The first panel of the day addressed homosexuality from the perspectives of biblical theology and ethics.
Robert Gagnon opened the panel and began with a rebuttal of the gentile inclusion analogy. According to the analogy, gentiles were included in the church apart from having to observe the ceremonial laws because of the evidence of the Holy Spirit in their lives. So by analogy, if we see homosexuals evidencing the fruit of the spirit, why not include them in the church despite their nonobservance of the letter of the law.
Gagnon pointed out that a principle of analogical reasoning is that the analogy, which has more significant corresponding points is the better analogy. Gagnon observes that the Bible does not ground circumcision in creation. He holds that circumcision affects the people of God only as a superficial act, but that the prohibition on homosexuality is part of what the Jews considered the Noahide law which the Jews considered binding on all, not just Jews. Therefore, he believes that homosexuality is better compared to other, more lasting, ordinances which the Gentile Christians were supposed to observe.
Next, Gagnon took on the question, What precisely is the problem with homosexual practice? He enumerated several: (1) Conceiving of a sexual same as a sexual other which is tantamount to sexual self-deception. It is (2) treating one's maleness or femaleness as only half-intact, which is sexual self-dishonor. According to Gagnon, the logic of homosex is that two halves of the same sex make a sexual whole, which is in opposition to the logic of heterosex: a whole male and whole female form a single sexual whole. For Gagnon (3) experiencing arousal at the distinctive features of the same gender is sexual narcissism. And he claims that (4) failing to moderate the extremes of a given gender (by filling in the gap with the opposite sex) results in sexual harm in the homosexual relationship. He points to perceived unbalance in homosexuals' relationships resulting in abuse as evidence of this point.
Gagnon does not believe all sins are equal. Jesus spoke of weightier matters of the law, and in the Old Testament God punished sins in proportion to their severity. He pointed out that some of God's severest judgment came for sexual sin, and so views homosexuality as a severe form of sin. Gagnon concluded by asserting that the command to not judge each other includes not acquitting people of behavior that God has not acquitted them of.
Richard Davidson said he would lead us in a Bible study for "Sabbath School time." He started with Gen 1:16-18, pointing out that being sexual is part of being human and that homosexuality cannot fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply. He sees the "let us" as referring to a deliberation within the I-Thou relationship of the godhead which results in creation. And the results of this creation is that human beings have a polarized rationality and procreativity through our sexuality.
In Gen 2, Davidson says that God puts Adam to sleep so that he won't think he had anything to do with the creation of Eve. He sees Gen 2:24-25 as the divine mandate for marriage. The words ish and isha (Hebrew: man and woman) make explicit within the text that God's paradigm for marriage is heterosexual. He sees that the rest of Scripture builds on these passages when addressing the topic of sex, including Leviticus.
Citing Gagnon, Davidson says that the Levitical code on homosexuality is unique in the Ancient Near East in that both parties are penalized, not just the one in the dominant role. This implies consensual intercourse, not just rape. There is no specific mention in Leviticus of lesbianism, but the masculine language in the Torah is gender inclusive.
Davidson also sees three hints in the text that the prohibition of homosexual activity goes beyond Israel's context: (1) the word "abomination," which is specifically attached to homosexual intercourse; (2) the other nations were to be judged for doing these activities (Lev 18:24-25); and (3) foreigners in their land were to keep these laws (Lev 18:26). Regarding the applicability of this law to Christians, Davidson finds that the Jerusalem Council took their list of requirements for gentile Christians from the laws Leviticus 17-18 that were applicable to foreigners in the land of Israel.
Miroslav Kis - Those who have had Kis as a professor will not be surprised that be began by informing everyone that he used to be a watchmaker. He then presented a paper which outlined three concepts that he believes pertain to homosexuality: (1) innocence, as in the nakedness of Adam and Eve; (2) guilt, both objective moral guilt and subjective feelings of guilt that both convict and punish the one who has lost innocence; and (3) shame, which arises from the failure to live up to the internal conception of the self, the gap between what 'is' and what 'ought'. According to Kis, guilt and shame warn us of danger in our ways of being and doing. Kis believes that the solution to guilt and shame is receiving forgiveness through confession to God.
Next Kis introduced the concept of shamelessness--a brazen and impudent attitude--in the context of Rom 1:26-27. Kis understands that, for Paul, homosexual acts are shameless because they are idolatrous. This means that when God is put aside there is no difference between truth and lie, right and wrong. They are also shameless because they are unnatural. And finally, Kis believes that they are shameless because of an almost universal experience of private shame before homosexual attitudes come out in the open.
Kis believes that society has failed homosexuals because in a democratic society, yesterday's 'is' becomes today's 'ought.' So when society then moves from 'ought' to 'is', the 'ought' is so strongly influenced by the 'is' of homosexuality, that the enterprise of forming standards becomes confused. On the other hand, the church has had a tendency to emphasize the biblical 'ought' in a way that implies that the 'is' of homosexuality is hopeless.
Kis concluded by asserting that God's love is the cure for homosexual sins through confession and forgiveness. But he also says that homosexuality is a condition that may never be eliminated from human lives. He also believes that the church and society can cooperate in helping those with homosexuality while not interfering with one another's domains.
Roy Gane, the panel chair, gave the final paper, "Some Attempted Alternatives to Timeless Condemnation of Homosexual Acts," which is essentially a rebuttal he wrote for arguments in the book, Christianity and Homosexuality. To the argument that not all biblical laws have modern applications, he admits this is true but believes we should use biblical principles, not political correctness, to discover which laws have modern application. He also notes that biblical laws other than the 10 commandments are presented as eternal ordinances.
To the argument that homosexual acts only caused ceremonial defilement, he cites scholars to the effect that there is a difference in Leviticus between ritual/ceremonial impurity and irremediable moral imperatives covered in the Holiness code of Lev 17-27. To the argument Christians do not observe the code regarding menstruation in Lev 18, where the homosexual prohibition is found, Gane agrees but says that inconsistency of God's people in following his ordinances does not negate their applicability.
To the argument that Paul only condemns homosexuality of a self-indulgent, lustful, and exploitative sort, Gane claims that the Pauline allusions to Leviticus show that Paul is referring to their ongoing applicability to all homosexual relationships. To the argument that Paul only condemns pre-Christian homosexuality, Gane notes that if this were true it would undermine Paul's argument in the first chapters of Romans that for these reasons the Gentiles also need Christ.
