Does Jack Rogers's New Book "Explode the
Myths" about the Bible and Homosexuality and "Heal the Church"?
(Installment 4: June 12, 2006)
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh, PA 15206
gagnon@pts.edu
For
a pdf version click here
[Continued from Installment 3:
html or
pdf]
We saw in Installment 3 how Rogers
twice lied about me “simply asserting, with no supporting evidence,” that
Paul’s indictment of homosexual practice was inclusive of committed
homosexual unions. I used Rogers’s false witness to lay out my rebuttal
of the “exploitation argument” so far as the Pauline witness is
concerned. Rogers used this lie as a cover-up. By asserting that I had no
supporting evidence he could give his readers the impression that he had
dealt with, and dispatched, the leading arguments for an inclusive view of
Paul’s indictment when in fact he had not dealt with virtually any of the
arguments. Essentially, Rogers was banking on the ignorance of his readers
and the effectiveness of his own duplicity. But bad scholarship and
duplicity cannot “heal the church,” much less “explode the [alleged]
myths” that Rogers claims that he “explodes.”
Now we note a second prime lie and
false witness on Rogers’s part, which I will also use as a basis for
discussing some of Rogers’s treatment of science:
(B) The claim that I believe
homosexuality is merely a “willful choice.” Rogers makes the
following outrageous misrepresentation of my views (boldface added):
Gagnon claims, in spite of all the evidence
to the contrary, that homosexuality is a willful choice.
(p. 83)
Gagnon claims that all people who are
homosexual have willfully chosen that behavior and therefore can
successfully change their sexual identity.
(p. 82)
By these remarks Rogers attempts to
delude readers into thinking that I hold the extreme view that “all”
persons who experience homosexual desires have simply willed themselves to
have such desires and, further, that “all” such persons can simply wake up
one day and decide by sheer force of will to eliminate every vestige of
homosexual desire and become exclusively heterosexual in orientation. This
is preposterous. Rogers makes this charge because he wants to construct an
overall portrait of me for readers as an extremist. On multiple
occasions in my writings I have declared that this is not what I
believe. Moreover, Rogers does not, and cannot, produce a single quote
from my works on homosexuality to show that I believe what he claims that
I believe.
Note:
Rogers words the quote on p. 82 to say that “Gagnon claims that all
people who are homosexual have willfully chosen that behavior”
(emphasis added). Strictly speaking, it is true that I and all other
thinking persons believe that behavior of this or virtually any
sort is “willfully chosen” (assuming, of course, that we are not talking
about coercion on the part of some outside influence like having a gun
pointed at one’s head). For example, when Dr. Fred Berlin, founder of
the Sexual Disorders Clinic at Johns Hopkins Hospital and professor of
psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, talks
about a pedophilic “orientation,” he can say:
The biggest
misconception about pedophilia is that someone chooses to have it. . . .
It’s not anyone’s fault that they have it, but it’s their
responsibility to do something about it. (go
here for this and other quotes from Berlin)
Does
Rogers want to argue that a pedophile, whose orientation is every bit as
innate and involuntary as that of a homosexual person, has no choice but
to engage in pedophilic behavior consistent with his orientation? I have
to assume, for Rogers’s sake, that he does not. A pedophile who has sex
with a child is regarded by law as someone who has “willfully chosen
that behavior,” irrespective of the involuntary character of pedophilic
impulses. So Rogers can’t have a problem with me or anyone else
believing that persons who experience involuntary same-sex attractions
do have a choice in whether they engage in homosexual behavior—unless
he believes the absurd notion that all intense and involuntary impulses
have to be acted upon (which would certainly change the landscape of
Christian ethics). Since Rogers is imprecise throughout his book in
talking about “homosexuality” and “homosexual behavior,” it is likely
that he maintains the same imprecision here (perhaps even deliberately).
It is clear that in his following remarks he understands “behavior” as
mere attractions for he goes on to summarize my view as “homosexuality
is a willful choice” (p. 83). Moreover, he attempts to refute my view by
quoting a remark from David Myers that “sexual orientation [is
not] willfully chosen” (p. 82)—a remark that would have no relevance to
the view that homosexual behavior is “willfully chosen” unless
Rogers meant by behavior sexual orientation. Rogers’s obfuscation
of orientation and behavior in a discussion of choice is another piece
of evidence either that (1) Rogers is not a clear thinker on this issue
or (2) Rogers is deliberately trying to promote confusion to make a
reasonable view look unreasonable.
Relying on his inaccurate assumptions about
what is “natural” Gagnon claims, “Certainly no one is born a homosexual.”
(p. 82; boldface added)
Now to say that
“no one is born a homosexual” is obviously not the same thing as saying
that all experiences of homoerotic desire are due to “willful choice.”
