Table of Contents

I. A Visit to the Metropolitan Community Church in San Francisco

As a part of my seminary class in Multicultural Ministry, I attended a worship service at the Metropolitan Community Church in San Francisco on October 7, 2001. My intent in attending this service was to explore the limits of pluralism in today's Christian church. I was seeking answers to questions like: "How can a Christian determine which expressions of pluralism are acceptable and which are not?" and "When Jesus Christ insists on Christian Unity, is He excluding anybody?". The Metropolitan Church in San Francisco belongs to the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, a group that affirms homosexual practice. For much of this research paper I will be referring to the "gay Christian" movement. Below is a statement of "who we are" published by the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches at their official web site, www.ufmcc.com (enclosure 1). I am including this statement as representative of the pluralism expressed by the gay Christian movement.

"The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (UFMCC) founded by Rev Troy D. Perry in 1968, plays a vital role in addressing the spiritual needs of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered community around the world. For those of us who were raised in a religious atmosphere, homosexuality was usually associated with shame and guilt. As a result, many of us were cut off from the spiritual dimension of our lives. Metropolitan Community Churches provide an opportunity to explore a spiritual experience that affirms who we are. Today, as self-aware and self-affirming gay men and lesbians, we reclaim the fullness of our humanity, including our spirituality. We find great truths in the religious tradition, and we find that our encounter with God is transformational and healing. We experience our communities of faith as places of healing and hope, places of reconciliation with family, with self-esteem, and with individual spirituality."

I was late for this Sunday service. Close-in parking was non-existent and an AIDS parade closed several intersections in the Castro district. As I sat down in a back pew, I looked and listened. What I saw and heard was mostly unremarkable. The songs were mainline, the clergy dress was mainline, and the preaching was mainline. As I browsed the bulletin (enclosure 2) I could hardly find mention of homosexuality. The congregation was paired up in same-sex couples, but otherwise there was an air of normality in the place. On this particular day, the church was celebrating World Communion Sunday. Although I heard the invitation to share the bread and cup, I decided not to walk down the aisle to the front and join the celebration. I am still struggling with my decision. Did I do the right thing? A personal aspect of this research paper is to determine if my unwillingness to join the celebrants was due to irrational homophobia or to spiritual insight. I want to know where genuine Christian pluralism ends and the religion of Pluralism (with Christian tradition) begins.

II. Reviewing the Literature

I read through five books and the relevant section in another. All of these books approached homosexuality from a traditional perspective. I also studied in detail a pamphlet from the Presbyterian Church (USA). I was familiar with much pro-gay theology through study in a previous seminary class and I wished to examine literature supporting traditional sexual morals and traditional interpretation of scripture. I also reviewed two journal articles, pamphlets, and web sites that did favor pro-gay theology. A full citation of each reviewed publication appears in the reference section.

a. The first book I reviewed was A Strong Delusion: Confronting the Gay Christian Movement by Joe Dallas. The author of this book is a past president of Exodus International, a group that facilitates gays and lesbians out of homosexuality. Joe Dallas was once a leader in the aforementioned Metropolitan Community Church in San Francisco. His book was thorough in its "confrontation" with the gay Christian movement. The author first provides his own testimony, then reviews the history of the Gay Rights Movement. Next he presents five categories of pro-gay arguments before finally concluding with specific advice on confronting gay Christianity. I did not find his book filled with bombast, but with conviction.

In his introduction, he states "as one who was graciously given repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, I hope that A Strong Delusion will be useful to those who can instruct, and to those needing instruction. They are everywhere (p 26)." The author's account of his first visit to the Metropolitan Church confirmed my own impression of the service: "people were singing along with the choir now, some even lifting their hands. If not for the name on the building, and the fact that some same-sex couples were linking arms, the service wash shaping up to be like that of any conservative, mildly charismatic church (p 15)." Joe Dallas explains the gay rights movement in three chapters. He neatly summarizes three phases in the gay rights movement in his conclusion (p 95-95):

Phase 1. "We're human beings; treat us fairly" (1950-1969).
Phase 2. "We're normal and just as good as anyone else (1969-1979).
Phase 3. "We won't tolerate any public opposition to our viewpoint" (1979-present).

Phase 1. "God loves us too" (1969-1976).
Phase 2. "Not only does God love us, but He also approves of our being gay"
(1976-1979).
Phase 3. "Anyone saying we can't be gay and Christian must be stopped" (1980-present).

1. Homosexuality is inborn.
2. Homosexuals cannot be changed.
3. Homosexuality is not a mental illness; therefore the church should not condemn it.

1. Ten percent of the population is gay. Could so many people be wrong?
2. Homophobia is the problem, not homosexuality.
3. Preaching against homosexuality incites violence against lesbians an gay men.
4. Preaching against homosexuality causes gay adolescent suicides.

1. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.
2. "I am a born-again believer and I'm gay. How can that be, if homosexuality is wrong?"
3. "I attend a gay church where the gifts of the Spirit and the presence of God are manifest. How can that be if homosexuality is wrong?"
4. "My lover and I are in a monogamous relationship, and we truly love each other. That can't be wrong!"
5. "I tried to change but I couldn't. God must therefore want me gay."

