HOMOSEXUALITY, BIBLE INTERPRETATION, AND WHAT WE WANT TO FIND IT

The Bible can be twisted into anything we want. I know this, because this is just what I had done. This doesn’t mean that the Bible doesn’t have a very specific message. However, our personal desires are more than capable of finding what we want to find in the Bible.

This is also true for theologians and pastors. In Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality, Jack Rogers achieved this in a sophisticated manner. First of all, he dismissed those who favored traditional marriage as literalistic:

• I saw a clear picture of a shift from a literalistic method of biblical interpretation to one that looks at Scripture through the lens of the redeeming life and ministry of Jesus Christ. (16)

This statement is very demeaning to an educated Evangelical. This is because we try to understand the Bible contextually, as it is intended to be understood. Some books and passages are highly literal and others figurative, like the sayings of Jesus.

We are also ready to make use of the “lens of the redeeming life and ministry of Jesus Christ.” We too want our interpretation to conform to the reality of His work and teachings. The Apostles certainly did!

However, this should not be used to dismiss the consistent and unvarying biblical denunciations of same-sex sex, like:

• And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor’s wife and so make yourself unclean with her. You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.  You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion. (Leviticus 18:20-23)

Rogers then cites various instances where Evangelicals had historically been dead wrong in their interpretations – the use of tobacco disqualifying ordination, the justification of slavery, and the role of women. He then asks the rhetorical question,

• How could certain theologians and pastors be so confident that they understood the Scriptures, when we now believe that they were so wrong? What were the primary philosophical and theological resources of early America that directed people to think in ways that we now can hardly comprehend? (29)

Indeed, seeing our past mistakes should make us more self-examining. However, Rogers reasons “Once wrong, always wrong.” Consequently Evangelicals’ opinions about homosexuality should be automatically dismissed:

• What is instructive about these examples is that a similar pattern is emerging today regarding people who are homosexual. Those who oppose homosexuality claim that (1) the Bible records God’s judgment against the sin of homosexuality from its first mention in Scripture; (2) people who are homosexual are somehow inferior in moral character and incapable of rising to the level of full heterosexual “Christian civilization”: and (3) people who are homosexual are willfully sinful, often sexually promiscuous and threatening, and deserve punishment for their own acts. The church is once again repeating the mistakes of the past. (34)

Rogers is not fair in his assessment. Those of us who regard homosexual practice as sin do not regard homosexuals as “inferior in moral character and incapable of rising to the level of full heterosexual…” This statement is blatantly pejorative and inaccurate. Although there might be extremists who think this way, this is not a position that can be honestly extracted from the Bible. Instead we believe that we are all sinners who are desperately in need the Savior.

Although it is true that some sins are more destructive than others (1 Cor. 6:18-19), it is also true that any sin can damn us. Consequently, we do not have the right to regard any as “inferior.” On the contrary, we are reminded that God chose this worlds rejects and low-life for salvation (1 Cor. 1:26-29), among whom I gladly number myself.

Roger’s characterization of us is lamentable, especially since it is found among so many championing gay rights. It is also hypocritical. While they show such exquisite sensitivity towards gays, they find nothing inconsistent about heaping unfair abuse upon those who don’t agree with them.

Rogers then inveighs against “rational analysis” in favor of “personal encounter,” suggesting that the former is rigid and dangerous:

• Fascism in Europe demonstrated the danger of a rigid worldview that did not allow for diversity of opinions. (38)

While it is true that a “rigid worldview” can be dangerous, it depends upon what one is rigid about. Rogers is rigid about gay rights, and most gay advocates have little use for the “diversity of opinions.” Instead, he credits the neo-orthodoxy of Barth and Brunner with substituting the rigidity of “rational analysis” with a more humanizing perspective:

• They did not view the Bible as a collection of inerrant facts, but as a very human document that reliably recorded a very real encounter of real people with a real God…The influence of neo-orthodoxy and the biblical theology movement enabled the church to take a fresh look at oppressive social institutions. (39)

Of course, if the Bible isn’t a “collection of inerrant facts,” then it has errors, and it’s up to us to recognize which parts are inspired and which aren’t. This means that we (and consequently our cultural conditioning) become the final arbiter of truth. It is no longer then a matter of Scripture judging us, but instead of we sitting in judgment over Scripture. If we really have that level of insight, then Scripture becomes irrelevant. If we have the capacity to judge Scripture, then we don’t really need Scripture at all.