Rogers appears incapable of getting his mind around the notion that there
is something in between (1) complete congenital determinism and (2) pure,
willful choice. And yet that is exactly where the scientific studies
suggest that we currently are.
o
In connection with this, it is important to note how
poorly done is Rogers’s exploration of what science tells us. Rather
than critically review specific scientific studies to assess what science
tells us on the matter of the origination of homosexual desires, Rogers
contents himself with uncritically quoting the politically motivated
assertions of organizations such as the two APAs (psychological and
psychiatric) whose committees on sexual orientation are led by
self-identifying homosexual persons and their supporters (pp. 98-100). I
found only one specific study cited in Rogers’s book and even that study
was quoted from someone else (David Myers; p. 99). It is a 1981 study of
the Kinsey Institute that claims that homosexual males were no more likely
than heterosexual males to have poor relationships with their father or to
be sexually abused. The problem here is that Rogers appears totally
unaware of subsequent studies that contradict these views. For example,
two studies by the noted researcher on child sexual abuse Kurt Freund
purport to show that homosexual “teleiophiles” (homosexual males attracted
to other adult males) reported “significantly poorer father-son relations”
(1983, 1987). There are also numerous studies that suggest childhood
same-sex experience is a risk factor for later homosexual development
(cited in my “Immoralism, Homosexual Unhealth, and Scripture: Part II:
Science,” 30-34,
online). Readers may contrast the dearth of direct interaction with
scientific literature in Rogers’s book and the abundance of such
interaction in my own work. This interaction was true of my first book on
the subject, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (pp. 395-432,
452-60, 471-85) and my first article on the subject, “A Comprehensive and
Critical Review Essay of Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense”
of Scripture, Part 1,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 22 (2000):
184-89, 200-12 passim (also available
online). It is also true of my more recent works: “Immoralism,
Homosexual Unhealth, and Scripture: Part II: Science” (Aug. 2005; 40
pages,
online); and “Why the Disagreement over the Biblical Witness on
Homosexual Practice?,” Reformed Review 59.1 (Autumn 2005): 30-36,
120-29 (online).
I encourage readers of this review to start with the last-mentioned work
and see for themselves some of the scientific evidence.
Let us
return to the quote that Rogers gives from my work: “Certainly no one is
born a homosexual.” The quote is taken from p. 103 of Homosexuality and
the Bible: Two Views in my response to Via. I give here the immediate
context on that page:
Scientific evidence indicates at
most an indirect and secondary congenital influence on homosexual
development (Gagnon 2001, 396-413; N146). Certainly no one is born a
homosexual, though Via talks as if homosexual desire were an
inevitable part of God’s creative intent in nature (N147).
In children exhibiting significant
gender nonconformity (N148), early proactive intervention can decrease the
chance of homosexual development (Gagnon 2001, 408-13; N149).
Sociological studies suggest that the
incidence of homosexuality varies widely depending on the degree of
societal support or rejection of homosexual activity (Gagnon 2001,
413-18). Via has not addressed this.
The vast majority of self-identified
homosexuals will experience some heterosexual attraction at some point in
life (Gagnon 2001, 418-20); so much for a general presumption of fixity
(N150).
Therapeutic success in treating the
homoerotically inclined may be no worse than for a number of other
relatively entrenched conditions such as alcoholism or pedophilia (Gagnon
2001, 420-29; N151). Therapists define success as management of
unwanted desires, not complete elimination. Change is multifaceted
(N152). (boldface added)
It follows
immediately a sentence that acknowledges possible “indirect and secondary
congenital influence on homosexual development” and is followed
immediately by the clause “though Via talks as if homosexual desire were
an inevitable part of God’s creative intent in nature.” I don’t know a
single scientific study that proves that primary homosexual orientation is
an “inevitable” product of congenital influences, much less that
homosexual development is due to “God’s creative intent” (a theological
claim that science cannot establish). Does Rogers? If he does, let him
cite the study. He will not find a single one. I fully acknowledge
that there are studies for which one possible and perhaps probable
interpretation of results (though not the only one) is that congenital
influences pose an increased risk for homosexual development. That’s
it—and that is what I mean by rejecting the claim about being “born
homosexual.”
Immediately preceding the sentence containing the clause “Certainly no one
is born a homosexual,” for the sentence alluding to possible “indirect and
secondary congenital influence on homosexual development” is a number:
“N146.” “N” stands for “note” and the number for the note number. Because
of severe space restrictions that Fortress placed on the size of my essay
and response, all the note numbers in my contribution to Homosexuality
and the Bible: Two Views key to
online notes. One would think that if Rogers were going to pinpoint
his entire accusation that I think same-sex attractions are invariably and
completely due to “willful choice” on a single clause from a single
sentence of a single work of mine that he would check the online footnotes
around it to make sure that he understood correctly what I was saying.