1. The Bible knows nothing of the homosexual orientation when it condemned homosexual behavior.
2. The Bible has been used in the past to justify bigotry.
3. Only an expert can understand what the authors of the Bible really said about homosexuality.
4. Christians pick and choose which verses they take literally.
5. Verses in the Bible are used to clobber gays and lesbians.

1. Creation/Created Intent (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:18-24)
2. The Destruction of Sodom (Genesis 19:4-9)
3. The Levitical Law (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13)
4. Paul on Natural and Unnatural (Romans 1:26-27)
5. Paul and the word "homosexual" i.e. arsenokoite (I Corinthians 6:9-10; I Timothy 1:9-10)

I have spent additional space outlining and explaining this book, because I believe that it is the best of books that I have read. Also, many of the arguments and debates found this book are repeated in my other readings.

b. I also read Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse. As stated by the authors "At the heart of this book is an analysis of the use of science in church debates about the morality of homosexual behavior and the ordination of active homosexuals in church office (p 153)". This book focuses upon the science and social science used in church's moral debate about homosexuality. The middle four chapters are entitled: "How prevalent is Homosexuality?", "What causes Homosexuality?", "Is Homosexuality a Psychopathology?", and "Can Homosexuality be changed?". Answers to these questions are similar to answers in Dallas, but they are much more fleshed out. This book omits the history of the gay movement and limits the biblical debate. I did gain several useful ideas from this book.

Before any discussion of homosexuality begins, the authors describe and reject three positions involving the relationship between science and religion. The rejected positions are perspectivalism, imperialism and postmodern relativism. Perspectivalism is the view that religion and science are two complementary epistemologies. They are separate compartments that cannot effect one another. Imperialism is the view that science and religion are competing descriptions of the same reality, with one trying to utterly dominate and replace the other. Most people holding this view believe that science is progressing to totally eclipse religion. Postmodern relativism subverts any real dialogue between religion and science. In this view, there is no road to truth, because truth if it exists at all is unknowable. The best that humans can do is to express our personal narratives and accept these narratives as true for the narrator. The authors describe themselves as critical realists. This view establishes the possibility of true dialogue between science and religion. They feel that "both science and religion are likely to be important and informative in our understanding of human life (p 16)".

The authors bring up these rejected positions in order to prepare the Christian for debate. If the opponent is a perspecivalist, then your religious convictions are meaningless. Faith cannot intersect with science and is useful only when debating with someone of similar religious faith. If the opponent is an imperialist, then science has the final word. The more we learn about the world through science, the less relevant religion becomes. Implications of science always trump implications of religion. Miracles cannot and never have happened. If the opponent is a postmodernist, then all that matters is the narrative. Your truth may be fine for you, but my truth is fine for me. Any attempt to arrive at an overarching truth is arrogant and hateful towards me. The authors imply that most defenders of the pro-gay position argue as if they are scientific imperialists, but when their position is threatened they fall back into a postmodern attitude. Before a fruitful dialogue can begin all parties must grant that some source of knowledge and understanding is privileged above the others. The question is to what source the Christian church is going to grant such privilege. Will it be the findings of science at this point in history, human experience, human reason, or the scriptures?

Another useful idea gleaned from this book is the "essentialist-constructionist debate". This debate boils down to the issue of whether homosexuality is a real thing (essence) or rather a category (construction) that is the shared understanding of our society. "We might say that the essentialists argues that 'homosexual' is a real and critically important description of a person in the some manner parallels the individual being 'female' or 'human being', which are assumed to be real, enduring and universal categorizations (p 27)". Most essentialist homosexuals argue that this essence is ineluctably bound to the core of one's self as a particular human being. From this often follows the claim that because this real essence is a part of what properly defines the core of the person, homosexual behavior is naturally occurring, morally blameless behavior that should find expression. This debate seems to be a variation on the scientific debate about whether homosexuality is or is not inborn.

The authors end their book with a discussion of five ethical themes around which the sexual ethic can be organized. They are: (1) An ethic of obedience - Once we understand what God has said, then we must obey. (2) An ethic of loyalty - If we are loyal to Jesus we must conform to is revealed will. (3) An ethic of principle - The core principle of sexual ethics has to do with the nature and purpose of sexual intercourse itself. "God made sexual intercourse to create and sustain one fleshedness in a male-female married couple (p 112)." Sex outside of marriage is wrong because unmarried people engage in a life-uniting act without a life-uniting intent. It violates the inner reality of the act. (4) An ethic of virtue - Such virtues as self-control, purity, faithfulness, trustworthiness and love diminish the opportunity of sexual sin. (5) An ethic of caution - Sex within Biblical boundaries is more likely to have beneficial consequences and less likely to have damaging consequences than sex outside of these boundaries.

c. I also reviewed Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. This book was written by a psychiatrist and much space was devoted to the medical consequences of homosexual behavior in regard to both physical and mental health. Over one half of the book is devoted to answering three questions: Is homosexuality normal, is it innate, and is it irreversible? The author uses his background in psychiatry and medicine to answer all three questions in the negative.

I found one of his points particularly enlightening. Satinover offers an implicit conundrum against a "homosexual gene", noting that homosexuals do not reproduce. "To whatever extent that homosexuality is significantly and directly genetic, its presence in the population would shrink from one generation to the next (p 103)." I had never considered that. But of course, if there were truly a "homosexual gene", those who possess it would not be passing it down to descendents and so the homosexual population would eventually shrink to non-existence.

