Robert Gagnon's Answers to Emails on the
Bible and Homosexuality I
__________________________________________________________
Index
Here is
a list of the email subjects with dates. For text, scroll down below.
They are in order of date, most recent first.
5/9/08:
Response to a skeptical
evangelical leader who wants to know whom I have "'delivered'
from homosexual orientations"
4/18/08:
What about no reproduction
in heaven and the existence of "complementary" homosexual
unions?
4/16/08: A question
from a seminary student about the exploitation argument
9/5/07: A testimony
from a pastor who has dealt with bisexual urges
9/5/07: Is
heterosexual cohabitation grounds for denying church membership?
6/15/07: Did Jesus Change the Law's Stance on Capital
Sentencing?
5/8/07: Hate Mail from an Angry Left-of-Center Pastor with
a "Wonderful" Pastoral Manner
4/26/07: A question about eternal security and sexual
immorality
4/25/07: Do you think I would still go to heaven when I
die if I am in a lesbian relationship?
4/8/07: Jack Rogers and Analogies
3/31/07: A person with
homosexual desire asks: How does one decide which commands of
God in Scripture to follow?
3/10/07: Where have I
spoken about why women's ordination is a bad analogy for
accepting homosexual practice?
3/10/07: Email from a
father whose teenage son has "come out," on my "Two Views" book
2/2/07: Why Meeting
Nice "Gay" and Lesbian Persons Should Not Lead to Approval of
Homosexual Practice
1/18/07: Jesus,
eunuchs, and the allegation of a 'gay Jesus'
10/17/03 (revisited
12/26/06): A heartfelt email from a woman with same-sex
attractions
12/20/06: Where do I
stand on registered homosexual partnerships?
12/04/06: Do I operate
with a notion of mind/body dualism or "physicalism"?
12/04/06: How did I
get so involved in the topic of homosexuality?
12/04/06: What's a
Layperson to Do?
11/17-25/06:
Correspondence with a student at Eastern University promoting a
"noncontextual perspective and "trusting my own judgment"
11/22/06: Response to
a person who thinks that my non-biblical arguments are not
strong
11/14/06: Question
about books or resources for counseling persons with same-sex
attractions
11/14/06: Differences
of opinion about the relevance of menstrual law and whether the
Law is abrogated in Christ
11/2/06: Questions
about Jack Rogers's claim that 1 Cor 6:9 does not speak against
committed homosexual unions
10/27/06: Can one make
a reasoned case against homosexual practice without citing
Scripture?
10/16/06: Requests for
clarifications on my positions regarding Gen 2, the meaning of
unnatural, and the relevance of Dutch gay marriage
10/16/06: Questions about genetic
influence and moral relevance
__________________________________________________________
Text
Response to a skeptical evangelical leader who wants to know whom I have
"'delivered' from homosexual orientations"
[The
following is from an evangelical leader whom I have reason to believe
supports some degree of acceptance of homosexual unions and is seeking
ways to support the homosexualist agenda without alienating the audience
for the leader's message. I understood the request based on this broader
context (which I cannot disclose here); that is, as a way of undermining
my scriptural arguments through questioning whether my teaching converts
homosexual persons into heterosexual persons.]
From: X
Sent: Fri 5/9/2008 4:35 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Dear
Robert,
It
would be most helpful to me if you could give me the names and
addresses of people who have been “delivered” from homosexual
orientations as an outgrowth of your ministry. Could you give me
the names and addresses of people whom you have led to Christ
because of your particular approach and teachings on this subject?
Being a ___________, I am very interested in case studies and I
approach the whole subject from that perspective, even as you
approach the subject by an analysis of the biblical text. If you
can help me, it would be most appreciated.
Sincerely,
X
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 6:03 PM
To: X
Dear X,
My ministry is not one of "delivering people from
homosexual orientations." I have received many thanks in my speaking
engagements, and occasionally through emails, from people who say that
my teaching has helped them to recognize what God's will is for their
lives and to be encouraged that God is able to empower them to obedience
in their behavior whether or not they are "delivered from same-sex
attractions." I do not keep track of these. Working with people to
manage and sometimes diminish same-sex attractions would require an
"Alcoholics Anonymous" approach, i.e. long-term therapeutic help and
group networking. This in itself would be a full-time ministry and it is
not what I do, given the demands made on me in teaching and publishing.
A bit troubling (though I acknowledge that I could be
reading too much into your request) is the apparent presumption that
"deliverance" must take the form of losing a homosexual orientation.
When did God ever predicate a single one of his commands on people first
losing all desire to violate the command in question? Isn't the reason
why God gives commands and prohibitions because there are people with
innate urges to violate them? Is the monogamy principle applicable only
to people with no polysexual orientation? Is the principle of no
intercourse with prepubescent children (and for our culture the whole of
adolescence) applicable only to persons not so "oriented" with a
pedosexual orientation? (Incidentally, do you keep track of persons who
have been delivered from polysexual and pedosexual orientations or
alcoholic predispositions? And, if not, why not?)
Isn't the whole of the Christian life a struggle against
the warring passions of the flesh, which God requires us not to succumb
to and, when we do succumb, to repent, however many times for the rest
of our life this takes (Gal 5:16-18)? Is it the case that when Paul says
in 1 Cor 6:11, "and these things some of you were," he means that the
offenders in the offender list in 6:9-10 no longer experience innate
urges to commit offenses when they become washed, sanctified, and
justified by believing in Christ and receiving the Spirit of God? And if
it doesn't mean that (and it doesn't) what then does Paul mean by "and
these things some of you were"? Does he not mean that they have
"reoriented" themselves to be crucified with Christ, to die to selves,
and to live for God by having Christ live in them through their
gratitude for Christ's redemption (Gal 2:19-20)?
And what is the shape of God's grace here? According to 2
Cor 12:7-10 grace is most profoundly experienced when, in answer to our
fervent entreaties to be delivered from some distressing circumstance,
God says "no" and explains "My grace is sufficient for you; my power
will be brought to completion in and through your weakness." Is the "no"
a cause for depression and defeatism or the realization that this is a
formative moment for being shaped more vigorously into the image of
Christ?
Do you, as a ___________, keep track of these stories?
Perhaps you should. These are the real success stories. Anybody can obey
God when no particular stressful circumstances arise from the obedience.