Here is what “N146” says:
Edward Stein, a pro-homosex
scholar, challenges deterministic models of homosexual development and
posits instead a nondeterministic model that incorporates a significant
role for indirect choice: The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science,
Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1999). Like various forms of sexual disorders (paraphilias), the
degree to which a homosexual “orientation” becomes fixed in an
individual’s brain can be related to lifestyle choices regarding fantasy
life, the extent of participation in homosexual activity, and degree of
self-motivation for change. Cf. Jeffrey A. Satinover, Homosexuality and
the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 132-45. (boldface
added)
The first
paragraph of the note refers to an important recent twin study that
concluded that early childhood socialization (specifically, less gendered
socialization) and not “genetic or hormonal influences” played the
dominant role in homosexual development. Let Rogers refute the study if he
disagrees with it. He just ignores it. The second paragraph lays out a
model of how congenital influences might indirectly create a risk factor
(though not fait accompli) for homosexual development. This is
certainly not a claim that all homosexual development is due to “willful
choice,” pure and simple. Indeed, I am quite clear in stating: “Whether an
individual develops a dominant homosexual attraction depends on the
interaction of an individual’s incremental choices (indirect and direct,
proactive and reactive) with personal biology and psychology, family
dynamics, peer socialization, early sexual intimacy, and cultural
sanctions and indoctrination.” The third paragraph then quotes a legal and
philosophical scholar, Edward Stein, who is fully supportive of homosexual
unions and yet holds a similar view to what I had just espoused.
Incidentally, even the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review had this to
say about Stein’s book:
A landmark book. . . . It so pulls the rug
out from under biological arguments for lesbian and gay rights that anyone
from now on who appeals to such arguments will have to answer to Edward
Stein’s objections” (from back cover)
Not only does
Rogers not answer to Stein’s objections, he apparently doesn’t even know
what they are. Accordingly, there is obviously nothing extreme about the
view that I espouse on homosexual development. There is, however,
something extreme about the notion apparently held by Rogers that all, or
nearly all, homosexual development follows a “congenital predestination”
model.
o
An aside here is that Rogers claims: “Clearly there
is no biblical warrant for this statement” that no one is born a
homosexual (p. 82). He cites Jesus’ statement about “eunuchs who
have been born so from the womb” in Matt 19:10-12 as proof, noting
(from Nissinen) that in the ancient world men who had no desire for women
might include not only asexual men but homosexual men. I actually agree
with the point that Jesus may well have had such figures in view. But
there are several things of note here that Rogers doesn’t grasp.
(1) Jesus’ statement, set in its ancient context, need not mean
anything more than that some persons experience congenital risk factors
for homosexual development. Jesus isn’t focusing on scientific
precision here. He is merely contrasting “eunuchs who were made eunuchs by
people” (i.e., castrated men) with men whose lack of sexual desire for
women is attributable not to castration but to other factors, including
congenital influences. To wring out of this statement a deterministic
model of congenital causation goes far beyond the evidence. What I
acknowledged when I talked about possible indirect congenital influence on
homosexual development may well be, and probably is, all that Jesus meant.
(2) Rogers appears not to notice the major contradiction with his
entire orientation argument. For Rogers, as we noted in Installment 2,
insists that the Bible “has no concept like our present understanding of a
person with a homosexual orientation” (p. 58). But when it suits his
purposes to argue that Jesus might have been aware of the existence of
“born homosexuals”—as when he wants to argue that sexual orientation is
not a choice (thinking, falsely, that I believe all same-sex attractions
are “willfully chosen”)—then Rogers is more than willing to adopt the
opposite position. This is further evidence for what I have been pointing
out; namely, that Rogers isn’t interested so much in what Scripture says
as in making Scripture serviceable for viewpoints arrived at through other
sources.
(3)
If, in fact, Jesus here is conscious of the existence of persons who are
“born” with a propensity for developing same-sex attractions, then this
text proves the exact opposite of the central thesis of Rogers’s book.
For Jesus here makes no concession for such figures to have sexual
relations outside the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman. In
the context of Jesus’ statement, “eunuchs who makes themselves eunuchs for
the kingdom of God” are not men who have sexual relations outside marriage
to a woman. They are men who forego all sexual relations for the sake of
devoting themselves fully to the proclamation of the kingdom of God. And
Jesus expressly compares the three types of eunuchs as all having one
thing in common: sexual abstinence. Consequently, if Jesus was including
in his remarks “born homosexuals,” then it is clear that Jesus was
unwilling to make any accommodation for such men having sexual relations
outside a marriage with a woman. He simply assumed that such men had no
sexual relations. That Rogers does not recognize either the internal
contradiction of his claim here about Jesus recognizing the existence of
“born homosexuals” both for (a) his assertion everywhere else that
homosexual orientation was unknown in antiquity and (b) his assertion that
advocacy of committed homosexual unions is consistent with Jesus’
teachings speaks volumes for the quality, or lack thereof, of Rogers’s
scholarship on the Bible and homosexuality and his capacity for logical
and consistent thinking on this issue.
This is
not the only place where Rogers could have discovered my views had he had
the slightest interest in presenting those views accurately to his
readers. For example, in The Bible and Homosexual Practice
(2001) I make the following statements immediately following my
34-page discussion of the scientific data on homosexual causation:
The latest scientific research on
homosexuality simply reinforces what Scripture and common sense already
told us: human behavior results from a complex mixture of biologically
related desires (genetic, intrauterine, post-natal brain development),
familial and environmental influences, human psychology, and repeated
choices. Whatever predisposition to homosexuality may exist is a far cry
from predestination or determinism and easy to harmonize with Paul’s
understanding of homosexuality. It is often stated by scholars
supportive of the homosexual lifestyle that Paul believed that homosexual
behavior was something freely chosen, based on the threefold use of “they
exchanged” (metellaxan) in Rom 1:23, 25, 26. The use of the word
exchange may indeed suggest that Paul assumed an element of choice was
involved, though for the phenomenon globally conceived and not necessarily
for each individual. Certainly, the larger context in which these verses
are found indicates a willing suppression of the truth about God and God’s
design for the created order (1:18). And indeed who would debate the
point that homosexual behavior is void of all choice? Even a
predisposition does not compel behavior.
