Same-Sex Attracted Persons in the Church by Paolo Castellina

The Marriage, Sex and Culture Group, Anglican Mainstream* ÂŠ R. S. Harris

Same-Sex Attracted Persons in the Church: Orthodoxy and Pastoral Responses A Briefing Paper May 2012

* www.anglican-mainstream.net

CONTENTS 1. Preliminary Considerations: Terminology • •

‘Human Sexuality’ “Anti-gay” and “Pro-gay”

2. Objectives

3. Challenges Facing the Church

• • • •

A Broad Church Non-Judgmentalism vs Exercising Moral Judgments The Role of Scripture and the Practice of Listening General Pastoral Concerns of People with SSA

4. Identity and Self-Labelling • • •

Questions concerning ‘Sexual Orientation’ The ‘Homosexual’ Label The ‘Gay’ Label and its Associations

5. The Question of Christian Identity • •

General Issues The Biblical Concept of Identity

6. The Needs of Laity and Questions of Pastoral Support • • •

Lambeth Resolution 1.10, 1998 Accountability Broad Pastoral Concerns

7. The Place of Scripture, Tradition and Reason in Matters of Sexuality 39 • • • • • •

Heterosexual Marriage as the Biblical Model for Expressions of Sexual Activity The Jewish Historical Context Aspects of Church Tradition Antinomian in Jude: The Question of Moral Authority The Church Fathers Reason

8. The Witness of Testimony

54 2

9. Questions of Celibacy and Change • • • • • •

Celibacy Beyond Celibacy Robert Spitzer’s Study Jones and Yarhouse Questions of Harm The Question of Predisposition and Moral Agency

10. Ministries Already Offering Support • • • •

True Freedom Trust Core Issues Trust Living Waters Courage

11. Summary and Conclusions

12. Recommendations

13. Bibliography

This briefing paper was prepared as part of the process of putting together Anglican Mainstream’s submission to the House of Bishops’ Consultation on Human Sexuality. It was written by R. S. Harris, to whom we express our deep gratitude. 1: Preliminary Considerations: Terminology 1.1 ‘Human Sexuality’ The subject matter of this Consultation - human sexuality – invites the question: what is precisely meant by “sexuality”? The first entry for “sexuality” in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) was in 1836.1 Its sexual meaning primarily referred to the context of botany, which “plainly shows that sexuality has not always belonged to an exclusively human domain.”2 In a modern version of the OED, sexuality is defined as the “capacity for sexual feelings” while also referring to “sexual orientation or preference.”3 Given the different approaches adopted in understanding what constitutes ‘sexual orientation’4 – whether it is a concept with a precise meaning – it is by no means a foregone conclusion what necessary criteria are included under “sexuality”. It seems to be a word to which various other concepts can be attributed and interwoven. For example, the modern notion of “being gay”, with its connotations of innate “gay sexuality” and “this is who I am”, seems to have no parallel in other previous societies, even those in which homosexual acts were sometimes permitted, tolerated or, within prescribed parameters, respected. (see Identity and Self-Labelling below). When same-sex sexual activity is expressed as “being gay”, it is often closely associated with notions of civil rights and what, for many, is seen as an affirmation of intrinsic identity. Yet in contradiction to that perception, for example in the area of female sexual ‘orientation’, research studies show the fluidity of sexual attractions.5 The modern concept of same-sex marriage is increasingly being taken as equivalent in meaning to heterosexual marriage. This seems to have no recorded historical precedent. The proposition of “gay marriage” implicitly holds that homosexual sex is normative, and merely a healthy variant of human sexuality. Such a package seems to add dimensions to the domain of “sexuality” that imports various beliefs into the

Bristow, Joseph. Sexuality, p. 3. Ibid. 3 Oxford English Dicitonary (2003). Oxford University Press. 4 See especially pp. 39-70 of Edward Stein’s The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation. See bibliography. 5 See Lisa M. Diamond, for example: Was it a phase? Young women’s relinquishment of lesbian/bisexual identities over a 5-year period. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (2), 352-364 (2003). A new view of lesbian subtypes: Stable versus fluidity trajectories over an 8-year period. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29 (2), 119-128 (2005). Female bisexuality from adolescence to adulthood: Results from a 10-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 44, 5-14 (2008). 2

5 arena about health, what is “normative”6 and the criteria to be used to decide this standard, as well as the notion of ‘family’ being adopted into the equation in the case of gay adoption. The New Testament scholar, James De Young, in his scholarly work on homosexuality, contextualised within the bible and other influential ancient sources of literature, points out: “No known society has endorsed or given unrestricted freedom to partake of all forms of homosexual behaviour.” 7 De Young further states that “no society in all of recorded history has given protected minority status to homosexuals”.8 So, in the context of “sexuality”, what actually is meant by, and attributed to, a ‘homosexual’ or ‘being gay’? The fact that different labels, each with a different scope of meaning, have historically been used to refer to people who are attracted to their own sex, or engage in same-sex sexual acts, suggests the relatively modern notion of sexuality may not in fact point to a precise and stable concept. We know, for example, that some heterosexual men engage in homosexual acts while in prison (situational homosexuality) but upon release revert back to habitual heterosexual functioning. While some have argued such homosexual behaviour demonstrates an exercise in male dominance, these shifts in sexual behaviour certainly suggest that male sexuality is more complex than appears at first sight. To take another example, how do we characterise the ‘sexuality’ of a married man who considers himself a fully functioning heterosexual, and yet engages in one-off encounters of homo-erotic activity? Such a man may never feel attracted to men, yet on one or several occasions, he may have felt drawn to such experiences. Alternatively, a fully functioning heterosexual man may experience sexual satisfaction with one male partner, while never having the inclination to repeat the experience with other men. Another not so unusual example is for a homosexual man to feel averse to engaging in anal penetration (passively or actively), yet feel comfortable performing other genital-based activity. These examples show that male homosexual activity – in the context of what we call “sexuality” – is a concept with an apparently imprecise meaning.

Of relevance to claims that homosexual practice and the “gay identity” are both normative and healthy, is recognising the fact of a wide consensus among medical authorities showing that LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) populations suffer significantly higher rates of psychiatric illness in disproportion to heterosexuals. Such pathology includes depression, anxiety, self-harm and suicidal ideation. There are higher rates of substance abuse and alcohol abuse among LGBT people. It is typically said that these higher prevalence rates are attributable to internalised homophobia. However, “No empirical study has ever documented that these higher rates of pathology may be explained solely (or even primarily) by society’s disapproval of homosexuality.” (What Research Shows, Philip, M. Sutton, (Ed.) p. 53). Furthermore, there is as yet, no science-based concept of “homophobia”. There is no such category in the DSM Manual, the mental health practitioner’s bible of definitions and diagnoses of mental disorders. It therefore remains a cultural concept. Of the many studies documenting the mental health of LGBT populations, see particularly: King et al, A Systematic review of mental disorder, suicide, and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people, BMC Psychiatry, 8: 70 (2008); Chakraborty et al, Mental Health of the non-heterosexual population in England, The British Journal of Psychiatry (2011) 198: 143-148. 7 De Young, James B. Homosexuality, p. 261. 8 Ibid.

6 The significance of those examples is reinforced by Kinsey’s seven point scale,9 which is often used as a means of identifying the continuum that potentially exists between being exclusively homosexual (0) and exclusively heterosexual (1). That there are some people whose sexual predispositions are less precise, predictable or neatly-boxed, indicates that the concept of “sexual orientation”, like the more generic term, “sexuality”, is a difficult one to pin down in definitive terms. The ‘sexuality’ concept may, we suggest, reflect time-based, culturally-sensitive, perceived norms and beliefs about (at least) the following: • • • • • • • •

what is understood as ‘healthy’ sexual intimacy; how sexual behaviour may or may not relate to concepts of what is ‘self’ and identity; concepts of gender; how concepts of gender relate to manifestations of marriage and family; the connection or divorce between procreation and sexual activity; the question of the relationship between motherhood roles and beliefs about the permissibility or impermissibility of abortion; whether sexual activity is engaged in as an end in itself, or whether it is primarily (along with the possibility of procreation), a means of expressing love to another person; the psychology that underpins sexual behaviour across the wide spectrum of all sexual attractions and proclivities; whether sexual activity is expressed within a promiscuous, cohabiting or marital context, and so on.

In addition to all these potential facets indirectly relating to, or bearing upon, human “sexuality”, there is the place of religious faith and its impact on sexual activity, whether positive or negative. Given the many elements that may potentially be included by the term “sexuality”, perhaps the best way of dealing with this difficulty is to see the notion of sexuality as a cluster concept, in which a diverse collection of elements may be given distinct and varying expression. Because these elements may be, and often are, influenced by varying cultural beliefs about what constitutes sexual norms, this means we must recognise that the concept of “sexuality” is variable, culture-sensitive, and lacking a precise definition. If, however, we try viewing what is called “sexuality” through a biblical lens, what would we find? A prima facie answer could include, among other things: sexual intimacy enjoyed as God’s gift, to be experienced within the parameter of a marriage covenant and the prospect of being blessed by God with a family. The one strand that would connect all the elements together would be surrendering to God, the cluster of needs and beliefs associated with sexual desires and attractions.

See: Kinsey, Alfred C, et al. (1948). Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, pp. 636-641.

7 According to the gay historian Jeffrey Weeks, sexuality is a “fictional unity” and the way we define it is an “historical construction.” He rejects the belief that sexuality refers to a human quality that is known through all history.10 As with many words, whose corresponding meanings evolve through time, “sexuality” as a concept appears to have no exact scope, which partly reflects the fact of society having undergone many changes in attitudes, beliefs and perceptions concerning sexual behaviour and its associations with family, or even “recreational sex.” In what follows we shall take ‘sexuality’ to refer, at the least, to sexual feelings, sexual attraction and sexual behaviour. 1.2 “Anti-gay” and “Pro-gay” In debates attempting to address “homosexuality issues” there is a common tendency to mark out a division between those who are “pro-gay” and “anti-gay.” “Anti-gay” is commonly used to designate beliefs which reject all homosexual practice either because of biblical condemnation, and/or because of views about what constitutes healthy, normative expressions of sexuality and family relationships. “Pro-gay” typically refers to support for the perceived rights of gay-identified people, which may include rights of adoption, civil unions and promoting same-sex relationships in school curricula and so on. We believe this dichotomy of “pro-gay” versus “anti-gay” is shallow and encourages divisiveness, creating battle-lines rather than facilitating goodwill and healthy discourse. For example, to reject homosexual practice, by way of informed disapproval, should not be automatically construed as a rejection of the inherent dignity held by people who are attracted to their own sex. Rejecting or questioning ideology underpinning the gay worldview is often translated as a rejection of homosexual people, as persons. Because of this dualistic, quasi-debate, one is assumed to be either “pro-gay” or antigay.” In consequence, reasoned differences of opinion that happen to fall short of the gay lobby’s beliefs are swiftly relegated to the realm of bigotry. The “homophobic” card can then become an all-embracing mechanism to silence dissenters. The charge of “homophobia” is now made in many church communities. It is often made by those who deem committed same-sex relationships as morally congruent with Christian living and such advocates judge their traditionalist opponents at risk, or patently guilty, of Pharisaic self-righteousness. In our work and ministry, we are certainly aware of our own general brokenness but we do not believe that this should exclude, hinder or disqualify us (or anyone else) from seeking to uphold orthodox teaching on sexuality. Rather, we attempt to approach this contentious subject, with the prayerful and repentant heart of the tax collector (Luke 18) who, being aware of his own sin and his need of God’s mercy (verses 9-14), does not morally compare himself to others. Jesus Himself draws a contrast between this justified sinner, and the 10

Weeks, Jeffrey. Sexuality. London: Tavistock, p. 15. Cited in Bristow, Joseph, Sexuality, p. 5.

8 Pharisee who, distinguishing his moral standing from that of other “sinners” (verse 11), takes special pride in his good works (verse 12). All church members, wherever they are on the “Christian walk” and whatever their “sexual orientation”, are called by Jesus to carry their cross (Luke 9: 23), which itself implies a daily repentance. Thus, in the face of the charge of being “homophobic” and self-righteous, we want to affirm that salvation rests solely on the gift of God’s grace (Ephesians 2: 8-10), not dependent on anything we have done, and offered to all who will accept Christ. Furthermore, because of the fallen state into which we are all born (Romans 5: 12), any righteousness we have as Christians is a gift credited to us through the sacrificial work of redemption by Jesus Christ (Romans 4: 23-25).

9 2: Objectives Since it is not possible in one document to offer exhaustive coverage of all the arguments, biblical, cultural and scientific, that may be raised in objection to the position we adopt, we focus here on two main questions: • •

in view of a wide spectrum of attitudes and beliefs that have emerged about whether homosexual practice can be deemed compatible with Christian doctrine, what teaching should the Church endeavour to uphold? how should the church support and offer guidance to those who experience samesex attraction?

The way we answer the first question determines how we answer the second. In response to those two main questions, in what follows we tackle the following issues: 1) How, as a movement of orthodox believers, do we meet the challenge that the Church of England is a ‘broad church’? How in particular do we respond to the demand often made in both debates and pastoral practice to be ‘nonjudgmental’? 2) How should one assess the practice of listening to Christians, who are gayidentified? How should it relate to the pastoral and teaching mission of the church? 3) How should the church respond, in its teaching and pastoral roles, to the constituency of Christians who experience unwanted same-sex attraction (SSA)? How can the church be better equipped to approach and offer pastoral care and moral guidance for this constituency, especially within the remit of the 1998 Lambeth Resolution? 4) In what respects is the ‘acceptance’ of homosexuality in the ancient world similar to or different from our contemporary society? What are the meanings and implications of labelling, with specific regard to the terms “homosexual” and “gay”? 5) How do we reconcile the tensions said by some to exist between two apparently competing identities: that of the Christian whose identity is rooted in Christ, and the sincere and heartfelt beliefs of men and women who identify as ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ while professing belief in Christ as their Lord? 6) Is the Genesis account of Adam and Eve becoming ‘one flesh’ relevant to a modern appreciation of the meaning of marriage? What did Jesus have to say about sexual ethics? Is this relevant to the question of homosexual practice? What can we learn from the Jewish historical setting from which the New Testament was written? Can it be successfully argued there is a ‘moral structure’ that characterises gay relationships that are said to be lifelong and monogamous, a moral structure which is comparable to that of heterosexual, lifelong, monogamous marriage? 7) How can we bring into the discussion the testimonies of Christians who experience unwanted SSA, including others who are directly affected, so that the discussion has a ‘real’ dimension? Without that dimension the discussion might be at risk of obscuring or ignoring the need and pain that characterise the lives of some Christians. 8) What are the pastoral options for someone experiencing SSA? What directive counselling options might be available? Is celibacy the only option? In this

10 context we consider two key scientific studies relevant to the question of whether anyone ever changes their sexual orientation. 9) We take a brief look at several other Christian ministries working within this country, as a guide to how Christians with unwanted SSA might be supported. 10) How can Lambeth Resolution 1.10, 1998 be applied to issues of pastoral support for Christians affected by SSA? 11) What Recommendations should be made to the group conducting the House of Bishops review? For the purposes of this submission, issues concerning transgendered persons are not addressed. We believe that to approach such a topic fairly, it would merit separate treatment from those issues concerning homosexuality. In addressing the above questions we are not unaware of the growing currency given to revisionist interpretations of Scripture in the Church of England and beyond. Such revisionist readings render redundant the historic and consensual meanings of certain biblical passages, so that they no longer need to be applied to the modern church. Contrary to that, we are convinced that there is clear academic, biblical and theological integrity, in maintaining the historic readings of Scripture on matters of homosexuality and heterosexual marriage. Thus, in this briefing, we address the broad thrust of several of the most commonly cited objections levelled against traditionalist readings of Scripture, where questions of homosexual practice are at issue. We recognise that a key, but not the only, question in the current context is how the church can make an authentic pastoral response to those within its congregations facing these issues which, as it should, accommodates moral and theological considerations. We argue that orthodox teaching continues to be relevant and appropriate for the Church and not just to those for whom orthodoxy is more appealing or reflective of their tradition. .

3: Challenges Facing the Church 3:1 A Broad Church The Church of England is sometimes described as a ‘broad church’. This is understood to mean the church is able to accommodate within its ranks a wide spectrum of theological beliefs and positions. The official position of the Church of England on human sexuality is currently expressed in the General Synod’s resolution of November 1987 which says: This Synod affirms that the biblical and traditional teaching on chastity and fidelity in personal relationships is a response to, and expression of, God’s love for each one of us, and in particular affirms: 1. that sexual intercourse is an act of total commitment, which belongs properly within a permanent married relationship 2. that fornication and adultery are sins against this ideal, and are to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion 3. that homosexual genital acts also fall short of this ideal, and likewise to be met with a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion 4. that all Christians are called to be exemplary in all spheres of morality, and that holiness of life is particularly required of Christian leaders. Of persuasive but not definitive authority are the two reports from the House of Bishops, Issues in Human Sexuality (1991) and Some Issues in Human Sexuality (2003). Within the church, however, there are other voices, including those of groupings such as Anglican Mainstream itself. Amongst these voices, on matters of sexuality, LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) Anglican voices have in recent years gained growing notice, through organisations like Changing Attitude, which advocates same-sex relationships.11 How much support the various groups have is problematic. In a word, it is uneven. Thus of two dozen Patrons who support the beliefs and work of Changing Attitude, two thirds are Bishops from across the Anglican Communion.12 By contrast, True Freedom Trust, a ministry upholding traditionalist biblical patterning for sexual relationships has support from three Anglican Bishops on its Council of Reference.13 Of course, it remains the case that whatever individual Bishops lend support to, the official teaching of the Church of England remains as authoritatively set out by the General Synod - that heterosexual marriage is the only God-ordained setting for sexual intimacy. The problem here, therefore, is that there are bishops and other church leaders who either visibly oppose or do not show visible support for the church’s teaching. It is not surprising that church members and the public at large find this confusing. 11

Changing Attitude believes that a same-sex relationship is “no less than a heterosexual Christian marriage, [and] is a reflection of Christ’s covenanted love for his Church. It is no less a vehicle of grace, and is no less worthy of the Church’s support and blessing.” http://changingattitude.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2010/11/All-Gods-Children.pdf p.2. 12 http://changingattitude.org.uk/about-changing-attitude/who-we-are/patrons 13 http://www.truefreedomtrust.co.uk/council_of_reference

To complete the picture one should note that in February 2007, General Synod passed an amendment that, among other things, called upon the Church of England to welcome Gay and Lesbian Christians as full members of the Church. The exact significance of this is contested. It is common ground that the twofold Christian mission, to love God, and to love others as oneself (Mark 12: 28-31), obliges the Church to extend a warm welcome to all people, irrespective of their lifestyles (1 John 4: 19-21). Since Jesus’ ministry included deliberate outreach to a wide spectrum of “sinners” – including prostitutes and adulterers – the Church would risk selfrighteousness if it ignored this goal which is part of the Church’s mission field. Yet, while Jesus readily ministered to everyone, either through words of teaching or informal relationships, there is no evidence to suggest that he affirmed the sin of others. The former Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt draws a distinction between ‘welcoming’ people from that of ‘affirming’ them in ways that are contrary to Church teaching,14 a position that was conveyed in the 1991 Statement of the House of Bishops, Issues in Human Sexuality. Fundamentally important as the church’s official teaching is, we also have to be clear about pastoral care. In particular, questions have arisen about the place of pastoral care given to those who experience SSA but do not align themselves to the ‘gay’ label with its associated ideology. Such persons are seeking pastoral help and guidance but for whom the church may not always be the first port of call. (See below Questions of Celibacy and Change). Before addressing the general questions, it is important to deal with three background issues: non-judgmentalism; the relevance and authority of what the Bible says; and the listening process. 3:2 Non-Judgmentalism vs Exercising Moral Judgments There is a general climate in society, reflected in the church, in which adopting a nonjudgmentalist stance has become an apparent end in itself, even held up as a cardinal virtue. By contrast, the scriptures upon which our Christian faith rests, contains much that prompts us as part of our personal discipleship to exercise moral judgments on many issues. Moreover, this ‘bias against judgmentalism’ is not applied evenhandedly. In regard to some issues there is almost an eagerness to adopt a highly judgmental position. For example, our society has no reluctance in moralising about relatively less controversial behaviours connected to certain important, topical causes. Thus the ways in which some multi-national corporations unfairly treat their employees is routinely presented as ‘slave labour’. Of course the need to develop Fair Trade commerce is and should be a growing concern for Christians and non-Christians alike: it requires and demonstrates an exercise in moral judgment about “right” and “wrong” moral conduct.

Nolland, Lisa et al. God, Gays and the Church, pp. 1-2.

13 In another topical example, a number of church leaders have publicly spoken out against the greed and perceived unethical practices of the global banking world.15 One perception conveyed here is that the church has passionately taken on these moral issues with a view to help ‘putting in order’ the finance and banking sector for the common good of all. Another perspective offered is that if the church had kept silent on such morally pervasive issues as these noted examples, it would have failed in its moral leadership. By contrast, there is a strong belief in some quarters that the church should not be openly (or privately) conveying moral teaching on personal sexual behaviour, such as homosexual practice. It is argued that such behaviour is, and should be, left in the private domain, and not the subject of church disapproval, even when such behaviour is contrary to the church teaching about what is to be reserved to a monogamous relationship. It may be argued that the moral issues exemplified by Fair Trade and the banking world are different because they are of concern not only to the church but also to the wider society. These examples would suggest there is no social unease about moralising and “judging” the behaviours of others per se, if the object of our moralising does not broach a controversial topic relating to ‘private’ or ‘personal’ behaviour. In spite of what is said by some commentators who portray Jesus as being a beacon of moral tolerance, such a position is not easily reconciled with the Jesus of the Gospels who on many occasions demonstrated his moral disapproval in unequivocal terms. We note several examples: his angry rebuke to those using the Temple as a place of commerce (John 2: 13-16); his loving exhortation to the woman caught in adultery to “leave your life of sin” (John 8: 11); his repeated condemnation of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (Mark 7:5, Luke 12.56 and 13.15). We understand that Christ’s willingness to express moral disapproval about “wrongs”, in no way diminishes or negates his abundant grace and love on offer to all people (2 Peter 3:9; John 3: 16-17). Likewise, God has bestowed blessing on the church, through its ministers, to be dispensers of His love and grace, while also pointing people away from error (James 5: 20). See Section 7 below: The Place of Scripture, Tradition and Reason in Matters of Sexuality. On questions of homosexuality and identity, the withholding of moral judgement is illustrated by comments in an essay, Sexuality and Identity, published as part of the Anglican Communion’s official resource to enable listening and dialogue.16 The context refers, in part, to Christians who have reconciled their ‘gayness’ and belief in homosexual practice. The essay’s co-authors, who are both ordained Anglican priests, believe: Exploring identity is further complicated if we answer other people’s questions for them. 15

See for example: “Rowan Williams warns of ‘urgent issues’ raised by protests as third St Paul’s clergyman resigns”, Daily Telegraph, 31 October 2011; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion /8860136/Rowan-Williams-warns-of-urgent-issues-raised-by-protests-as-third-St-Pauls-clergymanresigns.html; “Church leaders accuse bankers of losing their 'moral moorings’, Daily Telegraph, 5 November 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8872333/Church-leaders-accuse-bankers-oflosing-their-moral-moorings.html?vm=r 16 Groves, Philip. The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality.