But to obey God in a manner that requires one to take up one's cross,
deny oneself, and lose one's life, is to know what it means when Paul
says "for me to live is Christ" (Phil 1:21) and "may it not happen that
I boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the
world has been crucified to me and I to the world" (Gal 6:14). Do we,
with Paul, bear the marks or scars of Jesus on our body that comes with
being crucified in relation to the world and our own fleshly passions
and desires (Gal 6:17; 5:24)? The message of the cross is the message of
life. The message of "gratify your urges that violate God's will but do
so with the fewest negative side-effects" is the message of death (cf. 2
Cor 2:14-17). If I were to preach the latter message, I would have
easily removed a great deal of stress in my life that has come for
defending the male-female character of sexual relations over the past
decade (cf. Gal 5:11).
As you might note from my open letter to the President of
Toledo (here)
I focused on socio-environmental influences on homosexual development
combined with congenital influences and the role of incremental, often
blind and indirect, choice. I didn't say that, once acquired and deeply
imbedded, same-sex attractions are easy to diminish in intensity, much
less get rid of. But a culture that provides a full-court press for
affirming homosexual practice to children from (in some areas of the
country) first grade on up will have a significant impact, I believe, in
increasing the incidence of homosexuality (and I don't mean just an
increase in the number of people who, already having same-sex
attractions, come "out of the closet"). In that sense, as well as in its
attraction for behavior incompatible with embodied existence, a
homosexual orientation is most definitely not like race and biological
sex.
I hope this response is helpful to you.
Blessings,
Rob
__________________________________________________________
What
about no reproduction in heaven and the existence of "complementary"
homosexual unions?
From:
Judy
Sent: Fri 4/18/2008 9:36 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Your views on homosexuality
Dear Dr. Gagnon,
I've read with interest your well-documented views on homosexuality...
However, is it not true that people are not to be defined solely by
their physical appearance? Is not the physical, the earthly body, a
temporary body, given its outline and desires produced by hormones for
the general purposes of reproduction of the race? Will our spiritual
bodies, given to us someday in the realm of eternal life, be defined
likewise as "male and female"?. We don't really know, but I think not,
as there is no need for reproduction in Heaven.
Here in San Francisco, I have as friends a couple who are most certainly
heterosexual, yet she is very "dominant, butch, assertive" while he is
more "feminine, diminuitive, responsive". You've probably experienced
the same things in some couples that you are acquainted with. In other
words, emotionally they are not the so-called "norm", but certainly they
are emotionally "complimentary" and compatible.
Likewise, I've met many homosexual couples here in San Francisco who are
likewise complimentary in the realm of emotional/spiritual: one may be
somewhat "dominant, assertive, initiating" while the other is "gentle,
passive, receiving" in their entire self. In other words, they DO "fit"
together", as companions and soul-mates and (perhaps) partners, despite
their physical sameness. In my 17 years of living in SF, I have really
not seen many long term same-sex relationships which are based on
"sameness" - in fact, those seem to be very, very few-- and frankly yes,
narcissistic. Most couples I've met are very different -like salt and
pepper -and refreshing to experience as a "couple". This, despite
their same sex.
As you are already aware, the earthly body is temporary, but our
relationships will continue on into eternal life. Could it be that you
are deceiving yourself about the true complexity of the situation, just
because physical parts (man/woman) "fit" for reproductive purposes?
This is perhaps a mystery, and perhaps too big for us to comprehend
with our human minds. The angels, are, apparently, sexless. What will
it be like for us then, to relate with one another in heaven, without
bodies that address the gender issue? Hmmm.
Sincerely,
Judy
San Francisco, CA
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 11:48 PM
To: Judy
Subject: RE: Your views on homosexuality
Dear
Judy,
Thank you for your
thoughts on the matter. In response, I offer two observations.
First, you are right
that "there is no 'male and female" (Gal 3:28), along with other texts
in Scripture (e.g., Jesus' saying about no marriage in heaven), suggest
a limitation on the ongoing validity of male/female differentiation. But
to argue for the validity of homosexual unions misses the point that the
end of the significance of sexual differentiation for mate selection
spells the end of all sexual relations. So long as sexual relations are
permitted, a male-female prerequisite is in place. We won't be having
sex in heaven--Jesus' statement about no marriage in heaven is clear
about this. What we will have is unmediated access to God which will
make sexual relations look dull by comparison.
Second, the fact that
some persons in homosexual relationships show some complementarity
features (you note dominance and passivity) does not make them
complementary in the truest or deepest sense. Those who are in such
relationships confirm this when they claim exclusive attraction to
members of the same sex, do they not? If maleness or femaleness did not
have significant reality, in a holistic sense, beyond certain typical
social constructions, there would be no such thing as exclusive
homosexuality. If all a dominant male sought was a passive partner, then
either a passive male or a passive female would do. If a passive male
sought a dominant partner, either a dominant male or a dominant female
would do (etc.). Yet the persistence in claiming that only a person of
the same sex will do is tacit acknowledgement of a multi-level reality
to maleness and to femaleness.
Same-sex attraction is
attraction for, well, the same sex. A homosexual man who had a gender
nonconforming childhood may seek another man as a means of compensating
for his (the former male's) perceived deficiencies in maleness. Yet the
lie and self-deception is that he was and remains a male. A homoerotic
union regularizes the self-deception.
I hope that this makes
sense to you.
Blessings,
Rob
From:
Judy
Sent: Thu 4/24/2008 8:37 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Re: Your views on homosexuality
Dear Dr. Gagnon,
Well, not exactly. People are at all different places on the Kinsey
Scale. Some profess only attraction to one sex or another, but others
are in the middle of the scale, and can have loving (and sexual)
relationships with either sex (as long as it is with someone who they
are attracted to and are compatible with). The problems arise not on
the individual level, but at the societal level, where those who are
uncomfortable with those of a different sexual persuasion than their own
have to be "running the show", so to speak. But it's not "our show" it
is the Lord's. We are all a part of the play...
Sex is not just for pro-creation. It is also for bonding purposes as
well. You apparently have some very black and white views on
sexuality. Unfortunately, the world has a lot of grey areas which we
aren't necessarily capable of understanding the reason for existing.