Romans 1-8 indicates as well that Paul
considered the sinful passions that buffet humanity to be innate
and controlling. Corresponding to the threefold “they exchanged” is
the threefold “God gave them over” (paredoken autous ho theos) in
1:24, 26, 28. Rather than exert a restraining influence, God steps
aside and allows human beings to be controlled by preexisting desires.
Paul paints a picture of humanity subjugated and ruled by its own
passions; a humanity not in control but controlled. . . . Based on a
reading of Rom 5:12-21 and 7:7-23, it is clear that Paul conceived of
sin as ‘innate’ . . . . Paul viewed sin as a power operating in the
‘flesh’ and in human ‘members,’ experienced since birth as a result of
being descendants of Adam. . . . For Paul all sin was in a certain sense
innate in that human beings don’t ask to feel sexual desire, or anger, or
fear, or selfishness—they just do, despite whether they want to
experience such impulses or not. If Paul could be transported into our
time and told that homosexual impulses were at least partly present at
birth, he would probably say, ‘I could have told you that’ or at least ‘I
can work that into my system of thought.’” (pp. 430-31; boldface
added)
Now I ask
readers: Does this sound like I am stating that all same-sex attractions
are purely and simply manufactured by the human will? Do I not suggest
here, with the best science, that homosexual practice results “from a
complex mixture of biologically related desires (genetic, intrauterine,
post-natal brain development), familial and environmental influences,
human psychology, and repeated choices”? That a view of same-sex
attractions as being partly influenced by congenital factors is consistent
with Paul’s own view of sin? Hasn’t Rogers misrepresented my views?
-
Remember, too, that Rogers also alleged: “Gagnon
claims that all people who are homosexual . . . can successfully change
their sexual identity.” What Rogers apparently means by this is:
Gagnon thinks that all homosexual persons can successfully change to
become completely heterosexual, eliminating all their previous same-sex
attractions.
-
If one takes Rogers’s reference to
“sexual identity” literally, one ends up with an absurd inference;
namely, that in Rogers’s view people never have any say over their
“identity.” Identity is largely a matter of self-construction. For
example, virtually all men experience a proclivity to
“polysexuality”—that is, they would experience no particular distress
over being forced to have sexual intercourse with multiple, very
beautiful women. That doesn’t mean that they should construct an
identity around this entrenched impulse and refer to themselves as “polysexuals,”
does it? For my understanding of the difference between Christian
identity and biologically based orientations, see my recent article,
“Scriptural Perspectives on Homosexuality and Sexual Identity,” in
Journal of Psychology and Christianity 24.4 (Winter 2005):
293-303. A scriptural understanding dictates that Christians who
experience attractions that are at cross purposes with God’s revealed
will must construct an identity distinct from such attractions. Anyone
who doesn’t believe that has a pagan or unreformed mindset. Scripture
commands the renewal of the mind consistent with the person whom God
is making us to be in Christ (Rom 12:1-2).
So Rogers is
charging me with believing that all homosexual persons can
successfully change to primary heterosexuality and can do so simply by
willing it. This is ridiculous. As with Rogers’s related allegation, it
runs counter to explicit statements in my writings. Now I certainly do
believe that significant reduction in the intensity of homoerotic
attraction is possible for some and that some of these may also develop
over time significant heterosexual attractions. I make this presentation
in The Bible and Homosexual Practice (pp. 419-29). A more thorough
case for this position can be found in Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse,
Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church’s Moral Debate
(IVP, 2000), 117-51—another work that Rogers shows no awareness of. I
believe, based on a significant body of research, that macro- and
microcultural influences can affect the incidence of homosexuality in a
population. In addition, when I use the word “change” it does not have the
one-dimensional meaning that Rogers gives to it.
Rogers
quotes another sentence of mine from the same page that he quotes the line
“Certainly no one is born a homosexual”:
When you probe beyond the assertion [that
homosexuality is a willful choice and that homosexual persons can
willfully choose to have a heterosexual orientation], Gagnon acknowledges
that “therapists define success as management of unwanted desires,
not complete elimination.” (p. 82)
In effect,
Rogers tells readers: “Although Gagnon asserts that all homosexual
people willfully chose their homosexuality and can willfully choose a
heterosexual orientation, when you really dig deeper into what he says you
find that even he doesn’t believe that. He contradicts himself.”
Rogers then goes on to conclude that “‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy
is addressing only behavior rather than orientation” (ibid., my
emphasis). In the following page he again summarizes my view, falsely, as
“Gagnon claims . . . homosexuality is a willful choice.”