They further assert: We think it is important that we do not begin by answering the question ‘Who are you?’ for others. This can lead to an impression that we assume we know more about other people than they know about themselves. The very idea of a listening process grows out of this: we cannot fully know who someone is unless we have listened to them answer their own questions about their identity.17 In matters of sexual ethics, what distinguishes the “sin” of illicit sexual behaviour from, say, the “sin” of unethical investments or the unethical behaviour of the banking world? The former seems to be ring-fenced from specific public moral commentary, because a culture of “privatised” morality has grown hostile to the moral relationship norms prescribed by the bible. However, the latter is deemed to merit moral evaluation by the church, even condemnation. It would seem that the test to determine why one case is deemed acceptable for moral judgment, while the other is not, is in fact based on political sensitivities. We note an overall cultural and church trend that honours gay sensitivities, so that church and society treads with extreme care, so as not to trigger the wrath of the gay lobby’s indictment of “homophobia.” As long as the activist voice challenging the church’s beliefs goes unchallenged, the church’s silence effectively gives a force of authority to those voices proclaiming gay ideology. 3.3 The Role of Scripture and the Practice of Listening In light of these comments, how should church ministers respond to questions from church members about homosexuality? Since the questions may have both doctrinal and pastoral aspects, should the potential personal sensitivity of the pastoral aspect always predominate? As with all guidance and pastoral counselling, great sensitivity is certainly needed that takes account of “where people are at.” But that surely does not mean that the pastoral objective must permanently and exclusively be one of “listening”, without any import of teaching or moral direction, at any time? If taken to its logical conclusion, ‘listening’ without a teaching dimension, would render redundant the teaching component of Scripture. In the context of practising love and compassion, clergy would certainly need a big reserve of patience, and wisdom to determine when and how pastoral guidance and moral direction should be exercised. On the status of and objectives served by Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), the Apostle Paul places the Scripture’s remit in a broad perspective: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. This statement about the scope and role of Scripture directly challenges, even offends, the mood of our times, in which questions of “authority” that culturally underpin our 17

Ibid., p. 218.

15 choices are said to come not from Scripture, but from the dictates of individualism. Whatever opposes individual choice is often rejected as oppressive, paternalistic, patronising, old-fashioned and even harmful to full human flourishing. Yet Christ promises a “full” life to all who receive him: “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” (John 10: 10). The reference here, at the very least, refers to the manifold blessings both in this temporal life and the life eternal. The Apostle Paul articulates this reality by pointing out that the Father has “blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ” (Ephesians 1: 3). Paul provides us with the point of ultimate reference and appeal, into which all questions and dilemmas converge: the centrality of Christ in the life of every disciple, under whose authority (“head”) “all things” are surrendered: In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfilment - to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. The “listening” by way of the Listening Process referred to above by the two priests, is in the context of reports from Christians who included those who have reconciled themselves with practising and identifying as gay or lesbian. They state that “we cannot fully know who someone is unless we have listened to them answer their own questions about identity.” On this basis alone, finding answers about identity appeals to reference points found within each individual. This apparently neutral position not only downplays the teaching (2 Timothy 3: 16) and ministering role of the church (Matthew 5:13-16) but risks substituting part of its raison d’être for a counselling service culture that is already provided by secular organisations. The church’s primary and paramount raison d’être is to proclaim the incarnation and redemption plan of the Lord Jesus Christ, with an open invitation to all people, to receive the grace of God’s free gift of salvation through faith and repentance in Him. Moreover, the central importance of the mandate of the Great Commission (Matthew 28: 18-20) does not suggest that we should consign the church’s teaching role to a lesser place, as if it were of secondary importance. By its very nature, the prescriptive dimension of Scripture means the church, as in the many generations of the last two millennia, is challenged to present the bible’s teachings, against reactions that can be sceptical, lukewarm, indifferent or even hostile. Pastors who engage in active listening when hearing their congregants “pour out their problems” are to be rightly commended. It is likely to be counter-productive if someone is immediately given a moral lecture, even with good intentions, about what they should do or believe in a given situation. However, this cannot imply that those ministering pastorally should shy away from giving firm moral guidance and teaching, as determined by the time and place. In line with what pastors are already accustomed to, we affirm the love, grace and patience that would characterise a pastoral setting. One challenge for consideration is that if moral direction and biblical teaching are eclipsed or replaced by exercises in mere listening, the ministering dimension of

16 shepherding the flock in controversial areas is left in abeyance. Those clergy exercising pastoral ministry would be rendering inactive their duty to minister pastorally and offer moral guidance to their flock. In all these situations, prayer should obviously play a key role, whether in the presence of the individual seeking help, or not. In 2007, the Church of England General Synod held a debate concerning Christians who self-identify as gay or lesbian. Archbishop Rowan William proposed as an amendment to the motion inserting the words to “welcome the opportunities offered by these Lambeth resolutions, including for the Church of England to engage in an open, full and godly dialogue about human sexuality”, and “acknowledge the importance of lesbian and gay members of the Church of England.”18 It is indeed commendable to engage in active listening, especially when accrued tensions and suspicions on one or both sides have over time, led to a breakdown in perceived trust. Nevertheless, if that is all that the church says or does, some important questions have to be answered: •

Does the ‘listening process’ have a demonstrable conclusion? At what point does the Church deem the Listening Process to have realised its objective, namely, that it has genuinely heard from the experiences of gay- and lesbianidentified persons in the Church?

•

If orthodox biblical teachings are to still retain their visible value and outworking in the life of the Church, there are several ‘elephants in the room’ for consideration. At what point does the Church begin to call Christians to repentance, when practice of any unrepentant sexual activity outside of marriage is assumed as either permissible or, if it is never challenged from the pulpit, may effectively be tolerated or risks being seen as ‘accepted’, by virtue of clerical silence? We sharply distinguish true repentance that involves turning to God for help, strength and wisdom to follow his will, from being made to feel weighed down and condemned by guilt. The Church’s call to repentance will likely be perceived as oppressive if it is divorced from proclaiming the Lord’s abundant grace and mercy. We are reminded of John 1: 14: The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. Speaking ‘truth’ in the absence of grace risks legalism and oppression. By contrast, ‘grace’ without truth and repentance is an incomplete package that effectively renders the place of such ‘grace’ meaningless. The ‘truth’ in this case is twofold: it involves the proper God-ordained place for sexual intimacy, namely heterosexual marriage but it also points to what the Church has long taught about God’s judgment on humanity. The Apostle Paul provides a list of sins, which includes adultery and homosexual practice, and warns his readers

Nolland, Lisa et al. God, Gays and the Church, p. 6.

17 not to be deceived: people living according to these ways do not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6: 9-10). In Paul’s target audience this warning implies that there is an absence of repentance and a preoccupation with sin. All of us fall short of God’s glory and are subject, to an extent, of our fallen natures, yet we are all called to repentance, on the strength of the Spirit dwelling within us. Without repentance, there are consequences. We encourage the Church to affirm its mission to speak this “grace and truth” into the lives of all Christians (whether identifying as heterosexual, bisexual, gay, lesbian, or same-sex attracted). Sadly, we anticipate that not all those who hear the Church’s message of truth and repentance will respond positively. We regret that in the LGBT world such teachings are likely to attract automatic hostility. In any event, we are called to love all people, including those people who choose to reject the messages contained in Scripture. •

Since the majority of people are heterosexual, it follows that the main emphasis of church teaching concerning intimate relationships ought to be about marriage. That includes pointing out that marriage is the sole setting within which sexual intimacy is legitimate. Sin, as understood by the tradition of the Church in its reading of Scripture, identifies all sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage as incompatible with God’s mandate. That teaching is as difficult for many heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals, perhaps more so. But the church’s calling is to lead people back to the standards of behaviour set out in Scripture - standards which are God’s provision for human flourishing – but to do so with love and compassion for those who fall short of them (the root meaning of ‘sin’), not least because we are sinners who need God’s gracious forgiveness and restoration.

One way of addressing the perceived tensions between the teaching dimension of ministry, and exercises in listening, is to compare the Listening Process as it currently stands, with a hypothetical Listening Process involving dialogue with the wide pool of people who have been impacted by adultery. While adultery is “still considered immoral, wrong or sinful” by most people, a Listening Process could be exercised profitably because: We could better understand and empathise with what leads people to make such choices and engage in such behaviour, and understand also the impact that adultery has had, subsequently, upon themselves, their spouses and their families. However, an open, frank dialogue in Christian terms would not be undermined if it were framed by the conviction that adultery is essentially, categorically, always wrong.19 The perspective we seek to have in this area is well summed up by a man who sought spiritual support for his unwanted SSA: There is a difference between saying homosexuality is unacceptable to God and being homophobic. When one says the Bible stands against adultery, one is not regarded as heterophobic. When one says the Bible stands against the 19

Nolland, Lisa et al. God, Gays and the Church, p. 11.

18 performance of homosexual acts, that is not homophobic. It is not vilification to say that God rejects some human sexual behaviour.20 3.4 General Pastoral Concerns of People with SSA On the subject of human sexuality and its relation to the church context, there are a number of compelling questions to be asked, the answers to which will have serious and long-term consequences. In our view these questions are not given sufficient attention by the Church of England’s leadership and are neglected in church debates. First, there is the need to address the pressing pastoral concerns of Christians with unwanted SSA. These people often feel isolated, are without viable counselling options and at real risk of being pastorally neglected, even ignored, by default. According to Dr Joseph Nicolosi, co-founder of the US based National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, those not identified with the ‘gay’ identity label are, for categorisation purposes, described by what they are not, namely, non-gay homosexuals.21 Society “now views this group with a certain derision, and psychology now perceives him as self-hating and misguided.”22 Nicolosi explains that the non-gay homosexual is shunned by the straight world, while the gay world does not consider such a person “their own”. He is “not likely to be found at parades or rallies celebrating his identity. He would rather resolve his conflicts quietly and discreetly.”23 In the church context, the Evangelical Alliance’s 1998 Report, Faith, Hope and Homosexuality, expressed concern for those SSA Christians “who struggle to remain chaste when more permissive voices in the Church appear to devalue their chastity.” 24 What are we to make of Christians who, holding orthodox beliefs about sexuality, are given pastoral counselling that is incompatible with their theology and value system? In this regard, possible questions of risk of harm arise, in relation to their spiritual and psychological well-being. Such people are often already volatile and confused in their identity and sexual leanings, and are seeking church support to anchor them onto a more secure footing. Advice or counselling that effectively says: “accept who you are because homosexuality is not sinful if expressed through a stable, committed relationship,” may discourage, and potentially exclude orthodox Christians from approaching clergy for pastoral support. Of clergy who advocate homosexual practice in the context of “committed” relationships, other than the pervasive spiritual questions this

Keane, Christopher. (Ed)., What Some of You Were, p. 13. Nicolosi, Joseph. Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, pp. 3-6. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Faith, Hope and Homosexuality, p. 29. The Report in the part quoted refers to gay and lesbian Christians. Given the orthodoxy underlying the overall Report, it seems that “gay and lesbian Christians” refers to Christians who have self-identified in this way while not accepting homosexual practice. 21

19 immediately raises, other concerns arise about the grave medical implications of homosexual sex.25 Because of the shame felt by those experiencing unwanted SSA or due to past hurts, many people will not disclose their struggles in their own church. They may prefer to seek support outside their familiar church fellowship setting.26 As society and apparently ever-growing parts of the church condones or remains silent about the question of homosexual practice, there is an understandable fear in many such strugglers, that to approach the church leadership for help would be fruitless or counter-productive. It is typically a source of deep discouragement, and potential further rejection, to be told by a clergyman/woman that “you must accept who you are” or offered the suggestion – and sometimes the direct advice under the mantle of “pastoral care” - that you find someone of the same sex to commit to and settle down with. Men and women in such situations, being as they often are, confused in their identity and volatile in their self-esteem, may, we understand, typically respond in one of two ways. 1) They may want to positively regard, and actively follow the pastoral advice, stated above, in the hopeful belief that their confusion and insecurity will be dissolved if they follow their heart. In these circumstances, to receive endorsement from or active encouragement of a church minister can effectively confirm or consolidate what already “feels right or desirable” in the heart of the person seeking counsel. 2) Others may grow deeper in discouragement and isolation after having confided in their priest their most personal secrets and shame. Such persons often make their 25

For example, anal penetration, while not practised by all homosexuals, is a risky activity. It can tear the rectal lining and so allow viruses to enter the bloodstream of the recipient partner. By contrast, the vaginal lining does not hold the same risk, as the vaginal lining is thicker than the rectal wall. As John Diggs MD states: “Common sexual practices among gay men lead to numerous STDs and physical injuries, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population. Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs.” The diseases found with “extraordinary frequency” among homosexuals as a result of anal penetration include: Anal Cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Herpes simplex virus, HIV, Human papilloma virus, Microsporidia, Viral hepatitis types B & C etc. See The Health Risks of Gay Sex, John M. Diggs Jr., MD, Corporate Resource Council: http://catholiceducation.org/ articles/homosexuality/healthrisksSSA.pdf. It should be stated that many other medical authorities validate such claims. Diggs also provides evidence to show the typically non-monogamous nature of homosexual relationships, a fact that is well-known in the gay world: for example, many “committed” gay relationships are “open” which allows for either or both partners to have occasional sex with others, as long as this is disclosed and mutually agreed. For actual studies that demonstrate the less monogamous nature of homosexual relationships, see bibliography, What Research Says, Philip, M. Sutton, (Ed.) pp. 80-83. Statistics published by the Terence Higgins Trust (THT), the largest UK HIV and sexual health charity, in December 2011 stated: “45% of new HIV diagnoses in 2010 were among men who have sex with men. Gay and bisexual men remain the group at highest risk of contracting HIV in the UK, making up 69% of HIV infections acquired sexually.” HIV in the UK in 2010, Bulletin, December 2011. See: http://www.tht.org.uk/binarylibrary/policy/ukstats.pdf. THT HIV statistics for the previous year made up “42% of new HIV diagnoses in 2009 [which] were among men who have sex with men. Gay men remain the group at highest risk of contracting HIV in the UK, making up 67% of those acquiring the infection in this country.” HIV in the UK in 2009, Bulletin, November 2010, Terence Higgins Trust. Link unavailable. 26 Keane, Christopher. (Ed)., What Some of You Were, p. 7.

20 disclosures, in the hope they will be encouraged to maintain a life of celibacy, or, alternatively, be provided with counselling options that are open to developing their heterosexual potential. They do not want to be given a line that fails to reflect who they believe they are as people: “you were born this way and must accept who you are”. Regrettably this belief position, though scientifically unsubstantiated and morally problematic, has acquired common currency in our wider society and, increasingly in the church. The “you must accept who you are” which can imply “find yourself a stable, committed relationship” is itself prescriptive. It is likely that underpinning such advice is the belief that to experience happiness, one ‘should’ aspire to settle in a “stable, committed relationship.” This implied ‘should’ is a form of moral prescription, arising from a moral judgment. The earlier discussion above referred to currents within society and the Church that tries to be non-judgmental, especially in non-controversial areas. Yet, as the above illustration shows, “you must accept who you are” with the prospect that you “find yourself a stable, committed relationship” if you want to be happy is in fact another form of prescriptive moral judgment. It is no less prescriptive a position than to believe “acting on my same-sex attractions is sinful and must be avoided.” We should also remember there are married Christians, for whom sexual conflicts involving homosexual leanings remain unresolved and may pastorally, remain entirely unaddressed. The spouses of such sexual strugglers, upon discovering, often in shock, the sexual problems that have sometimes manifested through unfaithfulness, feel alone, helpless and unsure from where pastoral help and guidance will come. In the above cases, it is submitted that the Church, in its pastoral and teaching roles, should actively ensure that such persons are offered a set of pastoral and counselling options, and body of biblical teaching. These would serve to further anchor their faith in Christ and consolidate their place of belonging in the church.

21 4. Identity and Self-Labelling 4.1 Questions concerning ‘Sexual Orientation’ We begin by taking a brief look at Ancient Greece, since this period is often cited as an historic precedent that demonstrates how the Ancient Greeks “accepted homosexuality.” Several general points and historic illustrations deserve brief consideration here. Sir Kenneth Dover, in his landmark study, Greek Homosexuality, informs us that in the language of Ancient Greece, no nouns existed that corresponded to the English nouns of ‘a homosexual’ and ‘a heterosexual.’27 This fact immediately suggests that what our society has labelled a ‘homosexual’ (or more contemporaneously, ‘gay’), finds no notional counterpart in the society of Ancient Greece. On the question of female homosexuality in the ancient world, the Cambridge Greek scholar, Simon Goldhill states: Female homoeroticism remained throughout the ancient world a practice without a name – though with many an insulting description – and a practice with no social status except that of reviled and repressed perversion.28 Goldhill continues: [I]t is impossible to find any example from the classical city [Athens] of a woman who desired another woman sexually. The idea was familiar enough, but it was almost invariably discussed as monstrous by the few Greek writers, all male, who do mention it. In our historical record of classical Athens, with so many cases of men who loved boys, there are no actual examples of any real women who loved women. We can only imagine a hidden world of female desire.” 29 Based on this account, lesbianism did not carry the “accepted” status that might be commonly presumed by our own society. (The word ‘lesbian’ derives its name from the Greek island Lesbos). Furthermore, lesbianism, though judged by many in our contemporary society as a healthy and natural variant of human sexuality, was not evidently perceived as such in ancient Athens. On the question of male homosexuality in ancient Athens and ancient Rome, male citizens could not be sexually penetrated, although what was unacceptable for free citizens, differed in relation to what could be done with slaves. In classical Athens, desire felt by a free male adult citizen for a free boy was “the dominant model of erotic liaison.” No other type of contact between males carried the “same prestige, the same acceptability or even the same claims of erotic bliss.” 30 Yet sexual activity between men of the same age who were bearded was viewed as morally unacceptable 27

Dover, Kenneth J. Greek Homosexuality, p. 1. Goldhill, Simon. Love, Sex & Tragedy, p. 76. 29 Ibid., p. 77. 30 Ibid., pp. 57-58. 28

22 and hated. In fact, to be called a cinaidos, (an effeminate male adult who allowed his body to be used for pleasure by another male), was an expression of hostility. These examples above serve to show that what was practised sexually between members of the male sex in Ancient Greece, shares no apparent counterpart to what modern society understands as the healthy and normative dimension of ‘homosexuality’, ‘being gay’, or ‘homosexual orientation’. Compared to ancient Athens, our society does not, for example, distinguish morally between the passive and active aspects of homosexual penetrative acts. Our current cultural orthodoxy promotes the view that those who are SSA, must, if they are to be happy and “not be in denial”, come to terms with their “gayness”, which translates as: yielding to both sexual feelings and sexual attractions through sexual behaviour. Through ‘coming out’, such individuals are urged to claim or embrace their gay identity, even when such a choice may fail to resonate with, and even offend, their deepest felt values or general inclinations. We identify some of the historical attempts made to label people who experience attraction to their own sex, with a view to assessing how these bear upon questions of identity and self-determination, and, further below, the place of Christian identity. We should note that throughout history, a number of words have been used to describe homosexuals, many of them derogatory. 4.2 The ‘Homosexual’ Label While some focus in this subsection is given to the concept of Christian identity as it relates to some of the secular concepts, the question of Christian identity is considered in more detail below. See: 5: The Question of Christian Identity. The word ‘homosexual’ was coined in 1869 by the German-Hungarian, Károly Mária Kertbeny. His noun for the male homosexual was Homosexualisten, Homosexualistinnen for the female homosexual. Eleven years later, the term Heterosexualität – ‘heterosexuality’ – was used by Kertbeny in a science book, though he himself was not a scientist.31 On the question of the distinction between sodomites and homosexuals, Michel Foucault, in his highly influential The History of Sexuality states: As defined by the ancient civil or canonical codes, sodomy was a category of forbidden acts; their perpetrator was nothing more than the juridical subject of them. The nineteenth-century homosexual became a personage, a past, a case history, and a childhood, in addition to being a life form, and a morphology, with an indiscreet anatomy and possibly a mysterious physiology. Nothing that went into his total composition was unaffected by his sexuality. It was everywhere present in him: at the root of all his action…It was consubstantial 31

Norton, Rictor. The Myth of the Modern Homosexual, p. 67. Contrary to numerous claims that Kertbeny was a physician, Norton explains that he was actually a writer, translator, journalist and polemicist, who never wrote in a medical or scientific publication “except in the limited area of homosexual law reform.”