It's not always important that the "female" and "male" ends of the pipe
fit perfectly. Instead, its about relationships - loving, caring and
growth-oriented.
I would like to invite you to "come and see" for yourself. Come
experience the San Francisco that I know, with same sex couples who are
faithful, monogamous, Christian, raising children successfully, loving
and caring people, not narcissistic in any sense. Challenge yourself to
see what is out there, and then ask yourself if this isn't from God.
So when can you come and visit?
Sincerely,
Judy
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 12:12 AM
To: Judy
Subject: RE: Your views on homosexuality
Dear
Judy,
Thank you for your
second email. With all respect, I think it demonstrates that you need to
read my remarks more carefully; even more, that you need to begin
reading my main works.
Of course there are
people at different ends of the Kinsey scale. This is not news to me.
You missed my point that the existence of some exclusive or
near-exclusive homosexuality (a Kinsey 5 or 6), which incidentally is
the dominant manifestation of male homosexuality, shows that there is a
fundamental recognition of something identifiably male or female that
transcends particular cultural affects of maleness or femaleness. Even
bisexuals recognize the difference. So do the roughly 98% of the
population that is exclusively or predominantly attracted to one sex.
Again you miss my point
that complementarity extends well beyond procreation and even beyond the
anatomical fittedness. Arguing that opposition to homosexual practice is
exclusively predicated on its nonprocreative character is like arguing
that opposition to adult incest is exclusively predicated on potential
procreation problems (i.e. birth defects), a problem that, incidentally,
would not apply to homosexual incest. There is a holistic dimension to
maleness and femaleness that extends to anatomy, physiology, and
psychology. By definition persons erotically aroused by their own sex
are erotically aroused by what they already are, male for maleness,
female for femaleness, at every level. The attempt to merge with one's
own sex is buying into the self-deception that one's own sexuality as a
male or female is not intact but needs structural supplementation and
not just structural affirmation.
No, the problems in
homosexual relationships don't arise simply or solely from societal
"homophobia." They arise first and foremost from the fact that putting
two (or more) people of the same sex in a sexual union doesn't moderate
the extremes of a given sex or fill in the gaps; hence, male
homosexuality experiences disproportionately high rates of problems that
are different from the types of disproportionately high rates of
problems in female homosexuality, differences that are typical of their
respective genders.
Now these problems are
merely the symptoms of the root problem: the attempt to merge with
someone who is not a true sexual complement. Of course there are some
committed homosexual relationships. No consensual sexual relationship of
any sort--not adult incestuous bonds or adult-committed polyamorous
relationships, not even pedophilic practices--produce
intrinsic, scientifically measurable
harm.
The fact that you can refer to committed
homosexual relationships as something that you think I don't know about
shows that you have not read, or understood, my work. Commitment in a
homosexual relationship no more validates the union than would
commitment validate an adult-consensual incestuous or polyamorous union.
As Paul knew at Corinth, commitment in an incestuous bond does not
morally improve the quality of the relationship because, having failed
to meet the structural prerequisites, the relationship should have ended
yesterday. You say that I am "black and white." And yet you are no less
"black and white" in affirming homosexual unions and thinking that those
who disagree with you are wrong. And are you "black and white" in
rejecting adult-committed incest and polyamory? Or is this too a grey
area for you? After all, as you say, as long as the relationships are
about bonding and are loving, who could be opposed to them?
Go to
www.Oprah.com, specifically http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200710/tows_past_20071026.jhtml?promocode=ssend20071026TD
and see also the videos of the show at
www.video.aol.com
under “Oprah
Winfrey & Lisa Ling interview Mormon Polygamists.” You'll see that there
are some loving, caring polygamous relationships that appear to be
raising children successfully. By your definition of what constitutes an
acceptable sexual union, which apparently includes no formal
prerequisites for structural, embodied correspondences, it satisfies all
the requirements. You will have to agree with Oprah: "The
best part of doing this job
… [is that] I come in
with one idea and then I leave a little more open about the whole idea.
And what I realize … is that in every situation there are people who
give things a bad name. There are
difficulties and then
there are people who handle those difficulties differently."
Of course, Jesus closed the door on the
permission that Moses gave to men to marry more than one woman and did
so by appealing to the twoness of the sexes in creation, "male and
female God created them." Completing the sexual spectrum by joining the
two and only two primary sexes makes all third parties unnecessary,
whether serial or concurrent. But since the binary or sexually dimorphic
character of man-woman unions is not essential for you, you have no
logical, scriptural, or creation-based ethic for limiting the number of
partners in a sexual union to two, so long as the sexual union is
loving. You "say" that it has to be monogamous but you don't explain why
it must be and indeed have no legitimate basis for asserting that it
must be. People are, after all, capable of loving more than one person
concurrently (witness a parent's love for all his or her children, for
example). A problem for your argument is that you do not recognize the
special requirements placed on sexual unions that are not placed on
non-sexual loving relationships.
At this point rather than continue
to repeat responses that I have already given elsewhere, I am going to
ask you to read my response to the Myers/Scanzoni book at
http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf,
at least pages 30-45, 98-101, 125-28, before responding, so that I don't
have to reinvent the wheel here. Thanks for your attention to these
matters.
Blessings,
Rob
__________________________________________________________
A
question from a seminary student about the exploitation argument
From:
C
Sent: Wed 4/16/2008 6:11 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Romans 1:26 - a question from a [PCUSA] seminary student
Dr. Gagnon:
I am now a (second career) M.Div student at [a PCUSA seminary]. In
conversation with one of the professors on campus here the statement was
made about Romans 1:26-27 that "Paul had no idea about the kind of
homosexual relationships we know today...what he was talking about was
man to boy sex, with a wife at home ... the NT world knew nothing about
long-term committed homosexual relationships as we know them today."
My question to you is how to refute that statement. I have heard (but
cannot recall where) that there were a group of Greeks (phonetically it
seems like they were described as "kenides" who did engage in what
today's culture would describe as long-term, committed homosexual
relationships). Is my recollection correct? If so, are you able to fill
the memory gaps for me? If not, is there any semblance of argument
against that statement? I have your book if you can point me to a
reference there.
Many thanks for the work you do, as well as being available for
questions such as mine!
C.
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 7:50 PM
To: C.