This is
just another example that Rogers doesn’t read carefully the work of those
with whom he disagrees; or, rather, reads to distort rather than reads to
understand. There is no contradiction in my statement because, contrary
to what Rogers tells readers:
(1) I never indicated
with my statement “no one is born a homosexual” that all homosexuality is
a matter of “willful choice”; rather congenital influences are not
absolutely deterministic in homosexual development but instead create risk
factors that then interact with other influences such as early
socialization;
and
(2) I never indicated
with my statement “therapists define success as management of
unwanted desires” that reduction in intensity of homosexual
impulses and/or development of some heterosexual functioning is
unlikely or even that virtual change from homosexuality to heterosexuality
is impossible for anyone.
When I talked
about the definition of therapeutic success I stated this as an adequate
minimal goal. No therapist for any condition can guarantee a change
of impulses or feelings, much less complete change. No therapist, for
example, can guarantee a man who has a problem with pornography that,
after therapy, he will lose all intense desires to look at beautiful naked
women (other than his wife, if he has one). At the same time, saying that
is not the same as saying therapy never or hardly ever achieves a
reduction of intensity of unwanted impulses. Therapists set a minimal
goal, change of behavior, and hope for more, namely, reduction in the
intensity of unwanted impulses and possibly (in a minority of cases or in
rare cases) virtual elimination of such impulses. All of this should have
been clear to Rogers from the sentence that immediately precedes the one
quoted by Rogers:
Therapeutic success in treating the
homoerotically inclined may be no less than for a number of other
relatively entrenched conditions such as alcoholism or pedophilia.
Does Rogers
mean to say that Alcoholics Anonymous addresses only behavior, in a
mechanical way, and never accomplishes any reduction in intensity of
impulses for anyone? This is Rogers’s little black-and-white world where
the only two options are complete choice and complete determinism,
complete transformation of all desires or no transformation.
Rogers
follows up his remark about reparative therapy addressing only
behavior with the theologically ridiculous observation that a desire that
is “a part of someone’s nature” is likely to be “God-given” (p. 83). Who
cannot think of, off the top of one’s head, a half-dozen or dozen desires
that are deeply imbedded in human existence but are nonetheless sinful
desires? How deeply imbedded is polysexuality in nearly all males and
pedosexuality in a significant subset of the male population? How about
arrogance, greed, self-centeredness, anger, envy, indifference, hate,
laziness, etc.? All of these are “a part of our (human) nature.” So what?
They are not God-given. Then Rogers, quoting David Myers again, says:
“Sexual orientation is like handedness.” Not exactly. Handedness is a
benign, a-moral quality. There are “sexual orientations” to do things that
God expressly forbids and which are clearly immoral. Does Rogers at his
advanced age not realize this most basic of ethical points?
Moreover,
while we are on the subject of handedness, one should note a
contrary observation made by the researchers who put together the authors
of the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey (about which we will
say more below). They write that a relatively uniform distribution of
homosexuality in social groups “would fit with certain analogies to
genetically or biologically based traits such as left-handedness or
intelligence. However, that is exactly what we do not find.
Homosexuality . . . is clearly distributed differentially within
categories of . . . social and demographic variables” (p. 307; my
emphasis; citation below).
Here’s what I have to say about change in The Bible and Homosexual
Practice, 426-29 (the section of my book that treats the question “Can
Homosexuals Change?”):
It is surely unrealistic to
demand that a person who comes out of a homosexual lifestyle and into a
heterosexual one never again, under even the most stressful circumstances,
experience homosexual urges if she or he is to claim a sexual-orientation
change. An acceptable standard of “cure” in other conditions is not
the removal of every last vestige of temptation but rather the ability to
successfully manage such temptations. . . .
That changes in sexual
orientation usually do not come about easily should occasion no surprise.
Many pleasurable
forms of behavior, particularly sexual behavior, tend toward compulsion
and addiction. They cannot be turned on and off like a light switch.
A close friend of mine, who has worked for over a decade counseling
sex offenders in prisons, has shared with me the pessimism that prison
mental health staff have about effecting permanent change. Despite the
best effort of clinicians, the recidivism rate for rapists and child
molesters is extremely high. The reason why is clear: there is a
biological or physiological component to their peculiar experience of
sexual arousal. Yet few would claim that change is impossible for
such offenders. If society believed that, there would be no point to
providing prison counseling services. If once incarcerated sex
offenders learn to manage and control their aberrant sexual impulses, it
is appropriate to say that satisfactory change has occurred. Why not be
able to say the same about once homosexually oriented people who are able
to effectively manage such impulses? One can also make comparisons
with non-criminal forms of immoral or inappropriate sexual behavior (e.g.,
sadomasochism, bestiality, addiction to pornography, and intense
dissatisfaction with single-partner monogamous relationships) or with
non-sexual compulsions, addictions, and disorders which have a genetic or
biological aspect (e.g., alcoholism, smoking addictions, eating disorders,
depression, pathological gambling, aggression, and criminal behavior).
We have no difficulty acknowledging significant change in a “recovering
alcoholic” who generally stays away from the bottle but from time-to-time
struggles with an internal, physiologically connected desire to drink.
