Beth Moore, bible, Christian, LGBT, LGBTQ, Moms of LGBT, Moms of LGBTQ Kids, scripture, Serendipitydodah for Moms

Beth Moore stated the following when speaking to a large gathering of 18 to 25-year-olds in Atlanta during the 2017 Passion Conference last week:

“You will watch a generation of Christians — OF CHRISTIANS — set the Bible aside in an attempt to become more like Jesus. And stunningly it will sound completely plausible. This will be perhaps the cleverest of all the devil’s schemes in your generation. Sacrifice TRUTH for LOVE’s sake. And you will rise or fall based upon whether you will sacrifice one for the other. Will you have the courage to live in the tension of both TRUTH and LOVE?” -Beth Moore

The statement stung me because as the mother of a son who is gay I have often been accused of throwing out scripture in order to support and affirm my son. But, nothing could be further from the truth. As a devoted follower of Jesus and a loving mother I studied, prayed, sought, questioned, listened MORE because I was a Christian mom with a gay son and my experience is that is also true of others like me.

I have a secret Facebook group for moms of LGBT kids (Serendipitydodah for Moms) with more than 1,400 members and everyday I witness the moms in that group asking deep and meaningful questions, sharing profound insight and wisdom, talking about the original language and historical context of scripture. These moms are not people who throw something aside in order to come up with an easy answer for their kids. These moms are not throwing out scripture or setting the bible aside. They don’t want to mislead their kids. They want to know the truth as best they can. They want the best for their kids. They want to feel confident and at peace with the guidance and insight they offer their kids.

So, when someone like Beth Moore says that “a generation of Christians will set the Bible aside in an attempt to become more like Jesus” our ears perk up and we want to respond and share the insight and wisdom that we have gained on this journey of love and faith.

Here are some of the responses from moms who are members of Serendipitydodah:

We follow the Bible, no one is setting aside anything. We are embracing it through the lens of Jesus, not the Lens of religious leaders. We emphasize and embrace what we saw Jesus emphasize and embrace (the best we can). We want to see Jesus be glorified by our love, service to others and the grace we extend to others, not our adherence to rules. – A Mama Bear

Isn’t Jesus the Truth? – so, by becoming more like Jesus you are not actually letting go of the truth. – A Mama Bear

“I struggle to resolve what Beth Moore said, with what the Apostle Paul said, particularly Chapter 13 of First Corinthians on love as one of the only three things (other than faith and hope, which he elsewhere defines) that followers of Christ are to hold primary above mortal speech, human knowledge, and all human understanding. Also, I struggle with Beth Moore’s words when considering the words of Jesus in the definition of the call of Christianity in the Great Commandment, where loving God with all our thought, and emotion, and spirituality, and loving others with the same wholeheartedness, is a refection of how God loves us, and is the axis on which all prophecy and law hinge and find resolution, as in Mark 12 and repeated again in Matthew 22. Therefore, my question to Beth Moore would be, “What truth should we hold above love?”  – A Mama Bear

Bill Maher once said, “I don’t know anyone less Jesus-like than most Christians.” And you know what? The Christians he’s referring to read the Scriptures. I think we moms know from our own experience of supporting LGBT folks that the Bible bullies come out because of their faulty reading of the text. They erroneously employ Scripture to shame, condemn, and ‘other-ize’ people who aren’t like them and who don’t behave in ways they deem appropriate. So it’s not so much that we are dropping the Bible to follow Jesus – it’s that we are trying to drop a faulty, abusive hermeneutic to “GO and DO” what He commanded us in order that the Bill Mahers of the world can see a true expression of God in us. – Meredith Webster Indermaur

Sorry Beth Moore–The BIBLE tells me the Spirit will be my personal teacher. The BIBLE tells me to follow Jesus. The BIBLE tells me to love, even my enemy. The BIBLE tells me to be wary of false teachers (men and obviously women, too) who try to deceive the SPIRIT within me. So I think it’s you and your twisted interpretation of scripture the Devil is using because you are the one trying to separate the walk and life of Jesus from your reading of the BIBLE. – Margaret Boelman

My question to Beth Moore would be, do you have the courage to dig deeper and discover TRUTH? …not the truths twisted, added to, reworded & revised in translations, but the truth of God given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit to Hebrew and Greek speaking people. And would you filter those words through Jesus, THE absolute true WORD OF GOD, who was with God, in God, was God from the beginning? Because in light of that TRUTH there is no tension between truth and love. – Betsy Bruce Henning

I would say that Beth Moore does not have the desire, courage, or humility to see how she is harming God’s dearly loved LGBTQ children. Hers is one of the most dangerous and toxic statements a Christian authority can make, because it instills so much fear in followers and that fear causes a superficial reading of scripture and a reliance on so called Bible authorities. After all, who wants to come to the end of their life to have Jesus say “away from me I never knew you?” I grew up in and lived my whole life in an extended family who believed you were going to hell if you weren’t on the narrow path–the very narrow path that most won’t find and is tiny as the “eye of a needle” [which was interpreted literally by my family rather than in its Middle Eastern context]. Most of the church-going “Christians” I know won’t do that deep digging to uncover Biblical truths. It’s a lot of work, and they’re afraid and don’t trust themselves. Salvation is a lot to risk! They’d rather rely on their pastors and teachers like Moore to tell them what to think. After all, life is busy, and that’s what pastors and Bible teachers get paid for! (sarcasm) If you take the Bible “sola scriptura” as someone else mentioned and as I was taught, you have a lot of cognitive dissonance when you read and study scripture. True study is difficult when you try to understand context and compare the original languages to various translations. An individual almost necessarily needs an “authority” to guide them through those passages that create the cognitive dissonance, or at least someone who makes them feel they’ve arrived at the correct conclusion, because after all, salvation is at stake. – Laura Sparks Turner

Last I checked, love and truth should never be in conflict. If they are there is something wrong with your “truth.” And since when was living Christ-like *ever* secondary? – Debbie King

Be careful judging how the Holy Spirit guides those that don’t fit your label. It is not for you to say what their relationship with God should look like. Doing so, does not define truth. – Debby Laird McCrary

I love the Bible..But I don’t like it being used to discriminate against our LGBTQ children. – Lenora Lea Gill

I will live my life to be more like Jesus and less like the Bible because Jesus is the key to my salvation… not the Bible. – Sara O.