Subject: RE: Romans 1:26-27 - a question from a [PCUSA] seminary
student
Hi C.,
The professor making this argument simply
doesn't know the material well.
That Paul had in view
all homosexual relationships is evident from the fact that: (1) Paul had
the creation texts in the background of his indictment, which had the
male-female prerequisite in view; (2) Paul used a nature argument that
was not limited to man-boy sex; (3) Paul indicted lesbianism in 1:26,
which was not typically conducted on adult-adolescent model; (4) Paul
spoke in 1:27 of the mutuality of the desire "for one another"; (5) Paul
referred to "soft men" in 1 Cor 6:9 which in context could be used
of adult males who feminized themselves to attract male sex partners
(the kinaidoi/cinaedi); (6) caring adult homosexual relationships in
antiquity were known; (7) some Greco-Roman moralists indicted homosexual
relationships absolutely, including adult relationships; (8)
relationships between adult males were thought to be worse than
relationships between a man and a boy because adult men had, or should
have, outgrown the "softness" of adolescence and so were wholly
inappropriate as the receptive partners in male-male intercourse; (9)
early Jewish prohibitions were absolute (one rabbinic text even
specifies that the Levitical prohibitions refer to an active partner
that is adult and a passive partner that is either adult or adolescent.
See further my article at
http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf ,
pp. 65-77.
For point 6 above see my first talk
at Princeton Seminary rebutting Stacy Johnson's use of the exploitation
argument; go to
http://robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm
Finally, the best thing
to do would be to find a group on campus that could bring me over to
your institution to do a few lectures on the subject. But if that is not
possible the resources above should suffice.
Blessings,
Dr. Gagnon
__________________________________________________________
A
testimony from a pastor who has dealt with bisexual urges
[This
testimony from a pastor speaks for itself. I thank the writer for his
courage.]
From:
R.
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:09 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Your letter to the Evangelical Leader
Rob,
I appreciate your response to the Evangelical leader (here).
I think it is spot on.
What you say leads me to share a bit about why I know you
are right, and why I too take this stuff so seriously. I ask your
indulgence as I share something personal. You can use it if you find it
worthy of such, although I ask that you withhold using my full name.
The reason I know you are right, and why I take this so
seriously myself is that I did struggle with homosexual/bisexual
impulses when I was a teenager (starting around 16).
I came from an immediate family where no father was
present. My brother and I were not close. The only male close in
proximity was the man my mother chose to sleep with (and he was an
alcoholic, both abusive emotionally and physically, even asking my
mother in a drunken rage to have sex with me). Clearly, male bonding in
a filial or paternal sense was not something I felt was available to me.
Further, there was a general acceptance of sexual immoral
behavior in the family. My mother, her father, her sister and brother
were all acting out in ways that were contrary to the Scriptures, and
this was not hidden from the children's eyes.
It is within this context that I began to have an
attraction for men and women. When it occured to me that I might be
homosexual or bisexual, I was horrified. I was not horrified because the
family would be upset, or society would be upset. No. I lived in a very
"liberated" (although really enslaved) home; and I grew up in South
Florida which is almost as laid back about things sexual as San
Francisco.
I was horrified, because I knew this is not the will of
God for me or anyone. I cannot tell you the number of arguments I got
into with my mother and other family members because I brought out the
Bible and showed them what I read about obedience, and sexual purity,
and the like.
Given this, I remember being in my room and praying. I
said (and this is a paraphrase), "I know that what I feel isn't right.
You have said that I must either have marriage with a woman or celibacy
(Matthew 19). If I am not to be married, given my impulses; then grant
me the grace of celibacy. I for my part WILL NOT ACT upon the impulses
that I feel. Help me to be faithful to you."
I did not act on the impulses. I was given the grace of
the Lord to remain faithful. I was also blessed with a faithful pastor
who reminded me that it was no sin to be tempted by thoughts I did not
choose, but it was a sin to keep bringing them up or to act upon them. I
asked the Lord to help me understand what was going on in me, for truly
something wasn't ordered right in my life.
That breakthrough happened one day when I went to visit
my father. I shared with him some of what was going on with me, and he
realized (before I did) that he needed to spend more time with me
(listening and talking time). When this happened, I realized by God's
grace that I was simply disordered in distinguishing what I truly wanted
with men. I did not desire sexual bonding. I desired philial bonding. I
wanted brothers...the right kind of love that God desires between men.
With women, the desire was more of a sexual nature. That too had some
disorder, and it took me more time to deal with that (and sometimes I
still need to deal with that whenever I see a steamy beer commercial
during a football game).
The point here I want to make is that I was encouraged by
the Lord himself, by the Scriptures, by the church to remain faithful to
the sexual ethic found in the Scripture. If I had acted on my impulses;
if I had been encouraged to act out on my disordered thinking; I would
be in a damnable situation...it would be far more difficult to extricate
ones self from that.
I have spoken with young men who have had similar
impulses and come out of a similar background. I have shared with them
how I handled those temptations to sin. I tell them to do nothing with
the impulses. Do not act upon them. Ask the Lord for the grace to be
patient and live faithfully. Seek out faithful pastors who will help you
stay the course. I tell them they are not abnormal, but at their stage
in life when the hormones go crazy, the devil uses that moment to
help disorder their thinking and their living. Be patient. Be faithful.
To encourage civil laws or church wide mandates that
would invite people to act against the law of God invites disaster...as
indeed inviting people to engage in any sin brings disaster. It just
isn't loving. It isn't what Jesus calls us too. I wish people would
understand that. I grieve for others who have been led down the path of
"sexual tolerance" because now their position is worse than before, and
many don't even know it. It gets harder to bring them out, for now they
hear that the "church" says its okay.
I have a passion about this, because I know what the Lord
can do. I know this disorder. I know in myself that it can be beaten,
but not acting upon it is a key part of the battle!
I can honestly say that I haven't had the impulse for
sexual relations with men for 21 years. I am married to my wife and have
two children (of which one is with the Lord praying on my behalf I
hope...if not I'm going to have to have a talk with that boy). I do not
say that I don't deal with sexual temptation and sin in my life, but I
can say that the sexual temptation that I truly struggle with is not
homosexual or bisexual. Further, I can say that the reason I struggle so
much with the temptation I do have (pornography) is that I opened that
window to my soul by engaging in a habit. I have repudiated the habit,
but the temptation feels like a greater burden, because I opened myself
up to it as a young man by acting on the temptation to look at it.