23 with him, less as a habitual sin than as a singular nature…The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species.”32 For our purposes, we wish to address several crucial points flowing from Foucault’s assessment that especially resonates with our contemporary setting. 1. As homosexual acts have been increasingly perceived as expressing a healthy and natural variant of human sexuality, the sinful and “forbidden” dimension, though once regulated by canon law, is now no longer treated as taboo. Our law, having first decriminalised homosexual acts, has since progressed to according greater equality to homosexuals. The “forbidden” element has effectively been airbrushed from legal discourse. Culturally, the ‘sinful’ element is being increasingly relegated to the sidelines of what is treated as “minority” – even outmoded and bigoted – biblical beliefs. 2. Since the label ‘homosexual’ gained common currency, the homosexual “personage” acquired visibility as a distinct “species” or class in society. In the contemporary setting, we commonly refer to LGBT groups or “gay people” as a distinct group. 3. Foucault’s point about the sexuality of a same-sex attracted person being “consubstantial with him” is positing an ontological reality that assumes a self-identity that is co-existing with a sexual identity. This ‘package’ is assumed to stem from a “singular nature.” One key point here is that Foucault is choosing to define the identity of people who have homosexual experiences according to the measure of sexual feelings. However, without appealing to an external, objective reference point of authority, his judgment remains a personal one. Gay-identified people often convey the belief that their sexuality is the main, if not sole measure, by which they define their selfhood. But there is another population, less visible and vocal, who experience SSA (or non-gay homosexuals, as noted above). Such people do not use this SSA as a measure of their identity. We believe the St Andrew’s Day Statement33 declaration on Christian identity throws light on our path of enquiry that is otherwise strewn with the rubble of many rivalling beliefs, when it states, among other points: There can be no description of human reality, in general or in particular, outside the reality in Christ. We must be on guard, therefore, against constructing any other ground for our identities than the redeemed humanity given us in him. On the question of what constitutes human being for the Christian, amid the fallen, unredeemed desires that may still form part of this being, the Statement explains: 32

Foucault, Michael. The History of Sexuality, p. 43. http://www.anglicancommunion.org/listening/book_resources/docs/St%20Andrew%27s%20Day%20 Statement.pdf?vm=r 33

24 At the deepest ontological level, therefore, there is no such thing as "a" homosexual or "a" heterosexual;34 there are human beings, male and female, called to redeemed humanity in Christ, endowed with a complex variety of emotional potentialities and threatened by a complex variety of forms of alienation. "Adopted as children of God and called to follow in the way of the cross", we all are summoned to various forms of self-denial… It is recognised that while some people identify as “a homosexual”, no less than those who identify as “a heterosexual”, we are all “threatened by a complex variety of forms of alienation.” A general reading of this ‘threat’ of “alienation” is to surrender at the cross all those things that hinder us, or are incongruent with walking in the light (1 John: 6-7) as “slaves” to righteousness (Romans 6: 15-23; 8: 1-17) so that we might find reconciliation. The relevant meaning of “alienation” is elaborated by the words immediately following, that speak of our “adoption as children of God and called to follow in the way of the cross”. In this way we are all summoned to various forms of selfdenial…” Jesus’ words to all of us are a daily challenge: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? (Mark 8: 34-36) Whilst we acknowledge that, as part of our study of same-sex attracted persons, it is helpful to consider their self-reported experiences,35 we believe that without having regard to factors external to these experiences, the prospect of an objective and sustainable response that remains morally and theologically robust, is at risk of being gridlocked, if not permanently stifled. (For ‘external’ factors, see below 5: The Question of Christian Identity, and 7: The Place of Scripture, Tradition and Reason in Matters of Sexuality). Several problems arise from this claim about consubstantiality. It seems to presuppose that everyone who experiences SSA feels so closely and deeply identified with their attractions, that their selfhood and sexual attractions are intertwined to effectively be one and the same. As testimonial evidence bears out, this conclusion does not fit the experiences and values held by everyone. Christians who hold a strong sense of identity in Christ are often unable, or unwilling, to anchor their sense of selfhood on sexual feelings and attractions. (See below, 8: The Witness of Testimony). 4.3 The ‘Gay’ Label and its Associations In recent years, the growing cultural trend has been to label people who are sexually attracted to their own sex as ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’, even when this labelling is not openly 34

We take the claim that there is no such thing as a ‘heterosexual’ as valid in the theological sense of the ultimate, ontological reality that embodies a Christian’s identity, and that this identity is ‘wrapped up’ by an eternal destiny. However, the word, ‘heterosexual’ itself, and as an everyday concept, serves as a useful reference to speak about opposite sex attraction, and all that might be associated with this. 35 Groves, Philip. The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality: see pp. 217-237.

25 professed by the people so labelled. Formerly, the near equivalent term normally used to refer to people who were attracted to their own sex was ‘homosexual’. ‘Gay’ and ‘lesbian’ carry associations and connotations that do not always reflect the deeply held beliefs and self-identification of all Christians who experience SSA but who nevertheless are customarily understood in such terms by society, and sometimes even the church. Dr Joseph Nicolosi, a leading practitioner who treats unwanted homosexuality draws attention to a: certain group of homosexual men who do not seek fulfilment through coming out into a gay identity. These men have chosen to grow in another direction. The word homosexual names an aspect of such a man’s psychological condition. But he is not gay.”36 Nicolosi goes on to explain that the ‘gay’ label describes a “socio-political identity and lifestyle that such a man does not claim.”37 He explains that “great progress has been made in acknowledging the gay man in society.” But he asks us to see beyond this fact: Now, the same understanding must be extended to the non-gay homosexual. He has made a valid philosophical and existential choice. He is not a guiltridden, intimidated, fearful person. He is someone who, from the fullness of his own identity, seeks not to embrace – but to transcend – the homosexual predicament.38 In a letter signed by over seventy signatories, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, and a dozen Anglican Bishops and other clergy, have recognised it is individuals, instead of mental health practitioners (and by implication, the mental health bodies who train them), who: have the prerogative to choose the yardstick by which to define themselves. Not everyone stakes their identity on sexual feelings.”39 The ‘gay’ label certainly carries strong politically ideological and rights-based overtones. In contrast to ‘homosexual’ with its medical associations, ‘gay’ suggests an element of intentional affirmation of same-sex desire and practice. The ‘gay’ label often implies: “This is who I am.” Any medical connotation is absent. Alongside this, a society-wide judgement seems to have developed that expects a gay person to be “out”, if he or she is to be happy and “true to themselves.” To not be “out”, the gay lobby tells us that such an individual is living in denial. Dr Nicholas Cummings, former President of the American Psychological Association (APA) and self-professed “lifelong champion of civil rights, including lesbian and gay 36

Nicolosi, Joseph. Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, p. 3. Ibid, pp. 3-4. 38 Ibid., p. 6. 39 http://www.christianconcern.com/press-release/senior-clergy-back-christian-counsellor-inhomosexual-treatment-trial. Press Release dated 29 January 2012. 37

26 rights”, critically observed that when he was APA President in 1979, it was a “person's right to choose a gay life style, whereas now an individual's choice not to be gay is called into question because the leadership of the APA seems to have concluded that all homosexuality is hard-wired and same-sex attraction is unchangeable.”40 It is noteworthy to acknowledge that during his career, although Cummings treated clients with unwanted SSA, as APA President, he also appointed the first APA Task Force on Lesbian and Gay Issues, which eventually developed as an APA division. Although not all gay-identified people are ideologically aware of or engaged with “gay politics,” the default position seems to be that people attracted to their own sex are now automatically to be called ‘gay.’ Furthermore, “being gay” is presumed to be inborn, despite this notion lacking scientific support. Much of the time, the ‘born that way’ belief passes off uncritically as a presumed fact of life that can be neither resolved nor changed. Any suggestion of the possibility of change from homosexuality is therefore regarded as a non-option and typically arouses hostility whose effect is to close down free speech in this area. People who have received practitioner support will attract claims of swift denial of the efficacy of such treatment, and even supposed harm. (See below 9: Questions of Celibacy and Change). In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) voted to delete homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The DSM Manual, used in the UK and other countries, is the mental health practitioner’s bible providing definitions and prognoses of mental disorders. However, in 1987, the category of “ego-dystonic” homosexuality was deleted too, while any mention of homosexuality was completely removed. Ego-dystonic homosexuality refers to an individual who is distressed by his or her unwanted homosexual attractions. Simon Le Vay, whose much debated 1991 hypothalamus study showed apparent differences in homosexual and heterosexual male brains, describes the 1973 APA vote, alongside the 1969 Stonewall riots, as marking: a turning point in the history of the American gay-rights movement. It was the end of a long era in which gay people had allowed themselves to be defined in the language of medicine, and the beginning of a new period in which they have demanded, which increasing success, to be treated as a political entity – a “sexual minority.”41 Clearly, the respective decisions of the APA in 1973 and 1987 to ‘depathologise’ homosexuality, served as political watersheds that helped set in motion the momentum of the gay rights movement.

40 41

http://www.narth.com/docs/cummings.html?vm=r Le Vay, Simon. Queer Science, p. 211.

27 5. The Question of Christian Identity 5.1 General Issues According to Canon Dr Ian Douglas, identity politics is the “arena in which the conflicts over human sexuality in the Anglican Communion are being fought.” He defines ‘identity politics’ as “the way by which individuals or groups seek to assert some aspect of who they are or see themselves to be, [which] can be empowering and life-affirming while at the same time oppressive and hurtful.” If the Anglican Communion is to connect with the Listening Process authentically across different cultures of the Communion, “then ‘unpacking’ the power of identities and identity politics is important to the process.”42 We have considered above some aspects of the secular labelling used to identify people who experience SSA. Whatever is to be understood by or attributed to questions of sexual identity, the challenging question is: how can we reconcile or resolve the tensions of “identity politics” of self-professed Christians, who are also gay-identified, or merely confused about ‘who’ they are? According to gay historian, Rictor Norton, the label ‘homosexual’: clearly followed rather than preceded the identity; it was not something ‘constructed’ by society in order to identify and control a deviant group; on the contrary, it was for the sake of achieving public tolerance of the behaviour of an identifiable group that the label was invented, by that group themselves.”43 Whether the label ‘homosexual’ merely followed rather than notionally preceded the existence of this identity, prompts us to ask what exactly is meant by “identity” in the context of Christians who experience SSA? In attempting to address such big questions of human identity and ‘who we are’, it is not unusual today for Christians to appeal to a diverse range of sources and disciplines, such as: religious doctrines; philosophical doctrines; psychological theories and political ideologies. By contrast, even though emerging currents in the church appear to make increasing appeal to political ideologies and social justice causes, in this section, on the basis of the current church context and its relationship to Christians, we focus on the biblical aspects that we believe constitute orthodox biblical doctrine about ‘identity’. For example, the justice dimension of the US civil rights movement has been adopted by many LGBT activists, who believe their cause of unfettered equality44 is a fair 42

Groves, Philip. The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality, p. 27. Norton, Rictor. The Myth of the Modern Homosexual, p. 68. 44 We use the term “unfettered equality”, to refer, for example, to demands for rights in civil or religious marriage for same-sex couples. Traditionalists argue, among other reasons, that to speak of same-sex marriage is a ‘category mistake’. We argue it is “unfettered” because the extension of the right ignores the boundaries inherent in the traditional meaning of ‘marriage’. Another example of “unfettered equality” is for a same-sex couple to have children conceived through IVF, so that biological kinship is intentionally separated from one of the natural parents. This right is understood as 43

28 response to the “wrongs” society has inflicted upon their constituency’s perceived rights.45 It is our firm conviction that our primary appeal should be made to what the bible says about a Christian’s identity. A biblically informed response would automatically hold equivalence for questions pertaining to the “identity” of heterosexuals too. Since the Bible is the only basis of referral from which we can understand Christ, and our relationship to Him, we hope to therefore show how such answers address the dilemma of identity. There is certainly an overall consensus, more often unspoken than routinely acknowledged, that there is no notional concept of a “gay” or “homosexual” identity in the Old and New Testaments. Neither is any corresponding “identity” label for “heterosexual” mentioned. The Revd Mario Bergner, Director of Redeemed Lives,46 a pastoral ministry supporting Christians with unwanted SSA who seek to live according to traditionalist readings of Scripture, states: …Holy Scripture never identifies people according to their sexual attractions…but divides people into two groups, male and female (Genesis 1: 27) with redemption offered to each. Therefore, to subdivide humanity further, such as into the categories gay, lesbian and transgender, is an extra-biblical concept.47 The question of a concept being ‘extra-biblical’ may not, be problematic per se. But we must ask if such an extra-biblical concept of identity harmonises with the Scripture-wide narrative. If we claim it is incompatible with Scripture, will the argument from ‘silence’ be used as an argument for compatibility? There are two ways of addressing this question. If “identity in Christ” which is supernatural and not a human construct, transcends all other claims of “who we believe we are” then extra-biblical self-labelling must ultimately fail. By contrast, if our “identity in Christ” can co-exist with other identities, this imports other elements into the ‘package’ of what “being in Christ” ultimately means. 5.2 The Biblical Concept of Identity In section 4.2 above on Identity and Self-Labelling, we stated that: “as part of our study of same-sex attracted persons, it is helpful to consider their self-reported experiences,48 [but] we believe that without having regard to factors external to these experiences, the prospect of an objective and sustainable response that remains morally and theologically robust, is at risk of being gridlocked, if not permanently stifled.” “unfettered” because no limit is placed on the ‘right’ being asserted, in accordance with the right of a child to have a mother and father, both of whom are biologically related. 45 For the sake of clarity, we want to draw a sharp distinction between, for example, the equal employment and housing rights rightly due to gay-identified people, and, ideological beliefs about homosexuality as a healthy, variant of human sexuality, actively promoted through primary and secondary education curricula. 46 www.redeemedlives.org 47 Bergner, Mario. Setting Love in Order, p. 149. 48 Groves, Philip. The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality: see pp. 217-237.

We assess here some key biblical statements concerning a Christian’s identity, with a view to testing whether being “in Christ” does transcend all other claims – however sincerely held – about self-identity. We take “external” factors to mean what is biblically offered as answers to the dilemma of identity. _ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1: 27 As Genesis makes clear, without any caveats, all people bear the divine image (irrespective of their beliefs, dispositions, identity affiliations and lifestyles). __ I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. John 15: 5-6 In this image of a vine and its branches, Jesus tells us that Christians who remain “in him” become the bearers of much fruit, which probably alludes, among other things, to the fruits of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5: 22-23). But without remaining “in him”, we lose our life-force (we “wither”), because we remove ourselves from the source of our being. This image is rather like an unborn child in the womb who, if separated from the mother’s umbilical cord, with its supply of nutrients, blood and oxygen, dies. __ You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3: 26-28 Paul states that all believers are “sons” of God because we all share the same baptism and are “clothed” with Christ. Based on this foundation, categories of ethnicity, gender and social constructs of ‘free’ and ‘slave’ are eclipsed by the eternal nature of being one of God’s sons. __ Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. Colossians 3: 11 Paul appeals to some of the same categories that people can fall into. As to the question of identity, the effect of Paul’s statement is twofold: •

As “Christ is all”, he clearly transcends all reality. It also implies that he is the sole reference point for Christians. It must follow that other designations are

30 either secondary in value, or they may be out of harmony with what Christian identity means. We can say that being of a specific nationality, for example, ‘being Greek’, is secondary in value to being ‘in Christ’. There is no conflict between ‘being Greek’ and ‘being in Christ’ as long as it is realised that the designation of ‘Greek’ is of secondary and transient value. •

Christ is also present “in all” believers. In this regard, categories of ethnicity and other designations do not ultimately bear upon a Christian’s identity. Being either “male or female”, although innate and a designation of our physical nature, is, for these purposes, of secondary value to being in Christ. This Christian identity is not merely a labelling that acknowledges a close relationship of affiliation to Christ, but reflects an ontological reality, with an eternal reach. __

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 2 Corinthians 5: 17 Here, Paul explains that those who are “in Christ” are a new creation with their old nature consigned to the past. This is not to ignore the residual symptoms of the “old” nature that continue to cause real struggles for Christians. But the renewing power of being in Christ provides us with the “fresh slate” of a new nature, from which our identity is found. This new nature is combined with God’s renewing and restoring power over sin. __ And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. I Corinthians 6: 11 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your body. I Corinthians 6: 19-20 The context within which Paul speaks is one of him exhorting Christians to honour their bodies in a way that is compatible with belonging to God. On the spiritual basis that we do not own our bodies, Paul warns that Christians should not commit, among other sins (verses 9-10), sexual immorality (verses 9, 12-18) with their bodies. His list of sexual sins includes sexual immorality (porneia) which is taken to include all sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage. For a fuller discussion of porneia and its application, see below: 7: The Place of Scripture, Tradition and Reason in Matters in Sexuality. Caught within the scope of Paul’s list of sins, are “homosexual offenders” (NIV) or those who “practise homosexuality” (NNIV), (Gk. arsenokoitai). For the sake of clarity, we ought to highlight the fact that no one sin stated in Paul’s

31 list is any more serious than another, in that each sin is an act of rebellion against God, although the specific consequences differ. The context of homosexual sin, as with those of idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, thieves, the greedy, drunkards and swindlers, does not, according to Paul, define who Christians are in their essence. First, Paul explains that because the Holy Spirit resides in our bodies, we do not therefore “own” our physical bodies, especially in view of Christ’s redemptive work, meaning that we have been “bought at a price.” This implies, in the current context, that our bodies cannot be used for purposes for which God’s purposes are not being honoured and glorified. If we cannot claim ownership over our bodies because they belong to God, Paul illustrates a context in which Christians would be dishonouring God with their bodies, e.g. by uniting with the body of a prostitute. If our bodies are “depositories” of the Holy Spirit, our being or ontology is intimately tied up to the supernatural, divine nature and being of the Triune God. Second, the Corinthians Paul addresses were drawn from backgrounds that included those who practised homosexuality, among other sins: “And that is what some of you were.” In the words of Revd Mario Bergner, the three-fold process involving being washed, sanctified and justified means: First, through being washed – baptismal imagery implying the forgiveness of sins. Second, through being justified – being declared not guilty of our sin before God through the atoning work of Christ. Third, through sanctification – the ongoing gracious work of the Holy Spirit to grow us in holiness.49 We can add that the past tense of “that is what some of you were” allows us to consider three possible meanings, all of which had potential relevance: 1. The Christians in question were no longer acting out homosexually. This understanding would fit well with the verse in question. 2. Some of these Christians no longer felt in bondage to their same-sex attractions, although they may have still experienced same-sex temptations. 3. Some of these Christians may have been on a journey of change, transitioning between same-sex attractions and opposite-sex attractions On the impact of sanctification, David Peterson explains that it is “about being possessed by God and expressing that distinctive and exclusive relationship by the way we live.”50 “You were sanctified” (Gk. hēgiasthēte) corresponds with the noun used by Paul in I Corinthians 1: 30, “holiness, sanctification” (Gk. hagiasmos).51 __

Bergner, Mario. Setting Love in Order, p. 153. (Italics are those of original author) Peterson, David (Ed). Holiness and Sexuality, p. 28. 51 Ibid., p. 27. 50

32 He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will. Ephesians 1: 5 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Saviour from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies, so that they will be like his glorious body. Philippians 3: 20-21 By being predestined as adopted sons, the eternal identity of Christians is historically known by God (i.e. before our birth): in consequence, our identity as ‘Christian’ is not merely a label of affiliation. In virtue of “adopted” sonship, the relationship between God and his sons and daughters becomes especially intimate. The picture of where Christians are heading in the future is ultimately realised by our citizenship being “in heaven”, when our bodies will be transformed to “be like his glorious body.” All of this affirms the fact that our current identity has already taken on a dimension that transcends the fallen, lust-based, material realm. __ The meanings inherent in the above Scriptures show how a Christian’s permanent identity is bound up in Christ, and not in the subjective realm of sexual or any other feelings. We believe, as for the “gay” label, the issue for Christians is well summed up by Goddard and Harrison in the Christian Medical Fellowship publication, Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction: Issues of Pastoral and Counselling Support: For Christians the teachings of our faith rather than secular constructs such as ‘gay’, ‘lesbian’, ‘fluid’ and ‘bisexual’ provide the organising principles for the integration of mental life and sexual behaviour. Christians who follow biblical teaching in matters of sexual ethics define their identity in terms of Christ and their faith in him, rather than by the nature of their sexual attractions.52

Harrison, Glynn and Goddard, Andrew. Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction, p. 9. (Words in bold print appear in original publication).

33 6. The Needs of Laity and Questions of Pastoral Support 6.1 Lambeth Resolution 1.10, 1998 The starting point for our consideration is Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference which recognises that many of those experiencing homosexual orientation “are seeking the pastoral care, [and] moral direction of the Church, and God’s transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships.”53 There is an increasing perception that the fraught issue of homosexuality in the church has generated more heat than light. In recent times, a growing platform has been given to the experiences and concerns of gay- and lesbian-identified people in the Anglican Church community, who believe that there is no conflict between their Christian faith and being sexually active in what is championed as “loving, faithful and committed relationships”.54 Few Bishops, including grassroots clergy, appear to have shown any public enthusiasm for or endorsement of “pastoral care” in a context of “moral direction” as stated in Resolution 1.10. We distinguish the ‘moral’ dimension of pastoral care, (growing in self-discipline, self-control and restraint in the domain of sexual morality), from that which focuses mainly or exclusively on neutral listening (being provided with an apparently neutral listening board, from which there is no feedback or moral guidance). Perhaps some church pastors have not felt the need to speak publicly on matters that are automatically upheld in private. Yet the Church, including its clergy, serves both public and private ends. Public, in that teaching from the pulpit or other messages issued through Lambeth Resolutions and other public instruments, not least preaching, which are intended to be heard by the public for their knowledge and benefit. By contrast, the private dimension of the church is expressed primarily in pastoral one-to-one meetings. Since Resolution 1.10 was passed in 1998, the growing edifice of gay rights and equality laws seems arguably to have deflected the church’s active focus away from the outworking of this Resolution. The culture-wide celebration and promotion of diversity, that has come to be viewed as a benchmark of equality, will often be taken to positively and deliberately include LGBT people. In the church, one illustration of this is permitting clergy to enter into civil partnerships, with the potentially ambiguous stipulation that such relationships remain “celibate”. For our purposes, the question is not so much whether a civil partnership can be “celibate”, but whether the public teaching messages conveyed by such allowances reflects the intention underlying the “moral direction” of Resolution 1.10. For the sake of clarity and unbiased comparison, we ask whether it would be commonly accepted that a heterosexual marriage or relationship can be typically expected to remain free from sexual intimacy. Granted, there are rare cases where consummation in marriage fails to occur, but this exception is not the rule and may be but one symptom that qualifies it for annulment. Irrespective of what might be meant by “celibate civil partnerships”, such an allowance effectively serves to embrace and 53

See Resolution 1.10 (c); http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-1-10.cfm. Such a position is advocated by Changing Attitude. See http://changingattitude.org.uk/aboutchanging-attitude/background-information/what-we-believe 54

34 consolidate “diversity and equality” values. A further perceived consequence is that in conforming to man-made, legal constructs like ‘civil partnerships’, church focus on the teaching and upholding of either celibacy or marriage risks being obscured or downgraded. On the question of what every Christian is called to, whether gay-identified or not, the Rt Revd Michael Scott Joynt, said: With Christians in every century including our own, and in every part of the world, I should want to continue to say that every Christian is called to have his or her “experience” conformed to the teachings of Scripture, and then to those of the “great tradition” of the Church down the centuries as it has reflected upon Scripture intelligently and in the Spirit.55 In the church context, however, the growing public spotlight on inclusion is apparently at odds with the visible outworking and aspiration of Resolution 1.10, which recognises that “God’s transforming power” is needed for the “ordering of relationships” in the lives of those experiencing homosexual attractions. Implied in this Resolution, is that such divine “transformation” is capable of bringing “order” to those relationships that are broken in God’s eyes. By acknowledging such persons seeking both “pastoral care” and “moral direction”, the Resolution effectively stands as a precise pointer to both the need at issue (pastoral care and moral direction), and the source of remedy (“God’s transforming power”). We ask in which ways the Church of England can be equipped to respond to Christians distressed by SSA, who choose to live by orthodox teachings that place sexual activity solely within the covenant of heterosexual marriage. Goddard and Harrison, in Issues of Pastoral and Counselling Support, present a clear challenge to the church on this point: [T]here are particular issues raised in relation to Christian discipleship, pastoral care and counselling for those, whether married or single, who experience same-sex attraction (SSA) and seek to live chaste lives. People must be able to find wise Christian counsel and support. The church as a whole needs to be free and equipped to support and guide them and to offer viable alternatives to ‘gay-affirmative’ counselling.56 Christians who struggle with unwanted SSA often fear making their struggles known within the church due to fears of rejection.57 Likewise, disclosure of such struggles to gay-identified Christians elicits fears of neither being understood nor accepted.58 6.2 Accountability The founder of True Freedom Trust, Martin Hallett, urges Christians who are so affected to find a person with whom to be accountable.59 It is important to 55