We shouldn’t have to sacrifice truth for love because Truth is Love. – Julie Ackerson-Armstrong

Not just me, but my child searched scriptures, opinions, books… many resources before deciding to just live for Jesus. She has contemplated and attempted suicide over her salvation, over wanting truth and love in her young life. She’s only 14… – Glenda Moore

I have searched and studied because I have a gay son. My heart is now at peace because my eyes have been opened to the true meaning of being a Christian. Many many people adapt the Bible to suit their way of doing things, just as I suppose this Beth Moore has. But one thing I do know for sure is my prayers to God were fervent and from the core of my soul and if God chose to ignore these prayers of mine then I can say He does not love me. But I know that His love for me is real so therefore He heard my cry. – A Mama Bear

I am tired of the box of Christianity they think is so neat and tidy. Life isn’t. God loves each and every one of us just as we are. If one believes that we are souls who inhabit many bodies in this earth school to learn lessons, then it would be obvious that we have been different genders. That can explain a lot. I choose not to be labeled anymore and think that we would all be better off not to slap labels and condemnations on anyone. Sadly, those who think they are right and are hell bent on proving it seem to have no trouble putting themselves in the driver’s seat of the Creator if the Universe. If that isn’t arrogant I don’t know what is. – A Mama Bear

I think we are setting aside the Bible, in some instances, because it simply doesn’t make sense. So many holes. So many translations. Once you free yourself from the Bible being the actual word of God, it is liberating to find your own relationship with Him. People like Beth who cling to the literal Bible as infallible take the easy way out because they don’t require any thinking with their faith. True believers can read the Bible, use their brains and come to a place of peace. That’s faith. Holding fast to something that makes no sense isn’t faith. It’s a crutch.  – A Mama Bear

I have become a stronger Christian, and a stronger person because of my gay son. I read the BIBLE a lot more, and I pray a lot more. – A Mama Bear

IF anyone lives in the tension between truth and love, it is those of us with LGBTQ kids. We have had to learn to love in the unconditional way Christ taught us, instead of the conditional way our culture (yes, our church culture) instructs us. Putting the Bible aside has never occurred to most of us. Indeed, it is what we continue to lean on as we struggle with how God is using us in the place we find ourselves. He watched is Son suffer and die. Many of us do the same, at the hands of people who call themselves Christians. We know the depths of misery and the heights of Christ’s love in our lives. I would also add that if anything has turned me personally away from the Bible, it is people like Beth Moore.- A Mama Bear

It is a far scarier, humbling way to live… to not have it all wrapped up in a neat little box…. It also takes more faith and a much bigger God. – A Mama Bear

This statement from BM brings visions of the type of judgmental, self-righteous church mentality that keeps me and my husband away. It’s so ignorant, flippant and cold-hearted that it’s the furthest thing from Christlike. BM and those like her can keep their American Jesus. – A Mama Bear

I don’t know what truth is anymore — I have read so much information that I am not even sure about the Bible – I am beginning to think it is just stories written by people that lived a long time ago and PEOPLE have translated it from language to language not even knowing if they are right … And picking and choosing what stories should be included, I am just fed up with the Christian right thinking that their interpretation is the one and only way to read the Bible… Whether it is Satan blocking the way or I am just seeing a way different picture. I believe there is a God, I have good sound morals and I try to see people in a different light…. And treating people Lovingly and equally! Right now I don’t anymore! I definitely don’t need to go be “educated” in a church anymore! So DONE with all this! I just want to LOVE! – A Mama Bear

Being a l o n g time fan, it made my heart sink to read those words from her and even more alarming that my more conservative friends and family have used her words to wedge the divide even deeper between the Church, the LGBTQ community and their allies. For me, that’s not how the Word of God works, not at all. The Truth has set me free from any law and I have never loved more deeply or experienced God or the Word more profoundly. – A Mama Bear

The church’s treatment of the LGBTQ community is reminiscent of days when the developmentally disabled and mentally ill were rejected and mistreated and accused of being possessed by satan. It is heartbreaking to see that kind of hate and rejection aimed at your child. The Bible has been in the control of white hetero men of power since its inception therefore, as with all things in human control, is fallible and corruptible. We would be incredibly naive to think that has not been changed to meet the agenda of these powerful men. I love the bible. I read scripture and glean wisdom when God speaks to me through it. I Worship God not a book. He has given me a heart of love for all mankind, including the LGBTQ community. Unfortunately my husband, our church and his extended family do not agree. I will stand with all those rejected and persecuted for simply being who God created them to be. – Elizabeth Frauenknecht

My God is SO BIG and has such a great imagination. Look at the diversity of ALL that God made! I will certainly NEVER be worthy of such unconditional love. Luckily, I don’t have to be, I just have to accept God and God accepts me JUST THE WAY I AM. God made me to be me. He made you to be you. All God wants is for me to be the most kind, loving person I can be and for you to be the most kind loving person you can be. If we all do that (and I fall short EVERY DAY), we won’t have enough time to judge our sisters and brothers. Can I get an AMEN? – Spring Davidson

I’m not a Beth Moore fan. God is much bigger than the biggest, most popular, most righteous, most justified self proclaimed evangelist. I don’t set aside scripture. I listen to what God is telling me which might just not add up to what my pastor, or my Sunday school teacher, or my small group leader or my dearest friend, or my dearest friend who is a pastor or my bible study teacher interprets. I read scripture, I teach Sunday school, I teach Bible studies, I lead support groups, lead small groups, and women and kids and I listen for the still quiet voice of the Lord to tell me what He has for me. My daughter coming out helped me to become authentic. Authentically Christian. Including a slightly different interpretation of scripture from many around me which does not make me wrong. Pray for God to separate the man made stuff from His stuff. He can’t not. It’s a great journey. He has my in the palm of His hand or I couldn’t do any of this. It’s not about me. Beth is too much about Beth. Sorry. Not a fan. – Deborah Noffert

