Archive for category: Biology, Anthropology,…

A friend recently wrote “an argument among friends lies at the heart of our enterprise as Christian scholars. We each aim to give witness to the truth . . .”

As scientists and Christians we are eyewitnesses to God’s Truth. What an awesome endeavor!

We are eyewitnesses to His truth when we study nature as found in the observable created world, experiencing His reality and catching a glimpse of the holy in the everyday things around us—in a loving touch, in the gift of attention, and in the smile of a stranger. 

Yes, even in an argument with a friend.  

We are also eyewitnesses to His Truth as revealed in Scripture, which He supernaturally authored. This Truth is without error or misstatements of any kind in all historical, moral and spiritual teachings.

It is with humility that we are to approach the study of nature and Scripture, knowing that we are not God or without error. In fact, our hearts are deceitful above all else, said the prophet Jeremiah. C.S. Lewis (in the Space Trilogy) referred to us as being “bent”—like the trees in the panhandle of Texas that grow in the direction that the wind is always blowing—curved toward corruption.

God’s Word: The Truth and the Authority

Our insights and understandings must always be grounded in the Truth, His revealed Word. This is what is captured by the phrase, “Reformed and ever-reforming.” It is actually a shortened version of the Latin phrase “Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei,” which translated means that “The church is reformed and always [in need of] being reformed according to the Word of God. Michael Horton, Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Seminary (and Biola University graduate) notes:

When we invoke the whole phrase — “the church Reformed and always being reformed according to the Word of God” — we confess that we belong to the church and not simply to ourselves and that this church is always created and renewed by the Word of God rather than by the spirit of the age.

Thus, true reformation occurs when we align our values, actions and beliefs with the Word of God – not the other way around. It occurs when we rid ourselves of false beliefs that do not line up with Scripture. The way I see it, it is a reminder to us that Scripture must always counter our bent tendencies that so naturally grow in the direction of the prevailing culture winds.

To remind readers I was asked to participate in this blog because I am a Christian, a social scientist, and I uphold a “traditional” view to the issue of same-sex behavior. In case any may have missed the last decade of unprecedented culture shifts, to actually still believe and advocate for a traditional approach is to go counter to the prevailing winds and risk being on the wrong side of history. However, after much study and prayer and listening to experts, I am convinced that this view is on the right side of God’s Word.

23 Questions about the Truth, Interpretation and Loving Others

By my count David Myers asked 28 questions of me (asking readers to join in as well) in his second blog: Three were about science, one was rhetorical (What shall we make of the gay parenting studies?), one is hard to answer with a 3,000 word limit (Is biology the chicken or the egg?), and 23 were related to the Bible, theology, interpretation, sexual ethics and how we treat others.

As David’s questions remind us, much of our understanding and perspectives, as well as how we treat people, flow from our beliefs and values, from Scripture and our interpretation of Scripture. Because we are committed to the Truth, we both respect and seek to integrate science and Scripture. As integrationists we ask biblical and theological questions because they play a central role in our faith and in our science. With open-eyed wonder and bent-knee humility, we both revel as we get to daily examine that which has been created and authored by God. As David so aptly put it:

As behavioral scientists and Christians, we both begin, I sense, with the assumption that all humans have dignity but not deity. We are fallible creatures. Knowing that some of our beliefs err (we are not God), we hold our untested beliefs tentatively and, when appropriate, use observation and experimentation to sift truth from error. Believing that God has written the book of nature, our calling is to read it as clearly and honestly as we can.

With all do respect and humility as noted above, here is what I believe about same-sex behavior, God’s Word, our interpretations, and the passages that deal with God’s sexual ethics. I will start with one belief that is uncontroversial.

1. Are there any passages or verses in the Bible that approve, affirm or bless same-sex behavior?

The answer is a clear and convincing “No.” There is not a single known passage that approves or blesses same-sex behavior. This is beyond contestation, and it is not controversial.

Author Kevin DeYoung notes: 

Even the gay Dutch scholar Pim Pronk has concluded that ‘wherever homosexual intercourse is mentioned in Scripture, it is condemned. With reference to it the New Testament adds no new arguments to those of the Old. Rejection is a foregone conclusion; the assessment of it nowhere constitutes a problem.’ There is simply no positive case to be made from the Bible for homoerotic behavior. 

2. Do the Biblical texts that deal specifically with same-sex behavior condemn it unconditionally and call it a sin to be repented of, forsaken and forgiven?

The short answer: Scripture calls us to refrain from all non-marital heterosexual or homosexual sexual behavior, whether loving and monogamous or not.

Any sexual intimacy outside the confines of marriage violates God’s design and is inconsistent with the teaching of Scripture, as understood by Christian churches throughout history. We find the biblical teaching of monogamy in the Genesis account of creation, reflected in the teachings of Jesus himself, and maintained consistently throughout Scripture. Hence, sexual intimacy and the sexual union of intercourse between a man and a woman are intended for a purpose—to join one husband and one wife together into one flesh in the context of marriage (I Cor. 6:16). This God-initiated oneness is clearly recognized and affirmed by Jesus in terms of the marital union of husband and wife (Matt 19:4-6).

These views spring from God’s self-revelation in Scripture—grounding and forming our understanding of sexuality and marriage—and thereby shaping us by His purposes through His Word.