The author proposes that the homosexual behavioral pattern is caused by a cluster of influences. These influences are (1) genetic, (2) prenatal, such as hormonal milieu, (3) postnatal physical effects, such as childhood trauma, (4) symbolic effects such as familial interactions, education (5) experience, such as the reinforcing effect of the repletion of behaviors, and (6) choice.

The author very neatly builds up to "choice and freewill" as the pinnacle of behavior. Then he descends from choice. He draws a downward continuum from choice to habit to compulsion to addiction. This is the other half of the debate that went undiscussed in the first two books. This downward spiral also provides an explanation of why homosexual orientation is so difficult to reverse. It is not so much that it is inborn or innate, but that it is compulsive and addictive. Based on the ideas of Satinover, I have constructed a freewill / determinism triangle below:

It seems to me from reading Satinover, that while the homosexual advocate may offer the inborn/innate axis to demonstrate his deep-rooted "essence" of homosexuality, that its real iron grip comes from the compulsive/addictive axis. For those individuals who find homosexual desire to be the "central organizing principle" of their lives, compulsion may be a more valid explanation than genetics. In a comparison to alcoholism, there may be an inborn proclivity (push) toward drinking, but after a choice has been made to drink, then a pattern sets in which may lead (pull) toward addiction. The author also presents many methods of treating homosexuality. He discusses an Alcoholics Anonymous approach, psychoanalysis, and medication. He also points out Christian treatment programs that have been effective. In all of these treatments, the individual must be committed to changing his or her orientation. The author also points out that abstinence is not the cure, but merely its precondition. There are twelve concluding propositions (p 245) the first five of which pertain directly to the subject of homosexuality. They are:

1. The general condition "homosexuality" is a loosely defined aspect of the overall polymorphism of human sexuality.

2. Given the present state of human nature, sexual polymorphism is natural.

3. Each individual's homosexuality is the likely result of a complex mixture of genetic, intrauterine, and extauterine biological factors combined with familial and social factors as well as repeatedly reinforced choices. These create a particular blend of impulses.

4. The godly standard of moral sexual behavior is much more narrowly defined than the great variety and natural polymorphism of human sexuality. Sexuality in the sate of nature is therefore commonly sinful. Sanctified, it is one of God's greatest gifts.

5. Homosexual behavior is difficult to modify because, like other forms of compulsive behavior, it involves innate impulses and reinforced choices by which sinful activities become embedded in the brain.

Homosexuality an the Politics of Truth offers a comprehensive, balanced and incisive treatment of homosexuality. Jeffrey Satinover presents the most hopeful view of overcoming homosexuality.

d. The most current book that directly addresses scripture dealing with homosexuality is The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics by Robert A.J. Gagnon. At nearly 500 pages, the book displays prudent judgment and exhaustive research. It is scholarly and meticulous with many pages presenting more footnote than text. This book summarizes, synthesizes, and analyses a prodigious amount of material dealing with what the Bible says about homosexual practice. Gagnon demonstrates with compassion and precision what the Bible says - repeatedly, forcefully and unambiguously. Homosexual behavior is contrary to God's revealed will for his human creation. Gagnon states the purpose of his book in the conclusion: "This book has been aimed at showing that affirming same-sex intercourse is not an act of love, however well meaning the intent. That road leads to death: physically, morally, and spiritually. Promoting the homosexual rights agenda is an awful and harmful waste of he church's energies and resources (p 493)." The chapter headings outline the content of the book: (1) the witness of the Old Testament, (2) same-sex intercourse as contrary to nature in early Judaism, (3) the witness of Jesus, (4) the witness of Paul, and (5) the hermeneutical relevance of the Biblical witness.

I believe that the first four chapters demonstrate conclusively that homosexual practice is contrary to God's will. These four chapters were pure exegesis in the sense that the author sought to discover "what did these words mean to the original audience". It is beyond the scope of this paper to exegete these specific verses. In the final chapter of the book, Gagnon enters into a hermeneutical discussion of what these texts mean for the church today. He asks "in a case like this, where the Scriptures are clear, the question of hermeneutics centers on whether any contemporary considerations preclude the direct application of the Bible's message to the modern debate (p 341)." In this chapter of the book, the author covers much of the ground contained in the other books, often referring to scientific and social scientific studies. He concludes that the unambiguous rejection of same-sex intercourse that we find in Scripture remains in force for the church. From this discussion I gained a few insights. While recapping the arguments, the author encapsulates why homosexuality is a sin:

"Scripture rejects homosexual behavior because it is a violation of the gendered existence of male and female ordained by God at creation. Homosexual intercourse puts males in the category of females and females in the category of males, insofar as they relate to others as sexual beings. That distorts the sexuality intended by God for the health and vitality of the human race. God intended the very act of sexual intercourse to be an act of pluralism, embracing the sexual other rather than the sexual same. The biblical proscription of same-sex intercourse, like those against incest, adultery and bestiality is absolute (encompassing all cases), pervasive (by both Testaments) and sever (mandating exclusion from God's kingdom) (p 487)."