Nor do we accuse Alcoholics Anonymous of being a failure because they have
only a 25-30% success rate, where “success” is not defined as the complete
abolition of temptation.
. . . . We have argued strongly
up till now that homosexuals can change; or, more precisely, that
at least some homosexuals, including some who claim to have been
exclusively homosexual in orientation, are capable of change. Of
course, empirically not all homosexuals will change, if by “change”
we mean make a major adjustment in sexual orientation. As a Christian, I
have a strong belief in the power of the Spirit of God to change the lives
of those who submit themselves to the lordship of Jesus Christ. . . . At
the same time, we have Christians who appear on the surface at least to
have made sincere efforts to change, and yet have been unable to move from
a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation. Patterns of sexual arousal
embedded in the brain are not easily removed. When the apostle Paul
referred to warfare between the flesh and Spirit in the Christian life, he
spoke optimistically of the Christian’s ability to “walk” or behave in
accordance with the wishes of the indwelling Spirit. Yet even that
victory presupposes an ongoing struggle with sinful desires. Christians
are not guaranteed that they will be freed from such desires altogether,
but rather that their identity is not defined by such desires. It is fair
to say that Christians who no longer participate in the homosexual
behavior of their pre-Christian life are ex-homosexuals. “These things
some of you were” (1 Cor 6:11). No longer obeying homosexual impulses
but now obeying the will of God for their lives, they have been
transformed into the adopted children of God. In the same way,
heterosexuals who continue to experience temptations to lust after members
of the opposite sex other than their spouse, yet resist such temptations
and refuse to act on them, are ex-fornicators and ex-adulterers.
Christians are not promised an end to sexual temptation in its various
forms. They are given the anchored hope that those who endure to the end
will be saved.
The best hope for
change in the sexual orientation of homosexuals comes not in attempts to
treat homosexuals after years and years of homosexual behavior but rather
in limiting the options that young people have in terms of sexual
experimentation. Some people will experiment under any cultural
conditions. Nevertheless, cross-cultural studies prove beyond a shadow of
a doubt that strong cultural disapproval of homosexual behavior can
significantly curtail the incidence of such behavior. So perhaps a
better question to ask than “Can homosexuals change?” is “Can the numbers
of self-identifying homosexuals in the population be affected by cultural
attitudes toward homosexual behavior?” The answer to that question is
“Yes, significantly so.” (boldface added)
Again, no reasonable person can possibly read
the material above and come to the conclusion that I think “change” as
defined in Rogers’s totalistic way is doable for all homosexual persons or
even most. I liken the success rate to AA and define change in the way
that AA defines change. I also make clear that change even in this
redefined sense is not easy. I affirm that Christians can consider
themselves genuinely changed in Christ if they do not live out of impulses
contrary to God’s will. Finally, I note that the “best hope” for change
lies in trying to minimize cultural influences that transform congenital
risk factors into developmental certainties. There is certainly nothing in
these remarks that suggests, contrary to what Rogers alleges, that I
believe that all persons experiencing strong same-sex attractions can will
themselves to lose such attractions altogether and acquire in their place
other-sex attractions.
I made similar points in an article widely
publicized in Presbyterian circles, entitled “The Bible and Homosexual
Practice: Theologies, Analogies, and Genes” in Theology Matters 7.6
(Nov./Dec. 2001), 11-12 (available
online).
I do not contend that self-identified
homosexuals can be easily rid of homoerotic desires. Disordered sexual
“orientations” of any stripe, not just homosexual ones, do not change
easily. This includes
orientations toward multiple sex partners, sex with members of the inner
family circle, sex with children or adolescents, sex with animals,
commercial sex, sadomasochistic sex, and coercive sex. Patterns of
sexual arousal wired in the brain by life’s experiences are usually not
easily removed, even after years of therapeutic intervention.
Ironically, those who argue that homosexual behavior should not be
disavowed precisely because it is resistant to change would—to be
consistent—have to contend that non-monogamous relationships be accepted
for male homosexual relationships. For statistical evidence to date
strongly suggests that male homosexuals have extraordinary difficulty,
relative even to lesbians, in forming monogamous unions.
No, my point is more basic: homoerotic
desire is not like race or anatomical sex. It is not a fixed, immutable
birthright. It is closer to an entrenched (but not irrevocable) taste than
to physical differences impervious to cultural shifts.
This can be perceived by reviewing (a)
the different levels of change that are possible for homosexual tastes and
(b) the different mechanisms for inducing change.
(a) It is erroneous to restrict the
meaning of change in this context to the complete eradication of
homosexual desire. As we have seen above, change can include:
·
A reduction or elimination
of homosexual behavior;
·
A reduction in the intensity
and frequency of homosexual impulses;
·
The experience of
heterosexual arousal (whether in place of or in conjunction with
homosexual arousal);
·
Reorientation from exclusive
or predominant homosexuality to exclusive or predominant heterosexuality.
Ultimately, in terms of Christian
self-definition, the true ex-homosexual is not only someone who never
experiences homosexual impulses, just as the ex-adulterer is not only
someone who never experiences a desire for sex with women other than his
wife. The true ex-homosexual (or, more precisely, ex-”homosexer”) is
someone who, by God’s grace and the power of the Spirit, no longer
acquiesces to homosexual impulses.