Nolland, Lisa et al. God, Gays and the Church, p. 2. Harrison, Glynn and Goddard, Andrew. Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction, p. 14. 57 Peterson, David (Ed). Holiness and Sexuality, p.121. 58 Ibid., p. 121. 59 Ibid., p. 142. 56

35 acknowledge here that finding what is sometimes called an ‘accountability partner’ presupposes the church culture in question is both orthodox and sympathetic. Living Waters offers, as part of its pastoral care, an accountability group for people dealing with sexual addiction, which includes “pornography, self-identified and unwanted same-sex attraction, fantasy, compulsive masturbation, promiscuity, prostitution, anonymous encounters (cottaging), fetishes.”60 This accountability group is described as being for some the “first time people begin to see hope for change.”61 This is to be understood especially in a context of those who have never had appropriate people to disclose their sexual struggles to. Accountability and a supportive spiritual environment are shown to be significant. In the context of a study62 which surveyed 882 individuals who had experienced an intentional diminishing of unwanted homosexuality, 96% (843 individuals) reported religion or spirituality as very important to them. The elements of change that participants highlighted included: an understanding, caring, or nurturing…spiritual leader,…accountability to either a pastor or friend and support group [and] spirituality… [including] scripture study, confession to a spiritual leader, faith in God, prayer… All of this support was found to be: …conducive to inner healing, God’s unconditional love, acceptance and grace…and forgiveness, [and]…the Holy Spirit giving strength, comfort and direction.63 We know that all Christian disciples need the fellowship of the Church while walking the journey of faith. In isolation, temptations can become stronger. The journey of life – even in the Church family – can sometimes be a lonely place for some. Indeed, we consider those people with SSA, who can be at greater risk of feeling alienated from the fellowship compared to some other groups. On the question of disclosure of their SSA to others in the church, a common anxiety takes the form: “Will I be treated differently if I tell so-in-so? Will they still accept me?” Christians with SSA are often heavily saddled with feelings of rejection. Therefore, that they are members of a fellowship does not, in and of itself mean they do not feel ‘excluded’ or ‘lonely.’ There is often a need in SSA people to find a reliable, trustworthy person(s) to disclose their struggles to. A relevant bible passage here is: “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.” (James 5: 16). Until such people are found, SSA strugglers may feel discouraged and less understood.

http://www.living-waters-uk.org/courses/tag-accountability-group?vm=r Ibid. 62 Byrd, A. D., Nicolosi, J., & Potts, R. W. (2008). Clients’ perceptions of how reorientation therapy and self-help can promote changes in sexual orientation. Psychological Reports, 102, 3-28. Cited in What Research Shows, Philip M. Sutton, (Ed.) p. 30. 63 Ibid., p. 30. 61

36 6.3 Broad Pastoral Concerns On the subject of human sexuality and its relation to the church context, we believe there are compelling issues to consider, not all of them being given much, if any, regard in church debates, answers to which always imply serious and long-term consequences of one kind or another. We concern ourselves with the following categories of people in the church family, for which, we believe, there arise unresolved and even neglected questions of pastoral care and church teaching. 1) We believe that people who are SSA but do not self-identify as ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ are at risk of being excluded by default, from the church’s pastoral care. We feel concern that scant attention has been paid in this Listening Process to the pastoral care of Christians experiencing SSA who seek the church’s support and orthodox biblical guidance, with a view to addressing, and sometimes even resolving, their unwanted SSA, if this is their freely expressed choice. When so much attention is drawn to Christians who selfidentify as gay or lesbian, our spotlight naturally turns to Christians who either actively choose not to self-identify as ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ or, feel no natural inclination to do so. 2) We are concerned that the narrative of the ex-gay experience does not occupy any part of the centre stage of the Listening Process – a fact that causes us to ask what visible place ex-gay Christians have in this Process, and more broadly, in the emerging culture of the Church. In terms of public references commonly made to homosexual or LGBT church issues, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and other senior Bishops, have not accorded any visible recognition to the ex-gay constituency. Ex-gays are those who were formerly identified as ‘gay’ but have since abandoned this identity, believing that it no longer defines who they are as persons. In a number of cases, such ex-gay Christians actively engaged in a gay lifestyle, which can, though not always, be taken to mean being part of the cultural ‘gay scene’. Others may not have been so visibly a part of this ‘scene’ but experienced same-sex relationships or compulsive promiscuous encounters. 3) We are aware of married Christians who, while holding sincere and deeply felt intentions to maintain their marriage covenant, feel conflicted by experiences of SSA.64 Such people often feel led by an overriding need to save their marriage from potential breakdown, but may not have recourse to the appropriate pastoral support or counselling. Such difficulties are compounded by various professional mental health bodies who strongly dissuade their practitioners from offering counselling or therapy, with a view to addressing a potential diminishing of homosexual attractions.65

Peterson, David (Ed). Holiness and Sexuality. See pp. 133-135 for a discussion concerning Christian married couples, where one of the spouses experiences SSA. 65 One such position is from the Royal College of Psychiatrists 2007 Submission to the Church of England: http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf?vm=r

37 4) Great psychological difficulties often arise for conservative Christian parents who discover that their son or daughter either ‘comes out’ as gay or, wants help for unwanted SSA.66 How do affected parents deal with such news? What pastoral support do they receive that is grounded in a biblical worldview? In the context of the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10, the focus deals with the actual people who experience SSA, yet much needed pastoral attention and moral direction is also needed for others affected: spouses and parents, as well as any other people intimately connected with the SSA struggler or gay-identified Christian. In many of the above cases, a growing perception is that Christians may feel that the church’s position on sexuality today is at best ambiguous, or revisionist and gayaffirming at worst. Responses from church leaders seem to fall into one of the following categories: •

Adoption of an apparently neutral position so that no moral stance is conveyed. Instead, the priest listens to the individual presenting their problem, but at no time makes any attempt to offer moral guidance or direction, even when such guidance is requested, or needed.

•

An outright denial of the claim that it is ever possible to experience change in one’s sexual attractions for those distressed by SSA, and who choose freely to embark upon the option of receiving professional counselling. In the church context, we note a rare exception to this posture of ‘denial.’ In a letter signed by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey and other senior clergy (as noted earlier), they champion the “moral right” of people (both Christians and those of other values), who freely choose to resolve their unwanted SSA, to “receive professional assistance.”67 Where such professional help is denied, so that expressions of selfdetermination, motivated by Christian conscience, are challenged or rejected, there is “risk” of “causing potential harm” to the well-being of such persons whose autonomy is not respected.68 In cases where the possibility of professional counselling is either discouraged or not even given as an option, this risks carrying a similar effect to having actively denied the right of therapy or counselling. We understand it is the lack of provision, irrespective

Peterson, David (Ed). Holiness and Sexuality, p. 139-141. The twelve Bishops are: Rt Revd Michael Baughen (former Bishop of Chester); Rt Revd Colin Bazley (former Primate of the Southern Cone and former Bishop of Chile); Rt Revd Wallace Benn (Bishop of Lewes); Rt Revd Ken Clarke (Bishop of Kilmore, Elphin and Ardagh); Rt Revd Timothy Dudley-Smith (former Bishop of Thetford); Rt Revd John Ellison (former Bishop of Paraguay); Rt Revd Peter Forster (Bishop of Chester), Rt Revd Michael Langrish (Bishop of Exeter); Rt Revd Michael Nazir-Ali (former Bishop of Rochester), Rt Revd David Pytches (former Bishop of Chile, Bolivia and Peru); Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt (former Bishop of Winchester) and Rt Revd Maurice Sinclair (former Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone of America). This letter was first reported in the Sunday Telegraph. See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9046487/Lord-Carey-backsChristian-psychotherapist-in-gay-conversion-row.html. The full list of signatories and the text of the letter is available at. http://www.christianconcern.com/press-release/senior-clergy-back-christiancounsellor-in-homosexual-treatment-trial 68 http://www.christianconcern.com/press-release/senior-clergy-back-christian-counsellor-inhomosexual-treatment-trial 67

38 of the reasons for it, that can bear detrimentally on Christians who believe they need psychotherapy or professional (perhaps specialised) counselling. On questions of harm, it is worth considering what the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)69 has to say: It is worth considering that a given therapeutic approach to help someone resolve or cope with any specific difficulty might succeed brilliantly for a few individuals but fail completely for others. The generalisations that a specific type of therapy ‘does not work’ or “is harmful” cannot be made based on limited anecdotal evidence. On the basis of such evidence, it would be highly unethical to deny therapy to all informed clients who seek it.70 We consider further below the question of harm that is said to result from what is sometimes called reorientation therapy. See 9: Questions of Celibacy and Change.

NARTH is a professional scientific organisation. In addition to disseminating educational information, collecting scientific research, promoting effective therapeutic treatment and providing practitioner referrals, “NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care and the right of professionals to offer that care.” http://narth.com/menus/mission.html 70 What Research Shows, Philip M. Sutton (Ed), p. 47.

39 7: The Place of Scripture, Tradition and Reason in Matters of Sexuality Mindful of the emerging views purporting to reconcile the pattern of heterosexual marriage conveyed throughout Scripture, with “committed, faithful and permanent” same-sex relationships, we consider the following areas: • • •

• • •

How does Jesus’ teaching fit into the model of heterosexual marriage in Genesis? In what ways was Jesus concerned with sexual ethics? With regard to questions of legitimate sexual intimacy and that which was deemed sinful, what was the belief position upheld by the first century Jewish world? Answering this question helps us to address the often repeated assertion that Jesus was silent about homosexuality. That assertion often carries the implication that if Jesus was silent about homosexuality and therefore did not condemn it, why should we condemn it? What are the implications for our understanding of moral authority of what the Book of Jude says about antinomianism? What does the Book of Common Prayer say of marriage? Finally, we consider briefly the position adopted by the Church Fathers.

When engaging with the above themes, we are doing more than simply uncritically repeating what is, in the eyes of some, the “usual biblical line.” We proceed in this discussion on the basis embodied by the Church’s tradition. We take the Old and New Testaments to contain God’s word for humanity, which includes all that is sufficient for a knowledge of, and relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and salvation through his work of redemption on the cross. On matters of morals and godly conduct, again, in line with the tradition of the Church, we take Scripture to be our authoritative guide. 7.1 Heterosexual Marriage as the Biblical Model for Expressions of Sexual Activity For our purposes, with regard to the Genesis account of creation of male and female, and the heterosexual procreative union of Adam and Eve, we ask: Are same-sex relationships, which claim to be faithful and lifelong, implicitly excluded in view of: • • •

The Genesis account of the creation of male and female (1: 26-27; 2:7, 18, 2122), The sexual and marital union (2: 24) of Adam and Eve, and Any of Jesus’ Gospel teachings?

The creation story in Genesis is the setting in which the pattern of heterosexual union is first expressed in the world. Robert Gagnon, influential scholar and author of an authoritative and comprehensive study71 of biblical hermeneutics regarding

Gagnon, Robert. The Bible and Homosexual Practice.

40 homosexuality states that “there is nothing in the “big picture” of the Bible on sexual ethics that moves “in the direction of” support for homosexual practice.”72 A compelling question is: if the Scriptures are God’s instrument through which he makes known his general will for humanity, and if homosexual practice can be deemed to harmonise with Christian living, would Jesus or any other bible writer not have overtly indicated such approval? If same-sex committed relationships are, as liberal advocates claim, “of God”, can the apparent silence of Scripture be taken as equivalent to endorsement? Some commentators have argued that Jesus would have liked to openly endorse samesex committed relationships but the Jewish culture in which he taught and preached would have rejected it outright. It would have been a step too far to have got a “hearing”. It is true that had anyone endorsed such relationships in the first-century Jewish world, their claims would have gravely offended and provoked the deeply held- religious values of the Jewish people (see 7.2 below). Yet, to suggest Jesus was obliged to keep silent in view of likely religious Jewish opposition is to imply that his stance was motivated by fear. Although no one is suggesting Jesus was fearful, such a conclusion conceivably follows from his apparent stance of silence some argue for, and it might be plausible, if he were not God. Robert Gagnon explains: The univocal stance against homosexual conduct, both in ancient Israel and the Judaism of Jesus’ day, makes it highly unlikely that Jesus’ silence on the issue [of permitting homosexual conduct] ought to be construed as acceptance of such conduct. Jesus was not shy about expressing his disapproval of the conventions of his day. Silence on the subject could only have been understood by his disciples as acceptance of the basic position embraced by all Jews. If Jesus had wanted to communicate affirmation of same-sex unions he would have had to state such a view clearly since first-century Judaism, so far as we know, had no dissenting voices on the matter. Without a clear statement none of his disciples would have made such logical step.73 Another argument against the ‘Jesus was silent but not disapproving’ position is that his big claims about himself, already attracted fierce fury from many of the teachers of the religious law and others: his claim to be God and forgive sins undoubtedly served as the most provocative trigger of this anger, evidenced by charges of blasphemy some tried to bring against him. The opposition Jesus had directed at him would arguably, in its effect, not have been materially different to the reactions he would have received, had he endorsed same-sex committed relationships. Some might object that these two examples are not exactly comparable. Granted, both are different illustrations in their nature, but the reactions coming from the firstcentury Jewish world to what Jesus claimed about his divinity was hardly low-level controversy. It is difficult to believe that because Jesus was silent, he was effectively endorsing same-sex relationships.

72 73

Nolland, Lisa et al. God, Gays and the Church, p. 128. Gagnon, Robert. The Bible and Homosexual Practice, p. 188.

41 The Old and New Testament narrative contains numerous references to marriage, without ever suggesting that there could be a marital union for same-sex persons. When speaking about divorce, Jesus uses the Genesis account of Adam and Eve, which demonstrates what is at issue. He says: But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female’. For this reason a man will leave his father and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Mark 10: 6-8 We consider three important points concerning what Jesus quotes. First, some judge the Genesis account as being of mythical rather than historical value. However, if one accepts that Jesus is God, it would necessarily follow that his integrity is beyond doubt. On this basis, it would then be impossible to then suggest that Jesus was unaware of the supposed mythological status of the Genesis story. Second, God’s plan “at the beginning” was to create male and female and “for this reason” a man will leave his father and unite with his wife. This is a process with a purpose behind it: of leaving the family home, so that a new God-ordained union becomes established. The context of such a union has the potential for procreation. Third, this new marital union, though composed of two persons, creates a single unit: “one flesh”. The idea of ‘one flesh’ suggests a number of elements, perhaps the primary one being sexual: one man and one woman being joined together in sexual union. This new unit has a sexual but also spiritual and emotional dimension. For a further understanding of “one flesh” see the section below, The Jewish Historical Context. So, do same-sex unions – which some wish to call ‘marriages’ – fall within God’s ordained plan? The Genesis account clearly and unambiguously affirms the place of marriage which is heterosexual. The prospect of procreation is of course excluded in a same-sex relationship. For legal purposes, same-sex partnerships are sometimes called civil partnerships or civil unions, but on the biblical, theological level, there are no examples of same-sex marriage (including same-sex sexual unions under another name) in the whole Old and New Testament biblical narrative. Neither is there anything Jesus said that could possibly be construed as support for a same-sex sexual relationship. Gay apologists like to appeal to the friendship between Jonathan and David (1 Samuel 18: 1-4; 2 Samuel 1: 26) as biblical evidence of a same-sex homoerotic relationship. The context of this very close friendship was one of intimate brotherhood and there is no evidence of a homosexual setting. The depth of (non-sexual) love people of the same sex can feel for one another is not limited to sibling and parental relationships. Close bonds of affection between members of the same sex are healthy and laudable. It is imperative that we sharply distinguish between closeness between the same sex involving genital acts, from that of intimate bonds of brotherhood or sisterhood, involving neither the genitals nor sexual arousal. Is there a clear test against which we can measure a homoerotic relationship, from one that is a close same-sex friendship? This question is especially relevant as sometimes people can claim their same-sex relationship is not in breach of the biblical prohibition because there is no anal sex, which presupposes the belief that the sole ‘test’ of whether the relationship is

42 biblically sinful depends on the practice of genitally penetrative acts. There are many problems with this view. Two points are made for clarification. First, Jesus’ teaching on sexual ethics was not merely concerned with external behaviour, such as the non-performance of sexual activity outside of marriage. It also concerned the internal world of psychological and spiritual reality that may and typically does precede the outward expression of inner sexual desires: You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5: 27-28 By extension, all sexual fantasy and nurturance of sexual feelings fall within the scope of Jesus’ teaching, whether it is adultery or the wider ambit of sexual immorality, of which fornication and practising homosexuality are but two examples. Further below we consider Jesus’ position on sexual ethics. Second, in terms of a ‘test’ against which we can measure the ‘rightness’ of a samesex friendship, we should ask: are the actions that are performed ones that closelybonded biological brothers would do? We would expect displays of affection to be outwardly expressed in healthy, functional families, and so biological brothers (or sisters) might be expected to express open displays of physical affection to one another in the form of embraces or hugs. This is healthy and no suggestion of a homoerotic element can and should be attributed to such expressions, anymore than when fathers physically embrace their sons with deeply, heartfelt affection. We now consider the Jewish historical setting of the first-century within which Jesus taught and preached. This is intended to provide evidence to help consolidate the orthodox position of teaching on sexual ethics. 7.2 The Jewish Historical Context Our approach to questions of orthodox biblical teaching on sexuality can be greatly facilitated by appealing to the Jewish religious setting from which the New Testament was written. In his scholarly and extensively documented study of homosexuality in the context of the Torah,74 Arthur Goldberg says of pro-gay apologists: Like the Biblical serpent, they question whether the Bible really says such and such, or meant something else that is entirely extraneous to the Oral Tradition. Or they question whether the Torah would have given us the same commandments, had they been given to us in our own “enlightened” time and

Goldberg, Arthur. Light in the Closet. Goldberg’s work is endorsed by leading Rabbis, as well as Dr Nicholas Cummings, former President of the American Psychological Association; Dr A. Dean Byrd, the-then Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, University of Utah, and other non-Jewish authorities. These endorsements can be read at: www.redheiferpress.com

43 at our present “advanced” state of civilisation. Like the serpent in the Garden of Eden, their prime objective is to create doubt or disbelief.75 We ought to bear in mind that first-century Jews relied upon – as remains the case for contemporary orthodox Jews – the ‘complementary’ authority of both the Tanuch (five books of Moses) and the Oral Tradition (or Oral Torah). They are complementary only in the sense that for orthodox Jews, the written law cannot be adequately understood and applied without recourse to the Oral Tradition. Goldberg explains that the Oral Torah and the Written Torah are “inseparably linked”.76 Of the Oral Tradition’s emergence in history, Goldberg states, in line with common Jewish orthodox belief that “the Talmud is the repository of an oral tradition that dates back to the giving of the Written Torah at Mount Sinai.77 He explains that: The existence of an oral tradition is acknowledged in all the main halachic [Jewish legal] literature. For example, the Sifra, a halachic compilation dating from the earliest period of Rabbinic interpretation, states outright that the Jews received two Torahs at Mt. Sinai – one written, and one oral. This teaching emanates from the language of Leviticus 26: 46: These are the statutes and judgments and teachings [“Toros”] which the L-rd made between Him and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.78 Goldberg explains that the Sages commented that use of the plural Toros, (which means “teachings” but also “Torahs”) provides a hint at the existence of a written and oral law. In the Oral Tradition, it is taught that an Oral Law was transmitted directly from Moses to Joshua to the Elders of the Prophets to the men of the Great assembly. Then this Oral Law was recorded in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. So what does the Oral Tradition say about homosexual practice? We will consider one such reference in connection to the Leviticus prohibition that warns: “You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman.”79 (18: 22) Goldberg asks which other Torah verses can contribute to understanding this prohibition. He explains: The Talmud ascribes the origin of these laws to the Biblical verses narrating G-d’s creation of woman out of the flesh and bone of Adam (Gen. 2: 21-23), on account of this says the Torah, A man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cling to his woman, and they shall be one flesh. (Gen. 2. 24)80

Ibid., p. 162. Ibid., p. 146. 77 Ibid., p. 307. 78 Ibid., p. 236. 79 For those wanting to study these Leviticus issues from a Jewish orthodox biblical perspective, see especially Goldberg (2008), Light in the Closet, pp. 185-193. 80 This is a Jewish translation, which forms part of the quotation from Light in the Closet, pp. 185-186. 76

44 The Talmud (Sanhedrin 58a), clearly interprets this verse of Genesis as “an implied prohibition of homosexual intercourse.”81 It explains: “And shall cling – but not to a male.” (Goldberg’s bold and italics) Rashi, towering scholar of the eleventh century and a leading exponent of the Talmud, clarifies how we understand the concept of shall cling. “This prohibition against homosexuality is derived from the fact that man was commanded to ‘cling’ to his mate. This, though, is not possible with a male mate…”82 At this point, gay apologists would ask why is it not possible for two men to cling together? Whatever their answers are – no doubt they are heartfelt – Goldberg’s summary of Rashi’s answer is that one possible explanation is that woman was: taken out of man’s flesh. Thus, when he clings to her, his flesh is restored to him, and they indeed become one flesh. If a male were to cling to another male, there would be two “fleshes.” Each of the two fleshes would be incomplete. By this interpretation, a man and woman form a single composite being – one that is created from two complementary beings.83 Rashi’s additional understanding of “one flesh” is that it is an allusion to the conceiving of a child “who combines the flesh of the father and mother.” In the Talmud, Sanhedrin 58a, “one flesh” is said to exclude animals owing to the fact that procreation is not possible. Following the same logic, Goldberg argues that male-male couplings are similarly excluded. 84 On the Leviticus prohibition against homosexual practice (18:3), the Sifra (9:8), noted above, warns: Do not perform the practice of the land of Egypt in which you dwelled; and do not perform the practice of the land of Canaan to which I bring you [and do not follow their traditions]. Could it be that you are not to build buildings or plant crops as they do? Rather the Torah writes, “do not follow their traditions.” This must refer to practices that are long established amongst them, their fathers, and grandfathers. And what would they do? A male would “marry” [noseh] a male, a female a female, a man a woman and her daughter, and a woman two males. That is why it says, “their traditions.”85 The Hebrew noseh is variously translated as “marry” or “take.” Goldberg asks if the word denotes actual marriage that is officially recognised by public record, or whether it is merely a euphemism for sexual relations. He makes clear that the “same

Ibid., p. 186. Ibid. 83 Ibid. 84 Ibid., pp. 186-187. 85 Ibid., pp. 239-240. 82

45 ambiguity exists in English as well as other modern languages. For example, contrast, “Do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife?” with, “he took her.”86 The Talmudic prohibition against homosexual relationships, stated above, is further consolidated by other parts of the Talmud and the corpus of authoritative rabbinical literature throughout the ages. The New Testament scholar, James De Young states: The weight of evidence from rabbinical Judaism is consistent with, and supportive of, the evidence from Hebrew Scriptures. The Jews of the rabbinical period, which overlaps the New Testament era, certainly believed that law should proscribe homosexual conduct, and based this conviction in an understanding of Leviticus as having ongoing universal significance for Jews and Gentiles.87 So how does the Jesus of the Gospels support the orthodox position on sexuality? When Jesus spoke of and warned against “sexual immorality” (Gk. porneia), this would have included “any form of unsanctioned sexual intercourse.”88 Jesus speaks against adultery and other sexual immorality, implicitly and explicitly, on at least twenty three occasions, on more occasions than his stated concern for the poor (about fourteen verses), or those verses concerning the virtue of mutual love (fourteen verses).89 As Gospels specialist, Professor John Nolland makes clear, we cannot establish the importance Jesus felt for sexual ethics by merely counting up biblical references. However, “it seems hard,” Nolland argues, “to deny the Gospel Jesus a profound concern for sexual ethics. Such a concern did not define his ministry, but to move sexual ethics to the sidelines is hardly in line with the values of the Jesus of the Gospels.”90 In view of the above evidence, the Jesus of the Gospels was ready to uphold teaching on heterosexual marriage. Furthermore, any pre-marital or extra-marital sexual activity, like fornication and adultery, was – and remains – sinful in the eyes of God. A further point to consider here is the modern belief about “gay” people, as if they were a distinct class of human beings, with their own unique – some would claim – God-given natures. Yet, in both Jesus’ day and the Jewish cultural setting preceding it, no notional counterpart existed that remotely approximated to either a “gay” or “homosexual” person. There were people who did or committed particular sexual acts, heterosexual or homosexual. However, this was not a statement, from a biblical standpoint, about their inner identity. Jesus would not have felt obliged to mention homosexuality or any concept with a corresponding meaning. We should note that in

Ibid., p. 241. For a detailed treatment of the Torah texts and the corresponding rabbinical commentaries and teachings, see especially pp. 145-261. 87 De Young, James B. Homosexuality, p. 246. 88 Nolland, John. Sexual Ethics and the Jesus of the Gospels, p. 23. 89 Ibid., p. 23. Nolland’s reference to the verses concerning the virtue of mutual love belongs to the agap-word group. His references to Jesus speaking of his concern for the poor draws on the use of ptochos. 90 Ibid., p. 24.