The author urges the church to speak out because the practicing homosexual's own relationship with the Creator will be put in jeopardy. The church will become an accomplice by remaining silent and will become an enabler of the homosexual's loss of spiritual transformation and, possibly, salvation.

Gagnon finally addresses the same-sex issue in regard to both church and civil policy. He states: "with regard to church policy, practicing, self-affirming homosexuals should be treated as any other persons in persistent, unrepentant acts of immoral sexual behavior. They should be loved and ministered to. Minimally, those who will not abstain from same-sex intercourse are ineligible to hold church office (p 490)." This guidance is compared to Paul's approach to the man engaged in incest in 1 Corinthians 5. In regard to same-sex unions he says, "clearly, blessing such unions would send a clear signal that the sexual intercourse that bonds the parties together is acceptable (p 491) ." Gagnon further states, "at the same time, there should be no impediment to church office for someone with a homosexual orientation or preference who remains celibate, does not endorse homosexual behavior, and gives evidence of wanting to remain committed to the Bible's and church's teaching on homosexuality (p 491)". Here Gagnon neatly divides homosexuality into three aspects: (1) orientation/preference (2) practice (3) and affirmation. He is saying that (1) is not in itself a sin, that (2) is a sin against nature, and (3) is a sin against Scripture. Gagnon concludes by reminding readers that "the homosexual and lesbian are not the church's enemy but people in need of the church's support for restoring to wholeness their broken sexuality through compassion, prayer, humility and groaning together for the redemption of our bodies (p 492)".

e. I read chapter 16 of The Moral Vision of the New Testament by Richard B. Hays. These 28 pages dealt directly with homosexuality. The author presents this chapter as keeping a covenant with a beloved brother who was homosexual and died of AIDS. Hays prefaces his remarks by saying "The Bible hardly ever discusses homosexual behavior. There are perhaps half a dozen brief references to it in all of Scripture. In terms of emphasis, it is a minor concern - in contrast - for example, to economic injustice (p 380)". He calls homosexuality a peripheral issue. Hays addresses several sections of scripture giving most attention to Romans, Chapter 1. Here he says, "when human beings engage in homosexual activity, they enact an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual reality: the rejection of the Creator's design. Thus Paul's choice of homosexuality as an illustration of human depravity in not merely random: it serves his rhetorical purposes by providing a vivid image of humanity's primal rejection of the sovereignty of God the Creator (p 386)". He goes on to say that homosexual practice provides its own "anti-reward". He chides the "essentialist" viewpoint saying "the power of sexual drives must be acknowledged and subjected to constraints, either through marriage or through disciplined abstinence. But never with the canonical perspective does sexuality become the basis for defining a person's identity or for finding meaning and fulfillment in life (p 391)."

After a synthesizing the texts, Hays concludes, "the New Testament offers no loopholes or exception clauses that might allow for the acceptance of homosexual practices under some circumstances". He then moves on to issues of how the church should respond to homosexuals by asking several questions. The first is "Should the church support civil rights for homosexuals?" His answer is "yes". Next he asks "can homosexual persons be members of the Christian church?" Here the answer is mixed. He seems to say that an aspect one homosexual (orientation/preference) is OK, but that an aspect two homosexual (practice) or aspect three homosexual (affirming) could not be part of a Bible-based church. His third question is this: "Is it Christianly appropriate for Christians who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation to continue to participate in same-sex erotic activity?" Here is answer is "no". He states that same-sex sin is equivalent to any other sexual sin. His fourth question is: "should the church sanction and bless homosexual unions"? Again the answer is "no". The only two options are heterosexual marriage or sexual abstinence. His fifth question is: "Is the imposition of celibacy for a homosexual in a way qualitatively different from persons of heterosexual orientation?" Here the answer is more difficult. A practicing homosexual will certainly find it difficult to begin a chaste life. That does not change the options of heterosexual marriage or sexual abstinence. The sixth question is "Should homosexual Christians expect to change their orientation?" The author seems equivocal on this point. He seems to say that this is an individual decision. If individuals want to re-orient, they may try. However, it is acceptable for a homosexual to live a chaste life. His seventh question is: "should persons of homosexual orientation be ordained?" Here he again makes the distinction is between orientation and practice, saying that a celibate homosexual would be acceptable as a candidate for ordination.

I have one observation about Richard B. Hays. He mentions several times his core belief that violence in the pursuit of justice is immoral. At one point he draws a comparison between a soldier and a homosexual by stating that "can a soldier be a Christian?" is equivalent to the question "can a homosexual be a Christian?" He further professes that the violence committed by a soldier is much worse than the sexual sin committed by a homosexual. But then he apologetically admits that this comparison haunts him because he fellowships with self-affirming "militarists" but would find it difficult to offer church membership to self-affirming homosexuals. This appears to be major fuzziness in his moral vision.