To the argument that the Bible does not condemn homosexual relationships of persons born with homosexual orientation, because the ancient Israelites did not understand that concept, and therefore, the prohibitions of the bible only apply to those without a homosexual orientation who engage in homosexual acts; Gane asserts that because God knows everything known to modern science it would be wrong to think that the Bible was not written with those considerations in mind. He acknowledged that it could be further argued that it is not fair that homosexuals cannot find fulfillment in this life, but who is to say, he argues, that life in a sinful world is fair?
Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.
Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)
(op-awk-all-oop'-toe) To uncover, lay open what has been veiled or covered up. Disclosing ideas about God, church, Scripture, politics, culture, and, in the end, myself.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Day 3, Interview
The Sabbath morning program opened with music from a local Christian folk group. Before the panel, conference organizer Nick Miller interviewed Inge Anderson, a retired school teacher.
She got involved in ministry to gays in the classroom, where one of her students was persecuted for being gay. But she became involved in ministry to Adventist homosexuals in the late 90s after conversing with some and listening to their stories on SDAnet. After two gay friends came out to her, she felt called to minister to homosexuals. Her first website was called GLOW--God's Love Our Witness--now known as GLADventist.
Inge says that GLADventist's Yahoo group is where the real work goes on. It functions on the principles of body theology, where the members bear one another's burdens. Her philosophy of support comes from her involvement with the SDA Kinship mailing list, where she learned how to express a welcoming and caring attitude towards homosexuals. She defends SDA Kinship as a good organization that has saved a lot of people from committing suicide, but she believes they haven't gone far enough in teaching the people the freedom they can have in Christ.
Inge shared several stories of lesbian and transsexual women who were helped through her ministry. She says that she is definitely not running a change ministry. Her focus is on helping people improve their relationship with Christ, and she regards any changes in orientation that might come as a side benefit.
Inge's message to the conference is that we should accept and love people where they are. She also believes that it is important for the church to distinguish between the sinful nature and sin itself. She elaborated that a homosexual orientation is part of the sinful nature, and should not be understood as sexual sin.
Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.
Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)
She got involved in ministry to gays in the classroom, where one of her students was persecuted for being gay. But she became involved in ministry to Adventist homosexuals in the late 90s after conversing with some and listening to their stories on SDAnet. After two gay friends came out to her, she felt called to minister to homosexuals. Her first website was called GLOW--God's Love Our Witness--now known as GLADventist.
Inge says that GLADventist's Yahoo group is where the real work goes on. It functions on the principles of body theology, where the members bear one another's burdens. Her philosophy of support comes from her involvement with the SDA Kinship mailing list, where she learned how to express a welcoming and caring attitude towards homosexuals. She defends SDA Kinship as a good organization that has saved a lot of people from committing suicide, but she believes they haven't gone far enough in teaching the people the freedom they can have in Christ.
Inge shared several stories of lesbian and transsexual women who were helped through her ministry. She says that she is definitely not running a change ministry. Her focus is on helping people improve their relationship with Christ, and she regards any changes in orientation that might come as a side benefit.
Inge's message to the conference is that we should accept and love people where they are. She also believes that it is important for the church to distinguish between the sinful nature and sin itself. She elaborated that a homosexual orientation is part of the sinful nature, and should not be understood as sexual sin.
Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.
Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)
Friday, October 16, 2009
Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Day 2, Vespers
I was not able to take my laptop to the vespers presentation by Robert Gagnon, so this synopsis will be based mainly on memory. Gagnon is the author of The Bible and Homosexuality which thoroughly, if his presentation was any indication of his thoroughness, argues the case for the traditional understanding of scripture on that topic. Gagnon shortened what we were told is a four hour lecture into three points.
His first point was based on 2 Cor 4:7-10 to the effect that death to self is necessary for life in Christ. Gagnon believes that satisfaction in our spiritual life can come as a result of not acting on our natural impulses. He views the issue of homosexuality through that lens.
Gagnon's other two points were essentially rebuttals of some arguments put forth to assert that the Bible does not address the issue of homosexuality as we know it today. One such argument is that Jesus did not have anything to say about homosexual relationshiops. However, Gagnon finds Jesus indirectly addressing the issue in Mark 10:1-12.
Gagnon holds that Jesus argument in this passage assumes that for him the only acceptable form of marriage was between one man and one woman. He argues that the twoness of the partners in marriage according to Genesis, which excludes polygamy, is based on the two different genders, which are to become one. Gagnon believes that marriage is the re-union of the two halves of humanity, and that homosexual relationships violate the otherness which the male and female are supposed to bring to marriage. On this level, he compares consensual homosexual sex to consensual incest, arguing that incest is wrong because the two partners are not different enough to bring the requisite otherness to their sexual relationship.
Gagnon's second text was Rom 1:18-27, concerning which he proceeded to rebut claims that Paul was not addressing a situation comparable to modern homosexuality. He proceeded to show from classical studies that consensual homosexual sex for mutual enjoyment and even quasi-homosexual marriages were known the the world in which Paul lived. Gagnon cited one classicist who wrote a book on homosexuality in the ancient world and concluded ancient homosexuals may have even had notions similar to the modern understanding of homosexual identity. His classical references on PowerPoint slides were illustrated with ancient artifacts depicting homosexual activity, and I'm fairly certain that was the first time sex scenes have ever been publicly displayed in Pioneer Memorial Chapel.
The evening ended with a lengthy Q&A in which the panelists basically reiterated points they had previously made.
Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.
Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)
His first point was based on 2 Cor 4:7-10 to the effect that death to self is necessary for life in Christ. Gagnon believes that satisfaction in our spiritual life can come as a result of not acting on our natural impulses. He views the issue of homosexuality through that lens.
Gagnon's other two points were essentially rebuttals of some arguments put forth to assert that the Bible does not address the issue of homosexuality as we know it today. One such argument is that Jesus did not have anything to say about homosexual relationshiops. However, Gagnon finds Jesus indirectly addressing the issue in Mark 10:1-12.
Gagnon holds that Jesus argument in this passage assumes that for him the only acceptable form of marriage was between one man and one woman. He argues that the twoness of the partners in marriage according to Genesis, which excludes polygamy, is based on the two different genders, which are to become one. Gagnon believes that marriage is the re-union of the two halves of humanity, and that homosexual relationships violate the otherness which the male and female are supposed to bring to marriage. On this level, he compares consensual homosexual sex to consensual incest, arguing that incest is wrong because the two partners are not different enough to bring the requisite otherness to their sexual relationship.