I pray sincerely that one day Beth Moore will have her spirit humbled and broken by the same loving, gracious God that humbled and broke mine years ago! The church has been wrong in judging and persecuting our LGBTQ children of God. The church has taught partial truths and used verses out of context to justify a position of “judge and jury”, acting as “THE voice of God” on a subject that is in no way “perfectly clear” if studied in depth at all. In the gray space, I had to choose a place of trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit in my life. It is a faith journey that IS NOT for the faint of heart. I reject the implication that I have set my Bible aside in any way. God has walked me into His beautiful presence and commanded that I accept my LGBTQ brothers and sisters as perfectly His. I am in no way to try to change them. I am simply commanded to love them as they are. I was also commanded to apologize profusely on behalf of “the church” that has judged them for the grave and serious harm they have caused in the lives of LGBTQ people that have sought God with their heart and were pushed away by Christians. – Tamara Darbin

I have been to several Beth Moore events and loved her. It hurt me deeply to see her say this. I have gotten so much closer to God since my daughter came out. I have learned so much actually studying my bible, and not listening to what past church leaders/pastors have said. God loves all people, man created the love the sinner hate the sin mentality! God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit loves all. Remember the greatest commandment is about love. – Renay Boyes

I was shocked at the pain I felt all over again when I watched that statement be tweeted and then retweeted by others I believed to be allies. I have struggled to be sure that the truth of scripture was never distorted in my relationship with my child and can honestly say that we have not sacrificed or abandoned any of the truth of the gospel in loving our son or helping him to become the Christian Man that he has become. – Laurie Harrison Lewis

We can idolize our understanding of the Bible and totally miss the God of the Bible. Mercy not sacrifice was both the God of the Old Testament and the God/Jesus of the New. My favorite recent quote comes from Richard B. Hays: “the quality of mercy is not set in opposition to the Torah; rather, Matthew’s Jesus discerns within Scripture itself the hermeneutical principle – expressed epigrammatically in Hosea 6 : 6 – that all the commandments are to be interpreted in such a way as to engender and promote the practice of mercy among God’s people.” – A Mama Bear

Beth must not have read Matthew 22:40! – A Mama Bear

As a parent of a child that was so depressed they would not leave their room for months or get out of bed, I prayed and agonized with God that He would reveal to me what was wrong. During those agonizing times He would whisper “Transgender” to me. It was a couple of weeks later that my then son broke down and told me he was a girl. Was I totally surprised? No, I was so relieved that God had answered my prayer. During our journey, I asked God to close any doors that we were not to go through while we maneuvered through her transition. I believed and had faith that God would close those doors, if we were not to go through them. I had peace from day one. John 14:27 But during this time, I would sit in my then home church Sunday after Sunday with a spirit that was so “troubled” because they did not embrace our daughter. I would see her friends and their parents sitting in the pews and they never asked about her. I would leave sobbing and so heart broken and grieving. As a sister in the body of Christ should I have suffered alone? Our daughter needed her christian friends beside her, but where were they? Who ended up setting the Bible aside? My guess would be the generation of Christians in the church.  – Gloria Melton.

I believe/pray that this will be the first generation that truly sees how horribly we have treated our LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ. I keep asking myself why don’t I know any gay Christians and the response seems to be because we’ve not welcomed them into our churches or society. What are we Christians so afraid of? It’s not a disease that you can catch. These people are just like us made in the image of God. Jesus loves them as much as He loves you and me. Could some of our Holy Scriptures that were translated from Greek and Hebrew be wrong? Yes! Has culture changed since ancient times? Yes! Do you have the courage to open your heart, mind and church to LGBT people? What if Satan is blinding you, as most of our Evangelical churches have sent our LGBT children out on their own in this world confused, depressed and thinking God and His people hate them! This generation hopefully will have the courage to stand up for the LGBT children in their churches and welcome them with open hearts and minds. – A Mama Bear

I read a Letter to Beth Moore in 2015 and through that post I got in touch and joined Serendipitydodah for Moms. In a way it feels like Beth Moore led me to join this group of moms who love and affirm their LGBT kids. I wonder how Beth would feel about that. – A Mama Bear

_________________________________________________________

Serendipitydodah for Moms is a private Facebook group created as an extension of the Serendipitydodah blog. The group is secret so that only members can find it or see what is posted in the group. The group was started in June 2014 and presently has more than 1,400 members. The space was specifically created for open minded Christian moms who have LGBT kids and want to develop and maintain healthy, loving, authentic relationships with their LGBT kids.

For more info email lizdyer55@gmail.com

What do you think will make the world great? – a reflection for advent

Tags

advent, Christmas, Inclusion, LGBTQ, love, Reflection

I have a “secret”  Facebook group for moms of LGBTQ kids. Many of the moms in the group (Serendipitydodah for Moms) are concerned about what the future holds for their kids – especially in light of the recent Presidential election in the U.S.

Niki Elenbaas, one of the moms in the group, posted an Advent Reflection and has given me permission to share it here.

Niki specifically speaks to what is potentially in store for Muslims who live in the U.S. – but the concern can also be applied to many other groups of people … LGBTQ people, Hispanics, African Americans, Jewish people, people living in poverty – even women – are fearful and concerned about their future.

So much hate has been given a voice and a stage. So much has been said about making America great again but very little has been said about specific things that would make America great.

As Christians we are called to make the world great … not great in military power or affluence, but great with love and kindness and generosity and hospitality and inclusion.

This is an especially important time for Christians in America to ponder what they want for their country – what spirit do they want to permeate their land – what message do they want to send out to the rest of the world – will it be a spirit of seclusion and selfishness?  a message of fear and hate?  or will it be a spirit of kindness? a message of radical inclusion and generous hospitality?

This reflection by Niki captures the fear and trepidation that so many of us are feeling this holiday season and invites us to ponder what we believe will make the world great …

In this last week of Advent I can’t help but think how Jeshua had a lot to say about “whatsoever you do to the least of these,” and nothing about building a great big fence.