f. The text for my seminary class in Multicultural Ministry does not address the issue of homosexuality as an expression of Christian diversity. What Color is your God?, by James and Lillian Breckenridge, skirts this issue only addressing issues of race and ethnicity. Maybe "What orientation is your God" would be too provocative of a title. This book does define some terms germane to this research. Minority "refers to the power position of particular groups in the United States. It also connotes the cultural group's experience of exclusion, exploitation, racism and varying forms of oppression (p 59)". "Minority status is something that one is born into rather than something acquired later I life (p 58)". Pluralism "views all cultures as being equally valid in claims concerning religion, values, and ultimate meaning (p 60)". Religious pluralism means that "no religion has the right to pronounce itself true and the others false. The only absolute creed is the creed of pluralism itself (p 69)". Postmodernism is "the precommitment to relativism or pluralism in relation to questions of truth. The signifier has replaced the signified a the focus of orientation and value. (p 60)". These definitions will help answer the question of where genuine Christian pluralism ends and the religion of Pluralism (with a Christian tradition) begins.

g. In addition to these five books, I also reviewed two journal articles. I was surprised to find that in a library search for articles about homosexuality and the church, most authors take the advocacy view. For example in the Journal Semeia, Victoria Rue wrote an article entitled "Putting Flesh on the Bones of God: Enacting Sacred Text". She describes herself as a "lesbian and theologian" and a "re-visioner of biblical hermeneutics". She takes an "advocacy stance of liberation theologies that cannot accord revelatory authority to any oppressive and destructive biblical text or tradition". With this stated, she argues that in the story of Sodom what the townsmen were calling for is not a homosexual act. She discusses at length a work by Gary Comstock (Gay Theology without Apology) who contends that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was the sin of inhospitality, especially inhospitality to strangers. This work further contends that to inflict sexual violence was a common way that heterosexual men humiliated other men, especially in the context of conquest. For these reasons the author believes that homosexuality has nothing at all to do with the wickedness of the Sodomites. The author then defines "clobber passages" as scriptures that misinterpret or reinforce age-old stereotypes against homosexuality, women and others. She spends the remainder of the article suggesting ways that these clobber passages can be made into opportunities for education and expansion, for breaking down false barriers.

In the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Michael Carden wrote "Homophobia and Rape in Sodom and Gibeah: A Response to Ken Stone". The author describes himself as a "gay man" and says that "modern biblical scholarship still fails to recognize Genesis 19 as a text of terror for queer people." The author attempts to "detoxify" Genesis 19, arguing that the sin of Sodom was the sin of inhospitality to strangers. The argument is also made that ancient Israel was like other Mediterranean cultures both modern and ancient. He presents evidence that throughout history male rape has been conducted by heterosexual males as a form of conquest or punishment. He says that in the act of male-on-male rape, masculinity is confirmed because male heterosexuality is defined by being the penetrator. Some of his evidence is based upon contemporary research among homosexuals in Middle Eastern societies. It is the author's contention that "patriarchal compulsory heterosexuality is associated with misogyny, phallocentrism and homosexual panic leading to sexual violence". The author concludes that the sin of Sodom was a sin of inhospitality which is signified by male rape as an act of homophobic violence.

III. Portrait of a Church in Crisis - The Presbyterian Church (USA)

Several years ago my wife began attending a local Presbyterian Church. The Pentecostal church had burned us out and the change was at first refreshing for her. She asked me to accompany her to church. For a while we attended together. This Presbyterian church advertised in its bulletin that it was a "More Light" church, a term which I learned later indicated that it embraced homosexuality as an acceptable expression of diversity. We winced at the occasional reference to homosexual practice as acceptable to God. We nearly left when a visitor to the church gave testimony of his "coming out". We did leave when the pastor announced that he would perform a sacred blessing for a lesbian couple. Because of my attendance several years ago, I still receive in the mail The Layman, a publication of the Presbyterian Lay Committee.

The most recent issue of The Layman drew the battle lines between the "More Light" Presbyterians and the "Confessing Church" Presbyterians. The editors of The Laymen are independent from the church assembly and support the newly established "Confessing Church Movement" which "declares without equivocation that Jesus Christ alone is Lord of all and the way of salvation. They affirm that Scripture is God's Holy Word, to be revered and obeyed. They attest that God calls us to a holy life, that includes honoring the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. And they announce that, regardless of what an apostate assembly says and does, their congregation will not ordain any leader who will not affirm these principles (p 7B)". In this issue alone 14 of 25 articles addressed the church and sexuality. The three lead articles were about: (1) voting projections for Amendment A (Should the PCUSA permit ordination to the ministry of sexual active homosexual persons?), (2) Speakers lined up, plans under way for national celebration of the Confessing Church Movement, and (3) the Moderator of the PCUSA General Assembly declines to debate sexual issues.

The Layman also included articles peripheral to the issue of homosexual ordination. One article notes : "A writer for the July/August issue of a magazine published by Presbyterian Woman says sex outside of marriage - including her own - is not sinful." The woman goes on to write that "I am highly offended at the insinuation that any and all sex outside marriage between a man and a woman is automatically sinful and incapable of being beautiful and lifegiving. I know this not to be true." In another article, there is a call by a director of Women's Ministries at Louisville to sponsor a second "ReImaging God" assembly. At the last assembly in 1993 leaders lauded lesbianism and celebrated a milk and honey communion service in honor of the goddess Sophia. One article discussed the perpetrator of "schism" and another discusses its meaning of as it relates to "apostasy" an "heresy". There are letters from Jack Rogers, the pro-gay denominational leader, responding to letters from the traditional editors of The Layman, who repudiated the assembly chaired by Rogers as apostate.