Again, not acting on the temptation would have been
better. I didn't give myself over to obedience as I should, and did with
the other impulses. I reaped the consequences. This is why also I am not
only against homosexual sexual behavior, but I know the damning nature
of sexual immorality in all its forms. It is terribly important that we
encourage folks to cease and desist and not act on sexual temptations
that go outside the norm established by our Lord in Genesis 2 and
Matthew 19.
Well, this is long. I apologize for the length and I
apologize if I have spoken in ways that give you more info than you
really want about me. However, you are right on. Keep up the fight. The
souls of many are at stake.
Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ!
R.
__________________________________________________________
Is
heterosexual cohabitation grounds for denying church membership?
From:
Bill
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 10:44 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: e-mail question @co-habiting couples/membership
Dr.
Gagnon- In over 25 years of pastoring in the PCUSA, I have consis-tently
raised questions about the legitimacy of granting membership to those
living in unrepentant hetrosexual sin, by reference to the arguments
against unrepentant homosexual sin. (For I am assuming that in both the
issue is that of discipleship and a Christian sexual ethic, and the call
for God's people to live in joyful holiness.) Though I have had to
respond to requests for membership of gay couples, the issue of co-habitating
couples comes to the foreground with greater frequency, and I have
discovered that people are much more reluctant to raise questions about
co-habiting than they are of same-sex relationships. I've read through
most of your articles, and though you repeatedly refer to what you
describe as extreme sins, would sexually active, co-habiting couples
fall into the same category, since in my mind, they are delaying
repentance (ie, either celibacy apart or moving into marriage
immediately)?
Thanks--
Bill
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 12:45 PM
To: 'Bill'
Subject: RE: e-mail question @co-habiting couples/membership
Dear Bill,
Thank you
for your inquiry. My answer is: No, it is not as serious as homosexual
practice but, yes, it is serious enough to connect to membership
issues.
The offense
of unmarried heterosexual cohabitation is not as extreme an offense as
adult incest or homosexual practice, which are unnatural acts that
attempt to merge persons too much structurally alike. (Indeed, I know of
no one who would argue seriously that heterosexual cohabitation is as
serious an offense as, say, having sex with one’s parent.) Heterosexual
cohabitation is not a grossly unnatural act. But the persons involved
should recognize that by virtue of the sexual union they are “one flesh”
and for all intents and purposes are held to the standard of married
couples (compare 1 Cor 6:16 which treats even sex with a prostitute as
creating a “one flesh” union, albeit in this instance an unholy one).
Since marriage requires a commitment to a lifelong bond they should have
no difficulty in expressing that commitment in a formal marriage
ceremony. Reluctance to do so is likely evidence that they have not made
such a commitment and, therefore, must either make such a commitment
(presumably through the normal channels today for making such a public
declaration, i.e. marriage) or dissolve the sexual bond. In short,
refusal to marry is evidence that they are just “trying out” a sexual
relationship and therefore committing sin. Since Jesus intensified God’s
demand that his followers not engage in sexual activity with more than
one other person of the other sex lifetime (see Matt 19), cohabitation
without marriage should be treated as an offense that warrants
withholding membership; or, if membership is already in place, removal
from the fellowship of the church until repentance.
From a
pastoral standpoint, I recommend having a personal meeting with the
offenders, going through Jesus’ teaching on marriage in Matt 19,
highlighting the importance of obeying Jesus as his disciples, and
explaining that membership can only be granted (or actively retained) if
they marry or dissolve the sexual bond. I also recommend, if you haven’t
already done so, that you regularly preach on the importance of sexual
purity and marriage. I doubt that they would want to become members of a
church that clearly declared their behavior to be sin, if they insisted
on staying in a sexual relationship outside of marriage.
Hope this
helps,
Rob
From:
Bill
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 1:54 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: RE: e-mail question @co-habiting couples/membership
Rob- thanks for the quick
and thoughtful reply. Struggling with the reality of this in both the
context of performing ceremonies as well as in membership has been one
of the more difficult areas of pastoral ministry for me. I originally
began to wrestle with this in earnest back in 1993 when a p/sa
homosexual desired to become a member of my former congregation. (He
didn't because he wouldn't break off his relationship.) Through the
firestorm that decision engendered in that entire community, I realized
I also needed to think more clearly about the implications of
heterosexual sin for membership. Though it seemed to me that the
arguments I used against homosex behavior were appropriate for hetersex
behavior as well, I did recognize that heterosexual behavior is
potentially redeemable, through marriage and repentance, whereas
homosexual behavior is not, so the arguments can't be sustained
completely.
Anyway- thanks for the the
direction and encouragement! I will keep you in prayer as you stand in
the midst of the fray.
Bill
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 2:10 PM
To: 'Bill'
Subject: RE: e-mail question @co-habiting couples/membership
Bill,
You're
welcome. Good line about heterosexual cohabitation being potentially
redeemable but homosexual relations not.
Rob
__________________________________________________________
Did
Jesus Change the Law's Stance on Capital Sentencing?
From:
T.K.
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 1:13 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: "The Witness of Jesus" Question
I
appreciated the time you put into your chapter "The Witness of Jesus" in
your book, "The Bible and Homosexual Practice". I have always wondered
how we can put together how Christ did not abolish the law yet we find
Christ prioritizing the law differently. Your summary has shed much
light on the issue. Yet, I do have one question that still strikes me
as a theological problem. You see Christ associating with "sinners",
such as prostitutes. Christ freely associated with these people, while
he spoke out against the practices he did not push for the punishment
that the Old Testament called for. My question(s)- Why does Christ no
longer approve the punishment required in Old Testament law for such
offenses as adultery? Is the Old Testament more like Christ than we
realize? For instance could repentance save one from stoning in the Old
Testament? Or is Christ changing everything? Most people would
recognize this change for the better, does this mean the New Testament
is closer to God's character than the Old Testament? I have found
little to help me with these questions. If you can't answer these maybe
you could forward them to someone who could help. Thanks, T.K.
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 1:31 PM
To: T.K.