Gagnon's second text was Rom 1:18-27, concerning which he proceeded to rebut claims that Paul was not addressing a situation comparable to modern homosexuality. He proceeded to show from classical studies that consensual homosexual sex for mutual enjoyment and even quasi-homosexual marriages were known the the world in which Paul lived. Gagnon cited one classicist who wrote a book on homosexuality in the ancient world and concluded ancient homosexuals may have even had notions similar to the modern understanding of homosexual identity. His classical references on PowerPoint slides were illustrated with ancient artifacts depicting homosexual activity, and I'm fairly certain that was the first time sex scenes have ever been publicly displayed in Pioneer Memorial Chapel.
The evening ended with a lengthy Q&A in which the panelists basically reiterated points they had previously made.
Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.
Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)
Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Day 2, Panel 3
The afternoon panelists addressed pastoral and counseling issues related to same sex attraction.
Carlos Fayard presented a case study, "The Psychological and Spiritual Care of a Gay Man Who Chose Celibacy." Joe (name changed) is a 62 year old clergyman who was recognized by a parishioner at a gay bath-house or book store. He acknowledged sexual addiction but did not express inclination to change. He began homosexual activity the week of his ordination, and he reported that he had never experienced God. He was identified as having HIV after hospitilization. Psychological issues included sexual compulsiveness, attachment problems, and incongruence between his spiritual beliefs and behavior.
Fayard took a wholistic approach to the therapy, incorporating spiritual with psychological methods. He sees spirituality in neuroscience according to the categories of the seeking system, attachment system, and attribution system. Fayard structured his therapy around these categories. Under the seeking system he addressed Joe's search for love in other men. Under the attachment he addressed the problem of relating to God "on demand" in an emotionally distant way, just as Joe did with his father. Finally, to reconcile his beliefs about God, people, and other attribution issues, Joe wrote a letter of confession.
The therapy lasted for 14 months. The sexual acting out ceased during his hospitalization, but Joe was still restless and not restored. The pivotal moment in the therapy came when he sensed the presence of God during his first moment of sincere prayer. Joe was able to return the parish ministry, and passed away shortly thereafter. The day before he died Joe assured Fayard that he felt secure in Christ.
Peter Swanson read a paper about pastoral care of homosexuals. He recognizes that pastors are generally unequipped to deal with homosexuals in their church. The challenge also includes unsanctified attitudes of church members towards homosexuals, which need to be confronted and changed. He suggested that unfamiliarity breeds contempt of those shunned.
Swanson finds to two common attitudes pastors have towards homosexuals: (1) the pastors job is to find sin and root it out from the community, and (2) the church is to practice hospitality in rescuing sinners by welcoming them. Swanson believes pastors have a duty to be both just and merciful, and therefore should not choose one attitude to the exclusion of the other.
Regarding the debate over whether the Bible condemns homosexual sex, Swanson believes that more important than the opinions of pastors or theologians is the still small voice that says, "This is the way, walk ye in it." He holds that while pastors have an obligation to love audaciously, they also have an obligation to call sin by its right name. He asserted that in as much as we turn people with same sex attraction away from the church, we dismiss the Savior from our midst. He pointed to Jacob as a Bible character to tried on different identities, but after wrestling with God, received a God given identity.
Mark Yarhouse presented on the question of how the Christian community responds to besetting conditions. Besetting conditions are things like same sex attractions and HIV, which, in spite of spiritual intervention, do not go away. He believes that churches are hypocritical if they blame people who have same sex attractions for not trying hard enough to get rid of them while providing those who have other besetting conditions, such as cancer, with comfort and support.
Yarhouse believes that the answer to besetting conditions is the faith that God will provide. However, God's provision does not come in the same way to every person. He believes that we must interpret our response to homosexuality through the answer Jesus gave to the question of why the man was born blind (John 9:1-3). Therefore, we do not need to know how a besetting condition was caused in order to respond to it. He believes that there is a theodicy of sexual identity to be discovered, because God's purpose is to bring glory to his name.
He concluded by answering the question of what would it mean to be stewards of our sexuality. He believes good sexual stewardship (1) Avoids placing to great an emphasis on change as categorical and uncomplicated; (2) values both the married state and the single state; (3) has compelling alternative scripts for same sex attraction, (4) equips all believers in the broader understanding of stewardship, so we do not focus on only one group; and (5) leads by example.
Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.
Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)
Carlos Fayard presented a case study, "The Psychological and Spiritual Care of a Gay Man Who Chose Celibacy." Joe (name changed) is a 62 year old clergyman who was recognized by a parishioner at a gay bath-house or book store. He acknowledged sexual addiction but did not express inclination to change. He began homosexual activity the week of his ordination, and he reported that he had never experienced God. He was identified as having HIV after hospitilization. Psychological issues included sexual compulsiveness, attachment problems, and incongruence between his spiritual beliefs and behavior.
Fayard took a wholistic approach to the therapy, incorporating spiritual with psychological methods. He sees spirituality in neuroscience according to the categories of the seeking system, attachment system, and attribution system. Fayard structured his therapy around these categories. Under the seeking system he addressed Joe's search for love in other men. Under the attachment he addressed the problem of relating to God "on demand" in an emotionally distant way, just as Joe did with his father. Finally, to reconcile his beliefs about God, people, and other attribution issues, Joe wrote a letter of confession.
The therapy lasted for 14 months. The sexual acting out ceased during his hospitalization, but Joe was still restless and not restored. The pivotal moment in the therapy came when he sensed the presence of God during his first moment of sincere prayer. Joe was able to return the parish ministry, and passed away shortly thereafter. The day before he died Joe assured Fayard that he felt secure in Christ.
Peter Swanson read a paper about pastoral care of homosexuals. He recognizes that pastors are generally unequipped to deal with homosexuals in their church. The challenge also includes unsanctified attitudes of church members towards homosexuals, which need to be confronted and changed. He suggested that unfamiliarity breeds contempt of those shunned.
Swanson finds to two common attitudes pastors have towards homosexuals: (1) the pastors job is to find sin and root it out from the community, and (2) the church is to practice hospitality in rescuing sinners by welcoming them. Swanson believes pastors have a duty to be both just and merciful, and therefore should not choose one attitude to the exclusion of the other.
Regarding the debate over whether the Bible condemns homosexual sex, Swanson believes that more important than the opinions of pastors or theologians is the still small voice that says, "This is the way, walk ye in it." He holds that while pastors have an obligation to love audaciously, they also have an obligation to call sin by its right name. He asserted that in as much as we turn people with same sex attraction away from the church, we dismiss the Savior from our midst. He pointed to Jacob as a Bible character to tried on different identities, but after wrestling with God, received a God given identity.