Rogers slips between one point of view and another. Sometimes, it’s the fallible Bible that is at fault for our “oppressive social institutions,” and sometimes it’s the fault of the interpretation of the hated Evangelicals. However, most of the time, Rogers wants us to understand that our principles of interpretation are at fault. Consequently, he endorses the principle of love in contrast to a strict adherence to Scripture. Rogers inappropriately cites:

• He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Cor. 3:6)

Rogers wrongly concludes that the killing “letter” of the law pertains to Scripture. Therefore, if Scripture kills, we have to be very tentative about it. However, read contextually, the “letter” pertains to the Covenant of Moses, not to Scripture:

• Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was (2 Cor. 3:7)

Rogers sets forth “seven guidelines for interpretation.” (54) On the surface, they seem to be sound, but the devil is in the details. Number five reads:

• “Let all interpretations be in accord with the rule of love, the two-fold commandment to love God and to love our neighbor.” (62)

This is a sound and central Scriptural principle. However, Rogers explains:

• When we interpret Scripture in a way that is hurtful to people, we can be sure that we are not glorifying God. (62)

What does Rogers mean by “hurtful?” To explain, he cites his denominational report of 1983:

• “No interpretation of Scripture is correct that leads to or supports contempt for any individual or group of persons either within or outside the church…Any interpretation of Scripture is wrong that separates or sets in opposition love for God and love for fellow human being.” (62)

What does “contempt for any individual or group” entail? Any refusal to accept homosexuality as Biblically acceptable represents “contempt.” Well then, can we ever interpret Scripture as condemning any sin? Must we then not censure those who steal and lie because this would represent “contempt?” Should we also be accepting of adultery, pre-marital sex, polygamy, pedophilia, and prostitution? And isn’t Rogers demonstrating “contempt” for those who disagree with him and the historical interpretations of the church?

Does the prohibition against showing “contempt” for certain behaviors also rule out Jesus’ teaching in support of church discipline? He instructed the church to avoid those who refuse to repent:

• If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. (Matthew 18:17)

Wouldn’t the exercise of church discipline violate Jesus’ teaching? Wouldn’t this embody “contempt?” Rogers reinterprets “love” in terms of indulgence of various sexual lifestyles. He cites New Testament professor, Walter Wink, approvingly:

• “Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it allows, we prohibit. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country…” (63)

It seems that Rogers and Wink are very ready to invoke the “love principle” of the Bible, in a way that supports their politics. However, once the Bible disagrees with the prevailing practices, then “Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow.” Very convenient! Why then even cite the Bible, if the true authorities are ultimately Rogers and Wink, drawing from the Bible what they find agreeable and discarding the rest?

Rogers is able to use his “love principle” to justify any form of self-indulgence. He applies this principle to the question of divorce and remarriage. In support, he cites his denominational statements:

• “Whenever free Protestant churches are studying this problem today in the light of Jesus’ total teachings on human relations, the trend is unmistakably away from a strictly legalistic approach to one more finely and fundamentally spiritual.” (43)

Sadly, this “fundamentally spiritual” approach can be used to justify just about any divorce:

• “Infidelity can be spiritual as well as physical and it manifests itself in many forms. It is therefore unrealistic to hold that divorce is permissible only when marriage has been broken by one or two forms of infidelity, both of which are physical acts.” (43) 

Well, of what do “spiritual” grounds for divorce consist? Just about anything! If you don’t find your marriage romantic or spiritual enough, this newly discovered spiritual principle of “love” is enough to set you free from spouse and children or any commitment. Hence, the virtue of commitment is made to bow before personal fulfillment, now construed as a “spiritual” right.

It is pointless to examine how Rogers interprets the various texts that prohibit homosexuality. Clearly, he doesn’t regard these texts as authoritative. For him, what is authoritative is his contemporary understanding of “love.” Instead of trying to contextually understand a passage, he has already committed himself to imposing his doctrine of “love” upon it. However, I proceeded out of curiosity to see how he would explain them away.

Rogers firstly deals with the sin of Sodom (Genesis 19; also Judges 19:1-30):

• The central idea in these passages is the sacred obligation of hospitality for travelers. (70)…The sin of Sodom is mentioned several times elsewhere in the Bible, but never in connection with homosexual acts. (71)

It is most-likely true that Sodom had committed the sin of inhospitality. However, Rogers is mistaken that the Bible never mentions Sodom’s sin “in connection with homosexual acts.” The prophet Ezekiel cites numerous sins:

• Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (Ezekiel 16:49-50) 

It wasn’t just that Sodom had been “arrogant…not help[ing] the poor and needy…haughty,” it also did “detestable” things – the very word (toebah) used to describe homosexuality in Leviticus 18 and 20. However, the Letter of Jude is more specific:

• And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.  In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 6-7)

Rogers’ other attempts to explain away the Bible’s injunctions against homosexuality are equally unconvincing.

