Before any further discussion of the issues with TEC’s theological document take place, it is important to present the research that TEC missed. Since many churches are struggling with the issue of homosexuality, the information is beneficial to most denominations. It seems quite probable that many churches are not up to date, because they use theological journals to present rigorous science. Although the Anglican Theological Review was interested in the information in this article, for instance, it would not have printed it before the summer of 2009, because of the lag time to publication at theological journals. By then the information would be out of date, and TEC’s error of using old science illustrates the tendency to canonize bibliographies that take a long time to be produced.
One clear area in which recent research has challenged earlier assessments is the genetic causality of homosexual attraction. In 1991 Bailey and Pillard (“A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry 48) published results of a study in men that suggested a genetic cause of same-sex attraction. It was largely on the basis of that report that To Set Our Hope on Christ concluded that homosexual attractions were based on genetic causes. But a 1994 article called “Homosexuality: The Behavioral Sciences and the Church” by Jones and Workman had already pointed out severe sample bias in that study. Further, a later study co-authored by Bailey did not support the 1991 results.
The 1991 Bailey and Pillard twin study on men looked at identical twins, fraternal twins, siblings that were not twins, and adopted siblings. Seeing traits significantly more often in pairs of identical twins than in the general population suggests heritability of the trait. The authors found that 52% of homosexual identical twins had a homosexual co- twin. Since that was much higher than the 2% rate of homosexuality in the general population at that time, such a large increase would indicate that genetic factors were highly likely. However, the subjects for this study were individuals recruited through gay publications. Besides the obvious problem of who would be likely to respond to such a solicitation, the data itself showed that even the adopted children in the study had five times the normal rate of homosexuality. A high rate in unrelated children indicates that the families of respondents were not typical of the general population. It is clear that the Bailey and Pillard study was subject to sampling bias.
In 1992 King and McDonald (“Homosexuals who are twins: A study of 46 Probands,” British Journal of Psychiatry 160) did a twin study using an unbiased sample. It showed only about 25% of homosexual identical twins had a co-twin who was homosexual. This is still higher than the general population so it could indicate some heritability, but King and McDonald also did something else that any good researcher would do. They looked into the possibility that there might be environmental factors causing even this relatively low rate of concordance. They found that “genetic factors are insufficient explanation of the development of sexual orientation” because of social factors, including “a relatively high likelihood of sexual relations occurring with same sex co-twins at some time, particularly in monozygotic [identical] pairs.” The identical twins were having a strong influence on each other.
Interesting take on TEC’s rush to change sexual theology!
However: regardless of the perceived “science” about homosexual behaviors (as opposed to the temptations involved in attraction to someone of the same sex), the individual Christian has been set free by Christ, through the Holy Spirit, to be obedient to God the Father regarding the use of our sexual attractions and our intimacy with another person. Though we can (and should) be very sympathetic to those who struggle with this particular temptation, we do them no service if we “teach” them that the latest medical/scientific study says this or that about homosexuality which might give them tacit permission to engage in behaviors that God (not Dr. Keenan, or you or me) …that God calls SIN…missing the mark.
If we love those whose particular sinful temptation is homoerotic behavior, we will them the Truth from God…not the latest conjecture by behavioral scientist. With no disrespect intended to Dr. Keenan, I don’t really especially care what her discipline might say about the origin or nature of homosexual attraction/temptation.
Interesting? Perhaps. Life-changing truth from Science? Nope!
A very fine and interesting essay about the dishonesty in pecusa regarding same sex attraction and relationships. Yet pecusa leadership persists in pretending that decisions are being made based on the best science available and in accordance with Scripture (in that order). This article clearly shows that pecusa acted first and found science, in this case old science, to back up their action.
The money quote: “By making a liturgical change before stating a theology, the opportunity for reasoned dialogue was lost.”
Interesting. If homosexuality was genetically determined, then you would see a much higher rate of identical twins where both were homosexual – closer to 80% or so. When I took statistics, we were taught that you could infer causation when correlation was > 90%. This does not rule out a genetic contribution to homosexual attraction, but I believe that this report eliminates genetic causation.
Having said that, I do not posit that homoerotic attraction is a matter of choice nor do I posit that it is not a matter of choice. I do not know.
Regardless of why someone experiences homoerotic attractions, homosexual sex is sinful. Being “born that way” is not an indication of God’s design. Just as being born with any other genetic mutation (or combination of genetic, environmental, and personal choice factors) is not an indication of God’s design.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I would not put this down to “dishonesty” but to “blinded vision.” Remember “Man only hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” (Simon & Garfunkle) This is the human condition and ordination or education does not eliminate it. So, I would say that it is not a matter of wilfull dishonesty, but rather “vincible ignorance.”