And I can’t help but feel stricken to the core to realize how current news about potential government registration of all Muslims parallels the untimely journey that Joseph and Mary were forced to take at the order of a government which didn’t share their faith.

And then I cry to think that the visit of the Magi led to the slaughter of every male child under age two, because soldiers followed the horrifying decree of an evil, self-centered despot. I bet Herod said something about keeping Judea great.

#advent2016

Stories That Change The World #33 – I became affirming because of my faith, not in spite of it.

Tags

Fruit, Good Fruit, Justice, LGBT, love, Mama Bears, Matthew 7:17, Micah 6:8, moms, Moms of LGBT, Moms of LGBTQ Kids, Same Sex Marriage, stories, Stories That Change The World, Story

Stories have the power to change the world … they inspire us, teach us, connect us. This is the thirty-third installment in the “Stories That Change The World” series.

I have a private Facebook group for moms of LGBTQ+ kids. We have more than 1,400 moms in the group and continue to grow. The group was especially created for open minded Christian moms of LGBTQ+ kids. One thing we often discuss among ourselves is how we reconcile our Christian faith with supporting and affirming our LGBTQ+ kids. My own journey of reconciliation was one of the main things that led me to create Serendipitydodah for Moms. Here is the short version of how I reconciled my faith with being affirming. This process took place between one and two years.

When my son came out at age 19 he told me he had come to the conclusion that the bible did not condemn loving, committed same sex relationships. I fully expected to be able to prove him wrong.

I was accustomed to “studying” scripture as I led women’s ministry in church for many years and also wrote and taught women’s bible studies during that time. I knew what it meant to dig into original language and consider the historical context of the verses I was studying. I was shocked to find that my son was right … there was no clear condemnation of the kind of same sex relationship that my son was talking about. None of the “clobber” verses were speaking about a loving, monogamous, healthy same sex relationship – my son had not forsaken God nor was he living some kind of lustful life. There was nothing in scripture that spoke of a same sex couple falling in love, marrying, building a life and a family together. Therefore, in light of insufficient evidence in scripture I had to ask myself…How should I respond to something if scripture doesn’t clearly condemn it?

The only thing I could think is that I needed to know if there was any evidence that same sex relationships were hurting people in real life. I took time to meet and get to know same sex couples and families and I couldn’t find evidence that they were any different than opposite sex couples – the evidence I discovered was that healthy same sex relationships had the same potential to be good and healthy and life giving that opposite sex relationships had.

When I was going through all of this study, research, thought and prayer Micah 6:8 became a focal point for me:

“He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good;
and what doth the Lord require of thee,
but to do justly, and to love mercy,
and to walk humbly with thy God?”

It was one of those verses that I kept being drawn back to and became one of those verses that ended up being “written on my heart”

The lack of evidence to condemn same sex relationships and Micah 6:8 led me to this:

If scripture doesn’t clearly condemn it and there is no evidence that it is harmful to anyone it would be unjust for me to condemn it and I know how God feels about injustice.

Shortly after I realized it was unjust to condemn same sex relationships due to insufficient evidence I also began to understand that good theology should produce good fruit.

I knew that scripture says that we (followers of Christ) will be known by our good fruit or good psychology.

I knew the good news should produce life giving fruit and if my theology was producing depression, hopelessness, self-loathing and suicide I had to come to grips with the reality that my theology must be wrong.

As I pondered the “good theology = good fruit/good psychology” principle and began to connect with a lot of Christian LGBT people I began to see a pattern … when LGBT people were connected to non-affirming faith communities they were typically very broken, desperate, hopeless, unhappy people and many times they were living out their brokenness in self destructive ways – but when they were connected to affirming faith communities they typically were a lot healthier and living much healthier lives. The evidence was clear and convicting.

I had to let go of the theology that was producing death (emotional death, spiritual death, relational death, physical death) and embrace theology that was producing healthy ideas, healthy choices, healthy living .. theology that was producing health, wholeness and life.

At some point I realized that I could no longer reconcile my Christian faith with the idea that same sex relationships were sinful – the two just didn’t go together.

I became affirming because of my faith, not in spite of it.

I support equal rights and protection of LGBT people not “even though” I’m a Christian or “in spite of” of being a Christian, but BECAUSE I’m a Christian.

I haven’t had to compromise or choose – I have fully embraced my faith throughout this journey.

****************************************************

Serendipitydodah for Moms is a private Facebook group created as an extension of the Serendipitydodah blog. The group is secret so that only members can find it or see what is posted in the group. The group was started in June 2014 and presently has more than 1,400 members. The space was specifically created for open minded Christian moms who have LGBT kids and want to develop and maintain healthy, loving, authentic relationships with their LGBT kids.

For more info email lizdyer55@gmail.com

Learning & Growing Together #1 – Romans 1:26-27

Tags

bible, Christian, LGBT, LGBTQ, Romans, scripture

This “Learning & Growing Together” series includes posts I have shared in my private Facebook group for moms of LGBTQ kids. The group, Serendipitydodah for Moms, is a place where moms of LGBTQ kids share a lot of support, information and encouragement … it is a place where moms of LGBTQ kids are learning and growing together with the purpose of developing and maintaining healthy, loving, authentic relationships with their LGBTQ kids. For more information about the group email me at lizdyer55@gmail.com

Christians who believe that same sex relationships are sinful rely on a few verses that have been misunderstood and misused. You will often hear those verses referred to as the “clobber verses”.

In studies of sex in history, Stanford classics professor John J. Winkler warns against “reading contemporary concerns and politics into texts and artifacts removed from their social context.” This, of course, is a basic principle of biblical hermeneutics.

Calvin Theological Seminary Old Testament scholar Marten H. Woudstra says: “there is nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to homosexuality as we understand it today” and SMU New Testament scholar Victor Paul Furnish says: “There is no ‘text on homosexual orientation in the Bible.”

Robin Scroggs of Union Seminary adds: “Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate. They should no longer be used … not because the Bible is not authoritative, but simply because it does not address the issues involved.”