Clearly we will each fall short, and it is only by His mercy, grace and forgiveness that we are inspired and enabled (however faltering) to live out His good and perfect design for us. As we commit to following Jesus through the teaching and plan found in God’s Word, we must strive for sexual purity as well as fidelity in marriage, and in so doing able to give witness to our Lord Jesus Christ.

Here are some issues that need more thought

Now to a few of David’s other questions: He asks, “Why do so many Christians seemingly continue to resist the strength and persistence of biological effects on behaviors like sexual orientation?”

There can be many answers to this question. It may be that many Christians seek to avoid a naturalistic fallacy (the erroneous notion “biological” or “natural” implies moral goodness or acceptance.) Perhaps many believe that the innate effects are not sufficient or compelling enough to morally justify any resultant behavior, as many commentators have frequently implied. Perhaps they feel that with this issue it is still too early to draw any causative statements, given the correlational nature of these studies, the relative newness of the research, and the small sample sizes used in most studies.

In a “Would you have guessed it?” twist, some leading gay activists now wonder why the biology of sexual orientation is still such an issue. They are instead admitting that for them it was a choice (see It’s OK to Choose to Be Gay, and I Wasn’t Born This Way. I Choose to Be Gay)

Why not offer an inclusive pro-monogamy norm? 

One can just as easily ask, “Why offer a pro-monogamy norm at all? Why should anyone stay monogamous (or pure or chaste or avoid pornography) when our biological wiring is so innately wired for sexual novelty? This isn’t a rhetorical question. Over the years there are clear and compelling lines of evidence that have converged showing that men are biologically “programmed” to be interested in sexual encounters with novel females (called the Coolidge Effect.)

Psychologist Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá, M.D. (Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality) ask this:

You want an inconvenient truth? Try this one: Human beings are clearly evolved for sex lives featuring multiple simultaneous sexual relationships. Men, especially, are designed by evolution to be attracted to sexual novelty and to gradually lose sexual attraction to the same partner in the absence of such novelty.

And here is the problem: Concerning innate biological effects – once Scripture is changed to fit the view that Genesis and other passages allow for same-sex behavior, then the sexual ethic of monogamy doesn’t make sense for gay or straight. If God did not design sex for the purpose of uniting one man and one woman into a permanent, lifelong, one flesh union to bear His image together, then Scriptural support for key aspects of this sexual ethic must be jettisoned as well, no longer able to serve as the basis for a cogent argument against monogamy. Says one author:

So why monogamy? Jesus never spoke explicitly against polygamy. The New Testament writers only knew of exploitative polygamy, the kind tied to conquest, greed, and subjugation. If they had known of voluntary, committed, loving polyamorous relationships, who’s to think they wouldn’t have approved? . . . Once we’ve accepted the logic that for love to be validated it must be expressed sexually and that those engaged in consensual sexual activity cannot be denied the “right” of marriage, we have opened a Pandora’s box of marital permutations that cannot be shut.

What then can be used to argue against it? Convention? Tradition? A compelling sense that it is simply wrong to cheat on a spouse, whether same-sex or opposite-sex?

And if the Coolidge Effect is so strong and we are indeed biologically preprogrammed to seek out multiple partners, how and why could we expect someone to stay faithful to a spouse? Isn’t this putting a Pharisaical burden on the backs of people? Some gay activists argue that monogamy is an unfair burden, and instead extol the virtues of being “mongomish.” Highlighting an upcoming film on the topic:

The “traditional” values that have shaped our understanding of love, sex, and marriage are losing their hold on our culture.  . . But despite all these transformations the ideal of a monogamous loving couple hasn’t changed one bit. It’s as if we are held captive to a certain picture of what a loving relationship must be like, which continues to exert a powerful influence on the popular imagination. But why? Where does this ideal come from? Is it inevitable?

Once we go with a biological effects argument in supporting homosexuality, is not the next step to accept polyamorous affairs within all marriages?

Pharisees and Burdens and No Easy Answers  

David asks, “Rather than tie ‘onto people’s backs loads that are heavy and hard to carry,’ as Jesus said of the Pharisees, why not offer a positive affirmation of monogamy?  

Here is what (I presume) is being asked: If, as David believes, Scriptural passages that deal specifically with same-sex behavior only describe immoral acts of gang rape, power imbalances, exploitative in nature, etc., and do not take into account the loving, committed, monogamous acts that characterize today’s same-sex behavior, are we then comparing apples to oranges, and thus must set aside the scriptural prohibitions against homosexual behavior because the biblical authors knew nothing about committed, consensual, lifelong partnerships?

It is clear David doubts that a loving God would compel those with same-sex attractions and orientations to follow a sexual ethic that is burdensome and hard to follow, acts over which they have no control or choice. He seeks instead for Christians to proclaim a “single Christian sexual ethic” that applies equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals, i.e., marry or be celibate. His assumption (I think) is that we are to follow God’s plan for marriage (permanent, monogamous unions) in every other way, save the “man—woman” notion. Holding any other standard makes you guilty of being unfair at best and Pharisaical at worst.

If I am not mistaken Jesus leveled this particular “woe to the Pharisee” charge against the religious leaders who held their flocks to impossible standards that are not personally followed by the leaders. 

Matthew 23:4 says:

They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.

So is the solution simply to remove the burden by allowing (fighting, advocating, voting for) marriage for same-sex couples? Biblically speaking, the only way that this can be accomplished is with an eraser and a pen, e.g., to rewrite or reform Scripture.