Although I must take issue with Rogers, I cannot condemn him. Why not? Because I had been doing the same thing - interpreting the Bible to justify my own agendas.  I wanted to be right, and I wanted the Bible to agree with me and to make me feel good about myself.

After years of fighting against God – I didn’t realize it at the time – He succeeded in humbling me to the point that I now pray, “Lord, I just want to understand the Bible as You do.”

I am still growing in this area, but I trust that He will provide us with His wisdom as we continue to humble ourselves before Him:

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. (James 1:5)

CONVERSION THERAPY: BANNED, BIASED OR ESSENTIAL

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York just announced a series of measures intended to eliminate so-called conversion therapy:

• Mr. Cuomo’s plan relies on economic incentives meant to discourage conversion therapy’s use on young people. Insurers in New York, for instance, will now be prohibited from covering the cost of such therapy for anyone under 18.

• That action… would prohibit the use of Medicaid to pay for conversion therapy. Centers overseen by the State Office of Mental Health would also be barred from providing conversion therapy to minors, according to the governor’s office.

How does Cuomo justify prohibiting the free choice of both parents and their children from seeking counseling for their unwanted same-sex attraction? Cuomo charges:

• “We will not allow the misguided and the intolerant to punish L.G.B.T. young people for simply being who they are,” 

Are the parents and their adolescent-teenage children “misguided?” Does Cuomo think he knows what is best for them? The horrific consequences for this lifestyle are undeniable – highly elevated levels of suicide, mental illness, depression, STDs, domestic violence, shortened life, and substance abuse. Could any therapy incur worse results!

Cuomo claims that those who administer such treatment are “intolerant to punish L.G.B.T. young people for simply being who they are.” But how does Cuomo know that they are “intolerant” rather than compassionate. He doesn’t. Instead, he has employed the carefully honed rhetoric of manipulation – tarring the opposition as “intolerant” or just haters.

Besides, are these youth really gay or are they simply going through a period of identity confusion? They is a lot of evidence that sexual attraction is quite fluid, rather than settled, at these ages. Why try to lock them into a lifestyle that dooms them to a life of self-destruction! It would seem that, in light of the horrific consequences, that almost anything should be tried to channel the youth into more a salutary lifestyle.

If there have been some therapeutic interventions that have been found to be unproductive or harmful, then make their failures known and explore or promote other more promising forms of therapy.

Instead, our pundits have condemned all forms of conversion therapy. It would be like condemning all forms of bipolar therapy because of the failure of one particular intervention. The fact that Cuomo wants to ban all forms of conversion therapy demonstrates, not a concern for the youth, but an entrenched political agenda. Instead, he should fund other more hopeful ways to address this horribly self-destructive lifestyle.

Cuomo’s sexually indulgent approach is also the approach of the Feds:

• Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to the president, described its [conversion therapy] “potentially devastating effects on the lives of transgender as well as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and queer youth.”

Their approach is to damn anything that might have the promise of helping youth to avoid a life of despair.

Last year, the New York State Assembly labelled conversion therapy a form of “professional misconduct that could put medical licenses at risk.” But is it misconduct or is it professionally responsible to help youth overcome what they regard as a problem? There are many indications that such therapy can be effective:

• There are two major studies most often cited to support the potential benefits of reparation [conversion] therapy. One, originally published in book form in 2007, was conducted by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse. A follow-up to the study, which appeared in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy in 2011, concluded not only that it was possible to change one’s homosexual orientation, but also that psychological harm was unlikely to result from the effort. (Salvo, Issue 22,34)

The Robert Spitzer study, published in 2003 in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, also offers promise:

• After studying efforts on 200 volunteers who had experienced predominantly homosexual attractions for many years before beginning therapy, Spitzer found that, for all subjects, “there was a marked reduction [of homosexual tendencies]…not only on the three measures of overt behavior and sexual orientation self-identification…but also on the seven variables assessing sexual orientation itself.” (34)

Had Cuomo and others, who want to ban all forms of supportive therapy for those who have chosen to resist same-sex attraction, merely publicized against those interventions associated with negative outcomes, they might be more credible. However, they are not taking the middle road. Nor are they asking for further research to identity interventions that offer the most promise. Instead, they seek to ban all forms of such therapy, thereby revealing their own intolerance and disregard for the struggles of these youth.