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Wow, great stuff and real gives the lie to TEC’s claim to be a “thinking person’s church.” Activism (and anxiety) both preclude the use of reason. This essay is powerful evidence (as if more were needed) of how our leaders and leadership entities have betrayed all of us – not just “reasserters”. This has been a “lose-lose” direction for the church.
Philip, It is dishonesty because the author states how she gave the bishops the newer science on more than one occasion and they deliberately chose to not use it.
I think this is another area where politics (in this case Church politics) is driving the science rather than the other way around. Studies that support the conclusion are used, those that are not are dismissed, discarded, and discounted.
The headline is right: theology — Christian theology — is what needs to be the baseline in this discussion.
Everyone should read about the background of the APA’s decision to remove homosexuality from its list of psychiatric disorders. The behind the scenes manipulation, arm twisting, propagandizing and high powered special interest (LBGT organizations) lobbying was truly amazing. Scientific evidence to the contrary was either ignored or ruled out of order. Kind of like a TECusaCORP General Convention, if you think about it.
the snarkster
IMO, the misuse of correlation to indicate causal relationships is the biggest scandal of MSM reporting. Politicians, gobble up the misinformation–this includes TEC powers-that-be– and wreck havoc. As a general rule, assume when someone says “science proves”, whatever follows is not a fact. “Science” does not “prove” anything. True experimental method will confirm or disconfirm a hypothesis. But there is always a number after the decimal point and zeroes.
What does one do with this information? CAn it be used as leverage? It is the case, isn’t it, that for TEC, evidence is no longer an issue? For them, the Rubicon has been crossed.
I must say, this essay was an eye-opener. Esp. the information about the APA and its declassification of homosexuality. AS always, the serious matters come to the issue, “Who CAN you trust? And the answer seems to be, almost nobody.
LM
My wife was earning her masters when talk of removing Homosexuality from the DSM was proposed.
The politics were as described above: a lot of lobbying from Act Up, Queer Nation, and many other LGBT groups. The on campus groups LGBT group even had a table every Wednesday that semester in the student union to get signatures on a petition to send to the APA.
oops, “… earning her masters in Social Work …”
Jim
What’s the big deal? The medical literature is full of genetic disorders, as well as disorders of psychogenic origin.
And so it continues – this seemingly endless obsession with homosexuality. People have lives. They may or may not be the only lives they’ll have. They go with their deepest feelings. Some few – it’s only about 5% across all societies and all time zones – feel – in their deepest bones – they are homosexual. What’s the threat here, Larry?
JS,
There is no threat stemming from the simple fact of the existence of these people. What threat there is is two fold.
1) The threat to the five percent. That five percent could be “sick” to use a harsh and blunt word for it. If they are sick or broken, then we can’t just look the other way. Even if they refuse treatment, which is their right, we are nonetheless obligated to offer help.
2) The threat which comes from activists who work to destroy traditional values by undermining them, first turning those values into one option among many, then turning that option into one that only bigots and haters would accept, ultimately leading to the point where “decent” society no longer has a place for those who adhere to these values.
Forgetting #1 for a second, if there were no activists and the 5% were only minding their own business, there wouldnt be much of a problem as far as I am concerned. I would still believe that such behavior is a sin, but it would be no threat to my church or society whatever. But that is not the case and I think that you probably know that if you really think about it.
John (#14) – I don’t perceive a threat from homosexual persons. However, I do perceive a threat from a group of people who are not honest with us and try to manipulate “scientific” findings to generate a desired outcome – don’t you? If our leadership cannot be honest with us, I find that quite threatening to the health of the community. Wouldn’t you?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
It is my opinion that many of the innovations in TEC during recent times have been agenda driven and not lead by the Spirit or reason. The impending destruction of the Anglican Communion is the bad fruit of following desire instead of God’s word and the Spirit of truth and knowlege. The recent difficulties in the SC election and other issues have undermine the trust in TEC leadership. The revelations in this article further erode the legitamcy of the leadership in TEC. God will salvage good from this as He has done with Isreal but it will serve as a lesson to others.
Kendall,
What a wonderful piece of solid reviewing of statistical research. I’ve had professors who might well have chosen this as a brief example of what a student should to use to model thier own writing after. Even if it seems a bit dry, tthe time and energy spent to carefully work through what she considers as the strengths weakness of the studies is well worth the effort. Thank you for the posting.
This is a well-organized summary. As noted, the dishonesty is in deliberately ignoring research that contradicts one’s viewpoint. I have written multiple letters to bishops on the same points. I remember one discussion after noting these points to my former bishop. He responded the he understood the medical and scientific evidence but felt TEC’s changes were necessary to keep “them” in the church.
John S, if this doen’t matter why is it necessary for proponents to ignore, misrepresent, or even lie about these matters? The answer is that the GLBT lobby could not muster sufficient support without the “God made me like this” argument.