Mark Yarhouse presented on the question of how the Christian community responds to besetting conditions. Besetting conditions are things like same sex attractions and HIV, which, in spite of spiritual intervention, do not go away. He believes that churches are hypocritical if they blame people who have same sex attractions for not trying hard enough to get rid of them while providing those who have other besetting conditions, such as cancer, with comfort and support.
Yarhouse believes that the answer to besetting conditions is the faith that God will provide. However, God's provision does not come in the same way to every person. He believes that we must interpret our response to homosexuality through the answer Jesus gave to the question of why the man was born blind (John 9:1-3). Therefore, we do not need to know how a besetting condition was caused in order to respond to it. He believes that there is a theodicy of sexual identity to be discovered, because God's purpose is to bring glory to his name.
He concluded by answering the question of what would it mean to be stewards of our sexuality. He believes good sexual stewardship (1) Avoids placing to great an emphasis on change as categorical and uncomplicated; (2) values both the married state and the single state; (3) has compelling alternative scripts for same sex attraction, (4) equips all believers in the broader understanding of stewardship, so we do not focus on only one group; and (5) leads by example.
Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.
Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)
Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Day 2, Interview
The afternoon session included an interview with Wayne Blakely, whose story recently appeared on the Adventist Today website (linked through his name). I'm attempting not to include information here that is already given in the Adventist Today feature.
Blakely views the problems that the church has with homosexuals like Israel's time in the wilderness, and it has taken some time to get things sorted out. He believes the love of God to homosexuals will begin to manifest itself in the church because of this conference. His message to us is that homosexuals need to know that we don't consider their sin to be any different than our sin and that we're all in this together.
Blakely always knew that homosexuality was wrong and rejected Kinship as having a biased reading of scripture. In his most difficult times he remembered his father saying that he knew God had a special plan for Wayne when he adopted him. He was feeling alone, because many of his friends had passed on during his 37 years in the gay community. He did a search for gay Adventists and found GLADventist. He was impressed because the site was conservative and loving. He found that the author, Inge Anderson, had a view of the Adventist church in which homosexuals were welcome.
The key to Blakely's spiritual life is not just having devotions in the morning and evening devotions but being with Christ throughout the day. Every day he comes across men he finds attractive, but Christ gives him to power to deal with it. When he is tempted by same-sex attraction, he rededicates his life to God, and if the thoughts come back, he rededicates himself again.
Blackely believes God could change him to a heterosexual if God wanted to, but concludes that must not be God's plan, and asks if God changed him, who's to say he wouldn't start chasing women right away? He concludes that the opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality; it's holiness.
Asked what boundaries we need to draw if we are dealing with someone who is same sex attracted and is the same sex as us, Blackely replied that this is the most tenuous aspect of dealing with a homosexual who is going to be transparent with you. When his pastor began taking the precautions that he would use in counseling a woman, Wayne felt rejected. Later his pastor told him, "We're used to watching pedophiles, but we not sure how to watch you," and he felt even more rejected in being compared to a pedophile. Blackely said while it wasn't the most welcoming feeling, he appreciated that the church was trying. He views himself as an education to his church, and their uneducated state is an education to him. He also admits that his reaction to their reaction was probably not helpful on his part.
Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.
Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)
Blakely views the problems that the church has with homosexuals like Israel's time in the wilderness, and it has taken some time to get things sorted out. He believes the love of God to homosexuals will begin to manifest itself in the church because of this conference. His message to us is that homosexuals need to know that we don't consider their sin to be any different than our sin and that we're all in this together.
Blakely always knew that homosexuality was wrong and rejected Kinship as having a biased reading of scripture. In his most difficult times he remembered his father saying that he knew God had a special plan for Wayne when he adopted him. He was feeling alone, because many of his friends had passed on during his 37 years in the gay community. He did a search for gay Adventists and found GLADventist. He was impressed because the site was conservative and loving. He found that the author, Inge Anderson, had a view of the Adventist church in which homosexuals were welcome.
The key to Blakely's spiritual life is not just having devotions in the morning and evening devotions but being with Christ throughout the day. Every day he comes across men he finds attractive, but Christ gives him to power to deal with it. When he is tempted by same-sex attraction, he rededicates his life to God, and if the thoughts come back, he rededicates himself again.
Blackely believes God could change him to a heterosexual if God wanted to, but concludes that must not be God's plan, and asks if God changed him, who's to say he wouldn't start chasing women right away? He concludes that the opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality; it's holiness.
Asked what boundaries we need to draw if we are dealing with someone who is same sex attracted and is the same sex as us, Blackely replied that this is the most tenuous aspect of dealing with a homosexual who is going to be transparent with you. When his pastor began taking the precautions that he would use in counseling a woman, Wayne felt rejected. Later his pastor told him, "We're used to watching pedophiles, but we not sure how to watch you," and he felt even more rejected in being compared to a pedophile. Blackely said while it wasn't the most welcoming feeling, he appreciated that the church was trying. He views himself as an education to his church, and their uneducated state is an education to him. He also admits that his reaction to their reaction was probably not helpful on his part.
Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.
Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)
Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Day 2, Main Address
Dr. Mark Yarhouse gave the main address of the day, entitled "The Pastoral Applications of a Three-Tier Distinction Between Same-Sex Attraction, a Homosexual Orientation, and a Gay Identity." He started by defining the end point, sexual identity as an act of self-labeling, that is, how you identify your sexual preferences to yourself (private sexual identity) and to others (public sexual identity). Yarhouse finds that many things contribute to a decision to choose one sexual identity label over another--the gender one is born with, how masculine or feminine you feel, your sexual attractions, what you intend to do sexually, what you actually do sexually, and your beliefs and values about sexual identity. Common labels include gay, straight, bi, bi-curious, queer, questioning, curious, and he notes that many young people choose not to categorize themselves.
On the question of how identity is related to orientation, Yarhouse finds it helpful to make a distinction between attraction, orientation, and identity. Regarding the distinction between attraction and orientation, Yarhouse cites studies which show that 6.2% of men and 4.4% of women reported same sex attraction but only 2.0% of men and 0.9% of women reported homosexual orientation. Yarhouse suggests that the difference between attraction and orientation is the intensity of the attraction.