Those unwilling to do so are presumed guilty of not lifting a finger.  Why? Because we are cold-hearted? We are homophobic? Unenlightened and uniformed? Bigoted? Are we, once again, like the ancient religious leaders (Pharisees?) hiding behind false teachings?

Serious and condemning charges are implied here. Is this accurate? Is this appropriate?

If so, nearly every Christian, Biblical scholar, non-believer, other major religious followers, and practically every known culture for almost two millennia believed that marriage is only between one man and one woman.

Are traditionalists placing undue burdens on same-sex attracted and oriented people when we claim that same-sex behavior is immoral, and the only option available for them is chastity, not marriage?  Is this demanding too much?

The truth is the New Testament and Jesus consistently call believers to behave in ways that can only be defined as “burdensome” (e.g., “give a blessing for an insult,” 1 Pet. 3:9; “Take up your cross daily and follow Me,” Luke 9:23; and “Do good to those who hate you,” Matt. 5:44) unless we understand that true life and joy and happiness is found in obedience to God’s ways. All of these commands are hard if not impossible – apart from the power of the Holy Spirit (Phil. 2:13).

Perhaps the best thing I can do to answer this question is to point people to authors like Wesley Hill and Eve Tushnet, both same-sex attracted, who make compelling cases for a traditional view of marriage and dispel the assumption of impossible burdens.  I implore you to read Eve’s posts and especially Washed and Waiting and Spiritual Friendship by Wesley Hill. Wesley is a gay Christian who advocates for celibacy because as a theologian he finds the case for marriage between one man and one woman the clear and compelling sexual ethic taught in Scripture.

And the burden is clearly hard for Wesley and Eve and many other celibate Christians. After meeting and speaking with Wesley just one time I found myself both encouraged and humbled, and now pray for him on a regular basis. There are no easy answers. But at least read their story and then decide if these charges of Pharisaical burdens are fair or unfair.

In closing, here are seven pledges that as a follower of Jesus, a social scientist, and a traditionalist I commit to (compiled and adapted from various sources):

1. I pledge tell everyone the good news of the gospel: Jesus died and rose again, setting us free from the curse of death and sin, and that Christ is the only way to the Father and eternal life.
2. I pledge to treat all Christians as new creations in Christ, remembering that our true identity is not based on sexuality or self-expression but on our union with Christ.
3. I strive to be objective and careful when examining scientific findings, when using observation and experimentation to sift truth from error, and when integrating nature and Scripture as clearly and honestly as I can, holding untested beliefs tentatively.
4. I affirm the biblical mandate that all persons, including LGBTQ persons, are created in the image of God and deserve dignity and respect. I pledge to love my neighbors regardless of whatever disagreements arise as a result of conflicting beliefs about same-sex behavior and marriage. I pledge not to be a Pharisee.
5. I pledge to guard the truth of God’s word concerning biblical marriage in a way that brings healing to a sexually broken culture and confronts the world when it tries to press us into its mold, telling the truth about all sin, especially the ones most prevalent in my community.
6. I pledge to ask for forgiveness if I am ever rude, thoughtless, or joke inappropriately about homosexuals. I will extend God’s forgiveness to all those who express brokenhearted repentance, everyone from homosexual sinners to heterosexual sinners, from the proud to the greedy, from the people pleaser to the self-righteous.
7. I strive to welcome all those who hate their sin and struggle against it, even when that struggle involves failures and setbacks. I will seek to love my neighbor, regardless of their particular vices or virtues.

In short, I pledge to love the LORD our God with all my heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love my neighbor as myself.

I know that to make sense of life we must always ask ourselves how our personal narrative is taken up into that of God’s, how our own story should be reformed within His story, not how God’s reality might fit into ours. Only by doing this can we make sense of our past, present and future, understanding that our desires and behaviors are reordered by the more compelling purpose found in God’s plan and in His Word.

My thanks to Chris Grace for his gracious and thoughtful remarks.

Since this is a conversation, I’ll respond in a personal voice, speaking colleague to colleague (and with respect for someone whom I’ve understood to be an exceptionally fine teacher of psychology).

Yes, I do owe you, Chris, for the great privilege of assisting your teaching. Having been your text author for three decades has been an honor, and a keenly felt responsibility. Thank you.

We Agree

Our agreements are several and substantial.

First and more importantly, we both respect, and seek to integrate, science and Scripture. You adopt “an integrative approach to Christianity and science that takes seriously psychological science and upholds the centrality of Scripture.” Your essay embodies that science- and faith-respecting perspective, by sifting science while affirming biblical wisdom. So does your Biola University, which has played a leadership role in hosting conversations about the interplay of rigorous science and biblical faith.

As behavioral scientists and Christians, we both begin, I sense, with the assumption that all humans have dignity but not deity. We are fallible creatures. Knowing that some of our beliefs err (we are not God), we hold our untested beliefs tentatively and, when appropriate, use observation and experimentation to sift truth from error. Believing that God has written the book of nature, our calling is to read it as clearly and honestly as we can.

Such faith-based humility and skepticism helped fuel the beginnings of modern science and supports today’s “Reformed and ever-reforming” faith tradition—a tradition that motivates free-spirited, scientific inquiry . . . which has changed my mind many times. Today’s evidence leads me to believe what I once did not: that, for example,

• crude-seeming electroconvulsive therapy can be an effective treatment for intractable depression, 
• the unconscious mind dwarfs the conscious mind, and is smarter than I once thought,
• traumatic experiences rarely get repressed, 
• parenting practices have a negligible effect on children’s later personalities and intelligence (though a greater effect on their attitudes and beliefs), and that 
• sexual orientation is a natural, enduring disposition (not a moral choice).