46 Romans 1: 26-27, and 1 Corinthians 6: 9, the references to homosexual practice being prohibited focus on the acts committed. Yet apparently, it is recent history that has both created the concept of, and turned the spotlight on people called “homosexuals” or “gay people.” However, in the eyes of Jesus, the spotlight is on the fact that all Christians are children of God, male and female, (irrespective of the nature of their sexual attractions). On this basis, sexual attractions and feelings do not define who Christians are as people. SSA can certainly be seen to be part of someone’s experience but nothing that Jesus, Paul or the other biblical writers say suggests our identity is measured according to our “sexuality.” The Apostle Paul confirms this position when he refers to people who had a past of practising, among other sins, homosexuality, referred to earlier: “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6: 11). Some gay apologists choose to ignore, reinterpret or play down the significance of the historical Jewish setting that preceded the advent of the New Testament. This leads to major error since the roots of the New Testament are in the Jewish faith. Without having regard to the orthodox Jewish perspective concerning sexuality and its rightful expression, we cannot fully appreciate the value and meaning of what commonly is described as the Judeo-Christian tradition. 7.3 Aspects of Church Tradition As consolidating evidence for upholding authentic orthodox Anglican teaching on sexuality, we appeal to the historic mind of the Church, by way of official sources of authority that directly and indirectly feature in this discussion. We begin by affirming Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference which: [I]n view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage.91 The same Resolution states unequivocally its rejection of “homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture.” In view of the incompatibility of homosexual practice that has been argued for thus far, do the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England help us in this current discussion? In the Articles no mention is made of homosexual practice, or any matter pertaining to sexual activity. However, one relevant Article that bears on any discussion about faithfully interpreting Scripture is Article 20 (“Authority of the Church”) when it says: The church has authority to decree forms of worship and ceremonies and to decide in controversies concerning the faith. However, it is not lawful for the 91

See Resolution 1.10 (b); http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-1-10.cfm.

47 church to order anything contrary to God's written Word. Nor may it expound one passage of Scripture so that it contradicts another passage. So, although the church is a witness and guardian to holy Scripture, it must not decree anything contrary to Scripture, nor is it to enforce belief in anything additional to Scripture as essential to salvation.92 As this Article makes clear, the Church has no authority to “expound one passage of Scripture so that it contradicts another passage.” On the basis that the New Testament Scriptures (both the Gospel Jesus and teachings of the Apostle Paul) prohibits all sexual activity outside of heterosexual monogamous marriage, by construing some passages – as revisionists attempt to do – as permitting homosexual practice, with whatever caveats, is patently contravening this Article. It is not being suggested that the Articles have an equal footing with the weight of Scripture. But they were – and remain for many orthodox persons in the Church of England – a statement consolidating Anglican orthodoxy, against the backdrop of Reformers’ concerns about straying from the authority of Scripture. The application of Article 20, to the current question of what sexual activity is biblically permitted, serves a twofold purpose: a) to show that we need to interpret Scripture in ways that are congruent with the whole of Scripture; b) by using the common sense principle in Article 20, we also appeal to the historic mind of the Anglican Church, in its need to lay down clear statements and parameters of orthodox belief, founded solely on Scripture. 7.4 Antinomian in Jude: The Question of Moral Authority Some have drawn parallels between the opponents Jude warns against, and those people who attempt to contend for same-sex relationships. Jude warns his readers: For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a licence for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. Verse 4 Jude warns against those godless people who have traded God’s grace for a licence to practise immorality, and in so doing have also denied Christ’s sovereignty and lordship. Jude’s context is illustrated by examples of God’s judgment including: the “sexual immorality and perversion” practised in Sodom and Gomorrah (verse 7), and Cain’s murder of his brother Abel (“the way of Cain”, verse 11). Such men as Jude speaks about are those who “reject authority” (v. 8). Often known by the term, antinomian, such people were in denial of all moral rules and authority. “They preached freedom from the Law on the grounds that they were forgiven from their sins and could do as they pleased. This was a denial of the lordship of Christ in their lives.”93 92

This modern day rendering of Article 20 is taken from the Church Society at: http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/39a/iss_doctrine_39A_Arts19-22.asp#Article20 93 Groves, Philip (Ed.). The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality, p. 89.

48 The Facilitator of the Listening Process, the Revd Canon Phil Groves, argues that: It cannot be assumed that those who support the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of clergy in same-sex partnerships are antinomian. His position is provisional, in that he is not saying the arguments offered by those, such as the Episcopal Church of the USA, seeking to change church teaching are right. However, his attempt to argue that the Episcopal Church position is not caught by the term antinomian is based on the following claims. First, the Episcopal Church is not suggesting an antinomian direction for the Church, because in To Set Our Hope on Christ,94 there is a condemnation of sexual sins such as prostitution, pornography, adultery, incest and promiscuity. Such condemnation illustrates, he argues, an adherence to moral authority. Second, he argues the Episcopal Church “sets up a moral structure for gay and lesbian relationships which they argue should be ‘exclusive, life-long, unions of fidelity and care.”95 The serious problem when combining the first and second points is this: in acknowledging there are sexual sins to be condemned (as above), this automatically presupposes a moral law existing, instituted by God; by then suggesting a “moral structure” of gay relationships fails to indicate antinomian, suggests it is biblically possible or intelligible to speak of gay relationships on a biblical (moral authority) footing. This moral tension is illustrated when the book of James states: For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. James 2: 10 In view of these points, Groves concludes: If the opponents of Jude were antinomian they would have rejected such categories [as exclusive, life-long, same-sex unions of fidelity and care]. A true antinomian would argue that ‘All things are permissible for me’ (see 1 Corinthians 10.23). That was not the stand of TEC.96 Jude’s opponents almost certainly would have rejected the moral authority that determines the above morally prohibited categories as sinful. One key question is whether a scripturally prohibited relationship [same-sex sexual union] can be morally justified by appealing to the biblically permitted, marital template of faithful, lifelong monogamy. The concept of the marriage covenant presupposes that the parties are one man and one woman, and not two people of the same gender. The scriptural mandate for sexual relationships is the covenant of heterosexual, monogamous marriage. Gay apologists propose – as the Episcopal Church is arguing here – that monogamous, permanent same-sex relationships are of equal covenantal authority to heterosexual

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/beliefs/pdfs/ToSetOurHopeOnChrist.pdf?vm=r

Groves, Philip (Ed.). The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality, p. 90. For Groves’ quotation from To Set Our Hope on Christ, see Part II, paragraph 2.0. 96 Ibid., p. 20. ‘TEC’ refers to The Episcopal Church (of the United States of America).

49 marriage. But the template of covenantal marriage is being borrowed and overlain onto a relationship explicitly prohibited by Scripture. We would appeal to Article 20 of the Thirty Nine Articles, discussed above. The Church cannot “order anything contrary to God's written Word. Nor may it expound one passage of Scripture so that it contradicts another passage. So, although the church is a witness and guardian to holy Scripture, it must not decree anything contrary to Scripture… ” We believe that to help understand the mind of the historic Church with regard to the purpose of marriage, an appeal can be made to the Book of Common Prayer, which states among other things that marriage was: 1) “ordained for the procreation of children” 2) “ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication” 3) “ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort” of the spouses. In view of the Episcopal Church’s position on homosexual relationships, our attention turns to its bracketing of incest as one of the sins to be condemned. The major problem with this is that if same-sex unions are morally permissible, it is morally inconsistent, or at least questionable, to then condemn incest, if the case is that of a consenting, same-sex, monogamous relationship. We grant that the condemnation stated in To Set Our Hope on Christ is not specified as homosexual or heterosexual incest, but incest per se. However, if same-sex unions can be morally permissible, why and on what moral authority can homosexual incestuous ‘unions’ be morally condemned, between say, two brothers? Indeed, an incestuous homosexual relationship would carry none of the genetic risks that are normally at issue when children are conceived through incest. The Leviticus prohibition (18: 22) against homosexual practice is dismissed by the Episcopal Church as non-applicable to the modern world.97 On this basis, gay apologists, such as those in the Episcopal Church, would inescapably have to permit incestuous same-sex relationships. The New Testament is silent on this prohibition, in much the same way that gay apologists argue that the New Testament is silent about condemning same-sex monogamous and lifelong relationships. If an argument from silence is to lend authority to, or be used as a means of, biblical interpretation, then incestuous same-sex (monogamous, stable, loving and lifelong) relationships are no more morally incompatible with the bible than ordinary same-sex relationships.

To Set Our Hope on Christ, para., 2.19. “There has been considerable debate and discussion within Judaism and Christianity about how to interpret the biblical texts that forbid same-sex relations. There are faithful scholars in both traditions who say that what the texts forbid is clear and that it applies today as it always did. On the other hand, there are faithful scholars in both traditions who believe that what the biblical texts describe is not as clear as it first appears and does not clearly apply in a very different cultural context. Because the contextual situation of Leviticus, for example, is so different from our own, it would be inaccurate to assume that some of its texts are more binding on us today than all the other of its proscriptions that we, in fact, do not any longer follow.” (Italics original)

50 Once one moral boundary is broken down (namely, sexual intimacy outside of heterosexual marriage), the question of overall moral authority also breaks down, for the standards of measuring moral permissibility are driven by human desires, said to be led by the Holy Spirit. To reiterate the passage from James: For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. This seems difficult to understand but what is clear from this verse, is that moral authority cannot be retained if we stumble on one part of the law. It is through the redemptive work of God’s grace on the cross that through faith, we are credited with righteousness (Romans 4), even when we happen to break the law. If, however, as Groves suggests, there is a moral authority to the structure of gay relationships, this itself suggests that God’s moral law is not being broken. It further presupposes that such a ‘moral structure’ holds a moral footing, but if so, what is the source or basis of this moral footing? The language of a ‘moral structure’ seems to imply one of two explanations: this moral structure, being equal or sufficiently similar to the moral structure underlying a heterosexual marriage is either 1) Godordained or 2) manages to escape God’s disapproval by virtue of its good intentions and supposed integrity. But are good intentions enough? Must they not conform to the higher and transcending standard of the will of God that surpasses even man’s ‘good’ intentions? Indeed, Jesus teaches that, except for God, no-one is ‘good’ (Mark 10: 18). This leads us to the conclusion that intentions deemed as ‘good’ are at best, insufficient. We are also compelled to ask, what is meant by ‘integrity’ or what is ‘integrity’ being measured against, so that it satisfies some type of moral test? On a personal, subjective level, person A believes he is in a relationship of integrity with person B, because of a professed, or at least implicit, commitment of love for person B. If theology is our benchmark – as opposed to secular ethics – the ultimate issue is not whether A feels or believes his relationship is one of integrity or not. Rather, it is whether A is in integrity with an objective standard, independent of human intentions, however sincerely felt these may be. We believe this standard is conveyed by the moral law found in the Scriptures, namely, God’s expressed will for men and women to express their sexuality in covenantal marriage. Such a measure is not subject to the common range of human whims, personal preferences or dispositions. If what ‘feels right’ becomes the measure, along with a supposed ‘moral’ structure superimposed onto the relationship, the moral authority claimed by individuals becomes the supreme arbiter. When claims are made that such and such is Spirit led, Scripture is our only primary source, to be read in line with the mind of the Church’s consensual reading of Scripture extending over two thousand years. In the Episcopal Church’s To Set Our Hope on Christ, it is stated: “The Bible hardly ever discusses homosexual behaviour.”98 There are only a few references to same-sex relations, especially in comparison with the vast 98

To Set Our Hope on Christ, para., 2.20. This claim (The Bible hardly ever discusses homosexual behaviour) is footnoted as coming from Richard B. Hays. Footnote 5 clarifies that use of this quote is not meant to suggest his endorsement of its application.

51 number of texts on wealth and poverty, greed, and the right use of possessions.99 These claims fail to make the intended impact supporting the view that a Christian can be in moral integrity when being in a same-sex relationship. As argued above, the Gospel Jesus shows a great concern for sexual ethics. His condemnation of porneia has wide coverage and would have been understood to have included all sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage. The Gospel Jesus is recorded in making more references to adultery and sexual immorality, than his stated concerns for the poor. We acknowledged that frequency of subject references are not to be taken as a sufficient guide as to their actual importance. Finally, that the Bible “hardly ever” discusses homosexual behaviour must reflect the fact that homosexuals constitute a small minority of the population.100 We can probably safely assume – though we can never know for sure - that it was not too numerically dissimilar in those societies during which both Testaments of the Bible were written. On this basis, it would be reasonable for the bible writers not to mention homosexual behaviour too frequently. It should also be acknowledged that the Christian faith is first and foremost about positives, namely, the two greatest commandments, to love God, and to love neighbour as oneself (Mark 12: 28-31). The negatives, which take the form of prohibitions, are subsumed or covered by the two greatest commandments, in that a love for God leads to a desire to obey him and by implication, not to do certain things. Obedience involves a response to God’s call either to do something (positive commandment) or not to do something (prohibition).

7.5 The Church Fathers On the question of homosexual practice and the Church Fathers, the Evangelical Alliance Report, Faith, Hope and Homosexuality states: It is true that the early Church Fathers scarcely made a meal of the issue. But this was only because they saw no need for a lengthy debate about something which they viewed as so obviously a sin. Certainly too, most remarks made in Patristic commentaries are brief – but this is only because their opposition to homosexual practice is so clear and incisive. Having said this, when homosexual practice became a specific problem for the fathers, as it did for

Para., 2.20. Just one in 100 tells researchers: I’m gay, Ben Leapman, 27 January 2008, Daily Telegraph. http://telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576700/Just-one-in-100-tells-researchers-Im-gay.html This government research, described as the first of its kind, tells us at the very least that few people are gayidentified. Other surveys and estimates place the homosexual population between a range of about 1.5% and 3%. Since the publication of Alfred Kinsey’s 1948 book, Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male, a theory has been widely propagated, that 10% of the population is homosexual. This claim has been treated as fact. Yet, the apparent scientific base underlying his findings have now been discredited because of, among other reasons, his biased sampling. See the work of Dr Judith Reisman, who has undertaken a thorough investigation into Kinsey’s scientifically distorted claims: Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences. Crestwood, Kentucky: The Institute for Media Education. (2000); Sexual Sabotage: How one mad scientist unleashed a plague of corruption and contagion on America. Washington DC: World Net Daily Books (2010). 100

52 John Chrysostom in Antioch and Lactantius in Nicomedia, more extensive condemnations were offered.101 Critics commonly answer such claims as these by arguing that such condemnations were conditioned by the culture and time from which they emerged. Yet the Mediterranean world of the early Christians was not completely dissimilar to the modern western world. “Religious pluralism was the norm, and sexual freedom reigned – not least in regard to homoerotic sexual activity, even if it was not quite as respectable as it had been a few centuries earlier in Athens and Sparta.”102 7.6 Reason The essential place of reason has long been recognised by the Church when attempting to make sense of Scripture, in accordance with the Church’s tradition. One question to be asked is how ‘reason’ might assist or direct us in both supporting and explaining the overall rationale underpinning what we understand is the orthodox biblical line on the question of homosexuality. We first consider two biblical verses as a means of approaching this question.

1 Peter 3: 15 •

We are encouraged to “…set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have…” The background context here is that on account of Christ’s Lordship over death, heaven and all creation (“Christ as Lord”), Christians hold the future hope of eternal life (“the hope that you have”). That we are encouraged to “give a reason” for this hope indicates the practical role accorded to reasoning and argument in our faith. It also suggests that reason can be used as a means, alongside faith, to ascertain other issues which bring to the Church difficult problems to resolve. --Isaiah 1: 18

•

When God says “Come now, let us reason together…” we are presented with a direct illustration of God expressing his wish to enter into reasoned dialogue with man. The Word dimension of the incarnate logos also includes a component of reason. As Designer of all creation, God is characterised by both reason and word (or discourse), that is also relational, namely, God as the three Persons of the Trinity.

In both these above examples, albeit in different contexts, Scripture draws attention to the important role of reasoning. In the first case, there is an exercise in presenting the case to others for belief in God and eternal life (“give the reason for the hope that 101 102

Faith, Hope and Homosexuality, pp. 25-26. Ibid., p. 26.

53 you have”), and in the second case, God shows a willingness to engage in an exercise of dialogue with man. If reasoning can be used in conveying to others the case of belief in God, by extension, using our reasoning capacity may likewise, it seems, be in the wider service of anything that might help others understand potential dilemmas in the interpretation of Scripture. For example, is there an overall rationale or reason underpinning the position of Scripture, when it condemns homosexual practice, as not being part of God’s plan for human relationships? At this point, we are urged to ask how our capacity for reason can assist us in knowing God’s will in the area of sexual relationships, and specifically how homosexual practice fits into this? God’s creation of male and female persons, are known by their respective anatomical profiles. Male or female reproductive organs, in addition to specific gender-based body characteristics are the physical indicators designating “who we are” in our gender. As for the specific design of the genitals, the act of sexual intercourse is made possible by the physical compatibility of an anatomically complementary design of the penis and the vagina. Such anatomical complementarity between the sexes is absent in a homosexual context. In making these observations, we appeal to our reasoning, which draws on observable facts about the created order. In Romans 1, Paul discusses, among other significant themes, the relationship between elements of the created world being visible in what might be known about God. He says: “…since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.” (verse 19) This passage appears to have a wide application but it seems plausible to allow for inclusion the domain of the moral order underpinning the sexes and the ordering of sexual behaviour. In fact, the passages that follow (verses 24-27) address some examples of how sexual behaviour can violate God’s plans. Since the purpose of these above explanations is to show heterosexual sexual intercourse as the God-ordained setting for sexual activity, we understand that gay apologists will seek to question the application of the explanations provided.