Subject: RE: "The Witness of Jesus" Question
T.,
Good
questions. Capital sentences in the OT are implemented whether or not
the person repents. I see Jesus as recommending against implementation
of the capital sentence, at least from non-lethal offenses such as
sexual immorality, in the hopes of recovering the person through
repentance. I see this as a change. It’s not that the offense is lesser
in Jesus’ eyes but rather that dead people don’t repent. Something worse
than a capital sentence is coming down the pike: the Day of the Lord.
Jesus is giving offenders every opportunity to repent before that Day to
avert personal cataclysmic disaster.
Dr. Gagnon
__________________________________________________________
Hate
Mail from an Angry Left-of-Center Pastor with a 'Wonderful' Pastoral
Manner
From:
Robert Martin III [mailto:rmartin@fprespa.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:38 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject:
Dear Robert,
What a sad, sick man you are! I take great pity on you
as a pastor!
Sincerely,
The Rev. W. Robert Martin, III
[Senior Pastor, First Presbyterian
Church, Palo Alto, CA]
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:49 PM
To: 'Robert Martin III'
Subject: RE:
Dear Rob,
Thanks for
your piece of hate mail. Since my views are in obedience to Jesus and
the entire apostolic witness I don’t feel “sad” or “sick” and therefore
don’t need your “pity.” By the way you need to work a bit on your
pastoral manner.
I noticed
on your church’s website that you are a so-called “More Light” church
(really “Less Light” if the teaching of Jesus and the apostolic witness
are our guiding lights). No great surprise there. Thanks for sharing
with me your “light” and love. It’s been illuminating.
Robert A.
J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
__________________________________________________________
Hi B.,
Thanks for your thoughtful
question. You're right that it is asking how close to the line one can
get. I only know that Scripture indicates same-sex intercourse is a
more foundational violation of God's sexual standards than even adult
consensual incest; that engaging in such a behavior in a repetitive,
unrepentant way puts one at serious risk of being excluded from the
kingdom of God and the eternal life it offers. Jesus indicated, in a
context that had to do with sexual issues, that what you do sexually
can get you thrown into 'Gehenna' (hell); that if your hand, eye, or
foot should threaten your downfall, cut it off, because it is better
to go to heaven maimed than to go to hell full-bodied (Matt 5). That's
a fairly serious warning. Now I'm not saying that I know when an
individual crosses the line and it's too late to return, if ever. Only
God knows that. But neither can anyone assure you that you will escape
God's judgment; for one as much plays God when one acquits as when one
condemns. But Scripture tells us that there is high risk in provoking
God, so why risk it? If a person of great wealth offered you 50
million dollars if you were able to stay away from a lesbian
relationship for 5 years, would you risk losing it all by secretly
entering in such a relationship and possibly getting caught? Probably
not. Well, God is asking us to be faithful for a relatively short
duration of time--the life of a human on earth, which is a drop in the
bucket compared to the eternity ahead of us. And then there is the
thought that God and Jesus love us so much that Jesus' life was given
for our sakes. Would we really want to dishonor him if we could see
him standing by our side, hands outstretched with the imprint of nails
still there? I doubt it, And yet he lives within us.
It may be that God will
not change your "orientation," although women are much more likely to
experience significant shifts on the "Kinsey spectrum" in the course
of life than are men, so there is a good chance that you will
experience marked reduction in at least the intensity of the
homosexual drive and possibly develop some limited heterosexual
functioning. But then again, maybe not. I'm not God there either. I do
know that, like Paul's "thorn in the flesh," sometimes God says "no"
to a request to remove this or that circumstance that brings perceived
deprivation to our lives. Not just "no" but "no" because "my grace is
sufficient for you" within the experience of deprivation, that God's
power will be "brought to completion" in the midst of one's weakness
rather than taking one out of it. Often Christ is most formed in us
when we don't get we ask for, when we have to rely on the one who
raises from the dead, when we have no strength left on our own. No
commandment of God is predicated on people first losing all desire to
violate the command in question; on the contrary, commands are issued
by God precisely because humans want to do otherwise. Your true test
as a believer is not whether you will changed over to a total
heterosexual but whether in your particular circumstances you will
come to the conviction that knowing Jesus (Phil 3) is better than
getting what you want, when you want it, and with whom you want it
with. When we can look a temptation 'in the face' and say "I'd rather
have Jesus," then we have made progress. In the deepest sense, in
doing God's will we are not being deprived. We are getting something
better, something that made Paul and other believers willing to count
everything else as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing
Christ.
None of us get a pass from
Jesus' demand that we take up our cross, deny ourselves, lose our
lives, and follow him. But when we do this we also find that, in
comparison to what the world asks of us, his yoke is easy and burden
light. Our "flesh" will say no, but our spirit will say yes. I'd
rather have Jesus.
Blessings,
Rob
Dr. Robert Gagnon
From:
B.
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:22 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: RE: sexuality and heaven
Dr. Gagnon,
Thank you for
your thorough and gentle reply. I appreciate your time.
-B.
Jack
Rogers and Analogies
4/5/07
Dear Dr.
Gagnon
I was just reading your piece on analogies in response to Jack Rogers’
book and your response to his response to you. I suspect that he and
others choose slavery and women's ordination as analogies to the
interpretation of Scripture in relation to the question of homosex
behavior because they deal with justice issues. In other words the
analogies are chosen not because they are close analogies or distant
analogies but rather because they fit in the category in which the
author sees the current issue.
Now, as
to Rogers’ assertion that the justification of slavery is tied to
Scottish Common Sense Realism as an interpretive technique, I suspect he
is correct. Mark Noll, in his, The Civil War as a Theological
Crisis, argues that it was precisely the naive method of
interpreting the Bible used by American Christians prior to the Civil
War that allowed many to believe that slavery was allowed according to
the Bible. The method used a propositional reading of the text. I
would suggest, but I am not quite as sure, that the arguments against
the ordination of women followed a similar method, particularly when
those opposed to the ordination of women argued that Paul's teaching, or
maybe I should say their interpretation of Paul's teaching trumped
narratives about women in leadership as direct teaching was to be held
higher than narrative.
I am not quite as sure how Roger's argument about divorce fits in this
same schema.
