The Theology of Homosexuality

Kyle Shanebeck

Integrated Seminar: Jesus Lord of All

Dr. Rick Langer
December 3, 2009
 Kyle Shanebeck

Table of Contents

I. Personal Starting Points: A Student’s View of Homosexuality page 3

II. Biblical Survey: Conflicting Views page 6

III. Academic Survey: A Bias Based in Implications page 18

IV. Experiential Survey: a Church, a Support Group, a Friend. page 32

V. Integrative Theology: A Call to Action page 41

VI. Works Cited page 52

2
 Kyle Shanebeck

I. Personal Starting Points: A Student’s View of Homosexuality

An inescapable aspect of our world is that it is broken. No matter affiliations of

religious or political agenda, deep down the world seems to know it is imperfect, that

something is missing. Even amidst contexts in our world today of relativism and

naturalism, somehow it seems that every man women and child recognizes that the world

is not inherently good. From a Christian perspective this is the doctrine of total

depravity, and it is the very essence of our need and dependence on God. However, for a

non-Christian how does this “total depravity” reveal itself in their lives? Though they

may not admit it, all people must wrestle with this question; its roots run deep, based in

our separation from the Creator because of sin. In a Christian cultural context, we have

often forgotten our theology of total depravity. Whether it is fear, insecurity, or a lack of

authentic faith that drives us to forget that we ourselves are completely depraved, all too

frequently we have become the judgers and accusers of our world. Separating ourselves

from the “sinners” we have created a bastion of “strength” in Christian books, Christian

communities, Christian schools, Christian radio, Christian… and so on. This emphasis

on the defense of Christian living has led to some rather depraved perspectives on sin in

the world, both beyond and in “Christian Communities.” Surrounded by the doctrines of

health, wealth, and happiness, the doctrine of depravity has become an unlovely theology.

Thus sins become so looked down upon, that even members of the church cannot

admit to one another that they struggle with any of the myriads of unlovely and unlovable

forms of depravity. At the forefront of these untouchable sins is homosexuality. Bound

up in so much political and ideological debate between liberals and conservatives,

3
 Kyle Shanebeck

homosexuality has been transformed by both the church and the secular world into a war

of political ideologies rather than care of individuals. In light of this, the church has

widely forgotten what it means to be “homosexual.” While there are many definitions of

“gay” in the confusion of our world today, I would presume to give my perspective

(based upon experience and prior study) and to define homosexuality in my own words.

Homosexuality is the physical and emotional acceptance of one’s same-sex attraction as

right and natural, and the embracing of both the sexual and psychological aspects of a

heterosexual relationship, between two men or two women. Thus it should be understood

that homosexuality is not predicated by experiencing same sex attraction but by the

physical or emotional acceptance and consummation of same sex attraction.

Based on this definition then, some questions come to mind as to what it means in

our society today when we call someone “gay.” In a secular setting this label would

reference a person who merely experiences same sex attractions, and is therefore

inherently homosexual. With a proper perspective on the sources of same sex attraction

and with a Christ centered worldview, I would argue someone can only be labeled as

“gay” if they choose to act on their same sex attractions and give into the lifestyle of

homosexuality. This being said I must preface that there is a lot of confusion in the world

of science and psychology today concerning the origins of homosexuality (much of

which I will address later). I am already biased in much of this argument based on my

personal beliefs (which I believe to be supported by scripture and modern psychology) by

which I hold that people are not born “gay” or choose to be “gay” (the two options

pushed by conservative Christians and left-wing liberals). I hold to the belief that same

sex attraction is a result of a man or women’s psychological need for love (both physical

4
 Kyle Shanebeck

and spiritual), power, security, or acceptance from the members of the same sex, often

because they have failed to receive these previously stated needs from parental figures of

their gender. Therefore I would argue at the outset that homosexuality is not a sexual sin,

but a spiritual brokenness. With this in mind, one must turn to contemporary Christian

society today and ask: how are we responding to homosexuality?

In the following paper I would hope to outline the biblical theology of

homosexuality as well as it pertains to the church’s stance on these issues, to be

addressed later in light of considering general revelation. In tandem with this I will also

give an account of the current literature on the topic of homosexuality both secular and

Christian, as well as report on research experiences I sought out in the process of writing

this paper. With all of this data, I will conclude with a comparison of special and general

revelation concerning this topic in order to come to a conclusion concerning proper and

loving ways by which we can respond to homosexuality in the world, as well as respond

to those in the church who struggle silently with same-sex attraction.