(b)
Both the level of incidence of homosexual desire and fluctuations in its
intensity and degree of exclusivity can be affected by:
·
The degree of cultural
incentives, opportunities, and indoctrination for or against homosexual
behavior;
·
Experiences at various
points in an individual’s life, including the degree and character of
parental and peer-group affirmation (especially same-sex), early sexual
arousal, sexual experimentation, unsolicited erotic encounters, exposure
to the homosexual subculture, the availability (or absence) of sex
partners or satisfying sexual relationships, and vulnerability to outside
influences (owing to personality type, stress, etc.);
·
Therapeutic intervention.
The different types of change possible and
the existence of various external mechanisms for producing change combine
to put homosexual proclivities on an entirely different footing than race
or sex. (boldface added)
Again, I argue
here that patterns of sexual arousal of any sort are not easily removed;
that change is a multidimensional concept that cannot be limited to
eradication of homosexual desire; that the ex-homosexual includes persons
for whom same-sex attractions persist but do not rule; and that
macrocultural and microcultural influences can affect the incidence of
homosexuality in a population in a way that they cannot affect a person’s
ethnicity or sex (gender).
There
is a big difference—which Rogers seems incapable or unwilling to
grasp—between saying that change of a person’s sexual “orientation” is
nothing but a “willful choice” and saying that environmental factors (including
family, peer, and broader cultural factors) can affect the incidence of homosexuality in a
population. I am not saying anything different than what the researchers
(mostly from the University of Chicago) for the 1992 National Health and
Social Life Survey (NHSLS) concluded in what is still regarded by many
as the best sex survey done in the United States:
o
Homosexuality . . . is clearly distributed
differentially within categories of . . . social and demographic
variables. . . . An environment that provides increased opportunities
for and fewer negative sanctions against same-gender sexuality may both
allow and even elicit expression of same-gender interest and sexual
behavior. . . . There is evidence for the effect of the degree of
urbanization of residence while growing up on reported homosexuality. This
effect is quite marked and strong for men and practically nonexistent for
women.” Men in urban areas were seven times more likely to identify as
homosexual than are men in rural areas. Significant differences persisted
from rural to urban even for those whose residence at the age of 14 or 16
was in an urban or rural area respectively. For women the differential was
3 times (Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart
Michaels, The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the
United States [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994], 307-9;
boldface added).
o
Women who were college graduates were 5.5 times more likely
(9.3%) to claim same-gender attraction than women whose education had not
extended beyond high school (1.7%), and nine times more likely (3.6%) to
identify as homosexual or bisexual (.4%). The difference for men with
college degrees and those without was significant but not as great: only 2
times greater as regards same-gender attraction (8.3% vs. 4.3%) and
homosexual/bisexual identification (3.3% vs. 1.6%). “Education . . .
does seem to stand out for women in a way that it does not for men.”
Laumann et al. list several possible factors: (1) “Higher levels of
education are associated with greater social and sexual liberalism and
with greater sexual experimentation”; (2) “More education. . . . may also
represent a higher level of personal resources . . . which would increase
one’s ability to please oneself. . . . [with] women’s sexual experiences
becoming . . . more like men’s” (ibid., 309-10; bold added).
Nor am I
saying anything different than the following study by Gary Remafedi et
al., “Demography of sexual orientation in adolescents,” Pediatrics
89:4 (Apr. 1992): 714-21 (quote from abstract):
This study was undertaken to explore
patterns of sexual orientation in a representative sample of Minnesota
junior and senior high school students. The sample included 34,706
students (grades 7 through 12) from diverse ethnic, geographic, and
socioeconomic strata. . . . Overall, 10.7% of students were “unsure” of
their sexual orientation; 88.2% described themselves as predominantly
heterosexual; and 1.1% described themselves as bisexual or predominantly
homosexual. . . . Gender differences were minor; but responses to
individual sexual orientation items varied with age, religiosity,
ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Uncertainty about sexual
orientation diminished in successively older age groups, with
corresponding increases in heterosexual and homosexual affiliation. The
findings suggest an unfolding of sexual identity during adolescence,
influenced by sexual experience and demographic factors. (bold added)
Nor am I saying
anything different from two professors of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins
wrote a standard textbook on psychiatry:
Genetic factors play some role in the
production of homosexual behavior, but . . . sexual behavior is molded by
many influences, including “acquired tastes” (or learning) closely related
to the culture in which the individual develops. . . . It is possible . .
. to picture a future in which homosexual behavior will be so much in the
cultural experience of every individual that the genetic contribution will
become undetectable. . . . What may be inherited may not be a mechanism
specific to a behavior but rather something related to qualities of that
person that render him or her more vulnerable to social influences. . . .