And yet, many pastors and individual Christians still use some passages to justify their belief that same sex relationships are sinful and unpleasing to God.

The clobber verse that I am confronted with most often is Romans 1:26-27.

There are some great resources available that go into a lot of depth and explanation about Romans 1:26-27 but I am always on the lookout for something brief and meaningful.

Here is something brief and meaningful that can be offered when discussing Romans 1:26-27:

“Romans 1:26 and 27 clearly speaks of same-gender sex by both men and women and is the only passage in the New Testament that does so. Romans 1:18-32 speaks of Gentile (heterosexuals) who could and should have known, served and given thanks to God but would not, so God gave them up and let them do whatever they wanted to do, and that resulted in degrading and shameful acts, including same-gender sex. It is almost a moot point, but Paul is not listing sins for which God will condemn anyone, he is listing sins that occur because people have forsaken Him. These are acts committed by those who have turned away from God and so become “consumed with passion.” All of us recognize that those who forsake God and give themselves over to lustful living–homosexual or heterosexual–stand condemned by the Bible. This passage is talking about people who chose to forsake God.”

That paragraph can open up an opportunity for more discussion. It isn’t meant to shut down the conversation. It doesn’t answer every question. It is meant to lead to more meaningful conversation – conversation that might help someone think about what that verse is really saying – conversation that allows one to introduce their own story into the mix.

In my case, that short paragraph can provide the opportunity for me to point out that my son who is gay did not forsake God and become gay, or forsake God and turn to lustful living, or forsake God and start having same sex relations. My son did not forsake God and he isn’t off living a life of sexual sin. My son, like most people, has simply gone out and dated, fell in love, become engaged and now plans to marry and have a family.

When I include my story and my son’s story it becomes obvious that Romans 1:26-27 is not talking about my son or the kind of relationship that he has with his fiance. It becomes obvious that Romans 1:26-27 is not a good argument against the kind of relationships that most LGBTQ people are looking for and it is not a good argument against same sex marriage.

Forsaking God and lustful living can be discussed further but neither of those things automatically apply to same sex relationships.

Good theology always has some skin and bones involved and once you add skin and bones when discussing Romans 1:26 -27 it becomes obvious that this passage does not provide sufficient evidence to condemn all same sex relationships.

***************************************************************

For more in-depth study of Romans 1:26-27 check out Introduction to Romans 1:26-27

***************************************************************

Serendipitydodah for Moms is a private Facebook group created as an extension of the Serendipitydodah blog. The group is secret so that only members can find it or see what is posted in the group. The group was started in June 2014 and presently has more than 1,200 members. The space was specifically created for open minded Christian moms who have LGBTQ kids and want to develop and maintain healthy, loving, authentic relationships with their LGBTQ kids. In addition to providing a space for members to share info and support one another, a special guest is added each month for a few days. The guests include authors, pastors, LGBTQ people, bloggers and public speakers.

For more info email lizdyer55@gmail.com

 

 

Stories That Change The World #16 – An Important Message for Franklin Graham

Tags

#LGBTQFamilies, children, Christian, church, faith, family, Franklin Graham, gay, God, LGBT, LGBT Youth, LGBTQ, Moms of LGBT, Moms of LGBTQ Kids, parent, parents, relationships, same sex relationships, Serendipitydodah for Moms, Stories That Change The World, Story

Stories have the power to change the world … they inspire us, teach us, connect us. This is the sixteenth installment in the “Stories That Change The World” series.

Yesterday morning Franklin Graham announced he was going to share an important message for LGBT people and today he posted his message. It was full of harmful theology that makes loving mothers keep their lgbt kids as far away from church as possible. Here is “an important message for Franklin Graham.”

Dear Franklin Graham,

I have a private Facebook support group for Christian moms of lgbt kids. The group presently has more than 800 members. The love and support that exists in the community we have together is priceless. The group is not about trying to change our kids or treating them like they are broken because of their sexual orientation. The group is about us helping each other learn to develop and maintain healthy, loving, authentic relationships with our kids and inspiring one another to play a small part in making the world a kinder, safer, more loving place for lgbt people to live into the people they were created to be.

So many of the moms in the group have left the local church because it was no longer a safe place for their family. It was a place that marginalized and shamed them and their lgbt kid. It was a place that set up hopelessness and despair in the hearts of their child. It was a place that refused to re-examine their theology regarding same sex relationships even though their theology was producing death instead of life … spiritual death, relational death, emotional death and even physical death.

Good theology should produce good fruit – good theology should produce good psychology.

When our theology is producing hopelessness, despair, self loathing, self destruction and self harm it is time to stand up and say “we must have something wrong!!!”

Your message to lgbt people today was irresponsible and harmful. If you understood anything about lgbt people and their families you would at least know that posting a public message like that could potentially push a young lgbt person to the brink of doing something harmful to themselves. I can’t fathom why you would act so carelessly. It is truly beyond my understanding.

If you can’t bring yourself to become better informed, to have more compassion and love for lgbt people and their families and to act more responsibly then at least be kind enough to let these families walk away in peace and find Christian fellowship and community that is safe and life producing somewhere else.

Your post has already been liked by more than 60,000 and shared more than 25,000 times. Your influence is substantial and you are doing so much harm. You will be held accountable for the harm you do. Please stop!

And remember … the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love … and love does not produce death.

 

*********************************

There are more than 800 moms of lgbt kids in my Facebook support group. It is a place where moms of lgbt kids find and give a lot of support and share a lot of information. If you are interested in joining the private Facebook group for moms of lgbt kids send an email to lizdyer55@gmail.com and put“Mom’s Facebook Group” as the subject.

 

Poison To The Soul by Michael Bussee

Tags

Christian, conversion therapy, Ex-Gay, harmful, LGBT, LGBTQ, Lies, message, reparative therapy

 

“When it comes to conversion therapy or “ex-gay” programs, it’s not just the methods we object to. It’s the message.

Whether the approach is prayer, “healing of memories, Bible study, exorcisms, confession, “accountability partners”, deliverance or “pastoral counseling”.

Whether the technique is “talk therapy”, psychoanalysis, or aversive conditioning like snapping a rubber band on your wrist to stop “temptations”.