5
 Kyle Shanebeck

II. Biblical Survey: Conflicting Views

It should be noted at the outset of this exposition of the biblical standards

concerning Homosexuality, that the theology as well as interpretation of what little

biblical evidence exists, is highly disputed. It is a topic in general that is pushed to the

side for other less difficult discussions. After reviewing numerous theological

encyclopedias, one might find that there is little or no reference to the biblical support or

admonition of homosexuality. In the church family as a whole, it is apparent that there is

a general sense of confusion and defensiveness when it comes to the pro-gay “attack” on

Christian morals and family values. This attack is met with counter-attack (the best

defense is a good offense) and the American country-side is littered with the causalities

of war from both sides. If this is such a big topic, why is there not more out there

concerning the Theology of Homosexuality? The apparent reason would be that there are

limited sources within the bible by which modern theologians can make a concerted and

clear statement of belief, especially with the confusions and objections of thousands of

individuals who hold by the belief that they were made to be gay. With the preverbal

drawing of the war lines Christians have been told that they must reject the homosexual

agenda entirely, hate gays, and join in the “separation of church and world,” or support

the growing liberalism of our time and embrace sin by association. It is through this lack

of communication, grace, and scriptural understanding, that churches have been forced to

choose between upholding love or the Bible.

Love or the Bible, grace or truth, unconditional acceptance or judgment, these are

the options place before believers today. On October 6th, 1968 a young Pentecostal

6
 Kyle Shanebeck

minister named Troy Perry choose love, grace, and unconditional acceptance. 1 An add in

The Advocate a gay-oriented newspaper invited members of the LGBTQI community

(Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, and Intersex) to a newly

formed church for homosexuals. Twelve people responded and came to the brand new

church service. Now over forty years later; the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan

Community Churches (UFMCC) is the largest pro-gay denomination in America. Their

call to the LGBTQI community is clear: “God loves and accepts us just as we are; and

homosexuality is okay with Him.” 2

But what does the bible say? The UFMCC’s statement of faith reads like many

other evangelical churches of our day, the inerrancy of scripture, the deity of Jesus Christ,

the work of the Holy Spirit. Yet they have a radically different view of what it means to

be homosexual. In order to understand the rift that is happening between denominations

all across America today, we need to understand how churches like the UFMCC can

come to the conclusions they do. There are five major biblical sources which address the

topic of homosexuality. In this paper each will be analyzed in light of the pro-gay

interpretation first then the fundamentalist/conservative perspective.

In Genesis chapter nineteen the author expounds on the story of Lot and the fate

of Sodom and Gomorrah. Two angels appear in the city and are promptly greeted by Lot

who insists they stay with him in his house.3 The men of the town come and demand to

have sex with the strange men, Lot offers his daughters instead, they refuse but are struck

1
Dallas, Joe. The Gay Gospel? Eugene, OR: Harvest House, (2007): 67.
2
Dallas, Joe. The Gay Gospel? Eugene, OR: Harvest House, (2007): 67.
3
Genesis 19:1-2, New International Version

7
 Kyle Shanebeck

blind by the angels when they try to take them by force.4 The angels tell Lot to flee

because of the impending doom on the city for its wickedness.5

Pro-gay supporters would state concerning this passage that the verb used in the

passage translated as “have sex with” is “to know” (yada), which is used 943 other times

in scripture only 10 of which times means “to have sex with” (this passage being one of

the ten). 6 Therefore we cannot know if they were actually referring to sex, and even if

they were referring to sexual acts, the judgment upon them would have been for their

abuse of strangers, not the act of homosexuality. In this case God is condemning male-

male rape not male-male consensual intercourse. In addition to this the central idea of

this passage is not sexuality or sexual sin, but the sacred obligation of hospitality to

travelers in the ancient Near East. 7 Furthermore it was understood in that context that

male-male rape was a common form of subjection of captive enemies and foes. It was a

humiliating experience for a man, as he was treated like a woman and played on the

ancient male horror of the feminine. In conclusion, following a systematic reading of the

bible, we see later that all reference to Sodom’s sin states nothing about homosexuality,

contrastingly the prophet Ezekiel states boldly that: “As surely as I live, declares the

Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your

daughters have done. 8 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters

were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.’”9

Therefore the lack of hospitality is the sin of Sodom, not homosexuality.