That genes have a role in behavior can be demonstrated; that behaviors
are influenced by other forces is also certain, particularly learning
through models, instructions, and rewards from the sociocultural
environment. (Paul R. McHugh and Phillip R. Slavney, The
Perspectives of Psychiatry [2d ed.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press,
1998], 184-86; boldface added)
Nor am I
saying anything different from researchers Peter S. Bearman of Columbia
University and Hannah Brückner of Yale University who in the largest
twin study to date
o
Found no significant difference in concordance rates for
non-heterosexuality among identical twin pairs (6.7%) and fraternal twin
pairs (7.2%), even though the latter are no more genetically ‘identical’
than non-twin siblings
o
Found that opposite-sex twins were twice as likely to report
same-sex attraction as same-sex twins; and that males without older
brothers among opposite-sex twins were twice as likely to report same-sex
attraction (18.7%) than their male counterparts with older brothers (8.8%)
o
Concluded that “less gendered socialization in early
childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic
preferences” (“Opposite-Sex Twins and Adolescent Same-Sex Attraction,”
American Journal of Sociology 107 [2002]: 1179-1205; bold added)
Nor am I
saying anything different from Brian Mustanski of Indiana University and
J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University when they contended:
It is also frequently assumed that traits
that have genetic underpinnings are compelled, unchangeable, and innate….
The fact that a trait is heritable does not mean that it is immutable, or
resistant to change. This is because heritability estimates can, and do,
change over time…. For example,
recent research has demonstrated that the percentage of young adults and
the amount of migration in different communities strongly moderate the
heritability of adolescent alcohol consumption…. A client who…expends
considerable mental energy contemplating the origins of sexual orientation
is focusing on the wrong issue, in our opinion. The value of a
characteristic such as homosexuality depends on its effects rather than on
its causes…. The heritability of a trait provides little information
about the extent to which it is compelled, immutable, innate, or most
importantly, acceptable. (“A therapist’s guide to the genetics of
human sexual orientation,” Sexual and Relationship Therapy 18:4
[Nov. 2003]: 432-33; boldface added)
Even Alfred
Kinsey and the Kinsey Institute have published data indicating that
the vast majority of persons who self-identify as homosexual will
experience one or more shifts on the Kinsey spectrum of 0 to 6 in the
course of life, even apart from any therapeutic intervention, with most
having two or more shifts (see The Bible and Homosexual Practice,
419-20). Even David Myers, whom Rogers loves to quote, has to admit
(in his more lucid or candid moments about the scientific evidence) that
“women’s sexual orientation also tends to be less strongly felt and
potentially more fluid and changeable than men’s”—a statement that
presumes some degree of fluidity and changeableness in human sexual
orientation (What God Has Joined Together? A Christian Case for Gay
Marriage [HarperSanFrancisco, 2005], 67). Can the reader imagine
anyone saying with a straight face the same thing about race or sex?
This
review should make two things clear: (1) Rogers has borne false witness
about my views regarding the origin of same-sex attractions and the issue
of change; and (2) Rogers doesn’t know the scientific research on the
subject. It seems that the less Rogers knows about the subject, the
more confident and strident he appears to be in his claims.
I can’t
resist one final point on this second score, which will convey something
important. Rogers uses James Dobson as his whipping boy for discussing the
scientific evidence. He conveniently avoids any interaction with
scientific studies whose results are at variance with his (Rogers’s) views
or, for that matter, with any biblical scholars or theologians who have
done their homework on this issue but arrive at different conclusions.
Rogers quotes Dobson as saying: “Science can be a wonderful instrument of
good as long as it respects the bound of moral principles.” Rogers rejects
this as an unacceptable fundamentalist worldview (pp. 100-1). And yet he
doesn’t realize that even psychologist David Myers, with whom
Rogers is enamored
and whose book with Letha Scanzoni I have offered a long
critique, has said something similar. While “science,
rightly interpreted, has much to offer” in terms of informing “our
understanding of sexual orientation,”
science cannot . . . resolve values
questions.
Even if science someday explains why
people differ in sexual orientation, we still have to decide whether to
regard a homosexual orientation as a normal variation . . . or as an
abnormality to be corrected. (What God Has Joined Together?, 55;
italics, but not bold, original with the authors)
A similar
conclusion is reached by two secular psychologists who, in this respect
appear to know more about morality and theology than does Rogers:
Despite common assertions to the contrary,
evidence for biological causation does not have clear moral, legal, or
policy consequences. To assume that it does logically requires the
belief that some behavior is non-biologically caused. We believe that this
assumption is irrational because…all behavioral differences will on some
level be attributable to differences in brain structure or process. Thus,
no clear conclusions about the morality of a behavior can be made from
the mere fact of biological causation, because all behavior is
biologically caused….. Any genes found to be involved in determining
sexual orientation will likely only confer a predisposition rather than
definitively cause homosexuality or heterosexuality. (Brian Mustanski and
J. Michael Bailey, “A therapist’s guide to the genetics of human sexual
orientation,” 432; bold added)
Science can
inform our ethics but it cannot decide for us moral questions.
That must be decided ultimately from a careful reading of Scripture,
something that Rogers has failed to do in this book. But this is not to
say that Rogers understands the science side of the debate well and falls
flat on Scripture. Rather, Rogers does neither aspect well.
To be continued in Installment 5