No, it’s not just the methods — ineffective and harmful as they may be. It’s the underlying message in all of this that really does the harm: “You are “broken”, stunted in your masculinity or femininity, “disordered”, sinful, sick.

You really need “help” or “treatment”. You need more prayer. More faith. There is something seriously wrong with you spiritually. You have a psychological problem too. We can help.”

And no matter how they try to present all of this as benevolent, the underlying message is actually quite malevolent. If you don’t “change”, you risk going to hell. What other “therapy” teaches those things?

They claim this is all “scientific”, when it’s not. They say that it’s just about a client’s “choice” and “right to self-determination”. And yet kids can be forced into it. You can be rejected by family, church and God if you don’t comply.

If you say it’s not working, they say you didn’t try hard enough or didn’t go to the right therapist, counselor or program. When you ask for success stories, they trot out married people who still “struggle with SSA” or try to present celibacy as orientation change.

Don’t be misled. It’s not just the methods they use. It’s the shameful, alienating, parent-blaming, homophobic, fundamentalist doctrine they promote. And as we all know, it’s that message that is poison to the soul.” – Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee was one of the originators of the ex-gay movement. In the mid-1970s, while working as a telephone counselor at Melodyland Christian Center in Anaheim, California, Bussee co-founded the Ex-gay Intervention Team (EXIT) and later hosted an unprecedented conference of ex-gay ministries at which a handful of ministry leaders, along with approximately 60 delegates, voted to form a loose coalition called EXODUS. However, within a few years, Bussee began to doubt the efficacy and ethics of the ex-gay message and in 1979 he left Exodus and eventually began to speak out about the tremendous damage that results from the anti-gay message. Today Bussee is a retired Marriage and Family therapist, who devotes much of his time helping LGBT people heal from the trauma they faced from the Christian anti-gay message.

Busting The Myths

Tags

Anti Gay Myths, Facts, LGBT, LGBTQ, Lies

In my everyday life I want to do what I can to make the world a kinder, safer, gentler, more loving place for lgbt people.

One of the ways I do that is taking the time in my everyday life to bust anti-gay myths whenever the opportunity arises.

Here is a piece by Evelyn Schlatter and Robert Steinback from the Southern Poverty Law Center site that has helped me inform others when they are believing one of the many anti-gay myths about lgbt people:

10 Anti Gay Myths Debunked

Ever since born-again singer and orange juice pitchwoman Anita Bryant helped kick off the contemporary anti-gay movement more than 30 years ago, hard-line elements of the religious right have been searching for ways to demonize gay people — or, at a minimum, to find arguments that will prevent their normalization in society. For the former Florida beauty queen and her Save Our Children group, it was the alleged plans of gay men and lesbians to “recruit” in schools that provided the fodder for their crusade.

But in addition to hawking that myth, the legions of anti-gay activists who followed have added a panoply of others, ranging from the extremely doubtful claim that sexual orientation is a choice, to unalloyed lies like the claims that gay men molest children far more than heterosexuals or that hate crime laws will lead to the legalization of bestiality and necrophilia. These fairy tales are important to the anti-gay right because they form the basis of its claim that homosexuality is a social evil that must be suppressed — an opinion rejected by virtually all relevant medical and scientific authorities. They also almost certainly contribute to hate crime violence directed at the LGBT community, which is more targeted for such attacks than any other minority group in America. What follows are 10 key myths propagated by the anti-gay movement, along with the truth behind the propaganda.

MYTH # 1
Gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.

THE ARGUMENT
Depicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality — and for winning elections and referenda, as Anita Bryant found out during her successful 1977 campaign to overturn a Dade County, Fla., ordinance barring discrimination against gay people. Discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, the most ubiquitous purveyor of anti-gay junk science, has been a major promoter of this myth. Despite having been debunked repeatedly and very publicly, Cameron’s work is still widely relied upon by anti-gay organizations, although many no longer quote him by name. Others have cited a group called the American College of Pediatricians to claim, as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council did in November 2010, that “the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a [molestation] danger to children.”

THE FACTS
According to the American Psychological Association, “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.” Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation’s leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.

Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because “he often finds adults of either sex repulsive” and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may “regress” to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.

The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.

Some anti-gay ideologues cite the American College of Pediatricians’ opposition to same-sex parenting as if the organization were a legitimate professional body. In fact, the so-called college is a tiny breakaway faction of the similarly named, 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics that requires, as a condition of membership, that joiners “hold true to the group’s core beliefs … [including] that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children.” The group’s 2010 publication Facts About Youth was described by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association as non-factual. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, was one of several legitimate researchers who said Facts misrepresented their findings. “It is disturbing to me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality,” he wrote. “The information they present is misleading and incorrect.”

MYTH # 2
Same-sex parents harm children.

THE ARGUMENT
Most hard-line anti-gay organizations are heavily invested, from both a religious and a political standpoint, in promoting the traditional nuclear family as the sole framework for the healthy upbringing of children. They maintain a reflexive belief that same-sex parenting must be harmful to children — although the exact nature of that supposed harm varies widely.

THE FACTS
No legitimate research has demonstrated that same-sex couples are any more or any less harmful to children than heterosexual couples.

The American Academy of Pediatrics in a 2002 policy statement declared: “A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.” That policy statement was reaffirmed in 2009.

The American Psychological Association found that “same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation.”

Similarly, the Child Welfare League of America’s official position with regard to same-sex parents is that “lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well-suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts.”

MYTH # 3
People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.

THE ARGUMENT
Many anti-gay rights proponents claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by some psychological trauma or aberration in childhood. This argument is used to counter the common observation that no one, gay or straight, consciously chooses his or her sexual orientation. Joseph Nicolosi, a founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, said in 2009 that “if you traumatize a child in a particular way, you will create a homosexual condition.” He also has repeatedly said, “Fathers, if you don’t hug your sons, some other man will.” A side effect of this argument is the demonization of parents of gay men and lesbians, who are led to wonder if they failed to protect a child against sexual abuse or failed as role models in some important way. In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm released a related study arguing that gay couples are more likely than heterosexuals to raise gay or lesbian children.