4
Genesis 19:3-11, New International Version
5
Genesis 19:12-13, New International Version
6
Helminiak, Ph.D., Daniel A. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. New Mexico:
Alamo Square, (2000): 44-45.
7
Rogers, Jack. Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, (2006): 70-71.
8
Helminiak, Ph.D., Daniel A. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. New Mexico: Alamo
Square, (2000): 47-49.
9
Ezekial 16:48-49, New International Version

8
 Kyle Shanebeck

In response, in is unlikely that the men of the town asked if they could “know”

Lot’s guests in a platonic sense when Lot’s first response is: “No my friends, do not do

this wicked thing”10. On top of this if the men were inquiring for social knowledge of

Lot’s guests, why would he offer them his daughters? While it is true that hospitality was

taken very seriously in the Old Testament, inhospitality alone does not answer the

questions raised by this passage. Conversely if the men did mean to rape Lot’s guests,

this does not mean the passage is addressing rape only, as “men from every part of the

city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house.”11 For all the men of the city to

be present, homosexuality must have been not only commonly accepted but prevalent in

their city. 12 “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave

themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those

who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”13 While it is true that homosexuality was not

Sodom’s only sin, it does not exclude homosexuality from one of the many sins that led

to their destruction.

In Leviticus during the laying out of the law of the Lord, we see two references to

homosexual behavior. In Leviticus 18, verse 22 it states that lying with a man like lying

with a woman is “detestable.” Again in Leviticus 20, verse 13 it says again that any man

who lies with another man, as with a woman is detestable and must be “put to death.”

Advocates of homosexuality as a natural life style would argue against this

passage in the following way. The holiness code of Leviticus was put into place so as to

maintain the health and well-being of Israel after their exodus from Egypt. The code also

10
Genesis 19:7, New International Version
11
Genesis 19:4, New International Version
12
Dallas, Joe. The Gay Gospel? Eugene, OR: Harvest House, (2007): 176-177.
13
Jude 7, New International Version

9
 Kyle Shanebeck

functioned to maintain the cultural stability of Israel (children for example who

disobeyed their parents would be stoned) and to keep Israel separate from their

surrounding neighbors. 14 In this way, men were to be the dominant sex in Israeli culture.

However, sex with another man degraded the status of men to that of a woman, this was a

mixing of the genders which threatened social stability and therefore could not be

tolerated. The Hebrew word in this passage to mean “abomination” is toevah, which

refers to that which makes someone ritually unclean (like having intercourse with a

menstruating woman). 15 The main purpose of this ritual purity was to distinguish Israel

from the gentiles. Homosexuality is only mentioned in Leviticus in the “Holiness Code”

and nowhere else. This code also calls on us to not wear garments made from two

different materials! The laws applied to Israel at the time and not to us.

In response to the pro-gay argument conservatives would respond as to the

following: It is true that the word used in Leviticus is toevah, however it should be

mentioned that this word is also used in the bible to describe the abominations of idolatry

and child sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12:31, 20:18), cult prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:18),

magic (Deuteronomy 18:12), and idols (2 Kings 23:13, Isaiah 44:19). 16 Even though

these sins have to do with keeping Israel separate from her gentile neighbors, they are

still very serious offenses to God. The law may not still be binding upon us (so we can

wear cotton and polyester clothing) but it is made intrinsically clear in the New

Testament that the law is “holy and good”17 and clarifies for us that portions of the law

transcend the Old Testament and apply to us still (for example bestiality, adultery, and
14
Helminiak, Ph.D., Daniel A. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. New Mexico: Alamo
Square, 2000): 51-55.
15
Rogers, Jack. Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, (2006): 71-73.
16
Swartley, Willard D. Homosexuality, Biblical Interpretation and Moral Discernment. Scottdale, PA:
Herald, (2003): 32-33.
17
Romans 7:12, New International Version

10
 Kyle Shanebeck

homosexuality are prohibited in Leviticus 18 and 20, and are also prohibited in the New

Testament). 18 The commandment to love God is stated in the Law, but that does not

mean we say it does not apply to us today. Because it is repeated elsewhere in the bible

and especially re-iterated in the New Testament, we know it is a commandment binding

upon us. In the same way that we do not stone adulterers in our day today, and still stand

by the fact that adultery is wrong, so do we not stone homosexuals but stand firm in our

assurance that homosexuality is a sin.