One article defended the term "apostate" as describing the assemble. Representatives from The Layman asked church representatives to affirm the statement of Jesus: "I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me. (John 10:5)" One responded that the statement "contains confusing language, sloganism, and premature simplicity. It needs to take into account more complex Christologies". Another responded, "I have deep concerns about declaring Jesus as the only savior. This might portray intolerance on the part of the PCUSA toward other faith traditions." A third said, "I believe religions are just human understandings of God which like fruit with different flavors, are all essentially the same." A fourth said, "I firmly believe Jesus is my personal lord and savior, but I do not feel that I have the right to say that other people may not find God in other ways."

Although issues leading to likely schism in the Presbyterian Church (USA) seem to center around the ordination of homosexuals, gay marriage, and relaxed sexual standards, a leader in the Confessing Church says:

"I refer to homosexual practice as a 'symptomatic issue' because this is not the real issue. The real issue has to do with revelation, i.e., the basis and means by which many in our denomination today are trying to legitimate homosexual practice. This is not to suggest, however, that the sort of questions being put to us today regarding human sexuality are not important or have nothing to do with salvation as some are saying. Only a very narrow understanding of salvation would claim this. We reject the false doctrine that faith should not inform sexuality, as though there were areas of our life which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords - areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him (p B1)."

In a "letters to the editor" section, one person writes. "I feel that the dividing line is too wide to be bridged and the Confessing Churches and the More Light churches should go their separate ways". I fear that the spirit of separation in the Presbyterian Church (USA) will soon become the fact of separation.

IV. Observations and Conclusions

After reading and reflecting upon the publications, I have reached some of my own observations and conclusions.

a. Polymorphism of human sexual expression. The scope of this research paper was intentionally limited to homosexuality in the Christian church, but the issue is much larger that. The larger issue involves the entire gamut of human sexuality. The longer I live the more I understand that human sexuality is polymorphic. There are endless possibilities of sexual expression: sex between women and men, between same sex couples, between human and animal, between human and object, and even "cybersex" over the internet. For some people, exposed feet provoke an erotic response. "Homosexuality" describes one aspect in this range of sexual expression. The moral divide, I believe, is not so much between traditional Christians and gay Christians but between those who put boundaries on sexual practice and those who do not. The official Metropolitan Church outlines a very limited expansion of sexual prerogative from "sex inside heterosexual marriage" to "sex inside of heterosexual or homosexual marriage." However, upon closer examination this expansion breaks down to mean "any sexual behavior done in private among consenting adults". The gender, marital status, and number of partners become a matter of sexual preference. Even the definition of "adult" is up for revision. What becomes paramount is that the behavior is "beautiful and life-affirming" in the eyes of participants. This position reflects the postmodern sexual ethic: "no form of sexual expression can claim special status above the others and the participant is the focus of value and orientation". A postmodern sexual value is the true antagonist to the traditional Christian value. Gay Christians are just representatives of this greater antagonism.

b. "Is" to "ought" / Science to morality. Many publications I reviewed alluded to the "is" verses "ought" distinction, but none really spelled it out. Science can address the "is", but the "ought" is forever outside the reach of science. One million "is" statements stacked one on the other cannot amount to one "ought" statement. (How do we traverse philosophically from "fish swim in the sea" to "fish ought to swim in the sea"?) Some books discussed the intersection of science and religion, but none the relationship of science (physics and metaphysics in the Greek sense) to morality (ethics in the Greek sense). These are separate modes of philosophic enquiry. Such statements as these are within the purview of science: homosexuality is inborn; homosexuals cannot be changed; homosexuality is not a mental illness; and ten percent of the population is gay. But these statements are outside of science: homosexual marriage ought to be equivalent to heterosexual marriage; and churches should affirm the gay and lesbian relationship. Some books that I reviewed attempted to maintain the distinction between value statements and non-value statements, but most ignored or blurred the line and uncritically jumped between "is" to "ought". To understand the flow of discussion, I believe we need to continually to mark when "is" jumps to "ought".

Although science and morality require separate modes of enquiry, they do indeed intersect each other. Traditional moral law states that human sexuality should only be fully expressed in the bounds of heterosexual marriage. Even if science were to confirm that homosexuality is inborn and that it cannot be changed, does that change moral law? I think that Jones and Yarhouse answer this question best. We should indeed consider science in questions of morality, but we should also consider personal experience, reason and scripture. The follow-up question is this: "Which of these sources should be privileged?" As a confessing Christian, I must reply that upon questions of morality, scripture must hold privilege over experience, reason, or science.