My concern is that I do not use the methods of the Old Princeton Divines
in my interpretation of Scripture. I find not only specific passages
that say that homosex behavior is sinful but also a broad theme within
the Bible that supports a God created binary relationship between men
and women. I find this broad theme from Genesis to Revelation, in
creation texts, in analogies between marriage and the relationship
between God and Israel and Christ and the Church, as well as in
particular passages about marriage and sexual behavior. The whole of
Song of Solomon is a case in point. None of the songs portray
male/male or female/female sexual attraction!
My point in all of this is to suggest that when one begins with
analogies that are related to justice, as Rogers does in his book, and
then declares that those who disagree with those analogies must
therefore use a particular method of interpreting Scripture, one has
said 1 + x = 2, but cannot prove that x=1. One can use other methods
than Old Princeton methods of interpreting the Bible and still come to
the conclusion that homosex behavior is sinful.
Maybe the real problem is not only in the particular analogies chosen
but also in the reason for the choice of analogies. If one chooses a
justice framework for one's analogies, as Rogers has, then one suggests
that the question at hand is one of justice. Rogers’ begins his book,
not with his arguments about the proper methods one must use to
interpret Scripture and not with his interpretation of relevant passages
of Scripture but with his analogies. One has to wonder then if
analogies produce exegesis of vice versa.
One last comment on an issue that is not
directly related to your argument. You say, in response to Roger’s use
of ethnicity and gender as analogues to homosexual orientation and
behavior:
Second,
Rogers is also once again mixing apples and oranges. Ethnicity and
gender cannot be compared with specific impulses to do what Scripture
pervasively, strongly, absolutely, and counterculturally forbids.
Rogers does not seem to understand the distinction. Quite simply,
ethnicity and gender are:
· 100% heritable
· absolutely
immutable
· primarily
non-behavioral
· inherently benign
Homosexual “orientation,” like many impulses, especially sexual
impulses, is:
· not 100% heritable
· not absolutely
impervious to outside influences
· primarily
behavioral
· thus not
necessarily benign
Unfortunately the history of racism in
the United States makes the question of ethnicity a political and social
question as well as a question of heredity. If one has a white father
and an African American mother, or vice versa, one is still considered
to be African American by the dominant culture, with all the social,
political and criminal assumptions that go along with that designation.
That is part of, (and I believe falsely used), Rogers’ analogy. The
dominant culture makes unconscious assumptions about the behaviors of
people who are African American. The dominant culture also makes a
variety of assumptions about people who are gay or lesbian which are not
necessarily accurate, such as the assumption that a gay male uses
feminine gestures and/or behavior and that some lesbians exhibit male
gestures and behavior. But these assumptions about gays and lesbians
are not only false but also beside the point. The problem is with
homsex behavior, not with one’s gestures. Thus Rogers’ analogy, based
on the prejudices of the dominant culture, is false. The problem is not
prejudice, it is Biblical interpretation. And the problem is not that
all who disagree with Rogers’ on the issue of the sinfulness of homosex
behavior “[get] it wrong is that they were relying on Scottish Common
Sense Philosophy (including appeals to “natural law,” selective
literalism, and proof-texting) and the scholastic theology of Francis
Turretin instead of the teachings of Jesus Christ,” to quote Rogers. We
don’t. I don’t and from what I read of your methods, you don’t either.
Rogers fails because he depends on outdated information on the
heritability of homosexual inclinations, failed interpretations of
particular passages of Scripture, and fails to note the broad theme in
Scripture that supports lifelong, monogamous heterosexual marriage.
Bob
A PC(USA) Pastor
One final note: I believe I have used
the term, “homosex” in the same way that you have in your writings. It
is my intention to use the term to refer specifically to sexual
relations between people of the same sex.
6/28/07
Dear Bob,
Thank you
for your stimulating comments.
It is true that Rogers chooses slavery and
women's ordination because they correspond to justice categories. But
that does not make Rogers' choice of distant analogies over close
analogues irrelevant. The proper purpose of engaging in analogical
reasoning is to assess what categories best fit the issue in question
through comparison-cases that share the greatest number of
correspondences. To eschew the closest analogues in favor of distant
analogues is to predetermine one's own results--here endorsing
homosexual practice is a social justice issue--and thus to make
analogical reasoning superfluous. The 'game' of analogical reasoning
becomes fixed from the start. You make this point yourself midway
through your comments.
As to your point about Scottish Common Sense
Realism, you are quite right that the Bible's opposition to homosexual
practice is not limited to specific texts and that a two-sexes
prerequisite underlies every discussion of sexual relationships in the
pages of Scripture. This is confirmed, as I showed in my other critiques
of Rogers, by an examination of relevant scriptural texts in their
literary and historical context--a context that Rogers repeatedly
misunderstands and shows poor knowledge of. But I wouldn't go as far as
you in discounting the relevance of appeal to specific texts. The degree
to which specific texts in Scripture take a strong position about a
matter is a vital part of an overall assessment of Scripture's stance on
homosexual practice. In debating the merits and demerits of adult
consensual incest between a man and his mother (or stepmother), one
would be foolish to give little attention to the Levitical and
Deuteronomic prohibitions as well as Paul's words about the incestuous
man in 1 Corinthians 5. Appeal to specific texts is not only possible
but desirable, so long as they are read correctly in their historical
and literary context. The fact that Paul likens homosexual practice to
idolatry as particularly severe instances of suppression of the truth
about God transparent in material creation, sees it as a violation of
male-female sexual complementarity (a point confirmed by the historical
context), and makes an absolute indictment that includes every and any
type of homosexual union unacceptable (another point confirmed by the
historical context) is very important for an overall evaluation of
homosexual practice in Scripture. But perhaps (or even probably) you
would agree with this point.
On your last point I agree that society at
different points may add false prejudicial characteristics to ethnicity
and femaleness that would increase resemblances to homosexual practice
(this is Rogers' point). But my point is that Scripture itself does not
consistently share these prejudices (nor does reason) and to the extent
that Scripture does not (and reason does not) is the extent to which the
analogies with homosexual practice break down. For example, the New
Testament rejects the notion that being a Gentile is in the first
instance an intrinsic desire to do what God expressly forbids but it
does not reject the same notion for homosexual desires. Nor (obviously)
should it inasmuch as there are lots of innate sexual desires that
violate embodied or formal realities and Scripture's strong
prohibitions. I could say more on this but I think my article already
does that. Again, I think we are not far apart from each other on this
point, if we are apart at all.