Sometimes, I’m sure we further agree, science affirms ancient biblical and theological wisdom. Two quick examples:

• Our faith tradition identifies pride as the fundamental sin—the deadliest of the seven deadly sins. Our science confirms that “self-serving bias” (perceiving ourselves as better than others) is a powerful and often perilous human tendency.
• Our faith tradition emphasizes the interplay of faith and action. Our science confirms that our attitudes and behavior feed each other.

Second, we both understand that psychologists’ assumptions and values can penetrate their teaching, writing, researching, and practicing psychology (a point also made by psychology’s feminist critics). As you note, “any research, even scientific research, is subject to bias.” When first drafting my psychology textbooks, I posted on my office door C. S. Lewis’ reminder that “We do not need more Christian books; we need more books by Christians about everything with Christian values built in.”

Third, we agree that (your words) “While there is evidence that sexual orientation for men may neither be chosen nor changed, for women it is not as clear.” As Nathan DeWall and I explain in Psychology, 11^th Edition, “Sexual orientation in some ways is like handedness: Most people are one way, some the other. A very few are truly ambidextrous. Regardless, the way one is endures. This conclusion is most strongly established for men. Women’s sexual orientation tends to be less strongly felt and potentially more fluid and changing.”

Social psychologist Roy Baumeister (2000) has documented that across time and place, women’s sexuality in other ways, too, is more fluid than men’s. Men’s sexual drive and interests are less flexible and varying. In their pupil dilation and their genital responses to erotic videos, and in their implicit attitudes, heterosexual men exhibit less bisexual responding than do women. Baumeister calls men’s less varying sexuality a gender difference in “erotic plasticity.” In plain English, men are sexually simpler. (And most people who report a strong same-sex orientation are men.)

Even so, most people—male or female—have a well-defined and persistent sexual orientation, and that is a reality that begs for explanation. It is, methinks, also a reality that the church had best face up to.

Fourth, we both, in your words, dispute that “sexual orientation is determined by any one cause or factor.” My understanding is that an interplay of genetic, prenatal hormonal, and brain differences conspire to influence our sexual orientation. You are less persuaded, but—reflecting your science-respecting humility—you are open to new evidence: “Should future findings converge (one way or the other) perhaps more definitive verdicts will arise.”

Ergo, you and I are living and working on the same planet, Chris—both of us rooted in a science-affirming faith tradition that seeks to be open to the Spirit’s continuing work, through new biblical and natural revelations. Moreover, our differences seem not fundamental to our faith. When together affirming the Apostle’s Creed we say nothing about sexual orientation.

We Differ

But this conversation also aims to identify and explore our differences. I write these words on a transatlantic flight after a month in Scotland, remembering the words of Scottish philosopher David Hume: “Truth springs from argument among friends.”

Indeed, argument among friends lies at the heart of our enterprise as Christian scholars. We each aim to give witness to the truth (as best as we can discern it). We welcome others from differing perspectives doing the same. And then we open ourselves to challenge and dialogue. Out of such free exchange, we presume, greater wisdom should ultimately emerge. That is the animating idea of www.RespectfulConversation.net, and of a college.

So, some differences:

1. Is biology the chicken or the egg? You wonder: “Does homosexuality[i] or the biology/biological influences come first? Overall I am of the opinion that it is still too early and premature to render a verdict.” 

We differ, because I am comfortable rendering a verdict: The accumulating evidence persuades me today more than ever that sexual orientation is a natural disposition. The observations of same-sex attraction in sheep, the new genetic evidence from “the gay brothers” study, the accumulating evidence of gay-straight brain and trait differences, the influence of prenatal physiology, and much more adds up to a compelling case that biology matters. (For an expert’s quick and recent synopsis of this evidence, see here.) And that explains why the American Psychological Association has asserted, as you noted, “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”

 2. What shall we make of the gay parenting studies? You devote more than half your essay to noting that “77 scholarly studies converge” in indicating that children raised by gay or lesbian parents develop normally, and that “the only four that don’t are dismissed as full of errors.” Such near consensus raises red flags for you. You note some additional studies that call this conclusion into question, notably the much-criticized study by Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus. And you wonder if the well-documented liberal bias of most social psychologists may be influencing what they accept as evidence.

I don’t see the gay parenting literature at the heart of the church’s culture war over sexual orientation—which rather centers on matters of biblical interpretation, the reality of sexual orientation, and the human longing for belonging and intimacy . . . and the related issues of same-sex marriage and the full citizenship of gay people in the culture and the church.

That said, I would, for two reasons, put my money on children’s tending to flourish when co-nurtured by two parents who are enduringly committed to them and to each other (regardless of parental sexual orientation).

First, there is considerable evidence to support this, and it’s not just the from the APA. The American Academy of Pediatrics (2013) reports that what matters is competent, secure, nurturing parents, regardless of their gender and sexual orientation. The American Sociological Association (here), in a lengthy Supreme Court brief, concurs: Decades of research confirm that parental stability and resources matter. “Whether a child is raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents has no bearing on a child’s wellbeing.”