THE FACTS
No scientifically sound study has linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse.

The American Psychiatric Association noted in a 2000 fact sheet on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues that “no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse.” The fact sheet goes on to say that sexual abuse does not appear to be any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.

Similarly, the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization notes on its website that “experts in the human sexuality field do not believe that premature sexual experiences play a significant role in late adolescent or adult sexual orientation” and added that it’s unlikely that someone can make another person gay or heterosexual.

With regard to Schumm’s study, critics have already said that he appears to have merely aggregated anecdotal data, a biased sample that invalidates his findings.

MYTH # 4
LGBT people don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals.

THE ARGUMENT
Anti-gay organizations want to promote heterosexuality as the healthier “choice.” Furthermore, the purportedly shorter life spans and poorer physical and mental health of gays and lesbians are often offered as reasons why they shouldn’t be allowed to adopt or foster children.

THE FACTS
This falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled, “The Lifespan of Homosexuals.” Using obituaries collected from gay newspapers, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men. On the basis of the same obituaries, Cameron also claimed that gay men are 18 times more likely to die in car accidents than heterosexuals, 22 times more likely to die of heart attacks than whites, and 11 times more likely than blacks to die of the same cause. He also concluded that lesbians are 487 times more likely to die of murder, suicide, or accidents than straight women.

Remarkably, these claims have become staples of the anti-gay right and have frequently made their way into far more mainstream venues. For example, William Bennett, education secretary under President Reagan, used Cameron’s statistics in a 1997 interview he gave to ABC News’ “This Week.”

However, like virtually all of his “research,” Cameron’s methodology is egregiously flawed — most obviously because the sample he selected (the data from the obits) was not remotely statistically representative of the LGBT population as a whole. Even Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has called Cameron’s methods “just ridiculous.”

MYTH # 5
Gay men controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust.

THE ARGUMENT
This claim comes directly from a 1995 book titled The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Lively is the virulently anti-gay founder of Abiding Truth Ministries and Abrams is an organizer of a group called the International Committee for Holocaust Truth, which came together in 1994 and included Lively as a member.

The primary argument Lively and Abrams make is that gay people were not victimized by the Holocaust. Rather, Hitler deliberately sought gay men for his inner circle because their “unusual brutality” would help him run the party and mastermind the Holocaust. In fact, “the Nazi party was entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals throughout its short history,” the book claims. “While we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in Nazism,” Lively and Abrams add. “To the myth of the ‘pink triangle’ — the notion that all homosexuals in Nazi Germany were persecuted — we must respond with the reality of the ‘pink swastika.'”

These claims have been picked up by a number of anti-gay groups and individuals, including Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, as proof that gay men and lesbians are violent and sick. The book has also attracted an audience among anti-gay church leaders in Eastern Europe and among Russian-speaking anti-gay activists in America.

THE FACTS
The Pink Swastika has been roundly discredited by legitimate historians and other scholars. Christine Mueller, professor of history at Reed College, did a line-by-line refutation of an earlier (1994) Abrams article on the topic and of the broader claim that the Nazi Party was “entirely controlled” by gay men. Historian Jon David Wynecken at Grove City College also refuted the book, pointing out that Lively and Abrams did no primary research of their own, instead using out-of-context citations of some legitimate sources while ignoring information from those same sources that ran counter to their thesis.

The myth that the Nazis condoned homosexuality sprang up in the 1930s, started by socialist opponents of the Nazis as a slander against Nazi leaders. Credible historians believe that only one of the half-dozen leaders in Hitler’s inner circle, Ernst Röhm, was gay. (Röhm was murdered on Hitler’s orders in 1934.) The Nazis considered homosexuality one aspect of the “degeneracy” they were trying to eradicate.

When the National Socialist Party came to power in 1933, it quickly strengthened Germany’s existing penalties against homosexuality. Heinrich Himmler, Hitler’s security chief, announced that homosexuality was to be “eliminated” in Germany, along with miscegenation among the races. Historians estimate that between 50,000 and 100,000 men were arrested for homosexuality (or suspicion of it) under the Nazi regime. These men were routinely sent to concentration camps and many thousands died there.

In 1942, the Nazis instituted the death penalty for gay men. Offenders in the German military were routinely shot. Himmler put it like this: “We must exterminate these people root and branch. … We can’t permit such danger to the country; the homosexual must be completely eliminated.”

MYTH # 6
Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia.

THE ARGUMENT
Anti-gay activists, who have long opposed adding LGBT people to those protected by hate crime legislation, have repeatedly claimed that such laws would lead to the jailing of religious figures who preach against homosexuality — part of a bid to gain the backing of the broader religious community for their position. Janet Porter of Faith2Action was one of many who asserted that the federal Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act — signed into law by President Obama in October 2009 — would “jail pastors” because it “criminalizes speech against the homosexual agenda.”

In a related assertion, anti-gay activists claimed the law would lead to the legalization of psychosexual disorders (paraphilias) like bestiality and pedophilia. Bob Unruh, a conservative Christian journalist who left The Associated Press in 2006 for the right-wing, conspiracist news site WorldNetDaily, said shortly before the federal law was passed that it would legalize “all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or ‘paraphilias’ listed by the American Psychiatric Association.” This claim was repeated by many anti-gay organizations, including the Illinois Family Institute.

THE FACTS
The claim that hate crime laws could result in the imprisonment of those who “oppose the homosexual lifestyle” is false. The Constitution provides robust protections of free speech, and case law makes it clear that even a preacher who suggested that gays and lesbians should be killed would be protected.

Neither do hate crime laws — which provide for enhanced penalties when persons are victimized because of their “sexual orientation” (among other factors) — “protect pedophiles,” as Janet Porter and many others have claimed. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation refers to heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality — not paraphilias such as pedophilia. Paraphilias, as defined by the American Psychiatric Assocation, are disorders characterized by sexual urges or behaviors directed at nonhuman objects or non-consenting persons like children, or that involve the suffering or humiliation of one’s partner.