Yarhouse cites historians who maintain that homosexual identity is a new thing in history. Same-sex attraction and orientation have always been with humanity, but a homosexual identity needed sex to be separated from procreation and other modern historical contingencies in order to develop.
Yarhouse notices that in our culture we collapse attraction, orientation, and identity into a single thing. We quickly move from a descriptive label, homosexual attraction, to a prescriptive label, homosexual identity.
Yarhouse's method of working with Christian homosexuals is to focus on identity rather than orientation, because that is where people make a choice to take a label. Self-labeling is happening at a younger age than it did 40 years ago, and currently about 75% of homosexual teenagers feel good about their identity. The process of moving from awareness of same sex attraction (usually around age 10) to same sex behavior to questioning to labeling takes, on average, 3-4 years for females and 5-6 years for males. Making an identity out of same sex attraction can take as long as 15 years in some studies.
This happens at a time when young people are trying to discover their identity and trying out different identities at different places. For a sexual minority who is struggling with this, culture has a clear answer: If you experience same sex attraction, you are gay. But what about people who have same-sex attractions but form their identity around something else, such as a relationship with Christ? According to Yarhouse psychologists view them as having stunted development, but he does not see evidence of that.
Yarhouse studied Christians at Christian colleges who identified as sexual minorities. Significant differences between them and the average population were that awareness came at age 13 and only 14% chose to identify as homosexuals and be involved in homosexual relationships.
He also studied two Christian ministries to homosexuals. One was gay affirming and identified with the gay framework of sexual identity, and the other was committed to helping Christians with same sex attractions not become homosexuals. The first group achieved congruence by attributing their gay identity to God's plan. The second group achieved congruence by identifying with Christ and attributing their same sex attractions to some aspect of sin. Both groups agreed that this was a fair description of their approach
So Yarhouse sees two competing scripts for the life of someone who has same sex attractions. The first he calls the gay script. According to this script same sex attractions signal a naturally occurring distinction between homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality. They signal who you really are, so the answer is to self-actualize based on the attractions. According to Yarhouse, this script collapses attraction, orientation, and identity in a process of so-called self-discovery.
Yarhouse says that the church is not really offering an alternative script, but proposes another script. In his script same sex attraction signals, not a categorical distinction among types of persons, but one of many human experiences that are 'not the way its supposed to be'. According to this script same sex attractions are a part of one's experience but not the defining element of one's identity. He teaches that one can integrate same sex attractions into another identity based on Jesus Christ. In other words, the fact that you experience same sex attractions doesn't mean you don't have decisions to make about what you will do with them.
From this Yarhouse has developed a framework for counseling and pastoral care. The goal of this framework is to protect the person from assumptions and labels and help them to consider a sexual identity pastoral framework. This is accomplished by (1) introducing the three tier distinction, which creates space for the person to maneuver. Next the individual will (2) weight how important the various aspects that compose a sexual identity are to them. The message of this step is that you are more than the sum total of your arousal pattern. The individual will then (3) decide to what they will attribute their identity by working through how to make sense of the attractions that they have and deciding whether a homosexual attraction signals a homosexual identity. Finally they will work towards a (4) state of congruence where their behavior and identity is consistent with their beliefs and values.
Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.
Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)
On the question of how identity is related to orientation, Yarhouse finds it helpful to make a distinction between attraction, orientation, and identity. Regarding the distinction between attraction and orientation, Yarhouse cites studies which show that 6.2% of men and 4.4% of women reported same sex attraction but only 2.0% of men and 0.9% of women reported homosexual orientation. Yarhouse suggests that the difference between attraction and orientation is the intensity of the attraction.
Yarhouse cites historians who maintain that homosexual identity is a new thing in history. Same-sex attraction and orientation have always been with humanity, but a homosexual identity needed sex to be separated from procreation and other modern historical contingencies in order to develop.
Yarhouse notices that in our culture we collapse attraction, orientation, and identity into a single thing. We quickly move from a descriptive label, homosexual attraction, to a prescriptive label, homosexual identity.
Yarhouse's method of working with Christian homosexuals is to focus on identity rather than orientation, because that is where people make a choice to take a label. Self-labeling is happening at a younger age than it did 40 years ago, and currently about 75% of homosexual teenagers feel good about their identity. The process of moving from awareness of same sex attraction (usually around age 10) to same sex behavior to questioning to labeling takes, on average, 3-4 years for females and 5-6 years for males. Making an identity out of same sex attraction can take as long as 15 years in some studies.
This happens at a time when young people are trying to discover their identity and trying out different identities at different places. For a sexual minority who is struggling with this, culture has a clear answer: If you experience same sex attraction, you are gay. But what about people who have same-sex attractions but form their identity around something else, such as a relationship with Christ? According to Yarhouse psychologists view them as having stunted development, but he does not see evidence of that.
Yarhouse studied Christians at Christian colleges who identified as sexual minorities. Significant differences between them and the average population were that awareness came at age 13 and only 14% chose to identify as homosexuals and be involved in homosexual relationships.
He also studied two Christian ministries to homosexuals. One was gay affirming and identified with the gay framework of sexual identity, and the other was committed to helping Christians with same sex attractions not become homosexuals. The first group achieved congruence by attributing their gay identity to God's plan. The second group achieved congruence by identifying with Christ and attributing their same sex attractions to some aspect of sin. Both groups agreed that this was a fair description of their approach
So Yarhouse sees two competing scripts for the life of someone who has same sex attractions. The first he calls the gay script. According to this script same sex attractions signal a naturally occurring distinction between homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality. They signal who you really are, so the answer is to self-actualize based on the attractions. According to Yarhouse, this script collapses attraction, orientation, and identity in a process of so-called self-discovery.
Yarhouse says that the church is not really offering an alternative script, but proposes another script. In his script same sex attraction signals, not a categorical distinction among types of persons, but one of many human experiences that are 'not the way its supposed to be'. According to this script same sex attractions are a part of one's experience but not the defining element of one's identity. He teaches that one can integrate same sex attractions into another identity based on Jesus Christ. In other words, the fact that you experience same sex attractions doesn't mean you don't have decisions to make about what you will do with them.
From this Yarhouse has developed a framework for counseling and pastoral care. The goal of this framework is to protect the person from assumptions and labels and help them to consider a sexual identity pastoral framework. This is accomplished by (1) introducing the three tier distinction, which creates space for the person to maneuver. Next the individual will (2) weight how important the various aspects that compose a sexual identity are to them. The message of this step is that you are more than the sum total of your arousal pattern. The individual will then (3) decide to what they will attribute their identity by working through how to make sense of the attractions that they have and deciding whether a homosexual attraction signals a homosexual identity. Finally they will work towards a (4) state of congruence where their behavior and identity is consistent with their beliefs and values.
Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.
Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)
Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Breakout Session
The breakout session I attended at lunchtime was on the topic of "Effective Counseling and Ministry Practices." Peter Swanson was the moderator, and Ron Woolsey, Carlos Fayard, and Inge Anderson were the panelists. The panelists and moderator gave general advice on how to help homosexual Christians live chaste lives, given the presuppositions of the conference, and how to make the church a more welcoming place for homosexuals. It was pointed out that the church is often not welcoming for people who deviate from its norm in general, but that special education of church members is needed to help them become welcoming to homosexuals. The importance of both pastoral and psychological care in a team setting was emphasized. Acceptance, listening, and befriending homosexuals was promoted over and against immediately turning to the confrontational texts of scripture.
Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.
Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)
Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.
Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)
Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Day 2, Panel 2
The second panel of the morning, "Gay Marriage, Civil Rights, and Public Policy," addressed the question of what position Seventh-day Adventists should take in the debate over homosexual marriage.
Scot Zentner opened by analyzing the underlying morality that founds society and argued that in the United States this does not rest on a specific religious tradition. He argued that the fundamental view of morality that the founding fathers incorporated into this country was to maximize freedom except for those behaviors that are harmful to others. Because marriage is the core of the natural family, in which children are raised to be moral individuals, we are not at liberty to redefine it. For Zenter, disgust, popular jokes, and the pejorative nature of the word "gay" are evidence of the inherent difference of the sexes and immorality of homosexuality. He argues that homosexual marriage is predicated on the notion that there is no essential difference between the sexes.
Gary Wood began by asserting that it is impossible to separate politics and morality, because at its core politics is about justice. So the question for religious liberty is Can unassisted human reason apart from revelation provide a moral foundation for society? He argues that this can be found in the philosophy of natural rights (i.e. rights grounded in the nature of human being) and that these rights come along with natural duties as well as pointing us to natural ends. And because reason can't point us all the way to our purpose, we have a natural right to religious liberty. He proceeded to argue that homosexuality is not a natural right, because it does not follow from the natural end of sex--procreation. He implied that a government that could restrict homosexual sex would be too powerful to control, yet he argued that such a practical consideration would not justify legalizing homosexual marriage.
Jason Hines outlined and rebutted three major categories of argument against homosexual marriage. The first is the religious argument, which is not only inappropriate on the basis of the establishment clause, but also for Christians on the basis of belief in God given freedom. The second is the sociological argument that homosexual marriages are not the optimal environment for raising children. However the fact that children in homosexual families have more problems than those in heterosexual families may be due to the stigma society places on their family and not due to the composition of their family itself. Also, there are studies showing that children raised in homosexual families have no more problems than children in heterosexual families. Hines thinks that the best arguments against homosexual marriage are the natural law arguments, such as those outlined by the previous two presenters. But Hines points out that the civil institution of marriage encompasses more than natural law is able to explain, that is, people get married for reasons other than having kids. He also points out the previous use of natural law in America to justify slavery and oppose women's suffrage, which are now considered unjust on the basis of natural law. Perhaps, he says, natural law can also be used to justify homosexual marriage.
Nicholas Miller, the panel chair, concluded the discussion. He asserted that we act both as citizens and Christians, and that the arguments used in one arena may not be used in the other. However, when the conclusions of the arguments in both arenas overlap, the church is justified in speaking out in the civil arena. The religious argument Miller proposes against homosexual marriage is the eschatological significance of marriage, which along with the Sabbath, is one of the two creation institutions that will be under attack in the end times. He argued that while the Sabbath along with the first four commandments should not be legislated, the last six commandments, which focus on our relationship with each other, have and can justifiably be the subject of civil legislation. Therefore, Miller believes that Adventists have a duty to argue against homosexual marriage in the civil arena on the basis of natural law and sociological studies. Against Hines' rebuttal he noted that tobacco legislation was introduced on the basis of correlation alone at a time when the causal mechanisms were not understood.
Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.
Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)
Scot Zentner opened by analyzing the underlying morality that founds society and argued that in the United States this does not rest on a specific religious tradition. He argued that the fundamental view of morality that the founding fathers incorporated into this country was to maximize freedom except for those behaviors that are harmful to others. Because marriage is the core of the natural family, in which children are raised to be moral individuals, we are not at liberty to redefine it. For Zenter, disgust, popular jokes, and the pejorative nature of the word "gay" are evidence of the inherent difference of the sexes and immorality of homosexuality. He argues that homosexual marriage is predicated on the notion that there is no essential difference between the sexes.
Gary Wood began by asserting that it is impossible to separate politics and morality, because at its core politics is about justice. So the question for religious liberty is Can unassisted human reason apart from revelation provide a moral foundation for society? He argues that this can be found in the philosophy of natural rights (i.e. rights grounded in the nature of human being) and that these rights come along with natural duties as well as pointing us to natural ends. And because reason can't point us all the way to our purpose, we have a natural right to religious liberty. He proceeded to argue that homosexuality is not a natural right, because it does not follow from the natural end of sex--procreation. He implied that a government that could restrict homosexual sex would be too powerful to control, yet he argued that such a practical consideration would not justify legalizing homosexual marriage.
Jason Hines outlined and rebutted three major categories of argument against homosexual marriage. The first is the religious argument, which is not only inappropriate on the basis of the establishment clause, but also for Christians on the basis of belief in God given freedom. The second is the sociological argument that homosexual marriages are not the optimal environment for raising children. However the fact that children in homosexual families have more problems than those in heterosexual families may be due to the stigma society places on their family and not due to the composition of their family itself. Also, there are studies showing that children raised in homosexual families have no more problems than children in heterosexual families. Hines thinks that the best arguments against homosexual marriage are the natural law arguments, such as those outlined by the previous two presenters. But Hines points out that the civil institution of marriage encompasses more than natural law is able to explain, that is, people get married for reasons other than having kids. He also points out the previous use of natural law in America to justify slavery and oppose women's suffrage, which are now considered unjust on the basis of natural law. Perhaps, he says, natural law can also be used to justify homosexual marriage.