Second, this finding fits the larger conclusion, amply and suprisingly documented by behavior genetics research, that parental nurture—or, more generally, the “shared environment effect”—has surprisingly little influence on the development of children’s traits. Even adopted children tend to share personalities and aptitudes more akin to their biological than adoptive parents (while benefitting greatly from adoption in other ways). In “the largest twin study of same-sex sexual behavior” the contribution of shared environment (including parental influence) to men’s having same-sex sexual partners was zero—0.0, in fact (Lángström et al., 2010).

3. What does it mean for us, as you admonish, to “speak the truth in love?” Yes, let’s aspire to speak the truth in love. And we can further agree that “Love does not mean that all things are acceptable. Love does not preclude upholding a standard. The New Testament does not define love as acceptance of a behavior that transgresses God’s moral law.”

Your admonition, Chris, helpfully takes us to the heart of the issue. Might “the truth” include the reality of sexual orientation and the human need to belong?

And does “God’s moral law” prescribe a different sexual ethic for gay and straight people? Or does biblical wisdom, as unpacked by a new generation of evangelical biblical scholars (such as James Brownson for this website), imply—given that it is “not good for the man to be alone”—that a single, covenantal sexual ethic can apply to all God’s children?

Some Questions for Further Discussion 

Finally, for our further conversation—or for anyone else who would care to chime in—here are some questions stimulated by your essay.

1. Nature and nurture. If, as you seem inclined to believe, nurture (environment) rather than nature shapes sexual orientation, what specifically are the environmental influences? A distant father? An overbearing mother? (Those Freudian ideas, embraced by reparative therapists, seem pretty well discounted.)

2. Why do many Christians resist a biological explanation of sexual orientation? Given the reality of sexual orientation—its strength and persistence for most people—does the nature versus nurture explanation of sexual orientation fundamentally matter? If persistent sexual orientation were instead a matter of, say, imprinting, would that somehow be more congenial with Christian sexual ethics?

3. If bias influences psychological science (as you and I agree), might it also influence biblical and theological interpretation? Believing that a) there is a God, and b) it’s not us, isn’t our religious thinking also subject to test, challenge, and revision? Shouldn’t it, like science, be ever-reforming? As gay evangelical Ralph Blair notes in his new synopsis of the modern history of Christian thinking about sexual orientation (here), publications that today are vigorously objecting to same-sex marriage and touting sexual reorientation ministries were, in the past, using the Bible to justify racial segregation and opposing interracial marriage. (Thankfully, this is not the entire Christian history, as the church also helped lead the abolition of the slave trade and the Civil Rights movement.)

4. What, specifically, does affirming “dignity and respect”imply? Again, we agree that “All persons—whether straight or LGBTQ— are created in the image of God and deserve dignity and respect. Regardless of our disagreements, each of us should seek to love our neighbor with kindness and respect.” So, does affirming dignity and showing respect include supporting the fundamental right to marry (and the more than 1000 ancillary rights, from hospital visitation to inheritance, associated with marriage in the federal register)? Does it mean equal employment opportunity at our institutions? (Should they add “sexual orientation” to their nondiscrimination policy statements?) And is it possible to affirm a gay or lesbian person’s dignity while judging what is part of their identity to be a moral failure? As Martin Marty “wrote after the murder of Matthew Shepard, “by now we must know that the attempt to love sinners while stirring hate about the sin, which, after all, has to be done by those called sinners, contributes to the atmosphere in which crime occurs.”

5. Why not offer an inclusive Christian pro-monogamy norm? To repeat the questions at the end of my target essay: Rather than tie “onto people’s backs loads that are heavy and hard to carry,” as Jesus said of the Pharisees, why not offer a positive affirmation of monogamy? Why not stand up for healthy relationships that satisfy the human need to belong within covenant partnerships? Rather than advocating a sexual double standard for straight people (marry or be celibate) and gay people (sorry, you must be celibate), why not proclaim a single Christian sexual ethic? Why not yoke sex with faithfulness? Why not seal love with commitment? Why not foster a conservative, marriage-supporting positive argument: that the world would be a happier and healthier place if, for all people, sex, love, and marriage routinely went together?

References

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2013). Promoting the well-being of children whose parents are gay or lesbian. www.Pediatrics.aapublications.org.

American Sociological Association. (2013, February 28). Brief of Amicus Curiae American Sociological Association in support of respondent Kristin M. Perry and Respondent Edit Schlain Windsor. Supreme Court of the United States, Nos. 12–144, 12–307.

Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 347–374.

Lángström, N. H., Rahman, Q., Carlström, E., & Lichtenstein, P. (2010). Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: A population study of twins in Sweden. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 75–80.

[i] The science we’re debating seeks not to explain “homosexuality” but rather everyone’s “sexual orientation”—much as scientific studies of handedness, by comparing left- and right-handed people, are about everyone’s handedness.

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided, but what do you think: Should same-sex marriages “be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?”

In 2015, a record 60 percent of Americans told Gallup, yes; only 37 percent said no. This flip from the 37/59 percent split a decade earlier (and from the 27/68 percent split of 1996), represents an astonishing transformation of public opinion. This momentum of gay support will likely continue as gay friends and relatives continue coming out, and as attitudes follow behavior (with same-sex marriage now the law of the land).