c. Sexual sin in perspective. C.S. Lewis says in Mere Christianity, "Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the center of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual (p 92)." Richard Hays endorses his position as do most authors. If sins of the flesh are the "least bad of all sins", then why are churches like Presbyterian (USA) embroiled in argument? This contradiction puzzled me for a while. (As an aside, I also experienced this same contradiction with former President Clinton. His sexual peccadilloes were less bad sins, but there was something in them that seemed symptomatic of deeper spiritual sin.) In regard to homosexuality this disconnect may be explained by looking at the three aspects of homosexuality discussed earlier: orientation, practice, and affirmation. Most authors agree that homosexual orientation is no sin and that homosexual practice is a sin of the flesh, but what is homosexual affirmation? I believe that this is where fleshly sin leaves off and spiritual sin takes over. Homosexual affirmation not only contains an "is" portion: "I affirm that I am a practicing homosexual". It also contains an "ought" portion: "I affirm that homosexual practice ought to be acceptable". It is this second affirmation that is splitting many churches. Some Christians count such affirmations as spiritual sin of the worst sort. Quoting Isaiah 5:20 they say, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Also, in Matthew 5:19 Jesus says, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." To take this a step further, what is the real issue for Christians who believe in both traditional morality and salvation? If homosexual practice is indeed an evil and it is painted as good, then those who affirm homosexual practice are removing from sinners the opportunity to repent. The Apostle John tells us "that if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (I John 1:9)". How can we be cleansed if we do not confess our sin? How can we confess our sin if we do not recognize our sin? Perhaps the true sin of homosexual affirmation has nothing to do with sex at all, but with denial of revelation and with transformation of wrong into right. How can repentance happen when there is no realization of sin?

d. Augustine and the only evil thing In The Nature of Good Saint Augustine teaches that the only evil thing in the universe is an evil will. This teaching of Augustine has permeated Christian moral discussion for sixteen hundred years. The main reason for "gay science" is to demonstrate that homosexuality is first of all inborn and second that it cannot be changed. If these are accepted as facts of science then perhaps homosexual acts are predetermined and not acts of free will. Traditional Christians may reply that we are all born with sinful natures and an orientation to sin. These sinful desires do not release Christians from responsibility to do right.

In courts of law, there are "mitigating factors". Sometimes these include drug addiction or family upbringing. In considering the morality of homosexual behavior, we may also consider compulsion or orientation. However, mitigating factors are never used by judges to determine guilt or innocence, but only to determine sentence once guilt has been established. I believe that homosexual practice is sin. If an individual's sin is mitigated by predisposition at the beginning of life or by addiction later in life, then I leave it to the "one who judges in righteousness" to determine appropriate sentence.

e. Sexual minorities The question of minority status for "sexual orientation" is mainly a political concern. However, when Christians grant to homosexuals legal status as a protected minority, we may mentally lump them uncritically with racial and ethnic minorities. If by minority one means a group of people comprising less than half of the population, then gays and lesbians are indeed a minority. Dierdre Meintel defines minority as "a group of people who, because of their physical or cultural characteristics, are singled out from the others in the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment and who therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination (p 58 Breckenridge)". Even by this definition, homosexuals may be a minority. One must determine if sexual orientation is a "physical or cultural" characteristic. Many civil rights groups in America, including the NAACP, support sexual orientation as a minority status. In doing so, these civil rights groups equate being a homophobe with being a racist. Many Black American churches identify with the discrimination that homosexuals encounter and are sympathetic to the gay and lesbian cause. The gay rights movement is compared favorably with the civil rights movement. Homosexuality is adjudged to be just one more color on the diverse rainbow flag. Church tension in African-American churches regarding homosexuality is even more complex than in mainline American churches, but a closer examination is outside the scope of this research.

There is also a question about what constitutes this newly minted minority of sexual preference. The group has grown to include "transgenered people". Will the multitude of alternative sex practices expand to include prostitution, incest between consenting adults, polygamy, sadomasochistic relationships, and man-boy encounters? At times our society seems to grope for boundaries to this minority status, but in a world of sexual pluralism how can boundries be drawn? What is it that informs a judge, or example, that consensual same-sex intercourse is a legal form of sexual expression, but consensual intercourse between a mother and her adult son is not legal. What code of morality draws this line? (See enclosure 3 for an example of this dilemma).

f. "I have a dream" by Martin Luther King. At this point, it is important to draw again the distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual practice. If we allow that sexual orientation is a legitimate minority, can we still hold that sexual practice is sinful? Is there a template upon which we can separate orientation from practice? I have recently received a clue from Dr. Martin Luther King about how to categorize homosexuality. In what may be the most famous passage of his most famous speech, King states "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." King provides a template for determining the limits of pluralism. As he rightly points out, we may not judge people by the color of their skin (or by similar characteristics). We may judge people by the content of their character (or by similar characteristics). The question then becomes, "Is homosexuality more like the color of one's skin, or more the content of one's character?" This is not an easy question to answer. Sexual orientation may be like skin color, but homosexual practice is an act of will, and must therefore reflect upon character. We may not be responsible for our orientation, be we must be responsible for our day- to-day practice. Below is diagram of King's two categories and a suggestion of what goes into each.