THe problem, as noted above, is that the scientific justification is only a temporal requirement. Remove the prohibition and you are left with a blessed choiceworthy state.
JS,
What the obsession with homosexuality is rooted in is exactly what we are discussing.
For 5% we have seen our Church turned on its head. This is about something much deeper.
Is it intellectually honest to say, “Homosexual sex is a sin,” Phil (#3)? Of course, I realize where you’re coming from — from Leviticus, Romans, etc. But perhaps…[i]perhaps[/i] it is more intellectually honest to say, “St. Paul says homosexual sex is a sin,” or “The writer of Leviticus says that God says that homosexual sex is a sin.” I’m not sure — I’m just asking in the course of discussion.
Because if we say “homosexual sex is a sin” are we not saying “God says, ‘homosexual sex is a sin'” and thereby saying that God dictated Scripture and it was transcribed verbatum?
I’ll be ready for the onslaught 🙂
And the author is a degree candidate at VTS? Is that Virginia Theological Seminary? She must be really popular on campus!
William #21: “For 5% we have seen our Church turned on its head.”
And Jesus said, “As you have done to the least of these…”
Five percent, fifty percent, one percent, one person — does the number matter? For me, it matters that for five percent (possibly higher in the Church) we have looked and prayed for justice, mercy, and the abundance of God’s love.
Jesus turned the [i]world[/i] on its head — should we do less?
And back on thread, good grief: there are a zillion scientific studies about homosexuality. There are also thousands of gay and lesbian [i]people[/i] in the Episcopal Church — how about talking to them instead of obsessing over numbers, statistics, pseudo- and real science? I am so weary of being talked [i]about[/i].
thereby saying that God dictated Scripture and it was transcribed verbatum?
No, we are not saying that.
Perhaps you actually believe that orthodox Christians are biblical literalists (plenary verbal inspiration and all that), but we aren’t. Perhaps you have difficulty imagining a more sophisticated theological approach that doesn’t agree with your opinions, but that’s a reappraiser rhetorical device, not a reality.
Padre, are you proposing that we return to the status quo prior to GC 2000 so that we can have a reasoned and reasonable debate based on the most current and best scientific data, biblical interpretation, etc.?
Or maybe we could return to the status quo mentioned above and drop our fixation on sex entirely as liberals love to say. How about it?
The approach you propose in #25, the listening process without the support of scientific research findings is patently flawed as you should realize. To have any group come before any legislative body and tell us what a wonderful thing it is to be …. (fill in the blank) is no way to make any decision, let alone one with theological implications. No, we do the theological work informed by Scripture, tradition and reason, and then we come to an understanding whether or not a given lifestyle is honoring to God. As you know, the largest group of Anglicans to speak on this was the last Lambeth Conference and you also know that they overwhelming said that homosexual practice is incompatible with a Christian lifestyle.
Padre Wayne.
My point was not that we shouldn’t look after the needs of any one no matter how small. I was responding to John Scholasticus who was pointing out that we were only talking about a small group of people so what’s the deal? The deal is this is no small transformation in our community and has profound affect on many aspects of our communal life. To feed the poor, visit the lonely, to defend abused children or to shake the hand of a homeless man and call him brother does not require the theological carnival we find ourselves in now.
You want to be talked to; why should the whole communion be turned upside down for you? Do you ever doubt that this is the right course for the Church? Do you have even a little anxiety that this kind of moral logic we are courting will give birth to something you cannot abide? Or, more so, that Christ cannot?
The above study is important because we have been making decisions on incomplete information. We have been told that we are guilty of a sin equivalent to racism when we say that homosexuality is sin. This is based on the assumption that sexual identity is a priori. If we learn sexual response a posteriori that makes a world of difference. It makes a world of difference for you and me and all of us. It places you and me and all of us on the same footing, all broken and sinful and without excuse.
PS
You never answered our questions about Fr Williams that William Witt posted a few weeks back. Is he no longer current? I noticed Bp. Spong has become old news. Didn’t he ordain Fr. Williams? Not radical enough for some of the hardcores on Thinking Anglicans. Chronic innovation is a cruel mindset.
Padrewayne – I infer from your nom-de-blog that you are ordained. If that is the case then you took an oath that stated Holy Scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments to [b]be[/b] (not contain, not express, not reveal, be) the Word of God and to contain all things necessary to salvation. Now, can you show me where homosexual sex is [b]not[/b] condemned in Holy Scripture? no? How about where it is approved in Holy Scripture? No? Tradition? Surely there is something written or some council that approves homosexual sex (before the “sexual revolution”). No?