Equally striking is an enormous generation gap. Averaging across surveys, support for same-sex marriage runs about 40 percent among Americans over age 65 and nearly 80 percent among those ages 18 to 29. I am unaware of another social issue about which older and younger Americans so dramatically disagree. Today’s millennials and their grandparents live in different social worlds. Together with changing public opinion, the generation gap is forging a new social reality. Generational succession is destiny.

And should “homosexuals . . . have equal rights in terms of job opportunities?” From 1978 to 2008, the number telling Gallup yes, skyrocketed from 56 to 89 percent.

Whatever our own opinions, perhaps we Christians can agree on two things:

1)     Our teaching of sexual ethics should not simply follow cultural trends. Rather than put our finger to the wind, we should put our nose to the Bible, aided by scholars who can help us discern its wisdom for our time.

2)     Public opinion surveys are like a car’s speedometer: they don’t drive the car, but do tell us how fast we and the traffic around us are moving. Today’s cultural traffic motivates our stepping back to understand what science has discerned about sexual orientation, and also to reengage biblical wisdom pertinent to human sexuality.

Sexual Orientation: The Numbers

European and American surveys, administered to random samples and with anonymity protected, indicate that about 3 to 4 percent of men and 2 percent of women report exclusively same-sex attractions. To explore sexual identity, Gallup asked 121,290 Americans: “Do you, personally, identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender?” Yes, answered 3.4 percent. (For detailed citations regarding these and other findings in this essay, see my Psychology, 11^th Edition, Worth Publishers.)

Does disapproval of homosexuality decrease it? On Facebook, the percent of men who publicly express a same-sex preference is 3 percent in tolerant California and 1 percent in disapproving Mississippi. Yet our culture’s increasing acceptance of same-sex relationships has not been accompanied by a notable change in the proportion of straight and gay people.

And consider this: conservative, religious Southern states generate more than average Google searches for sexually explicit content such as “gay sex” or answers to “Is my husband gay?” The number of Craigslist ads by men seeking “casual encounters” with other men is likewise at least as large in less tolerant states as in more tolerant states. And in African countries, where same-sex relationships are generally illegal, the gay–lesbian prevalence “is no different from other countries in the rest of the world,” reports the Academy of Science of South Africa.

The bottom line: whether a culture (or church or school) condemns or accepts same-sex unions, heterosexuality prevails and homosexuality persists.

Sexual Orientation is a Natural Disposition

Multiple lines of research converge in indicating that our sexual orientation is something we do not choose and, especially so for men, cannot change.

Postnatal environmental influences are unknown. Sexual orientation has no known environment influences. Contrary to what Freudians and kindred reparative therapists have assumed, same-sex attractions appear not to be the result of child abuse or molestation, or a distant father and domineering mother. If distant fathers engendered gay sons, then shouldn’t boys growing up in father-absent homes (and in modern times with more absentee dads) be more often gay? (They are not.)

Having followed this research closely for several decades as a reporter of psychological science, what advice could I give to a young couple wondering how they can shape their newborn’s sexual orientation? My simple answer: I haven’t a clue. In the biggest behavior genetic study, the home environment’s association with sexual orientation was zero. So let us “judge not” parents for the sexual orientation of their children. And let us love our children as they are.

Same-sex attractions are displayed by many animal species. A first clue that sexual orientation is, instead, a natural, biological phenomenon comes from the several hundred species in which same-sex sexuality has been observed—from gorillas to grizzlies, from flamingos to owls. Among sheep, some 8 percent of rams shun ewes and seek to mount other males. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is part of the natural world.

Gay brains and straight brains. Neuroscientists have discovered several gay–straight brain differences. One, observed in post-mortem hypothalamus tissue, made people wonder: Does this brain difference help explain sexual orientation? Or do people’s sexual experiences leave fingerprints in their brains? Further research suggests that the brain difference is more cause than effect. It appears very early in life, and it is present in those male sheep that display same- versus other-sex attraction.

Male and female brains, and gay and straight brains, also respond selectively and automatically to various sexual stimuli, including sex-related scents. Thus, surmises researcher Simon LeVay, “Gay men simply don’t have the brain cells to be attracted to women.”

Genetics and sexual orientation. What causes the brain differences associated with sexual orientation?  Is it genes? Prenatal influences? Or both?

We’re formed by more than our genes. Genes get expressed in environments, rather like a tea bag expressing its flavor only in hot water. But genes matter. Although not inherited in the straight-forward way of eye color, twin and family studies confirm that sexual orientation is influenced by genes—many genes having small effects. One recent genomic study of 409 pairs of gay brothers identified sexual orientation links with parts of two chromosomes, one maternally transmitted.

But why, given that same-sex couples do not naturally reproduce, would “gay genes” exist in the human gene pool? Several studies have found that 1) homosexual men tend to have more homosexual relatives on their mother’s than on their father’s side, and 2) their heterosexual maternal relatives tend to produce more offspring than do the maternal relatives of heterosexual men. Perhaps, then, suggests a “fertile females theory,” the genes that dispose women to be strongly attracted (or attractive) to men—and to have more children—also dispose some men to be attracted to men. Thus, there may actually be reproductive wisdom to genes that dispose some men to love other men. Perhaps, then (contrary to the common presumption that “homosexuality is not what God intended”), sexual diversity is part of the biological wisdom of God’s creation?

Prenatal influences. Experiments with some animals, including sheep, reveal that prenatal hormone exposure can alter postnatal gender traits and sexual orientation. In humans, prenatal sex hormones during the second to fifth month control the brain’s sexual differentiation. Female fetuses most exposed to testosterone, and male fetuses least exposed, appear most likely to later display gender atypical traits and same-sex attractions.