54 8. The Witness of Testimony For our purposes, we identify two dimensions of ‘testimony.’ The first involves anecdotal reports from individuals. The second takes the form of studies, of varying scientific stringency, that potentially convey more substantial and general results. In this section, we consider some anecdotal stories that stand as revealing testimony, as compelling and multi-shaded as those many day-to-day testimonies routinely professed by Christians throughout the church. As is true of all difficult situations, the people reported are on different parts of their journey. We are mindful that for some gay-identified Christians, some of these testimonies may fail to ‘speak’ to them. Initially, we look at some brief testimonials of people who have been on different stages of the journey of change, including stories of affected family members, followed by more detailed portraits of different people who have walked the path, while dealing with unwanted SSA. In most of the brief stories recounted below, the individuals testify to receiving practical support from either their church and/or help from Christian outreach ministry directly supporting those with unwanted SSA. Christopher He believes the church does not generally understand the issues of those who struggle with unwanted SSA and “in some cases doesn’t want to understand – the condition or the process involved for those who want change.”103 Of his ex-gay status and how this compares with other Christians, Christopher states: “I’m ex-gay, but as Christians we are all ex-something.”104 Jack Jack was impacted by John 5:39-40, when Jesus said: “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” Upon reading these words, Jack sensed Jesus was speaking directly to him. “He was angry with me and seemed to say: “You have gone everywhere with this issue except to me. You bring this issue directly to me and lay it at my feet. Don’t you dare go anywhere else with it. I HAVE DIED FOR YOU, AND MY DEATH IS SUFFICIENT EVEN FOR THIS.”105 Jack initially felt compelled to “go” the gay way because he believed he “only knew” himself as gay. He believed God conveyed to him: “But this is not how I know you; therefore, your knowledge of yourself as gay is false”.106 Emma 103

Keane, Christopher. (Ed). What Some of You Were, p. 26. Ibid., p. 29. 105 Ibid., p. 41. 106 Ibid. 104

A woman who received support from Liberty Christian Ministries,107 which provides support for Christians with unwanted SSA, had this to say after struggling with emotional dependency and SSA for twenty five years: “I have now reached a place where I have experienced freedom…This has only been possible through the people God has placed in my life.”108 Dazza Dazza has received much support from his church which has proven to be essential. “My disclosure [of unwanted SSA] has helped me become closer to a good number of people. This closeness, trust and honesty in relating to both sexes has been very therapeutic. When there are times that I feel down because of my homosexuality, it is good to be able to tell my fellow Christians and home bible study group so I can be prayed for. My congregation have shown me much love and respect.” Dazza adds that his homosexuality has “greatly diminished in the first eleven months, but I am still in the recovery process and may be so for many more years.”109 Robin With a history of many sexual relationships, Robin has been out of the gay lifestyle for seven years. She reports that: “I knew somewhere deep inside that I didn’t want a gay relationship, but it filled my overwhelming emotional need for affection and nurturing that I never had from my mother as a child. I was living a double life: an angel during the week when I was at home with my parents, and at the weekend erupting out of my closet into my lesbian lifestyle.” As testimony to her healing, she believes her life has changed for the better since being on a Christian recovery programme: “I can now feel a sense of belonging and identity that comes from being secure in God. He has met me in my loneliness, and he is providing me with the healthy, loving relationships I need.”110 Audrey (mother of SSA daughter) Audrey is the mother of a daughter with SSA. She felt distressed and confused when considering how she should understand and digest the fact of her daughter’s sexual attractions. In her search for support, she eventually found help from a conservative Christian parents’ support group “who were largely instrumental in helping me to gain a healthy perspective on the situation.”111 Laura (wife of SSA struggler) After fifteen years of marriage, Laura discovered, to her shock, that her husband had been involved in homosexuality before and during the marriage. She felt isolated,

107

http://www.libertychristianministries.org.au Keane, Christopher. (Ed). What Some of You Were, p. 48. 109 Ibid., pp. 55-56. 110 Ibid., pp. 59-60. 111 Ibid., p. 73. 108

56 angry and helpless. Her husband had only confided in their minister two days before disclosing his secret to her. At Laura’s urging, her husband agreed to receive counselling help and attended a support group for people struggling with unwanted SSA. He had wanted to do this before but did not know where such help could come from. It is imperative we recognise that when spouses receive counselling or therapy, it may be quite fruitless – if not counterproductive - if their decision to receive such help is not fully owned by them. In cases where such persons have not expressed blatant opposition to the option of professional assistance, clergy should, we suggest, be ready to explore a range of options, including whether professional intervention might be contemplated. Laura eventually found a much needed support group for spouses and parents of those struggling with unwanted SSA and was put in touch with another wife in a similar situation. She says: “The wonderful thing about this group was its acceptance of each other, and the prayer support. Apart from feeling loved and free to share my sorrows, I laughed and cried with others about their loved ones. It was also informative as we watched tapes and discussed various issues. Through this group, and meeting regularly with my friend at church, I learnt to bring joys and sorrows before God in prayer. We saw many answers. The support group showed me others’ needs – I was not alone.”112 Sara (wife of practising homosexual) Upon discovering that her husband was promiscuous with other men, Sara felt the marriage would not survive on that basis. She had herself checked out for STDs which left her feeling “dirty and cheap” and humiliated. The results, to her relief, proved negative. When she finally broke up, she felt “betrayed, confused, isolated and helpless.”113 Desperate to share her burdens with someone who could relate to her experience, she could not find any support at first. At some point, she was able to be supported by a couple who helped Christians deal with their homosexual issues and attend a support group they ran. Attending this group of men and women allowed Sara to feel cared for and understood. It was a safe place to discuss her personal issues, in a group that included lesbians and homosexuals. She reports: “…I had to deal with my own prejudices, some of which I didn’t even know I had.”114 The support Sara received from her friends was mixed. The minister at her church “didn’t want to know, and abdicated his responsibility totally.” The church leaders, she states, were ill-equipped emotionally and practically to deal with her situation. She attended some self-help groups and counselling. She explains that she nearly abandoned her faith after being a Christian for 20 years.

112

Ibid., pp. 87-88. Ibid., p. 92. 114 Ibid., p. 93. 113

57 Her predicament eventually allowed her to confront her own issues of rejection and fear, which caused her to re-evaluate her beliefs. This led to a deepening of her relationship with Jesus, although her journey was, at the time of her report, in progress. (Anonymous) married man with SSA115 One married man who struggled with SSA for years asks: Does God gain some mysterious personal benefit by prohibiting homosexual practice? My exposure to homosexuality convinces me of a far more basic rationale for the biblical prohibition: Homosexuality is bad for me. During his teenage years, he had two boyfriends and indulged in homosexual pornography. Later in his life, as he went on occasional business trips, he purchased pornographic magazines. This was followed by the emergence of a pornography addiction fostered by a wealth of online material. After spending several years in “bondage to lust”, while trying to repeatedly relinquish his pornography habit, he felt both “enticed” by the “affirming church” that would affirm his same-sex attraction, while also being troubled by his conscience. His marriage, he states, grew increasingly boring, and his wife’s love was felt as more distant. He reflects: The affirming church had a bigger lie for me: I had been “guilted” into a heterosexual marriage by a church that lied to me about my orientation. I listened to the lie… He was on the verge of phoning a gay friend for sex but believing that he was about to throw his whole life away, and fearing he was to be further enslaved, he chose to get help. He was then encouraged to disclose his problem to his wife and: By confessing my sin to God, my wife, and a few others within my local church, I began the journey to true freedom. In the end, I was set free thanks to a combination of accountability and an internet course [for strugglers]…. This man’s past damaged the trust his wife felt towards him. However, over time his relationship with his wife experienced healing, while in the process both felt a deepening of relationship with Christ. His perceptions of the ‘affirming church’ are summed up when he states: Believers can act like a false physician, telling people tempted by homosexuality that same-sex orientation is part of their identity and that they should accept it. Or, we can act as judge, jury, and executioner, driving them away from the Saviour who loves them. Either way, we risk the same result: spiritual death. 115

Cheated by the Affirming Church: Contrary to what some churches teach, it is homosexuality – and not its suppression – that enslaves people like me, Christianity Today, 12 January 2004. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/december/36.50.html

58 Or we can respond like Jesus would, with grace and truth: “Come unto me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” Those words called to me, weary and heavy-laden with sin…Shouldn’t all Christians bear that message of freedom and hope? Revd Mario Bergner The Revd Mario Bergner, President of Redeemed Lives, noted above, once identified as a gay man. Of his past, he says: A large part of me liked being gay. I enjoyed the fellowship in the gay lifestyle and the lustful gratification I experienced in homosexual encounters. Homosexuality was not disgusting to me; rather, much of it was pleasurable....116 This report easily suggests that Mario Bergner was not driven by what is often presumed to be driving unwanted SSA, namely, internalised homophobia. During what he describes as the “completion” of his conversion that started in his adolescence, Bergner identifies the cross, together with repentance, that empowered him to “disengage from my sinful past. No longer was my identity that of a homosexual. I was now free to embark, to cross over, onto the glorious road of identification with Christ.”117 In a striking insight into what motivated and drove his past homosexual practices, Bergner believes he was trying to complete his gender identification, by “erotic union” with those men he was “in love” with but who “were nothing more than the recipients of my own [needy and confused] projections.”118 James Parker James Parker,119 another ex-gay man, who was initially fostered and eventually adopted by a practising Anglican family, saw his identity as homosexual, until his mid-teens and from 16 onwards, labelled himself as gay. Of these two distinguishing labels, he states: ‘Homosexual’ signified that I was erotically attracted to my own gender but had never acted upon this. ‘Gay’, on the other hand, meant that I was ready and available to engage in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, and to take my place among the gay community.120 When ‘coming out’ to various friends at secondary school, he experienced no homophobia and his own parents continued to show him their unconditional love. Such a background challenges the gay assumption that the motivation to be free from 116

Bergner, Mario. Setting Love in Order, p. 28. Ibid., pp. 30-31. 118 Ibid., p. 78. 119 James Parker has worked for organisations whose role partly involves ministering to men and women experiencing unwanted SSA. He is the current London facilitator of EnCourage. See below, 10: Ministries Already Offering Support 120 Nolland, Lisa et al. God, Gays and the Church, p. 28. 117

59 SSA is rooted in homophobia. He was in a same-sex relationship but his deeper needs failed to be met. At a time when a valued heterosexual, Christian male friend encouraged him to seek repentance of any outstanding sin, James reflects: God was asking me to give myself totally to Him. I slowly began to realize that God was telling me to stop this relationship.121 Despite struggling for a time with the prospect of a break-up, and his vicar telling him he was “crazy and should go back to him,” James felt called by God in a different direction. One of his idols, he states, which he believed he had to renounce, was the “paradox” of the intertwining of his sexuality and his Christian identity. What did repentance look like in James’s life at this time? Everything sexual about me had to come into submission before Christ, along with the other factors of my life, so that everything broken could be revealed, redeemed and restored. 122 Over the course of time, as James journeyed on the road of faith, he experienced various changes. The pull he formerly felt towards males began to lessen and it started to feel something he could have control over for the first time. He reports that his voice gradually deepened and his walk became more masculine. Whereas in the past, James felt like a woman trapped in a man’s body, he now came to love being a man. James reports: “There were different degrees of brokenness that needed to be healed.”123 He felt that by listening daily to the Holy Spirit in prayer, he was able to recognise and deal with his underlying emotional issues. James came to discern that underneath his SSA, there were needs for “meaningful masculine affirmation and connection.”124 At first he thought this was like the gay relationships he formerly knew. At some point, he began to feel there was a true and deeper need seeking fulfilment that could only be met through non-erotic contact with men and not satisfied homo-erotically. In a frank evaluation of his progress, he said: The years during which I was not affirmed as a man are slowly being restored to me. Like everyone else, I am a work in progress and in need of more change. Yet God continues to pour out His Spirit upon my flesh…125

121

Ibid., p. 30. Ibid., p. 31. 123 Ibid., p. 31. 124 Ibid., p. 32. 125 Ibid., p. 33. 122

60 9. Questions of Celibacy and Change 9.1 Celibacy Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference states: [I]n view of the teaching of Scripture, [the Conference] upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage.126 We know that some Christians, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are not called to marriage. For some with SSA, there may never be a prospect of marriage. This is taken to mean that their experience of SSA will always characterise their attractions, such that they will have no natural inclinations drawing them to the opposite sex at any stage of their life. We affirm this Resolution that calls such Christians to a life of celibacy. A life of celibacy was lived by Jesus. In the Apostle Paul’s case, in view of him being unmarried, at least we know this was so during the period he wrote his epistles, we know that he too lived the gift of celibacy (1 Corinthians 7: 7). Such cases as these are sufficient examples illustrating that it is both possible and godly to live celibately, if that is someone’s calling. In contrast, the position taken by advocates of what is called monogamous same-sex relationships, suggests a claim to an entitlement of a ‘good’, that is, enjoyment of an intimate relationship. It is an entitlement to a life of perceived fulfilment in a sexual relationship that is being claimed. Yet the concept of a gift from God must imply that the ‘good’ is a scripture-compatible given, rather than a claim of entitlement being made for a perceived good. The examples of Jesus and Paul show beyond doubt that a fulfilling and meaningful life is not merely possible but spiritually practicable and capable of bringing joy and purpose. Gay apologists do not directly use the language of ‘entitlement’ yet, other than heterosexual marriage, we do not find other sexual relationships biblically sanctioned. The question of morality here cannot draw solely on the honourable intentions of the parties who aspire to live in a lifelong, monogamous ‘marriage’. This is purely a subjective test of what is deemed to ‘feel right.’ Therefore, in the absence of sufficient heterosexual interest,127 and the possibilities of marriage that follow, a Christian is called to celibacy. 9.2 Beyond Celibacy For other single celibate Christians with SSA, the hope to be married one day remains a strong aspiration. In some cases, there is a mix of same-sex and opposite sex attraction. Depending on the strength and intensity of the SSA in such people, it may be that the prospect of marriage is feasible. For others, whether their SSA is slight (alongside a developed heterosexual orientation), or whether it is predominant or 126

See Resolution 1.10 (b) http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-1-10.cfm. We refer to ‘sufficient heterosexual interest’ to mean that for some men who seek marriage, while they may not have fully resolved their SSA, they nevertheless experience opposite sex attraction toward one person that is strong enough to provide a basis for marriage. Such a case may be judged as sufficient for a man, for example, to marry, other things being considered. 127

61 exclusive, the hope of resolving their wider issues relating to their SSA is urgent and compelling. Some seek the professional help of a qualified counsellor or therapist, with a view to diminishing their SSA, and exploring and/or strengthening their heterosexual potential. We understand it is important for clergy to be aware of people who choose to seek the possibility of change in these ways. Such persons may wish to be referred to a practitioner who holds specialist knowledge and experience. It should be clarified that those who have unwanted SSA but remain uninterested in change would not benefit from any such therapy or counselling. It ought to be stated that unless there is the personal motivation and freely-willed choice to want to pursue such a course, expecting someone to be committed against their wishes would be immoral. It is the affected individual who exercises his or her freedom of choice and self-determination, and not someone else on his or her behalf. Often, gay activists and their supporters routinely appeal to ‘failed’ cases of people who are said to have tried therapy. Typical media portrayals of this subject attracts knee-jerk hostility, or at best, scepticism, so that any possibility of rational public debate about science issues is stifled. We consider scientific issues in this area, noting that Resolution 10 of the 1978 Lambeth Conference: …recognise[d] the need for deep and dispassionate study of the question of homosexuality, which would take seriously both the teaching of Scripture and the results of scientific and medical research.128 The Lambeth Conference of 1988 reaffirmed this need for such dispassionate study.129 Before exploring those studies whose results show that some people have changed their sexual orientation, we believe several points of clarification are in need of consideration. •

Therapy which involves the client wanting to change his or her homosexual orientation is often referred to as Reparative Therapy. It should be made clear that this is but one therapeutic modality, among others that might be used. All therapy in the broad sense is ‘reparative’ (with a lower case ‘r’) in that there is some deficit, repair or remedy that is being sought. The therapy is sometimes described as reorientation therapy or ‘conversion therapy’. We discourage the term ‘conversion therapy’ as it can suggest that the therapist is trying to convert the client to heterosexuality, in the absence of informed client consent. In the therapeutic context, any changes to sexual orientation are understood to happen naturally, with the facilitation of the practitioner. We reject the label ‘gay cure’ that is routinely used by the media. The word ‘cure’ is unhelpful and misleading. First, because, ‘cure’ suggests disease and homosexuality is not a disease. Second, ‘cure’ can suggest that there is a specific treatment that, if followed, will surely generate the desired outcome.

128 129

http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1978/1978-10.cfm http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1988/1988-64.cfm

62 Such is the complexity of human psychology and sexuality - involving as it does, a complex web of past and present perceptions, feelings, attractions, relationships, needs and desires – that to speak of ‘cure’ is superficial. •

All therapies have varying margins of ‘failure’ outcomes but this fact cannot of itself, be a plausible reason to abandon the provision of the therapy to everyone. If there is an evidence-based case to be made that therapy can help some people, if not all, then discouraging or banning it, 130 is neither plausible, nor desirable for those whose self-determination is at issue.

•

Not all therapy modalities can be expected to yield the same outcomes. It is often unclear which school of therapy was used by clients who claim that the therapy failed them, or worse, harmed them. And even when the ‘school’ is known, such as a church ministry, it is not always known if relevant safeguards common to mental health practice were used. If non-professional persons (i.e. unqualified as mental health practitioners) intervene, this may, though not inevitably, bring risks.

•

If any particular therapy has failed some people’s expectations, such individual failures cannot, logically, be used as an argument from which to generalise about anticipated failure for everyone. Likewise, if reorientation therapy (see below) has been shown to succeed in changing sexual orientation for some people, this does not inevitably mean that we can generalise about anticipated change for everyone. The same principle can be said of any other therapies: if harm or help is reported by some people, such outcomes are not a predictable basis from which to generalise about similar outcomes for everyone, if others report competing claims.

•

We maintain that no credible scientific study has shown that reorientation therapy produces harm. This question is studied further below. However, to the extent that harm might result from a particular therapy, this possibility must be weighed against the possible benefits.131 Such calculations can be

130

In the current UKCP (United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy) Ethical Principles and Codes of Professional Conduct: Guidance on the Practice of Psychological Therapies that Pathologise and/or Seek to Eliminate or Reduce Same Sex Attraction, it is stated that UKCP psychotherapists who practice therapy that seeks to diminish same-sex attraction act in breach of the UKCP’s Ethics Code. This includes UKCP practitioners who teach or supervise practitioners offering such assistance. See: http://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/hres/Final%20Reparative%20Therapy%20Paper%2028022011_sf.do c. In its February 2010 “Statement on the 'reparative' therapy of members of sexual minorities”, the UKCP strongly dissuaded therapists from offering therapy that seeks to change homosexuality, going as far as to say that no responsible psychotherapist would employ reparative therapy. See: http://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/article1260.html?vm=r. 131 For example, in Nicolosi, J, et al, Retrospective Self-Reports of changes in homosexual orientation, participants were offered a list of 70 items of potentially negative consequences flowing from the therapy they had received. The principal investigator was Dr Joseph Nicolosi, while analysis of the data was undertaken by statisticians from Brigham Young University. Of the 882 subjects, 726 received therapy from either a professional therapist or pastoral counsellor. Of the 882 subjects involved, only 7.1% reported that they were worse on three or more of the 70 items. This “suggested minor negative effects for those who stayed in therapy.” (What Research Says, Philip M. Sutton, (Ed.) p. 46). Over 67% of the study’s participants reported they were exclusively or almost exclusively homosexually attracted at one time in their lives. 12.8% perceived themselves in this way at the time the survey was conducted. 45.4% of those participants who were exclusively homosexual reported major changes to their sexual orientation. However, 35.1% were unsuccessful in making significant changes.

63 made of any psychiatric or therapeutic intervention. We ought to bear in mind that therapies which involve patients retrieving past sexual abuse or any other abuse can easily unsettle individuals, and bring up much psychological pain. It is the client who offers his or her consent to this difficult process. Abuse of one kind or another (be it sexual, physical, emotional or some form of neglect) characterises most of the backgrounds of SSA persons. Although some people entering therapy for unwanted SSA have the sole intention to develop their heterosexual potential, we understand that they will usually find their homosexuality is but one symptom of a broader set of developmental problems. In a classic formulation of what is at issue, Nicolosi explains: “Since anatomically grounded gender is a core feature of individual identity, the homosexual has not so much a sexual problem, as an identity problem.”132 •

Change is not to be understood as an either/or outcome: did the person change from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation? Rather, ‘change’ should be understood as being on a spectrum. We might consider the Kinsey scale, noted earlier on p. 6 (see 1.1, Human Sexuality). The issues that successful clients have reported, in addition to, or in place of changes in sexual attractions, arousal or fantasy and/or cessation of sexual behaviour, include: better quality friendships with the same sex, that is, the capacity for platonic relationships and greater trust felt toward same-sex friends; feelings of stronger masculinity for men, or feelings of stronger femininity for women; better self-esteem and so on.

•

When change happens, facilitated by a mental health practitioner or a specialist pastoral ministry leader, it is not observed as a one-off event but an incremental process. We do not endorse ministries that promise deliverance prayer, where the sole and explicit purpose is healing the homosexual condition ‘in one go.’ As with all issues in need of healing, we strongly support the place of unceasing prayer: the body of Christ is urged and encouraged to “pray continually” (1 Thessalonians 5:17).

•

Reorientation therapists, like any mental health practitioner, have no ‘magic wand’ to change another person. What they can do is to act as important facilitators, so that over the course of time, as shame, identity, gender and relationship issues are sensitively and properly addressed, any changes in sexual orientation which might occur happen naturally as a result of resolving these deeper issues.