In other words, is being a homosexual more like being an African-American or more like being an adulterer or an alcoholic? If we respond "African-American" then we walk down one path to find conclusions. If we respond "adulterer", then we walk down another path and reach opposite conclusions.

g. Identity plus Universality. The church has always had a schizophrenic dimension to it. Since its founding, followers of Christ have balanced identity with universality. "By identity I mean that which distinguishes the church from the world-its message, its uniqueness, its particularity. By universality, on the other hand, I mean that which impels the church to embrace nothing less than all mankind in its vision and in its appeal. 'Identity plus universality' is not a logical definition, and it is not intended as one (p 22 Pelican)". When faced with the question of homosexuality, loving Christians demonstrate this schizophrenic attitude. On the one hand we want to maintain our identity by remaining true to revelation and tradition. On the other hand, we want to be universal and shine as lights in a world of darkness. The Apostle James mirrors this attitude toward the world when he says, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world (James 1:27)". We must reach out universally to people in distress, yet we must keep ourselves separate from the universe. How can we manage this attitude?

h. A Christ-like attitude toward sexual sin. Although scripture only makes passing reference to particular sexual practice of homosexuality, the Bible has much to say about sexual sin in general. I believe that our Christian attitude is best voiced by Jesus himself when he made two statements to the woman caught in adultery. First he says, "Neither do I condemn you". Next he says, "Go and sin no more (John 8:11)". A proper attitude toward sexual sin requires this balance of compassion and conviction. One conservative extreme condemns and sends away. The liberal extreme does not condemn, but neither does it reprove. The phrase "hate the sin, but love the sinner" is demonstrated in the words of Jesus. I wish to acquire this Christ-like attitude toward any who practice sexual sin (including homosexuals). Can the church demonstrate both compassion and conviction? I think that we can, but I must begin with me.

i. Paul's boundary for pluralism. In the first chapter of Romans, Paul points out that sexual sin is a symptom of spiritual disease. He also states in explicit terms that sexual sin includes homosexual practice. A table of cause and effect appears below:

Romans 1: Verse 21 Those who suppress truth do not know God,They did not glorify God,They did not thank God

Verse 24 Therefore God gave them over to:Sinful desires Sexual impurity

Verse 26 Therefore God gave them over to:Shameful lustsWomen exchanged natural relationsMen abandoned natural relations

Verse 28 Furthermore, they did not retain knowledge of God.Therefore God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

Verse 32 They not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Several publications cite this passage as the single one that most emphatically classes homosexuality as sin. In order to detoxify these verses, revisionists twist words to mean their opposite. "Nature" comes to mean "in-born nature" which may in turn mean homosexual. Therefore, "against nature" may mean acts of heterosexuality by those who are homosexual by nature. The irony is that through this convolution, revisionists identify themselves with the ones described in same passage, as those who "suppress truth by their wickedness". Although they "claimed to be wise, they became fools."

Spiritual wickedness is difficult to discern. Paul provides one major indicator or symptom of those who practice spiritual wickedness. It is sexual sin (especially homosexual practice). Paul tells us clearly that those who practice sexual sin and approve of it cannot at the same time be practitioners of Christianity. To repeat the words of Richard Hays, "when human beings engage in homosexual activity, they enact an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual reality: the rejection of the Creator's design (p 386)".

j. To commune or not to commune, that is the question. I turned to Paul's letter to the Ephesians for guidance about sharing the Lord's Supper in the Metropolitan Church. In chapter four Paul says, "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit - just as you were called to one hope when you called - one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all an through all and in all (Ephesians 4: 5-6)." These verses suggest that I should share communion with those in the Metropolitan Church, keeping unity in peace. But Paul goes on to say "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality or any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people (Ephesians 5: 3)" and "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. (Ephesians 5: 12-13)." These verses suggest that I should not commune with those who are sexually immoral, but expose them.

I am not discerning enough to look into the hearts of self-proclaiming Christians and determine if they are inside the body of Christ or outside the body of Christ. I have no radar that can see horns or halos on the heads of people. I always give churches and church members the benefit of the doubt. I always choose to err on the side of mercy rather than judgment. And yet, Paul draws a very bright line for believers in scripture. When a congregation expressly endorses the practice of sexual sin, my eyes can see that line even brighter. Sexual sin is the obvious symptom that people have abandoned revelation, but is not the nub of the matter. What runs deeper is the spiritual sickness that names good as evil and evil as good.

I did not participate in the celebration of the Lord's Supper at the Metropolitan Community Church in San Francisco. After much introspection, I am convinced that my non-participation was correct. My prayers are with the people in the Metropolitan Church that each may come to a saving knowledge of Jesus, that each may recognize his or her personal sin. I do not condemn them, but I must exhort them to sin no more. Just like me, if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

V. Bibliography

Books

Dallas, Joe. A Strong Delusion: Confronting the Gay Christian Movement. Harvest House, Eugene, OR, 1996.

Gagnon, Robert. The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Abington Press, Nashville, TN, 2001.

Hays, Richard B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation. Harper, San Francisco, 1996.

Jones, Stanton L. and Mark A. Yarhouse. Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate. Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill, 2000.

Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. MacMillan Company, New York, 1960.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Riddle of Roman Catholicism. Abington Press, New York, 1959.

Satinover, Jeffrey, M.D. Homosexuality an the Politics of Truth. Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1996.

Articles

Carden, Michael. "Homophobia and Rape in Sodom and Gibeah: A Response to Ken Stone." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 82 (1999): 84-95.

Rue, Victoria. "Putting Flesh on the Bones of God: Enacting Sacred Text." Semeia 74 (1996): 189-197.

Pamphlet

The Layman: Raising the Standard, A Publication of the Presbyterian Lay Committee. Volume 34, Number 6 / October 2001.

Bible

The Holy Bible: New International Version. Zondervan Publishing: Grand Rapids, MI, 1996.