I appreciate your thoughts,
Rob
__________________________________________________________
A
Person with Homosexual Desire Asks: How Does One Decide Which Commands
of God in Scripture to Follow?
From:
Paul
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 1:17 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Basic Question on Christian Ethics
Dear Dr. Gagnon...
FINALLY, I have met (or in this case
read) of a scholar on this current rift of homosexuality in the
church. I am so grateful that you are well-studied (my nephew is a
recent graduate of Dartmouth, and I received a M.Div from [name of
seminary withheld]).
As for my background, . . . . I felt
strangely called to the altar to serve my Lord. Living in [the South]
in a conservative Diocese, my rector advised me to "leave the
Episcopal Church" as the current row at that time (this was 1988) was
not "really" about women, but about letting gays be ministers "because
if we let women be ministers, then we have to let gays as well." I let
my call drop, as I was indeed sexually attracted to men, and was
afraid (and ashamed) that I would "be found out" in the Episcopal
discernment process.
At this stage in my life, I was
attending very conservative Bible studies, getting involved in things
like "Jesus Go-Fests", attending charismatic worship services....and
FERVENTLY praying that Jesus bring me the right woman. Because I was
ashamed of my attraction to men, I cannot tell you how many times I
prayed to the Almighty to take this burden from me. I dated something
like 10 women - all wonderful, great looking Christian women - but
nothing- no urge to kiss...nothing. I continued praying fervently, and
dating...hoping, and praying that I would meet "the one." One day, one
of the women that I was dating told me that she had been praying about
Jesus' Great Commandment and had focused on the last part of the
command - "as you love yourself..." Needless to say, this started the
ball rolling on how I was treating (and loving) myself, and indeed,
how God had created me.
Why do I write this to you? Obviously,
my theology has changed since my conservative-evangelical days as a
Christian (for your information, I define Christian as one who
believes that Jesus is the expected messiah as prophesied in the Old
Testament.) Yes, it was the Great Commandment that brought me out of
the closet (and a sermon from one of the priests, when he talked about
who the Good Samaritan was...in the parable of 'the neighbor.') As an
Episcopalian, in Midland Texas, every Sunday I heard the words "this
is the basis of ALL the laws..." in connection to the Great
Commandment. Hence, that Commandment has become the basis of my
Christian ethics... IF I do something that causes any harm in
my relationship with God, which causes me to love God less, and/or if
I do something wrong which causes my neighbor not to Love God...it is
wrong.
My question to you: I don't understand,
in all my reading of your scholarship, on how being homosexual causes
me to love God any less. For me, this is the basis of Jesus
teaching...it is as simple as that.
In my discussions of this great
theological debate with my good conservative brothers and sisters in
Christ, I have asked the question, which I do not get an answer: "How
do you decide what Biblical precepts to follow, and how do you judge
what not to follow?" Other than the Great Commandment, I have not
found "a magic formula" or central ethic...other than "well, if it
says it in the Bible, then that is what I do..." Of course, you know
that the Bible says many things that we no longer follow (for example,
there is NO mass killing of children who curse their parents (Lev
20.9)... And, my Priest from Fort Worth was right: from the New
Testament verse as we DO allow women to speak in church (1 Corinthians
14.34), we do allow women to teach men (see Tim 2.12, 3.8)... these
are contrary to New Testament teachings.
So, very sincerely, how do you order
your life and figure out your basic ethic on living? I have been
trying to understand how evangelicals order there lives, what basis of
ethics do they use, since obviously they pick and chose what to
believe in the bible... I have found NO ANSWERS.
Paul Philpy
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 3:41 PM
To: Paul
Subject: RE: Basic Question on Christian Ethics
Dear Paul,
As you know from my work I am not an inerrantist with
regard to the interpretation of Scripture. I recognize tension and
sometime even disagreement within the canon of Scripture. Jesus
himself overrode the Mosaic exemption given to men as regards polygyny
and divorce by appealing to the inherent “twoness” of the sexes as a
basis for limiting the number of persons in a sexual union (whether
serially or concurrently) to two—a point, incidentally, that has
enormous ramifications for your position on homosexual practice. There
are indeed some gray areas in interpreting what commandments to follow
and not to follow. There is no doubt, too, that philosophic reason,
scientific reason, and experience assist us in the decision-making
process.
At the same time, the degree to which a given view of
Scripture can be regarded as a “core value” determines the weight of
the burden of proof on those who would argue for a deviation from the
biblical witness. The more pervasive, absolute, strongly held, and
counterculturally held a given view is in Scripture the more evident
it is that this view belongs to a core value. Scripture’s witness for
a two-sexes prerequisite for marriage and against homosexual practice
is, in my view, a core value in Scripture’s sexual ethics—precisely
because it is a value held pervasively, absolutely, strongly, and
counterculturally. So claims such as yours, namely that loving
homosexual bonds are within God’s will, have a huge mountain to claim
to demonstrate that such a view is compatible with Scripture’s “big
picture.”
It becomes even more difficult to make the case when
one realizes that alleged “new knowledge” arguments (exploitation,
orientation, or misogyny arguments) are really not radically “new”
pieces of information for the Greco-Roman milieu and thus, are not
likely to have changed the views espoused by Scripture’s authors.
Throw into this mix the basic problems of attempted merger with, and
erotic desire for, sexual sames (a nature argument) and the scientific
evidence for disproportionately high rates of measurable harm in
homosexual unions (owing, significantly, to the absence of a true
sexual complement in same-sex pairings) and the case for overriding
the overwhelming evidence of Scripture fragments.
If you really want to give careful
consideration to the issues that you have raised to me then I
recommend that you read two things that I have written. First, read my
recent article “How Bad Is Homosexual Practice according to Scripture
and Does Scripture’s View Apply to Committed Homosexual Unions?” at
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexWinterResponse.pdf
(especially the two appendices that address the two questions of the
title directly, pp. 12-22). Then read my “Why the Disagreement over
the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice” at
http://www.westernsem.edu/wtseminary/assets/Gagnon2%20Aut05.pdf.
You can get the table of contents for this article at
http://www.robgagnon.ne