It is often assumed that if someone has SSA, there is no realistic prospect of marriage. This assumption seems to be based on the view that homosexual orientation is innate and immutable. No scientific studies have established the existence of a ‘gay gene’ or any genetic predisposition component. Here we consider some studies that show sexual orientation is changeable for some people. The controversy of reorientation therapy began to acquire a contentious status especially from 1973, when it was declassified by the APA. It is noteworthy that there is a body of clinical and scholarly literature from the past 125 years, in which mental health practitioners and researchers

132

http://www.narth.com/docs/selfreinvention.html?vm=r

64 have documented the diverse ways in which people have successfully changed their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.133 Yet a frequently repeated claim is that there is no scientific evidence that shows people can change their sexual orientation. This is sometimes phrased with the caveat that ‘no evidence’ means there is no gold-standard evidence, that is, no randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In the 2007 Royal College of Psychiatrists Submission to the Church of England’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality (RCPsych),134 it was stated that “there is no evidence that such change is possible.” In the RCPsych submission, this is further qualified by the claim about RCTs: The best evidence for efficacy of any treatment comes from randomised clinical trials and no such trial has been carried out in this field. It is true there are no RCTs to establish the efficacy of reorientation therapy. Equally true is the fact that gay-affirmative therapy (GAT) has not been subjected to RCTs.135 Setting up RCTs brings a variety of ethical problems. As suggested by Professor Glynn Harrison, Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry at Bristol University, ideally the subject, the treating therapist and those people measuring the results should be ‘blind’ to which group a subject is allocated.136 Further below, the question of bias is partly considered in relation to the Spitzer study. Harrison explains that although it is easier to evaluate drug treatments with RCTs: [M]ore complex interventions can be difficult to evaluate in this way, because of difficulties in maintaining blind conditions, or ensuring appropriate controls. For example, how does one maintain perfect control conditions if one is attempting to evaluate whether prayer ‘works’? 137 Harrison asks the pertinent question: [I]f one is evaluating an approach to help people who present in desperate emotional crisis, can one ethically assign them to a control (e.g. waiting list) condition? Because of these logistic and ethical issues, many counselling and psychotherapeutic interventions that are routinely used in clinical settings have a questionable evidence base, at least in terms of the gold standard of the RCT.138 The RCT is a high scientific threshold, arguably the gold-standard benchmark. That there are no RCTs to test the scientific status of GAT or other therapies has not been used as a reason to attack or discourage their use. For critics of reorientation therapy, however, the gold-standard benchmark is used as the test of scientific efficacy. This is

133

For a historical overview of success in reorientation therapy, see What Research Shows, Philip M. Sutton (Ed), p. 19-32. 134

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/rollofhonour/specialinterestgroups/gaylesbian/submissiontothecofe/psychiatryandlgb people.aspx#therapy 135

Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction, pp. 10-11. The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality, p. 311. 137 Ibid., pp. 311-312. 138 Ibid., p. 312. 136

65 clearly not a fair application of the argument and we submit that it is political ideology that determines the unequal prominence given to such an argument. Dr Robert Spitzer, renowned psychiatrist, who was instrumental in the 1973 decision of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) that deleted homosexuality from the DSM Manual suggests the obvious but politically incorrect point. With regard to the 2000 APA recommendation that urges ethical practitioners to refrain from work in reorientation therapy, he concludes: [This] is based on a double standard: It implies that it is unethical for a clinician to provide reparative therapy because there is inadequate scientific evidence of effectiveness, whereas it assumes that it is ethical to provide gay affirmative therapy for which there is also no rigorous scientific evidence of effectiveness and for which, like reparative therapy, there are reports and testimonials of harm…139 It would appear that as science evolves, scientists studying mental health outcomes may need to have regard to means, other than RCTs, of testing the efficacy of treatments, so that the moral and logistical problems, noted above, are diminished or eliminated. Seeking a gold-standard threshold other than an RCT may arguably be necessary because it is not clear whether all mental health treatments (those not involving psychiatric drugs) can be plausibly compared, for the purposes of tests in RCTs, to drug-based physical treatments. 9.3 Robert Spitzer’s Study140 The hypothesis Spitzer tested was whether some people whose sexual orientation is predominantly homosexual can become predominantly heterosexual following “some form of reparative therapy (which can take the form of psychotherapy, counselling, or participation in an ex-gay ministry program).”141

139

Spitzer, Robert. Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? p. 415. Spitzer, Robert. Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? When asked by a gay journalist about this published work, Dr Spitzer reportedly asked the journalist (as of April 2012) to print a retraction of the study “so I don’t have to worry about it anymore”. He attempted to have a retraction published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior – the journal that published his findings on change - but the editor declined this unusual request. However, Spitzer still acknowledges: “The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more.” See: http://prospect.org/article/my-so-called-ex-gay-life. His desire to retract his own findings raises the ‘why’ question. If a study is retracted, we might expect it is due to an updated study (or studies) whose results, for example, rule out or bring into scientific or ethical question the results of the earlier work that is being retracted. In his earlier published findings, he addressed the “double standard” being employed by gay apologists on the issues of evidence (see cited quotation of previous footnote) and he then expressed satisfaction with the ethical questions concerning client choice and self-determination. If a work is retracted, this could suggest that the author confesses to errors he adopted in either the methodology or other components of the study. In the case of Spitzer’s study, no such errors are being claimed by him. The apparent retraction can therefore be understood as motivated, not by science, but by intimidation from gay political activists. Since Spitzer’s study, much hostility has been provoked in the gay world. Yet prior to this 2003 study, he was revered by gay activists because of his major role in the 1973 decision to delete homosexuality from the DSM Manual, which was voted by the APA. 141 Ibid., p. 405. 140

66 Spitzer cites the 1998 American Psychiatric Association Position Statement on Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation that stated: [T]here is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy142 as a treatment to change one’s sexual orientation…The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behaviour.”143 Spitzer asks if this statement is true. We will subject the claim of harm to some scrutiny below. “The answer”, he says, “depends on what is meant by “scientific evidence.” He explains, in a similar vein to Harrison that: If scientific evidence requires a study with randomized assignment of individuals to a treatment condition, reliable and valid assessment of target symptoms before treatment, when treatment is concluded, and at follow-up, then it is certainly true that there are no such studies of reparative therapy. However, the same can be said about many widely used types of psychotherapy, including gay-affirmative therapy, whose efficacy has never been subjected to a rigorous study…There is, however, a large literature relevant to the issue of the possibility of changing sexual orientation.144 As Spitzer highlights, critics claim that reparative therapy can change both homosexual behaviour by acts of resisting homosexual feelings and be successful in making individuals re-label their identity to heterosexual. But they object to the claim that the homosexual orientation itself has changed. We should note here that some studies of reorientation therapy have been criticised on the grounds that the researcher had not specified which components of homosexual orientation had, in fact, changed. Spitzer, aware of this shortcoming, proposed that this study would consider homosexual orientation by multiple measures of same-sex: • • • • •

attraction arousal fantasy yearning overt behaviour

One of Spitzer’s stringent conditions for subjects qualifying for inclusion in his study was that they had sustained for at least five years, some change to a heterosexual orientation. Individuals were subject to two further requisite conditions. First, the individual had a predominantly homosexual attraction for many years, and in the year before commencing therapy. The attraction had to be at least 60 on a scale of sexual attraction (0 = exclusively heterosexual and 100 = exclusively homosexual). Second, following therapy, a change of at least 10 points had to be evident that lasted five years at least, towards the heterosexual sexual attraction end of the scale.

142

Spitzer clarifies the point (p. 404) that “In this article, any help from a mental health professional or an ex-gay ministry for the purpose of changing sexual orientation will be referred to as “reparative therapy” or simply as “therapy.”” 143 Ibid., p. 404. 144 Ibid., p. 404.

67 274 individuals were initially accepted for inclusion in the study (143 males, 57 females), although, following the application of strict entry criteria, 74 individuals failed to meet the admission requirements. Of the 200 participants, 93% believed that religion was “extremely” or “very” important in their life: 81% were Protestant, 8% Catholic and 7% Mormon. 41% reported that they were openly gay at some stage before the therapy commenced. Of special significance was the fact that the participants in this study did not believe that they experienced harm from their therapy. The often repeated claim that reparative therapy is harmful was made by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in their 2007 Submission to the Church of England Listening Process.145 Contrary to these claims, Spitzer stated: Depression has been reported to be a common side effect of unsuccessful attempts to change sexual orientation. This was not the case for our participants, who often reported that they were “markedly” or “extremely” depressed at PRE [year before starting therapy] (males 43%, females, 47%), but rarely that depressed at POST [year before the interview] (males 1%, females 4%). To the contrary, at POST the vast majority reported that they were “not at all” or only “slightly” depressed (males 91%, females, 88%).146 The participants were asked in which ways the therapy was helpful, other than changes in sexual orientation. The males felt more masculine and the females, more feminine (87%). Also significant was that both gender groups reported developing more intimate nonsexual relations with the same sex (93%). The principle of such findings is not unusual, in that those people seeking professional help in the hope of changing sexual orientation will often reap a range of other psychologically lifeenhancing benefits, other than possibly experiencing changes in sexual orientation. Were Spitzer’s results biased in any way? If there was significant bias, Spitzer believes, we could expect a complete or near complete change in all sexual orientation measures during POST. Only 11% of males and 37% of females reported such changes. Spitzer suggests: One might also expect that many participants would report a rapid onset of change in sexual feelings after starting therapy. In fact, participants reported that it took, on average, a full two years before they noticed a change in sexual feelings. If there was bias, one would expect that participants would be reluctant to admit to any use of gay pornography. In fact, 24% of the males and 4% of the females acknowledged that at POST they had used gay pornography.147 Spitzer makes a discerning scientific point that his study cannot address the question of how often reorientation therapy actually results in the big changes reported by most of his participants. Critics may easily exploit such a claim, so that they conclude that we cannot know anything scientific about the efficacy of reorientation therapies from 145

Submission to the Church of England’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality, (2007). Spitzer, Robert. Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? Ibid., p. 412. 147 Ibid., p. 412. 146

68 any one study. Such an argument is anti-science in its spirit because it dismisses the findings of other notable studies that help corroborate these findings, not to mention the results of possible future studies. The spirit of science means that more studies should be encouraged so that hypotheses can be tested and re-tested many times. The more studies undertaken, the more scientists are able to form judgments about efficacy, testing procedures, strengths and weaknesses of different methodologies, including questions of causation – the causal relationship between the therapy in question and the reported outcomes. We should note that since 1973, research in reorientation change therapy started to witness a decline, as practitioners were obliged to conform to the new official position that homosexuality was no longer a disorder. Such research has become “professionally threatening”, as “funding and other support for such research has evaporated.”148 As to the study’s general outcomes, Spitzer found that some gays and lesbians, following reparative therapy reported major changes from a predominantly homosexual orientation to a predominantly heterosexual orientation. These changes were not confined to sexual behaviour or what Spitzer calls, “sexual orientation selfidentity.”149 Change in sexual orientation, Spitzer states, “should be seen as complex and on a continuum.”150 Prior to the interventions, 99% of males and 98% of females reported that they had same-sex sexual fantasies, but at POST, only 31% of males and 5% of females reported the same type of fantasy in its intensity. Yearnings for same-sex romantic emotional involvement for males was, at PRE, 78% for men and 88% for women, while at POST, this changed to 8% for men and 4% for women. Men who reported having homosexual sex at least a few times monthly dropped from 50% at PRE, to 1% at POST, while for women, it dropped from 56% at PRE, to 0% at POST. It was notable that the participants experienced changes ranging across: sexual attraction, arousal, fantasy, yearning, and being bothered by homosexual feelings. Critics argue that people seeking reorientation are driven by societal disapproval, namely they are said to have internalised society’s homophobia. Spitzer points to two significant outcomes from his study: First, it questions the current conventional view that desire for therapy to change sexual orientation is always succumbing to societal pressure and irrational internalized homophobia. For some individuals, changing sexual orientation can be a rational, self-directed goal. Second, it suggests that the mental health professions should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has as a goal a change in sexual orientation.151

148

Jones, Stanton, L and Yarhouse, Mark, A. (2009). Ex-Gays? An Extended Longitudinal Study of Attempted Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation. Sexual Orientation and Faith Tradition Symposium, APA Convention. 149 Spitzer, Robert. Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? p. 415. 150 Ibid., p. 415. 151 Ibid., p. 414.

69 Spitzer also rightly clarifies what is true of people entering any type of therapy, namely, their informed consent is required. This ability to make such choices “should be considered,” Spitzer says, “fundamental to client autonomy and selfdetermination.”152 9.4 Jones and Yarhouse Jones and Yarhouse153 conducted a longitudinal study154 into religiously mediated change, the most methodologically rigorous research to date. The study was designed to address the weaknesses of previous studies by studying attempted change both longitudinally and prospectively by means of standardised self-report measures. It dealt with two key questions: • •

Is sexual orientation change possible? Is the attempt to change sexual orientation harmful?

The study’s participants were not drawn from professional psychotherapy but were taken from an interdenominational Christian ministry, Exodus International.155 The current Mission Statement of Exodus is: “Mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality.”156 It is the largest umbrella organization of Christian ministries for people with unwanted SSA. Most ministry groups affiliated to Exodus use small groups where worship, prayer, education and discussion are used as a means of dealing with the issues arising. There are a diverse range of these groups in terms of their focus, while some are structured and others less so. The study’s co-authors state:

152

Ibid., p. 414. Stanton L. Jones has been Provost and Professor of Psychology of Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois, since 1996. During his prior tenure as Chairperson of the Psychology Department (1984-1996), he led the development of the Wheaton College Doctor of Psychology program in Clinical Psychology. Dr. Jones is a member of the American Psychological Association, and was elected to a three year term (1999-2001) on the APA’s Council of Representatives, the central governing body of the APA, to represent Division 36, (then) the Psychology of Religion division. Mark A. Yarhouse is the Rosemarie Scotti Hughes Endowed Chair and Professor of Psychology in the School of Psychology and Counseling at Regent University, Illinois. From 2004-2006, Dr. Yarhouse was named a Senior Fellow of the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities to conduct a study of sexual minorities on Christian college campuses, and he was a past participant with the Ethics and Public Policy Center think tank in Washington, DC. This information is directly from: http://www.exgaystudy.org/exgays/who-are-the-authors 154 Jones, Stanton L and Yarhouse, Mark A. (2007). Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation. Illinois: IVP Academic, InterVarsityPress. Since the publication of these longitudinal results in 2007, the researchers have extended the assessments out to between 6-7 years. This final phase of the study was published in 2011: Stanton L. Jones & Mark A. Yarhouse (2011). “A longitudinal study of attempted religiously-mediated sexual orientation change.” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, Volume 37, pages 404-427. For the purposes of this Submission, we only report on the earlier phase of this research. 155 http://exodusinternational.org 156 http://exodusinternational.org/about-us/mission-doctrine When the co-authors cited the Exodus mission statement from the Exodus website in 2007, it then took the form of: “freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ.” See: Jones, Stanton, L and Yarhouse, Mark, A. ExGays? p. 3. 153

70 Previous studies of change have been criticized for using invalidated and/or idiosyncratic measures of sexual orientation. While a valid concern, this criticism also presupposes two things that are highly problematic: 1) that a stable consensus exists around a single definition of sexual orientation, and 2) that there exists a consensus about reliable and valid ways to assess it. There is no such consensus definition of sexual orientation, and no accepted, singular method to assess it.157 Such points as these are crucial. If we acknowledge that a consensus does not exist, then this will bear directly upon how we evaluate the tests and methodologies used in a particular study, and interpret data. In this longitudinal study, with a sample size of 98, of whom 72 were men and 26 were women, participants had the goal of resolving their unwanted SSA. They were involved in the process of change for less than three years, preferably less than twelve months. Standard and multiple measures were used to assess the sexual orientation of the participants. The possibility of psychological distress was also assessed. Compared with Spitzer’s study, a significant strength of this research is that measures were carried out before, during and at the point of completion of the ministry programme. Spitzer’s participants were asked questions about how they felt during the year before starting their therapy, which on average was about 12 years before their interview with Spitzer. The Jones and Yarhouse study, therefore, successfully addressed concerns that memory retrieval could distort the accuracy involved in selfreports. Of the original 98 subjects, 73 completed what were three assessment periods. To be included in the study the minimum age was 18. The average age was 37.50 years old, which was older than the co-researchers expected. On the question of age, the researchers state: There is an unflattering caricature that Exodus groups appeal primarily to young, naïve, confused and sexually inexperienced individuals. Such individuals might also be expected to have more optimistic possibilities for sexual orientation change, with older, more sexually experienced persons having more pessimistic expectations for change. This sample was older than the caricature, and more sexually experienced.158 What was found with regard to the sexual history of the study’s participants? Only 16.7% of the 72 male subjects had not had sex with another male as an adult. One third of the male sample had sex with 30 or more males. About half the male participants had never had sex with a female. 8% out of 25 women who provided meaningful data had not, as an adult, had sex with another female. Of the total female sample, 80% of females had had sex with one to nine females. 28% had not had any sex with a male.

157 158

Jones, Stanton L and Yarhouse, Mark A. (2009). Ex Gays? pp. 3-4. Ibid., p. 4.

71 The findings,159 based on both qualitative and quantitative data, allowed the coresearchers to ascertain how the participants experienced reorientation in the following ways: •

Success: Conversion”: 15% reported substantial reductions in homosexual attraction and substantial conversion to heterosexual attraction and functioning.

•

Success: Chastity: 23% reported homosexual attraction to be present incidentally, or in a way that was not causing distress, such that they were allowed to live in a contented way without “overt sexual activity.”

•

“Continuing”: 29% may have experienced modest decreases in homosexual attraction “but were not satisfied with their degree of change and remained committed to the change process.”

•

“Non-response”: 15% experienced no “significant” change in sexual orientation. They did not give up on the change process, and “may be confused or conflicted about which direction to turn next.

•

“Failure: Confused”: 4% experienced no significant change in their sexual orientation. They had given up on the change process without yet embracing a gay identity.

•

“Failure: Gay Identity”: 8% had given up on the change process and embraced a gay identity.

One of the subpopulations drawn from the overall sample of participants was established in response to critics who have claimed that people who appear to change to heterosexual were not “truly gay” from the beginning but were bisexual. This subgroup scored high measurements in the area of homosexual attraction, past homosexual behaviour and having previously embraced a gay or homosexual identity. The authors expected this “truly gay” subgroup to yield less positive results: Contrary to our original predictions, Truly Gay status (i.e., more definitive homosexual attraction, extensive homosexual behaviour experience, and embrace of gay identity) appears not to contraindicate the possibility of change.160 On a non-scientific note, that there were unexpectedly positive results from the “truly gay” sub-population, shows that God’s work was very much evident, even in such situations where our ‘commonsense’ might have given us initial cause for sceptical judgment. The researchers had initially hypothesized that being involved in the change process “should result in worse psychological distress.” Yet their results, based on a widely respected measure of subjective distress161 provided no evidence to support this hypothesis. There is a question as to whether those who dropped out from the course

159

Cited in What Research Says, Philip M. Sutton, (Ed.) pp. 17-19. Jones, Stanton L and Yarhouse, Mark A. (2009). Ex Gays? p. 8. 161 This is a checklist of 90 items of symptoms (SCL-90R). 160

72 had negative outcomes, with any experience of harm.162 We can only speculate about this but what is clear is that the dropouts did decide to leave the course, and whatever their reasons for this option, they were exercising their freedom of choice not to pursue change. 9.5 Questions of Harm The partly pastoral dimension of this paper suggests that where someone contemplates, or is informed about, the option of reorientation therapy, clergy ought to be aware of the full implications and range of views that should be considered, if guidance of one kind or another is offered. One frequently cited study that claims reorientation interventions produce harm is by Shidlo and Schroeder, two gay psychologists.163 This study was hosted by two gay rights organisations. It has since been cited in the Royal College of Psychiatrists 2007 Submission to the Church of England, noted earlier. Rather than provide an exhaustive commentary that seeks to cover the findings of the whole study, to ensure we keep within our remit, we focus the spotlight on several key issues underpinning the study and its reported findings. The study claims that sexual orientation change failed for a majority of what were a total of 202 men and women interviewed, while many reported harm that was associated with what it calls “conversion interventions.” We should note that there was a twelve year gap from the time of the last intervention and the recollection of the therapy. This may or may not mean that participants had retrieved accurate recollections. In any event, we consider some of the recollections below. The participants reported receiving psychotherapy from a total of 203 licensed mental health practitioners, which was made up of psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, marriage and family counsellors and master’s level therapists. In addition, 105 non-licensed counsellors were reported, 43 of whom were peer counsellors, 58 religious counsellors and 4 unlicensed therapists. There were 19 types of clinical and non-clinical interventions used in all, the largest being 132 interventions of a “not specified” type of individual psychotherapy, as well as a small number of ‘interventions’ being religious. It is deeply problematic that such an assortment of people formed part of the sample of practitioners. The co-researchers defined “sexual orientation conversion intervention as any therapy administered…” by a range of practitioners (as noted above). That some of these were licensed, while others were not, means the claims of ‘harm’ may immediately be brought into scientific question. That some were religious counsellors, while others, it is suggested, did not necessarily bring religion into the

162 163

Groves, Philip, The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality, p. 320. Shidlo, Ariel and Schroeder, Michael. Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumer’s Report.

73 sessions164 is another problem in terms of consistent sampling. How can we ascertain the impact of a particular intervention regarding harm, when the practitioners are drawn from such a wide range of professional and non-professional backgrounds? And as for the qualified professionals involved, not all would have used the same modalities in their treatment approach. As to best or good practice procedures, we should acknowledge that, the non-professionals involved (e.g. peer counsellors) could not be expected to approach the issues of treatment on a professional footing. Initially, when participants were recruited, the original title of the recruitment project was: “Homophobic Therapies: Documenting the Damage.” Following the first 20 interviews, the researchers discovered some participants reported being both helped and harmed. The recruitment drive was then reframed with what the researchers believed was a more inclusive project name: “Changing Sexual Orientation: Does Counselling Work?” 43% of participants were recruited through gay and lesbian sources. This figure is not exact as the authors confess to certain limitations that prevented them from knowing precise percentages representing all the media and other sources from which participants learnt of the study. The risk of bias is high, when so many of the study’s participants were drawn from gay and lesbian sources. Such persons may, it is feared, have wanted to exaggerate their experiences of harm in order to tarnish the standing of the therapy that had failed their original hopes. A similar criticism has been made of the Spitzer study, in that people who had experienced change could have felt motivated to have that fact known, and so enlarged upon their claims of success. However, the self reports of people who claimed they had experienced change in various ways were given more than due regard by Spitzer. He was persuaded by the overall credibility of the reports of self-reported change. As stated above, if bias was a genuine factor, the participants might have been expected to score far higher ratings than they generally did. What the Spitzer and Jones and Yarhouse studies did not do – admitted in both studies – was to show the frequency of change that may be expected in other cases of intervention. In other words, the fact that change has been documented in some cases does not tell us how frequently such change may be found in other (future) cases. This is an important scientific caveat. The same caveat must, we submit, be applied to this harm study. Indeed, Shildlo and Schroeder explain that their data does not provide information on the incidence and prevalence of failure, harm, help, or ethical violations in conversion therapy. However, Shildlo and Schroeder express the hope that their quantitative data can be used to help future studies. Despite their admission of the study’s limitations, in addition to the sampling problems already noted, the Royal College Submission in 2007 appeals to this study as part of its support for the claim that reorientation intervention causes “considerable harm.”165 164

What is not clear is whether or not the practitioners who are described, for example, as psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers etc, separated their own conveyance of religious faith from their practice with the clients in question. Aside from this study, it is known that some clients who seek the help of a qualified mental health practitioner may want their faith to overtly feature in the sessions, while for others, this is not desired. It may be that the client holds no faith. For example, practitioners at the NARTH Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic (TAPC) offer secular professional support. While the TAPC practitioners do not bring religion into the therapy sessions, clients, as opposed to practitioners, freely bring their experiences of faith into the sessions, when relevant to the client’s beliefs. 165 Submission to the Church of England’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality, (2007).