Nicholas Miller, the panel chair, concluded the discussion. He asserted that we act both as citizens and Christians, and that the arguments used in one arena may not be used in the other. However, when the conclusions of the arguments in both arenas overlap, the church is justified in speaking out in the civil arena. The religious argument Miller proposes against homosexual marriage is the eschatological significance of marriage, which along with the Sabbath, is one of the two creation institutions that will be under attack in the end times. He argued that while the Sabbath along with the first four commandments should not be legislated, the last six commandments, which focus on our relationship with each other, have and can justifiably be the subject of civil legislation. Therefore, Miller believes that Adventists have a duty to argue against homosexual marriage in the civil arena on the basis of natural law and sociological studies. Against Hines' rebuttal he noted that tobacco legislation was introduced on the basis of correlation alone at a time when the causal mechanisms were not understood.
Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.
Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)
Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Day 2, Panel 1
The first morning panel, "Gay Marriage, Religious Liberty, and the Church," revolved around the question of whether the church should involve itself in the political debate over homosexual marriage.
Barry Bussy, the panel chair, opened with a summary of the potential threats the homosexual movement poses to the religious liberty of those who condemn homosexual activity on religious grounds. His remarks were largely based on his experiences advocating for the Adventist Church in Canada. These concerns were based on trends in Canadian legal journals towards limiting the ability of religions to teach their members and educate their children not to celebrate and embrace homosexuality.
Gerald Chippeur shared a summary of homosexuality and religious liberty cases in Canada where homosexual marriage was recently adopted. One Christian university in Alberta was sued for firing a professor who advocated against their doctrinal position on homosexuality. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the university had the right to employ only those who uphold their religious norms. In another case, the Adventist church joined in advocating for a Christian university that was denied education program accreditation in British Columbia because of their beliefs on homosexuality. That denial of accreditation was also overturned. In Saskatchewan, there is a case before the courts attempting to remove marriage licenses from minsters who refuse to perform same sex marriages.
Alan Reinach opened by stating that it is impossible to overestimate the risks for religious liberty in homosexual marriage. He thinks that Adventists are not by nature partisans in the culture wars but believes that our ability to operate our institutions and live according to our consciences is under threat because homosexual activists are no longer willing to live and let live. He held up California as a legal bellwether, and claimed that the California Supreme Court has in the last 15 years consistently upheld homosexual rights and waffled on free exercise of religion. Reinach believes the fundamental problem is the belief that equality trumps liberty.
Bill Knott addressed the question of whether Adventists should be in politics directly, arguing that religions by default become involved in politics, unless they are purely cultic and awaiting immediate translation. His thesis is that early Adventists became involved in selected issues, such as abolition and prohibition, that they believed had special moral significance. He pointed to the early Review as a place where abolitionist invective against the American government was much stronger than what we would tolerate today (think Jeremiah Wright), and shared his discovery that Ellen and James White lived 500 yards from Fredrick Douglass, whose magazine, The North Star, had editorials strikingly similar to those of the Review. He also pointed to the church's later failures to act on the issues such as the 60s civil rights movement and the internment of Japanese Americans as undermining our religious liberty position at that time.
Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.
Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)
Barry Bussy, the panel chair, opened with a summary of the potential threats the homosexual movement poses to the religious liberty of those who condemn homosexual activity on religious grounds. His remarks were largely based on his experiences advocating for the Adventist Church in Canada. These concerns were based on trends in Canadian legal journals towards limiting the ability of religions to teach their members and educate their children not to celebrate and embrace homosexuality.
Gerald Chippeur shared a summary of homosexuality and religious liberty cases in Canada where homosexual marriage was recently adopted. One Christian university in Alberta was sued for firing a professor who advocated against their doctrinal position on homosexuality. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the university had the right to employ only those who uphold their religious norms. In another case, the Adventist church joined in advocating for a Christian university that was denied education program accreditation in British Columbia because of their beliefs on homosexuality. That denial of accreditation was also overturned. In Saskatchewan, there is a case before the courts attempting to remove marriage licenses from minsters who refuse to perform same sex marriages.
Alan Reinach opened by stating that it is impossible to overestimate the risks for religious liberty in homosexual marriage. He thinks that Adventists are not by nature partisans in the culture wars but believes that our ability to operate our institutions and live according to our consciences is under threat because homosexual activists are no longer willing to live and let live. He held up California as a legal bellwether, and claimed that the California Supreme Court has in the last 15 years consistently upheld homosexual rights and waffled on free exercise of religion. Reinach believes the fundamental problem is the belief that equality trumps liberty.
Bill Knott addressed the question of whether Adventists should be in politics directly, arguing that religions by default become involved in politics, unless they are purely cultic and awaiting immediate translation. His thesis is that early Adventists became involved in selected issues, such as abolition and prohibition, that they believed had special moral significance. He pointed to the early Review as a place where abolitionist invective against the American government was much stronger than what we would tolerate today (think Jeremiah Wright), and shared his discovery that Ellen and James White lived 500 yards from Fredrick Douglass, whose magazine, The North Star, had editorials strikingly similar to those of the Review. He also pointed to the church's later failures to act on the issues such as the 60s civil rights movement and the internment of Japanese Americans as undermining our religious liberty position at that time.
Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.
Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Blogging the Homosexualty Conference: Day 1
From now until Saturday night, I'll be attending the Marriage, Homosexuality and the Church Conference at Andrews University. It is a multidisciplinary conference that is more professional than scholarly in nature. There are no respondents who bring the opposite view of the presenters because, "The conference organizers have chosen speakers who have a biblically-faithful view on homosexual practice, as measured by a consensus within the Christian church for the last two millennia, as well as the virtually unanimous view of the worldwide Adventist Church."
Though the schedule is quite full, I hope to post a brief synopsis of the sessions on this blog. My goal is to connect you to resources for further study, and give you a sense of where the Adventist Church is moving on these related issues.
The opening address was given by Mark Yarhouse, Psy.D., who, along with James Stanton, recently published the results of a longitudinal study on homosexual Christians involved in a change ministry in their recent book, Ex-gays? Stanton was supposed to present, but was unable to come due to his father's failing health.
Yarhouse began by assessing the weaknesses of the proposed causes of homosexuality. He concluded that homosexuality is likely caused by a combination of hereditary and environmental factors. He proposed that just as there are multiple ways that one can become a homosexualt there are multiple homosexualities. He suggested that the feminist critique has taught us it is wrong to take a certain type of male homosexuality as a prototype and talk about all homosexuality within that category.
Along those lines he summarized the philosophical debate about what sexual orientation is. The essentialists claim that homosexuality is the same throughout cultures and throughout history. The social constructionists counter that homosexuality is a category fashioned by society as a way to describe preferences. It would appear that Yarhouse favors the later view.