GAY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

What is natural is healthy. What is unnatural can prove very costly:

·       After conducting an extensive study on homosexual behavior, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that those involved in such lifestyles experience a far greater amount of violence from one another than those in heterosexual relationships.

·       CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey is a first-of-its-kind study geared to determine the difference between the victimization of men and women by sexual orientation. The results show that men and women involved in homosexual behavior undergo much higher rates of sexual violence than men and women who are heterosexual.

·       Surprising to many, homosexual women experience more violence than men. According to the study, a whopping 44 percent of lesbians were either raped, experienced physical abuse, and/or were stalked by their intimate partners during their lifetime. Even more shockingly, 61 percent of bisexual women endured such violence from their partners.

·       It is also reported that 37 percent of bisexual women indicated they were stalked, which is more than double the rate that heterosexual women experience from their male partners. Furthermore, the CDC found that 37 percent of bisexual women were injured during the rape, physical violence, and/or stalking that they experienced at the hands of their sexual partners.

·       Tragically, 48 percent of bisexual women who reported that they were raped said that their first experience of being raped occurred when they were adolescents between the ages of 11 and 17.

·       The research also shows that 26 percent of homosexual men experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by their intimate partners. It’s even higher for bisexual men, who experience these types of assaults at a rate of 37 percent.

In light of these monumental costs and many others that had already been widely made known – suicide, depression, substance abuse, STDs, and abbreviated lives – why does the West continue to celebrate this lifestyle and diminish, and even destroy, anyone who speaks against it? Why are the enablers lauded and the non-enablers totally discredited as “homophobes?”

TRANSEXUALITY AND CRAZY LAWS TO ENSURE NO ONE WILL STAND IN THE WAY OF A SUICIDAL LIFESTYLE

Several states have passed laws criminalizing psychotherapy for youth wanting to resist same-sex attraction. Now Cincinnati has introduced a bill to criminalize many other forms of sexual change therapy, even for adults:

• City Council Member Chris Seelbach said Thursday that at Monday’s meeting of the council’s law and public safety committee, he will propose an ordinance that would impose a $200-a-day fine on a therapist or counselor practicing the therapy that aims to “change” lesbians, gay men, bisexuals or transgender people from their sexual orientation or gender identity. 

Why prohibit counseling even to those who want it? Is it criminal to seek to live in a more healthy manner? Even if it had been found that one form of therapy is harmful, why then ban all forms of therapy? Oddly, there is no move underfoot to ban sexual reassignment therapy despite the horrific findings.

Walt Heyer had lived as woman for eight years before returning as a male. He laments the fact that no one had warned him about the costs of sex change surgery:

• I suffered through “sex change” surgery and lived as a woman for eight years. The surgery fixed nothing—it only masked and exacerbated deeper psychological problems.

Only later did Heyer discover that there was literature documenting sex-reassignment problems. He writes: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/too-many-end-in-suicide-the-dark-history-of-gender-reassignment

• Dr. Jon Meyer, the chairman of the Hopkins gender clinic… selected fifty subjects from those treated at the Hopkins clinic, both those who had undergone gender reassignment surgery and those who had not had surgery. The results of this study completely refuted Money’s claims about the positive outcomes of sex-change surgery. The objective report showed no medical necessity for surgery.

• On August 10, 1979, Dr. Meyer announced his results: “To say this type of surgery cures psychiatric disturbance is incorrect. We now have objective evidence that there is no real difference in the transsexual’s adjustments to life in terms of job, educational attainment, marital adjustment and social stability.” He later told The New York Times: “My personal feeling is that the surgery is not a proper treatment for a psychiatric disorder, and it’s clear to me these patients have severe psychological problems that don’t go away following surgery.” Less than six months later, the Johns Hopkins gender clinic closed.

• [Dr.] Charles Ihlenfeld… administered sex hormones to 500 transsexuals… announcing that 80 percent of the people who want to change their gender shouldn’t do it. Ihlenfeld said: “There is too much unhappiness among people who have had the surgery…Too many end in suicide.” Ihlenfeld stopped administering hormones to patients experiencing gender dysphoria and switched specialties from endocrinology to psychiatry so he could offer such patients the kind of help he thought they really needed.