And here’s a repeated who-would-have-guessed finding: Men who have biological older brothers are more likely to be gay—about a third more likely for each additional older brother. Researcher Ray Blanchard and his colleagues speculate that the maternal immune system may be responding defensively to substances produced by male fetuses—with antibodies that affect the developing brain.

Gay–straight trait differences. These biological factors combine to also produce a number of gay–straight trait differences in things ranging from spatial abilities and fingerprint ridges to non-right-handedness, gender nonconformity, and occupational preferences. An example: Although men and women have equal overall intelligence, they differ, on average, in a few specific abilities. Straight men tend to be more skilled than straight women at mentally rotating objects. Gays’ and lesbians’ skills are intermediate. Such trait differences—part of the complex reality of sexual orientation—are not moral choices. 

Sexual Orientation is Enduring

We have all heard claims of people who, thanks to therapy or an ex-gay ministry, are said to have done a sexual U-turn, from actively gay to happily straight and married. And we have all heard stories of gay people who, hearing such stories, have sought change—only to end up depressed, suicidal, or in broken marriages.

Leading mental health associations—psychiatry, psychology, social work, pediatrics—have cautioned against sexual reorientation therapy. “Efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm,” declared the American Psychological Association’s governing body in a 125-to-4 vote.

Moreover, there is a growing list of ex-gay ministry leaders who have recanted their testimonies—the so-called “ex-ex-gays.” The best-known ex-gay poster person (including a Newsweek cover) was John Paulk. Once the manager of Focus on the Family’s Homosexuality and Gender Division, and board chair of Exodus (the umbrella organization of ex-gay ministries), Paulk, now an ex-ex-gay, says, “Today, I do not consider myself ‘ex-gay.’ . . . I do not believe that reparative therapy changes sexual orientation; in fact, it does great harm to many people.”

After 22 years with the ex-gay ministry Love in Action, and 11 years on the Exodus board, John Smid reported, “I’ve never met a man who experienced a change from homosexual to heterosexual.”

The British evangelical organization, Courage, once aimed to assist those struggling with “the clear biblical prohibition of homosexual practice.” No longer. Acknowledging the harm done by its fruitless sexual-reorientation efforts, Courage (now succeeded by www.two23.net) became a place for “gay and lesbian Christians who are seeking a safe place of friendship in which to reconcile their faith and sexuality.”

In 2013, Exodus shut down, with its long-time leader, Alan Chambers, declaring

I am sorry for the pain and hurt that many of you have experienced. I am sorry some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt when your attractions didn’t change. I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation that stigmatized parents. . . . More than anything, I am sorry that so many have interpreted this religious rejection by Christians as God’s rejection. I am profoundly sorry that many have walked away from their faith and that some have chosen to end their lives.

This sad history brings to mind Reinhold Niebuhr’s Serenity Prayer: “O God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things which should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.”

Reformed and Ever-Reforming

If these are the facts, what then, as Christians, should be our response?

Those who aim to worship God with their minds will surely wish to attend both to natural revelation (as we explore God’s “fearfully and wonderfully made” human nature) and to biblical revelation.

As beautifully illustrated by the www.RespectfulConversation.com exchanges, scholars are debating the biblical wisdom regarding same sex partnerships, much as earlier generations of biblical scholars debated anti-Semitism (in the pre-Holocaust years), interracial marriage, and women’s ordination.

Among the Bible’s 31,103 verses, only seven explicitly mention same-sex behaviors (and none of those discuss same-sex covenant partnerships). That leaves scholars to interpret Scripture’s moral wisdom, based also on what else it has to say about marriage and human relationships.

Arguing for the traditionalist position, Robert Gagnon explores The Bible and Homosexual Practice; Kevin DeYoung asks What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?; and my respected psychologist colleagues Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse include biblical wisdom in their discussion of Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church’s Moral Debate.

A newer Reformed-evangelical perspective argues that the church has, once again, misread the Bible, which actually supports a consistent sexual ethic for gay and straight people. Recent books include Jack Rogers’ Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church; James Brownson’s Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships; William Stacey Johnson’s A Time to Embrace: Same-Gender Relationships in Religion, Law, and Politics; Mark Achtemeier’s The Bible’s Yes to Same-Sex Marriage: An Evangelical’s Change of Heart; Ken Wilson’s A Letter to My Congregation; and David Gushee’s Changing our Mind.

For an interesting example of the conversation between these two camps, see the civil debate between Mark Strauss and James Brownson (here).  Or see Kevin DeYoung’s “40 Questions for Christians Now Waving Rainbow Flags” (here) and answers by a gay graduate of a Reformed-evangelical seminary (here).

Ergo, this much seems true: without echoing the culture’s increasing acceptance of recreational sex, faithful Christians are reassessing and discussing the Bible’s moral wisdom about covenant, same-sex partnerships. They are debating if there should be a single sexual ethic for all (gay and straight), or a different ethic for those naturally disposed to love someone of their own sex.