Finally, Yarhouse took up the question of change. He called one type of change "natural fluidity," and cited Lisa Diamond's documentation of women who more often than males experienced change from homo- to heterosexual attraction.
The other type of change is consciously attempted, which is the kind Stanton and Yarhouse studied. A quick and dirty summary of their findings is that by the end of the five year study, one third of the homosexuals studied were chaste or heterosexual, one third were continuing to change but not chaste or hetero-, and another third continued as or were more homosexual. But Yarhouse says these results, while significant, are not conclusive because 60% of the original group dropped out half-way through the study and were not counted.
Among the more surprising results of their study was that men who placed on the truly homosexual side of the hetro-/homosexual continuum (as measured on 5 different scales) experienced more change toward the heterosexual than the group average. They also measured distress with a standard test and found that people were not more psychologically distressed for having gone through the ministry and, if anything, they were less distressed.
Yarhouse concluded from the comments of those involved in the study that the ministry was not as successful at changing orientation as it was at helping the people along a process of sanctification, and thus helping them to become good stewards of their sexuality. He advised that we offer homosexuals realistic biblical hope. My impression is that this would involve helping homosexuals cope with temptation to homosexual activity and perhaps move toward heterosexual attraction, but not promising them that they will become heterosexuals if they will only try harder, pray more, etc. Yarhouse views the later as destructive.
Yarhouse's presentation was followed by an interview with Pastor Ron Woolsey, an Adventist minister in Arkansas. Woolsey was sexually abused by a man at the age of four, and since that time was sexually attracted to men. He studied theology and pre-med at Southern Missionary College, and while there married a woman he liked but didn't love thinking that marriage would be the solution to his homosexual desires.
While Woolsey's wife was on a trip he had a sexual encounter with a man which caused his marriage to break up. He also left the church when a pastor told him he could never change and told his wife to divorce him. After a series of casual and longer term partners he found a man with whom he thought he could live forever.
But, in Woolsey's words, "his relationship with Jesus ended up eclipsing the relationship" he had with that man. He started studying the Bible, and decided that he was dealing with a sin issue and that if the Bible calls homosexuality a sin, it is because it has the solution. By a process of memorizing and claiming Bible promises his life was changed. He is now identifies as an ex-gay and is married to a woman.
Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.
Though the schedule is quite full, I hope to post a brief synopsis of the sessions on this blog. My goal is to connect you to resources for further study, and give you a sense of where the Adventist Church is moving on these related issues.
The opening address was given by Mark Yarhouse, Psy.D., who, along with James Stanton, recently published the results of a longitudinal study on homosexual Christians involved in a change ministry in their recent book, Ex-gays? Stanton was supposed to present, but was unable to come due to his father's failing health.
Yarhouse began by assessing the weaknesses of the proposed causes of homosexuality. He concluded that homosexuality is likely caused by a combination of hereditary and environmental factors. He proposed that just as there are multiple ways that one can become a homosexualt there are multiple homosexualities. He suggested that the feminist critique has taught us it is wrong to take a certain type of male homosexuality as a prototype and talk about all homosexuality within that category.
Along those lines he summarized the philosophical debate about what sexual orientation is. The essentialists claim that homosexuality is the same throughout cultures and throughout history. The social constructionists counter that homosexuality is a category fashioned by society as a way to describe preferences. It would appear that Yarhouse favors the later view.
Finally, Yarhouse took up the question of change. He called one type of change "natural fluidity," and cited Lisa Diamond's documentation of women who more often than males experienced change from homo- to heterosexual attraction.
The other type of change is consciously attempted, which is the kind Stanton and Yarhouse studied. A quick and dirty summary of their findings is that by the end of the five year study, one third of the homosexuals studied were chaste or heterosexual, one third were continuing to change but not chaste or hetero-, and another third continued as or were more homosexual. But Yarhouse says these results, while significant, are not conclusive because 60% of the original group dropped out half-way through the study and were not counted.
Among the more surprising results of their study was that men who placed on the truly homosexual side of the hetro-/homosexual continuum (as measured on 5 different scales) experienced more change toward the heterosexual than the group average. They also measured distress with a standard test and found that people were not more psychologically distressed for having gone through the ministry and, if anything, they were less distressed.
Yarhouse concluded from the comments of those involved in the study that the ministry was not as successful at changing orientation as it was at helping the people along a process of sanctification, and thus helping them to become good stewards of their sexuality. He advised that we offer homosexuals realistic biblical hope. My impression is that this would involve helping homosexuals cope with temptation to homosexual activity and perhaps move toward heterosexual attraction, but not promising them that they will become heterosexuals if they will only try harder, pray more, etc. Yarhouse views the later as destructive.
Yarhouse's presentation was followed by an interview with Pastor Ron Woolsey, an Adventist minister in Arkansas. Woolsey was sexually abused by a man at the age of four, and since that time was sexually attracted to men. He studied theology and pre-med at Southern Missionary College, and while there married a woman he liked but didn't love thinking that marriage would be the solution to his homosexual desires.
While Woolsey's wife was on a trip he had a sexual encounter with a man which caused his marriage to break up. He also left the church when a pastor told him he could never change and told his wife to divorce him. After a series of casual and longer term partners he found a man with whom he thought he could live forever.
But, in Woolsey's words, "his relationship with Jesus ended up eclipsing the relationship" he had with that man. He started studying the Bible, and decided that he was dealing with a sin issue and that if the Bible calls homosexuality a sin, it is because it has the solution. By a process of memorizing and claiming Bible promises his life was changed. He is now identifies as an ex-gay and is married to a woman.
Disclaimer: I have summarized the views of the presenters to the best of my ability, however my summary should not be conflated with their actual views. For this reason, any attempt to debate the presenters views in the comments section will be deleted. Comments that seek clarification are welcome.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
apokalupto media: Prophecy Chart Interview
If you're afraid to wear the Adventist Caricaturist's prophecy chart tee because someone might actually ask you to explain it, this video is for you. It's got Adventist historian Merlin Burt serving up the goods on our historicist heritage and me playing the part of ignorant interviewer a little too well. Together we take up the question of whether that prophecy chart reflects current Adventist theology.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Top Five: Reasons Jesus Was ...
I just finished a series over at the Spectrum Blog, "Five Reasons Jesus." It grew out of a series of notes that I put up on Facebook. I added a concluding list of lessons for the blog series. Click through the above link and be sure to read them from bottom to top.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)