• There is no conclusive evidence that sex change operations improve the lives of transsexuals, with many people remaining severely distressed and even suicidal after the operation, according to a medical review conducted exclusively for Guardian Weekend tomorrow.

Heyer’s own research finds support in many other sources:

• The review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transsexuals by the University of Birmingham's aggressive research intelligence facility (Arif) found no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective. 

A long-term follow-up of transsexual persons undergoing sex reassignment surgery: cohort study in Sweden found: 

• Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.

Madeline Wyndzen, a transgendered psychology professor, writes:

• "50% of transgenders could be struggling with suicide attempts, regret, anger and unhappiness living in a transgender sub-culture rather than being part of the larger world.” 

A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey says:

• A staggering 41% of transgenders surveyed report they have attempted suicide and that those who have medically transitioned and surgically transitioned have higher rates of attempted suicide than the general population. Transgenders have higher rate of HIV infections. They are more prone to heavy drinking and the use of drugs. They have high rates of homelessness, unemployment and extreme poverty, even more so in the more difficult economic times of the last 5 years. 

Research from the US and Holland suggests:

• That up to a fifth (20%) of patients regret changing sex. 

In a “review of more than 100 studies,” the University of Birmingham found that “no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective.” (Salvo, Fall 2014, 33)

Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital reports on two studies which tracked children claiming to have transgender feelings.

• Among children who received no medical or surgical treatment, 70 to 80 percent spontaneously lost those feelings. (32)

An abstract of “Non-suicidal self-injury [NSSI] and suicidality in trans people: A systematic review of the literature” reads:

• “Literature has described high levels of mental health problems among trans people, such as depression, resulting in increased levels of non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) behaviour and suicidality (suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts and suicide rates). With the aim of systematically reviewing the available literature in this field, this study identifies 31 papers that explore the rates of NSSI and suicidality in trans people. From reviewing the literature, it was revealed that trans people have a higher prevalence of NSSI and suicidality compared to the cisgender (non-trans) population. There appear to be some gender differences within these rates, with trans men at a greater risk for NSSI behaviour. Prevalence rates differ depending on the different stages of transition, but they are still overall greater than the cisgender population. The study concludes that trans individuals are at a greater risk of NSSI behaviour and suicidality than the cisgender population.”

Therefore, many have concluded that transgenderism is a psychological problem and not one to be surgically addressed. Why then the criminalization of those who don’t want to pursue sex change but psychological change? Ironically, we are not in the least sympathetic to someone who claims that they are really white but trapped in a black body and wants to lighten their skin. We understandably conclude that they are suffering from a form of self-contempt. Why then wouldn’t we conclude the same about someone who wants to change more than just their color but also their sex organs?

Chris Seelbach of the Cincinnati Council is clearly motivated by ideology (religion) rather than by an informed concern for those struggling with transgenderism. How then are they able to argue their case to criminalize therapeutic choice? They start a progressive movement and find a poster boy.

Bruce Jenner, former Olympic star and now “Caitlin,” exactly fit the script. But Jenner isn’t enough. They need a tragic story, a suicide of someone denied a sex change.

Josh Alcorn (17), the son of Carla and Don Alcorn, wanted to become a woman at age 14. Understandably, his Christian parents were not thrilled about his request, and brought him to see several Christian psychotherapists. However, Josh rejected their counsel and, subsequently, his own life. This is part of his suicide note:

• After a summer of having almost no friends plus the weight of having to think about college, save money for moving out, keep my grades up, go to church each week and feel like s**t because everyone there is against everything I live for, I have decided I've had enough. I'm never going to transition successfully, even when I move out. I'm never going to be happy with the way I look or sound. I'm never going to have enough friends to satisfy me. I'm never going to have enough love to satisfy me. I'm never going to find a man who loves me. I'm never going to be happy. Either I live the rest of my life as a lonely man who wishes he were a woman or I live my life as a lonelier woman who hates herself. There's no winning. There's no way out. I'm sad enough already, I don't need my life to get any worse. People say 'it gets better' but that isn't true in my case. It gets worse. Each day I get worse. That's the gist of it, that's why I feel like killing myself… Goodbye, (Leelah) Josh Alcorn

Predictably, the media and the crowds have demonized the parents for their lack of approval of Joshua and his choice. Meanwhile, no one in mainstream is demonizing the Cincinnati Council for their attempt to deprive others of their choices. It is truly ironic that those seeking to escape a self-destructive lifestyle are criminalized, while those who pursue it are celebrated.