The truth is that the Church has not done the necessary theological work to change the moral teaching on this subject. Individuals may believe that they have done that work, but the Church has not yet recognized it. Until that recognition, we should return to the status quo ante (no blessing of same sex unions and no ordination of practicing homosexuals) and then do the work that shows homosexual sex to be part of God’s design for humans.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
John asks what the threat is?
It exists on several levels. The first is that the homophiles, a much larger group than the homosexuals themselves, have control of what was once a major church and are destroying this church.
Well, what then? This destruction has far reaching consequences for all churchs, as we have seen. This issue is tearing churches apart, not will it go away, because scripture refuses to support homosexuality so the issue becomes, “Which Christian churches will follow scripture and which ones will not.” This is a massive theological problem and for many congregations, a continuing threat to their identities.
Second, a related to the above, homosexuality as a cultural force is embedded in a much larger threat to American society, namely, the replacement of self restraint by self gratification and a obsessive centering on self, narcissism. Because it is a minority, the liberal forces encourage such common homosexual attitudes as these PRECISELY because they are a minority and, for the left, which controls upper echelon society, there is a mandate to force minority views on the larger public to show that they have real power and control. And the left has been very successful in this matter.
Third, there is a real political/economic threat whose potential has yet to be measured. See the Newsweek support homosexuals are throwing behind Mrs. Clinton, and mind you, this is substantial money. That so small a portion of society should develop disproportionate clout is a real threat as it always is when squeaky wheels buy the grease factory.
Fourth, their new presence masks the fact that in America, they are the primary vector for AIDS, and this number, once diminishing, is growing with a new generation of homosexuals. The numbers are more equally balanced than they used to be, but that is because homosexuals have spread AIDS in heterosexual society. Here’s a savory power center, homosexuals and needle-users, as the primary vector for AIDS!
I am sure I have left something out, but I get tired of repeating the above because it makes little difference to the homophiles what arguments are produced. The homophile arguments are getting more and more raucous, more and more tenuous, as one may see in several places above.
Incidentally, for the rest, was it not interesting to see that lesbianism appears to be a very different matter than homosexuality, if her numbers are to be believed. I had suspected it but had no real evidence for the suspicion. Lesbianism is, for many, temporary? We have all read about LUGS, lesbians-until-graduation, in the colleges and universities, and this strange practice has an explanation in the data. LM
PadreWayne (#22) – just a clarification. Rather than saying that Paul or the Author/Editor/Redactor of Leviticus etc indicate that homosexual sex is a sin, why not just be more honest and say that Holy Scripture (you know, the Word of God) says homosexual sex is a sin?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
[i]The medical literature is full of genetic disorders, as well as disorders of psychogenic origin.[/i]
Most of them are not held on to firmly as part of what constitutes the person as homosexuality is held on to by the self-identified gay.
A closer analog (incoming!) would the radical deaf who refuse treatment, “try for” deaf children, and refuse to treat them as well. Because they are perfect just the way they are (their phrase).
Larry Morse #31: “The homophile arguments are getting more and more raucous”
Good grief, read your own post. Conspiracy theorists are fascinating people to watch.
My apologies to everyone else for repeating the above. It is tiresome, I know, and I left all the other stuff – homosexual marriage and what-not – out because it is pointless to repeat the obvious to no avail. I will endeavor not to re-cycle the above regardless of the customary challenges. Larry
PadreWayne # 25 My problem is having thrown out scripture we are told “reason tells us that…..”, the leadership of TEC is equally quick to throw out reason found in sound scientific research. Christianity and Christ then become a giant fuzzy easter bunny (rather than the feared Aslan) and made in the image of the believer and God is then in the image of man.
Ed Romanus – you were extending my point, which is fine, but my basic thesis is that generic or psycho-social in origin doesn’t matter: same-sex attraction is a disorder. If it were genetic, or had a genetic component, it would still be a disordered affection.
Words Matter,
I make no excuses, but point out why this particular disorder’s treatment is resisted.
Much woulld be clarified and simplified if we could only gree on this, that homosexuality is a serious handicap – handicap taken in the context of state and federal definitions. It would then be a reasonable and comprehensible context, and such protections and limitations on homosexual rights would have a useable framework for discussion.
I suppose this is too easy to have any chance of succeeding, but if it did, then the law could place limitations on what jobs homosexuals could and could not hold as it has placed restrictions on other handicaps. LM
Larry ‘mou’,
There’s no threat here. I know you personally are greatly concerned about what happens when you bend over to pick up the soap in the shower. But believe me, much as I love you (and as, no doubt, many other red-blooded homosexual males like you), you’re quite safe. It’s OK. Relax. (Brackets: and then … !! Is joke …)
40
I do not come to T19 to read vulgarity. I hear this stuff all day on the job site.
#41
It’s called affectionate joshing (though with a serious point). Sorry you can’t recognise it.