For those who embrace a “Reformed and ever-reforming” faith tradition—one that esteems a spirit of humility and is open to the continuing work of the Spirit—this fresh look at Scripture is how it should be. And so it has been across time, as people of faith have changed their minds about marriage—from practicing arranged marriages to favoring romantic choice; from assuming polygyny to mandating monogamy; from viewing marriage as inferior to celibacy to seeing it as an equal calling; from assuming male headship to preferring mutuality; from shunning interracial marriage to welcoming it; from disciplining divorced people to welcoming them into our faith communities. In each case, our religious ancestors found proof texts to support their cultural assumptions, and later biblical scholarship led us to read and respect Scripture in a fresh way.

So, What Should Christians Do?

In a 2015 survey, Gallup found that two-thirds of Americans now regard “sex between an unmarried man and woman” as “morally acceptable.” Six in ten say the same about “having a baby outside marriage.” In a University of Michigan survey of American high school students, two thirds agreed that “It is usually a good idea for a couple to live together before they get married in order to find out whether they really get along.” Only about one-third agreed that “Most people will have fuller and happier lives if they choose legal marriage rather than staying single or just living with someone.”

But we have massive evidence indicating that

• humans do live fuller and happier (and healthier) lives if married,
• children fare better in households with married parents (even after controlling for income and race), and
• communities with high marriage rates experience less crime, educational dropout, and poverty.    

These findings fit well with what we have learned about the human “need to belong.” We are social animals. We—all of us, whether gay or straight—flourish when deeply connected with others in close, enduring, mutually supportive relationships. We were not made to be alone.

Having shared the facts as I see them, might I now be granted permission to venture a conclusion—one I offered in A Friendly Letter to Skeptics and Atheists? Should we, as Christians and Christian educators,

put on our social radar screens the concerns that Jesus had on his? What would Jesus do? Rather than tie “onto people’s backs loads that are heavy and hard to carry,” as Jesus said of the Pharisees, why not offer a positive affirmation of monogamy? Why not stand up for healthy relationships that satisfy the human need to belong within covenant partnerships? Rather than advocating a sexual double standard for straight people (marry or be celibate) and gay people (sorry, you must be celibate), why not proclaim a single Christian sexual ethic? Why not yoke sex with faithfulness? Why not seal love with commitment? Why not foster a conservative, marriage-supporting positive argument: that the world would be a happier and healthier place if, for all people, sex, love, and marriage routinely went together? . . .

Those of us who support an inclusive pro-monogamy norm can take heart that more and more people see the welcoming of gay people into monogamy—into marriage—as a positive trend while also seeing declines in teen pregnancy and increases in teen abstinence as positive trends. Marriage nevertheless is in trouble. With the marriage rate having declined, with most first marriages preceded by cohabitation, with 39 percent of American children in 2006 born outside of marriage, and with pornography a bigger business than professional football, there is surely a need to refocus on the family. Alas, rather than focus on getting and keeping people married, the church is diverting its energy into keeping gay people unmarried. One is reminded of senior devil Screwtape’s advice (in C. S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters) on how to corrupt: “The game is to have them all running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood.”

Finally, some answers to our editor’s questions: Why have I taken this position? And what is at stake?

With Letha Scanzoni, I wrote What God Has Joined Together: The Christian Case for Gay Marriage, in response to my calling as a Christian scholar—which is to, as best I can, discern and give witness to truth. Reading the science of sexual orientation persuaded me that most evangelicals were misunderstanding sexual orientation. And reading the new biblical scholarship persuaded me that my former understanding of the Bible’s supposed condemnation of loving, same-sex partnerships was a misreading of Scripture. As a person of faith, a science writer, and a marriage proponent, my urge was simply to feed pertinent information into the church’s respectful conversation.

I did so (and do so here) mindful that a great deal is at stake, including our efforts to honor biblical wisdom and also to spare the church from the counterevangelism effect of the its widely perceived anti-gay stance. From their analyses of the increasing number of irreligious “nones,” researchers Robert Putnam and David Campbell have discerned that “intolerance of homosexuality” is proving to be “the single strongest factor” in alienating today’s youth and young adults from the church. Writer Amy Sullivan has observed that the church’s anti-gay public image “has been devastating for the image of Christianity.” When the Barna Group polled Americans ages 16 to 29 on what words best describe Christianity, the top response was “anti-homosexual.”

In more derisive words, here is how anti-religious academics explain young Americans’ declining religiosity:

The ascendancy of the extreme fundamentalists/evangelicals, and their grip on the GOP, has meant that the ugliest, meanest, most anti-science, most intolerant side of Christianity—anti-abortion, homophobic, racist, sexually repressed and woman-hating, and hating anyone different from them—has become the public face of Christianity. In states where they have enacted their hard-right agenda, the polls show a huge backlash from Millennials and young people who are much more tolerant of gays, other races, and much more pro-science and feminist in orientation. These young people have not switched to more liberal Christian denominations, but left religion altogether.

Writing to fellow conservatives, a friendlier David Brooks advises, “Put aside a culture war that has alienated large parts of three generations from any consideration of religion or belief. Put aside an effort that has been a communications disaster, reducing a rich, complex and beautiful faith into a public obsession with sex. Put aside a culture war that, at least over the near term, you are destined to lose.”

Might a more winsome—and also biblically authentic—spirit attract rather than repel the next generation? I think of the spirit expressed in a nineteenth-century hymn that the Reformed-evangelical ethicist Lewis Smedes used as the title of his 1999 essay on same-sex partnership:

There’s a wideness in God’s mercy, like the wideness of the sea;

There’s a kindness in God’s justice, which is more than liberty. 

(This essay will be co-published by the Christian Educators Journal, 2016.)