Even if pedophiles, for example, were protected under a hate crime law — and such a law has not been suggested or contemplated anywhere — that would not legalize or “protect” pedophilia. Pedophilia is illegal sexual activity, and a law that more severely punished people who attacked pedophiles would not change that.

MYTH # 7
Allowing gay people to serve openly will damage the armed forces.

THE ARGUMENT
Anti-gay groups have been adamantly opposed to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces, not only because of their purported fear that combat readiness will be undermined, but because the military has long been considered the purest meritocracy in America (the armed forces were successfully racially integrated long before American civilian society, for example). If gays serve honorably and effectively in this meritocracy, that suggests that there is no rational basis for discriminating against them in any way.

THE FACTS
Gays and lesbians have long served in the U.S. armed forces, though under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy that governed the military between 1993 and September 2011, they could not serve openly. At the same time, gays and lesbians have served openly for years in the armed forces of 25 countries, including Britain, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, according to a report released by the Palm Center, a policy think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The Palm Center report concluded that lifting bans against openly gay service personnel in these countries “ha[s] had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness.” Successful transitions to new policies were attributed to clear signals of leadership support and a focus on a uniform code of behavior without regard to sexual orientation.

A 2008 Military Times poll of active-duty military personnel, often cited by anti-gay activists, found that 10% of respondents said they would not re-enlist if the DADT policy were repealed. That would mean some 228,000 people may leave the military in the wake of the 2011 ending of that policy. But a 2009 review of that poll by the Palm Center suggested a wide disparity between what soldiers said they would do and their actual actions. It noted, for example, that far more than 10% of West Point officers in the 1970s said they would leave the service if women were admitted to the academy. “But when the integration became a reality,” the report said, “there was no mass exodus; the opinions turned out to be just opinions.” Similarly, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male Canadian service members and a 1996 survey of 13,500 British service members each revealed that nearly two-thirds expressed strong reservations about serving with gays. Yet when those countries lifted bans on gays serving openly, virtually no one left the service for that reason. “None of the dire predictions of doom came true,” the Palm Center report said.

MYTH # 8
Gay people are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol.

THE ARGUMENT
Anti-gay groups want not only to depict sexual orientation as something that can be changed but also to show that heterosexuality is the most desirable “choice” — even if religious arguments are set aside. The most frequently used secular argument made by anti-gay groups in that regard is that homosexuality is inherently unhealthy, both mentally and physically. As a result, most anti-gay rights groups reject the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. Some of these groups, including the particularly hard-line Traditional Values Coalition, claim that “homosexual activists” managed to infiltrate the APA in order to sway its decision.

THE FACTS
All major professional mental health organizations are on record as stating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

It is true that LGBT people suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population. But studies done during the past 15 years have determined that it is the stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society — and not LGBT identity itself — that accounts for the higher levels of mental illness and drug use.

Richard J. Wolitski, an expert on minority status and public health issues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, put it like this in 2008: “Economic disadvantage, stigma, and discrimination … increase stress and diminish the ability of individuals [in minority groups] to cope with stress, which in turn contribute to poor physical and mental health.”

MYTH # 9
No one is born gay.

THE ARGUMENT
Anti-gay activists keenly oppose the granting of “special” civil rights protections to gay people similar to those afforded black Americans and other minorities. But if people are born gay — in the same way people have no choice as to whether they are black or white — discrimination against gay men and lesbians would be vastly more difficult to justify. Thus, anti-gay forces insist that sexual orientation is a behavior that can be changed, not an immutable characteristic.

THE FACTS
Modern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of biological and environmental forces, not a personal “choice.” One of the more recent is a 2008 Swedish study of twins (the world’s largest twin study) that appeared in The Archives of Sexual Behavior and concluded that “[h]omosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors.” Dr. Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, said: “This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single ‘gay gene’ or a single environmental variable which could be used to ‘select out’ homosexuality — the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here — heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.”

The American Psychological Association (APA) acknowledges that despite much research into the possible genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no evidence has emerged that would allow scientists to pinpoint the precise causes of sexual orientation. Still, the APA concludes that “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”

In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm released a study showing that gay parents produced far more gay children than heterosexual parents. He told a reporter that he was “trying to prove [homosexuality is] not 100% genetic.” But critics suggested that his data did not prove that, and, in any event, virtually no scientists have suggested that homosexuality is caused only by genes.

MYTH # 10
Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality.

THE ARGUMENT
If people are not born gay, as anti-gay activists claim, then it should be possible for individuals to abandon homosexuality. This view is buttressed among religiously motivated anti-gay activists by the idea that homosexual practice is a sin and humans have the free will needed to reject sinful urges.

A number of “ex-gay” religious ministries have sprung up in recent years with the aim of teaching gay people to become heterosexuals, and these have become prime purveyors of the claim that gays and lesbians, with the aid of mental therapy and Christian teachings, can “come out of homosexuality.”Exodus International, the largest of these ministries, plainly states, “You don’t have to be gay!” Another, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, describes itself as “a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality.”

THE FACTS
“Reparative” or sexual reorientation therapy — the pseudo-scientific foundation of the ex-gay movement — has been rejected by all the established and reputable American medical, psychological, psychiatric, and professional counseling organizations. In 2009, for instance, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution, accompanied by a 138-page report, that repudiated ex-gay therapy. The report concluded that compelling evidence suggested that cases of individuals going from gay to straight were “rare” and that “many individuals continued to experience same-sex sexual attractions” after reparative therapy. The APA resolution added that “there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation” and asked “mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation.” The resolution also affirmed that same-sex sexual and romantic feelings are normal.

Some of the most striking, if anecdotal, evidence of the ineffectiveness of sexual reorientation therapy has been the numerous failures of some of its most ardent advocates. For example, the founder of Exodus International, Michael Bussee, left the organization in 1979 with a fellow male ex-gay counselor because the two had fallen in love. Alan Chambers, current president of Exodus, said in 2007 that with years of therapy, he’s mostly conquered his attraction to men, but then admitted, “By no means would we ever say that change can be sudden or complete.”