The authors claim that there are potential risks flowing from reparative therapy, such as depression, anxiety, self-destructive behaviour, all of which are claimed to be generated by “therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality [that] may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient.”166 This raises many important questions. One very pertinent one is that of causation. Given the disproportionately high rates of psychiatric illness found among the LGBT population (noted earlier), we cannot know with certainty if the clients’ claims of psychological harm were caused by or preceded what the authors call the ‘conversion intervention’. Another possibility is that if someone is already psychiatrically predisposed to, say, depression, to the extent that sexual restraint may have formed part of the ‘treatment’ (if it was faith-based), this could have provoked resentment both during, and more likely at the time when ‘failure’ was perceived by the ‘client.’ (It is problematic to designate all the participants as ‘clients’ if not all of them were seen by qualified practitioners). Furthermore, if someone’s Christian moral conviction is not securely established, namely, that homosexual practice is sinful, irrespective of whether change is possible for them, this could easily produce resentment in those who feel they are missing out ‘on the fun.” For example, one of the participants said it “delayed my being a gay man once again. It preserved the false notion that sexual orientation could be changed and added more years to my time in the closet. I lost a lot of my life as a result of this.”167 In another case, a person claimed being “forced” into therapy by a religious university. Failing to comply would be followed by academic expulsion or termination of financial assistance. In this type of case, if that is what actually happened, then the university official who made such a demand was clearly acting irresponsibly. It is unfair that such an example can be used as an illustration of what is thought to represent reorientation therapy. Without full and informed consent, a professional practitioner should never enter into a contract with a client. It is certainly not inconceivable that some religious counsellors may be guilty of this, believing that it is in the person’s best spiritual interests. There is a difference between bringing an option to someone’s attention, discussing it with them, and allowing them the time and space to own any decision about counselling options. There may be a thin line, pastorally speaking, between encouraging someone with unwanted SSA to consider seeing a psychotherapist or counsellor, and them perceiving such encouragement as ‘pressure’. As in all situations, clergy and other church workers need to approach these matters with great sensitivity. In all this, the ultimate issue is that people must have the freedom and space to determine if any professional intervention is desirable. On account of their reports, others were subjected to experiences that were clearly shame-inducing and in other ways, deeply irresponsible. For example, one person reported that the therapy “…added to my hatred of my father..”. The authors state that some participants were instructed to blame their parents for their homosexuality. It is clear that, if such recollections were accurate – we have no compelling reason to 166 167

Shidlo, Ariel and Schroeder, Michael. Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumer’s Report. Ibid.

75 believe they were not – the practitioners, whether they were qualified or not, were acting in clear violation of standard professional values of respect. No responsible reorientation therapist would say anything that might conceivably increase the shame felt by the person seeking help. It is relevant to point out at this stage that, according to Nicolosi, “…a particular focus of reparative therapy is on helping the client reject shame to live life in the assertive stance.”168 Shildlo and Schroeder claim that people who receive reparative therapy are not presented with the possibility that an individual could “achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian…” There are three ethical problems with this claim. First, gay affirming therapists, holding their own worldview, do not provide their clients with other options outside of gay affirming therapy (GAT). Neither do they acknowledge the fact that people can lead full and healthy emotional lives without embracing a gay identity and lifestyle. So in these two respects, both practitioners are catering to their respective clients’ beliefs. However, there is one crucial difference. Given the serious, potentially life-threatening illnesses practising homosexuals are at risk of contracting, by not giving the range of possible options other than living ‘as a gay person’, this is arguably a violation of the individual’s best interests (see p.19 for some of the medical issues involved). Second, some clients entering reorientation therapy or ministry-based interventions have already lived a gay lifestyle; some of these individuals did not find that it ‘worked’ for them, while for others a pervasive culture of promiscuity was patently incompatible with their lifestyle and/or faith-based aspirations. Third, some clients holding deeply held religious beliefs have already made a definitive choice to ‘leave homosexuality’ and their choice of therapist is a rational choice informed by conscience and knowledge, reflecting the kind of values they seek to uphold in their life. This position, often known as religious conscience, is a demonstration of client self-determination and autonomy. What we are calling ‘Christian conscience’, gay apologists would describe as ‘internalised homophobia’. People experiencing SSA, as well as those who are gay-identified (whether practising or not) must be respected as persons of equal worth because all are made in the image of God. But it does not follow that sexual behaviour, outside God’s plan, cannot be condemned as sin, in the same way that adultery attracts moral opprobrium, independent of the fact that adultery feels ‘right’ for some people because it is consenting and loving. It should be stated that on account of the ‘official’ social consensus, supported by law, that no longer questions the sexual behavioural freedoms of individuals, people hold every freedom to engage in homosexual practice if they choose, in the same way heterosexuals are free to choose their own sexual behaviour. This is sometimes understood as an expression of society’s professed respect for, and celebration of, diversity or “sexual diversity.”169 We maintain that in professional practice, true 168

Nicolosi, Joseph. Shame and Attachment Loss: The Practical Work of Reparative Therapy, p. 34. As stated above, The United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy strongly dissuades therapists from offering therapy that seeks to change homosexuality, going as far as to say that no responsible 169

76 diversity must, of necessity, positively include those whose values imply a rejection of homosexual practice as a valid, healthy and desirable lifestyle option. This is of relevance to the church for two reasons. First, if clergy ever refer members of their church to mental health practitioners, they would want, or in any event, ought to be informed about the spiritual welfare implications flowing from the prospects of a specific therapy provision. Second, we express deep concern when Christians are given counselling directly by clergy, which seeks to affirm homosexual practice, when ‘gay sexuality’ is seen as a gift, reflecting God’s ordained will for the ways some people express love for one another. Earlier in this paper (see p.19, General Pastoral Concerns of People with SSA), brief consideration was given to the grave medical implications flowing from homosexual sex. This involves a domain of medical risks that is all too often ignored in church and secular discussion, despite the fact that the medical facts speak for themselves. In Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, the distinguished psychiatrist, Dr Jeffrey Satinover states that even when condoms are used, anal intercourse is harmful primarily to the “receptive” partner. Because the rectal sphincter is designed to stretch only minimally, penile-anal thrusting can damage it severely. The introduction of larger items, as in the relatively common practice of “fisting,” causes even worse damage. Thus gay males have a disproportionate incidence of acute rectal trauma as well as of rectal incontinence (the inability to control the passing of feces) and anal cancer.170 Satinover further explains that: anal intercourse, penile or otherwise, traumatizes the soft tissues of the rectal lining. These tissues are meant to accommodate the relatively soft fecal mass as it is prepared for expulsion by the slow contractions of the bowel and are nowhere near as sturdy as vaginal tissue. As a consequence, the lining of the rectum is almost always traumatized to some degree by any act of anal intercourse.171 We acknowledged earlier that not all practising homosexuals engage in anally penetrative activity yet it is equally true that such activity is not uncommon. There are psychotherapist would employ reparative therapy. This is said alongside their concerns that as many as one in six therapists surveyed in 2009, were willing to assist clients who sought to reduce their SSA. In a stark and disturbing contradiction, the statement goes on to affirm its honour and respect for “sexual diversity as part of our approach to diversity, equalities and social responsibility.” See: http://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/article1260.html?vm=r. The moral question is who is included in this diversity? And, who is excluded? Even if the apparent professional consensus is that homosexuality is no longer a disorder, should the implications of this belief be imposed on clients whose values compel them to neither identify as ‘gay’, nor practice same-sex sexual activity? The path of self-determination to seek professional assistance, based on a free-willed choice not to stake identity on sexual feelings, is supported by Lord Carey and other clergy (noted earlier); see: http://www.christianconcern.com/press-release/senior-clergy-back-christian-counsellor-in-homosexualtreatment-trial 170 Satinover, Jeffrey. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, p. 67. This claim of damage is not a minority view and Satinover provides a range of peer-reviewed citations that support his claim. 171 Ibid.

77 grave medical risks attached to same-sex sexual activities and it is not just anal penetration that is at issue.172 Satinover conveys the point that in the case of relatively monogamous gay couples, there is a lower AIDS risk as they tend to engage in unprotected anal sex more often than highly polygamous single homosexuals.173 Subsequently, he argues, they attract a higher risk of non-AIDS conditions. 9.6 The Question of Predisposition and Moral Agency On the question of change, one pertinent question is: what if science concluded that same-sex attraction stemmed from a genetic or hormonal predisposition? Were this position established beyond doubt, for argument’s sake, would there be an indisputable mandate that warrants a theological shift on the question of homosexual practice being morally permissible? No such mandate would exist because there is something transcending the power of base desire and predisposition: we firmly believe it is fundamentally important here, as in any other moral dilemma, to acknowledge the role of moral agency, so that individuals feeling predisposed in a particular direction use their Christ-given freedom to choose if such predispositions are morally desirable or permissible. The Apostle Paul teaches all members of the Body of Christ that God will provide the necessary strength in the face of temptations (1 Corinthians 10: 13), none of which are uncommon to the spectrum of human experience: No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will provide a way out so that you can stand up under it. Jesus makes a promise that offers similar encouragement (John 8: 31-32) when he draws an intimate and inseparable connection between those who follow his teachings and those who are his disciples, when he says: …If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. The immediate context here is explained by Jesus when, a few verses later (verses 3436), he further uncovers his meaning: …I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

172

As noted earlier, see The Health Risks of Gay Sex, John M. Diggs Jr., MD, Corporate Resource Council: http://catholiceducation.org/ articles/homosexuality/healthrisksSSA.pdf 173 Satinover, Jeffrey. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Satinover’s support for this draws on: L. McKusick et al., “Longitudinal Predictors of Reductions in Unprotected Anal Intercourse among Gay Men in San Francisco: The AIDS Behavioral Research Project,” American Journal of Public Health 80, no. 8 (August 1990), pp. 978-83.

78 We acknowledge that every Christian person is in a different psychological place, holding a unique history of experiences, hurts and differing capacities to respond to adversity. However, the promise of Christâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s freedom is available to every disciple, irrespective of their personal circumstances, tribulations and sexual temptations. The challenge not to act out on same-sex attractions is certainly not beyond the reach of the redeeming, renewing and restoring power available through Christ. This challenge is no different to the difficulties faced, for example, by a heterosexual man who is attracted to a married woman; he is mindful of the boundaries he must maintain if he is not to risk the prospect of an adulterous relationship.

79 10. Ministries Already Offering Support The 1998 Evangelical Alliance Report on homosexuality observed that while: the success of those who help formerly active homosexuals on the journey may not always be spectacular, but neither is it negligible. Those organisations which responsibly facilitate this journey deserve greater church support.174 The same Report commends: the work of those organisations which seek to help homosexual Christians live a celibate life and also those groups which responsibly assist homosexuals who wish to orient to a heterosexual lifestyle.”175 We are aware of four Protestant ministries in England and Northern Ireland, holding a public profile, that offer varying support to Christians experiencing unwanted samesex attractions. We also consider the one Catholic ministry that is part of an international group of chapters. A general, basic overview of the work of these ministries is offered here, with a view to demonstrating how some Christians are supported pastorally. 10.1 True Freedom Trust (TFT) The mission of TFT is to: teach and encourage individuals, their families and friends as they deal with issues around same-sex attractions, working in partnership with Christian leaders and local churches to promote a biblical pattern for sexual relationships.”176 TFT is Protestant and interdenominational, is a member of the Evangelical Alliance and is also an affiliated member of the Association of Christian Counsellors. 10.2 Core Issues Trust Core Issues is a Northern Ireland-based registered charity and is a member of the Evangelical Alliance. Core’s vision is to: uphold Biblical standards and values and appropriate ethical principles in contemporary society, in which Christian churches have sometimes failed to act with compassion or understanding towards those who struggle to overcome.”177

174

Faith, Hope and Homosexuality, p. 31. Ibid, p. 34. 176 http://www.truefreedomtrust.co.uk/vision 177 http://www.core-issues.org/ 175

80 Core works with local churches to help equip them in ministering to people who experience unwanted SSA, their friends and family. “The goal is to work with local fellowship leaders, in collaboration with a range of similar ministries, to assist in the pastoral care of such individuals.”178 10.3 Living Waters Living Waters UK is an interdenominational Christian ministry that provides pastoral care offering: understanding, hope and healing, to men and women dealing with relational and sexual issues and also to people dealing with issues of gender identity.179 A core part of the work of the Living Waters ministry is based on courses and small group work. It also offers an accountability group. For those dealing with addiction issues, such a group helps people “learn how to build accountable relationships.”180 10.4 Courage Courage is an apostolate of the Roman Catholic Church with an international presence of over 100 chapters, and is endorsed by the Pontifical Council for the Family. It aims to minister to same-sex attracted persons and their loved ones. The chapter in England is known as EnCourage. Courage is embodied by five goals181 which, among other things, includes but is not limited to: i. ii. iii. iv. v.

Living a chaste life Dedication of one’s life to Christ through service to others and prayer Engaging in a spirit of fellowship so that experiencing the problems of homosexuality are not isolated Chaste relationships Living exemplary lives

178

http://www.core-issues.org/index.php?page=Proposal http://www.living-waters-uk.org/?vm=r 180 http://www.living-waters-uk.org/courses/tag-accountability-group 181 http://www.couragerc.net/Our_Five_Goals.html 179

11. Summary and Conclusions Given the weighty evidence we have presented, supported by the consensual reading of Scripture extending over two-thousand years of Church tradition, we believe the only God-ordained setting for sexual intimacy is within heterosexual marriage. Sexual activity outside of this context, even when it is deemed as monogamous, lifelong and motivated by good intentions, fails to be compatible with the biblical template of marriage. Furthermore, even when a same-sex couple believes their relationship holds integrity, any desire to maintain moral integrity must ultimately conform to the theological integrity of Scripture, which transcends the personal, subjective domain of what people feel, however heartfelt and sincere this may be. The Gospel Jesus condemned sexual immorality, which is understood to include all sexual activity outside of (heterosexual) marriage. The historical Jewish background, in addition to an analysis of porneia, in the wider context of all the other biblical passages, leads us to inescapably conclude that homosexual practice, as stated by the 1998 Lambeth Resolution, is incompatible with Scripture. Having established our position as to what we understand orthodox doctrine to be, we have also sought to tackle questions of pastoral care and moral direction (Lambeth Resolution, 1. 10, 1998). We believe it is insufficient for correct teaching to be in place if those experiencing SSA are not embraced and cared for pastorally. The LGBT world will readily welcome such people and make them feel they belong. Indeed, the Christian gay movement is more than ready to bring into their fold, people who feel the church has let them down because, among other things, it failed to love them. As for Christians with unwanted SSA, clergy may be unequipped, unable, or unwilling to actively welcome, nurture and support such people in the context of biblical ‘moral direction’, whether through neglect, indifference, genuine ignorance or a belief that expressions of ‘gay sexuality’ are compatible with Christian values. We believe this situation makes it more likely that people feeling distressed or conflicted by issues relating to SSA might feel tempted to gravitate to fellowships where ‘gay sexuality’ is celebrated. Listening is an essential part of pastoral care, especially when those in conflict over their sexuality seek support. If, however, a culture of listening becomes an end in itself, we argued this could leave an essential part of the Church’s raison d’être, namely, its teaching and pastoral roles, effectively in abeyance. Concerns were raised as to how much confidence such strugglers might feel when seeking help from clergy, given the increasingly gay-affirming voices being accorded prominence in the church. Concerns were also raised in connection with the fact that the ex-gay narrative occupies no place on the ‘centre platform’, compared to LGBT voices. We considered questions of Christian identity in the context of homosexuality. Against the backdrop of Christians who experience SSA - some of whom are gayidentified - we argued the case that affirms the Scriptural view of identity, namely, that every Christian’s identity is solely in Christ. Such an identity transcends other factors. The St Andrew’s Day Statement bears reiterating here: “There can be no description of human reality, in general or in particular, outside the reality in Christ.

82 We must be on guard, therefore, against constructing any other ground for our identities than the redeemed humanity given us in him.â&#x20AC;? We considered various testimonies of people on the journey of healing. In response to the 1978 Lambeth Resolution which recognised the need for dispassionate scientific study of homosexuality, we considered two main scientific studies that tested the question of sexual orientation change, for those who seek this course, while also having regard to concerns of harm. Based on the results, while considering the different features potentially constituting sexual orientation, we found that some people had successfully changed their sexual orientation; while for others, the professional or Christian ministry-based support they received allowed them to develop stronger platonic same-sex friendships and live celibately.

12. Recommendations We offer a series of recommendations in the hope that the Church will feel able to commit these to prayerful consideration. 1) We encourage the Church, through its bishops, ministers and General Synod, to dispassionately study existing material relating to the science and narrative of the ex-gay experience, and to actively encourage the commission of studies of scientific and testimonial material. 2) We urge the Church, through its pastoral leaders, to present the option of appropriate counselling, whether pastoral or secular, to persons experiencing unwanted SSA, who freely choose to address and/or resolve their conflicts pertaining to identity and sexuality. As a prelude to this step, we suggest a Church-wide protocol of guidelines be developed. In cases where ministers hold “pro-gay” views about identity, the Church would urge them to refer such men or women to an appropriate minister who could provide appropriate moral direction and pastoral care. In any event, whether an appropriate minister in the diocese is found or not, the option of referral to a known ministry providing pastoral care or counselling can nevertheless be made. (See Ministries Already Offering Support). 3) We encourage the Church, over the long-term, to consider practical strategies for developing “in-house” ministry groups within the Church of England to provide for the pastoral care sought by those experiencing unwanted SSA. In seeking appropriate models for how such groups could work practically, the Church could oversee initiatives in information gathering, from already existing ministries supporting Christians with unwanted SSA. 4) We urge the Church to further consider how biblically orthodox-minded spouses of SSA or gay-identified people, can be pastorally guided and cared for, when such spouses call upon the Church for help and support. In the same vein, we encourage the Church to consider how to pastorally support parents (who hold orthodox beliefs about sexuality) who experience distress and helplessness, upon discovering their son or daughter experiences unwanted SSA, or is gay-identified. One option for consideration is to form support groups respectively for both affected spouses and parents. This breaks the isolation that can be so typically experienced in such cases. 5) We encourage the Church, in the context of relationships, to affirm its mission to speak words of “grace and truth” into the lives of all Christians (whether identifying as heterosexual, bisexual, gay, lesbian, or same-sex attracted). We encourage the Church to convey more prominently the teaching about marriage, as being the sole biblical setting for sexual activity, in which spouses and children flourish best. If orthodox biblical teachings are to still retain their visible value and outworking in the life of the Church, we encourage the Church to prayerfully consider how it might

84 lovingly call all Christians to repentance, who remain in relationships outside of the covenant of heterosexual marriage. 6) We encourage the Church to convey, in ways that are patient, sensitive, graceful and Spirit-filled, the unambiguous biblical answers to questions of human identity. Those Christian persons who self-identify as ‘gay’, ‘lesbian’ or ‘bisexual’ should be presented with the Christ-based model of “who we are” in Christ, which by its nature, transcends subjective labels of self-designation. 7) We urge those in the Church who are directly involved in the pastoral care of people with unwanted SSA, to be open, in view of both testimonial and scientific evidence, to the possibility of healing and change in areas concerning: gender esteem and identity, distress caused by same-sex sexual attractions, homosexual promiscuous acting-out and all psychological wounds and symptoms closely aligned with SSA. This possibility of change and healing includes the prospect of transitioning from homosexual attractions to the onset of heterosexual attractions and feelings. All website links cited in this Submission were last visited on 30 April 2012.

13: Bibliography Quotations from Scripture are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version (1992). London: Hodder & Stoughton. --Bergner, Mario. (1995). Setting Love in Order: Hope and Healing for the Homosexual. Tunbridge Wells, Kent: Monarch Publications. Bristow, Joseph, (1997). Sexuality. London: Routledge. Byrd, A.D., Nicolosi, J., & Potts, R.W. (2008). Clientsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Perceptions of How Reorientation Therapy and Self-help Can Promote Changes in Sexual Orientation. Psychological Reports, 102, 3-28. Chakraborty, Apu et al, (2011). Mental Health of the non-heterosexual population in England, The British Journal of Psychiatry 198: 143-148. De Young, James B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications. Dover, Kenneth J. (1989). Greek Homosexuality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Foucault, Michael. (1984). The History of Sexuality: An Introduction: Volume One. Translated by Robert Hurley. London: Penguin. Gagnon, Robert A. J. (2001). The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermaneutics. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press. Goddard, Andrew and Harrison, Glynn. (2011). Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction: Issues of Pastoral and Counselling Support. London: Christian Medical Fellowship. Goldberg, Arthur. (2008). Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality and the Power to Change. Beverly Hills, California: Red Heifer Press. Goldhill, Simon. (2004). Love, Sex & Tragedy: How the Ancient World Shapes Our Lives. London: John Murray. Groves, Philip (2008). The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality: A Resource to enable listening and dialogue. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Jones, Stanton L and Yarhouse, Mark A. (2007). Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation. Illinois: IVP Academic, InterVarsityPress.

86 Jones, Stanton, L and Yarhouse, Mark, A. (2009). Ex-Gays? An Extended Longitudinal Study of Attempted Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation. Sexual Orientation and Faith Tradition Symposium, APA Convention. Keane, Christopher. (Ed). (2001). What Some of You Were: Stories about Christians and Homosexuality. Surrey, UK: The Good Book Company. (Matthias Media) King, Michael et al, (2008). A Systematic review of mental disorder, suicide, and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people, BMC Psychiatry. Le Vay, Simon. (1996). Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Nicolosi, Joseph. (1997). Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach. Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson. Nicolosi, J, Byrd, A.D., & Potts, R.W. (2000). Retrospective Self-Reports of changes in homosexual orientation: A consumer survey of conversion therapy clients. Psychological Reports, 86, 1071-1088. Nicolosi, Joseph. (2009). Shame and Attachment Loss: The Practical Work of Reparative Therapy. Illinois: IVP Academic, InterVarsityPress. Nolland, John. (2009). Sexual Ethics and the Jesus of the Gospels. ANVIL, Vol. 26, No. 1. Nolland, Lisa et al. (2008). God, Gays and the Church: Human Sexuality and Experience in Christian Thinking. London: The Latimer Trust. Norton, Rictor. (1997). The Myth of the Modern Homosexual: Queer History and the Search for Cultural Unity. London: Cassell. Peterson, David (Ed). (2004). Holiness and Sexuality: Homosexuality in a biblical context. Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press. Satinover, Jeffrey. (2004). Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids: Michigan. Baker Books. Shidlo, Ariel and Schroeder, Michael. (2002). Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. Vol. 33, No. 3, 249-259. Spitzer, Robert. Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation. (October 2003). Archives of Sexual Behavior. Vol., 32, No. 5, 403-417. Stein, Edward. (1999). The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation. New York: Oxford University Press.

87 Sutton, Philip, M. (Ed). (2009). What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality. Journal of Human Sexuality, Vol., 1. The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. Other Documents Faith, Hope and Homosexuality: A Report by the Evangelical Alliance’s Commission on Unity and Truth among Evangelicals (ACUTE). (1998). London: ACUTE, Evangelical Alliance. Issues in Human Sexuality A Statement from the House of Bishops of the General Synod of the Church of England, Church House Publishing, 1991 St. Andrew’s Day Statement (1995). The Church of England Evangelical Council. Some Issues in Human Sexuality: A guide to the debate. A discussion document from the House of Bishops’ Group on Issues in Human Sexuality, Church House Publishing, 2003 To Set Our Hope on Christ: A Response to the Invitation of Windsor Report ¶ 135 (2005). Episcopal Church. The Windsor Report. (2004) http://www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/index.cfm Submission to the Church of England’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality, Royal College of Psychiatrists (2007).