In the gospels there is a complete lack of any statements or comments from Jesus

concerning homosexuality. 19 It is argued by many pro-gay activists however that the

story of Jesus and the centurion has some homosexual implications. In Matthew 8:5-13

we see the story as a wealthy centurion (we know he is wealthy because he helped pay

for a temple) who comes begging to Jesus (or more likely his servant talked to Jesus as

seen in Luke, in the ancient world speaking to someone’s servant was equal to talking to

the person himself) concerned about a servant who is precious to him. The word used to

describe the servant boy was pais, which refers to a young servant boy which pro-gay

advocates claim referred to the younger partner of a homosexual relationship. By healing

the boy Jesus therefore endorsed their homosexual love.

To respond to these claims it must be noted first of all that the meaning of the

word pais is unclear, while it is certain that the centurion loved his servant, there is

nothing that would make the reader believe they had cause to argue that love was sexual

in nature. 20 Just because slave-master sexual relationships occurred, does not set

precedence that all slave-master relationships are sexual. Furthermore even if a sexual

18
Dallas, Joe. The Gay Gospel? Eugene, OR: Harvest House, (2007): 184-185.
19
Dallas, Joe. The Gay Gospel? Eugene, OR: Harvest House, (2007): 191-193.
20
Dallas, Joe. The Gay Gospel? Eugene, OR: Harvest House, (2007): 191-193

11
 Kyle Shanebeck

relationship existed, by healing the servant and praising the centurion’s faith Jesus in no

way endorses any sinful behavior. In fact we frequently see Jesus spending time with and

healing the sinners of his day, does that mean he approves of the greed of tax collectors

or the fornication of prostitutes? By no means! Jesus was known for showing great love

to those living lives of sin, and his compassion on a dying boy (whether in a homosexual

relationship or not) reflects nothing on Jesus’ standpoint concerning homosexual

behavior. It should also be noted that Jesus’ silence on the topic is not indicative of

anything since the gospels are in no way comprehensive and they do not nor claim to

hold everything Jesus ever said.

In the New Testament homosexuality is reference directly three times in Paul’s

writings. The first two are found in I Corinthians and I Timothy. Paul states in I

Corinthians that the wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God, this includes the

sexually immoral, the idolaters, the adulterers, the male prostitutes, and the homosexual

offenders (I Corinthians 6:9). In I Timothy it states that the law was good, and was not

made for the righteous but for the lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly, sinful, murderers,

adulterers, perverts (translated in the NASB homosexuals), slave traders, liars and

perjurers (I Timothy 1:9-10).

For pro-gay theologians the interpretation of these two passages rests entirely on

the translation of two words: malakos and arsenokoites. Malakos means “soft” and most

likely refers to effeminacy which would have been seen in the culture as a moral failing.
21
Arsenokoites on the other hand is an invention of Paul’s, which mixes the Greek words

arsenic (man) and koites (bed) into a word that is found no where else in Greek or Jewish

21
Helminiak, Ph.D., Daniel A. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. New Mexico: Alamo
Square, 2000): 105-110.

12
 Kyle Shanebeck

literature making translating it very difficult. It is likely that this word refers to some

kind of economic exploitation, prostitution, pimping or similar sexual exploitation

between men. 22 It is argued that the modern concept of homosexuality has nothing to do

with the arsenokoites Paul refers to in I Corinthians and that homosexuality can only be

indirectly addressed from words that are so vague. This can be associated with adultery

or prostitution which is an abuse of heterosexuality, arsenokoitai then could have referred

to exploitative, lewd and wanton sexual actions between men and in no way casts a

shadow on monogamous and loving homosexual relationships.

From the fundamentalist perspective it is argued that arsenokoites is likely a

derived word from the Greek Septuagint translation of Leviticus texts discussed before in

which both arsenos and koiten appear in reference to the ban of homosexual behavior in

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. 23 On top of this the creation of new words in Paul’s work is

not uncommon, and his specific use of koiten in addition to man refers in no way to

prostitution or some sort of economic coercion, but instead to mere sexual relations. In

Leviticus the words used to describe homosexual relations is mishkab zakur (mishkab the

word for couch or bed, zakur the word for male or males) which was translated in the

Septuagint to arsenos and koiten, which Paul transliterated into arsenokoites. This

connection to Leviticus which makes it perfectly clear that homosexuality is a sin, gives

the reader assurance that Paul is not referencing wanton, polygamous homosexuality, but

male-male sex in general.

This leads to the final and most controversial of the New Testament passages,

Romans 1 which states that God has revealed himself in nature leaving man with no

22
Rogers, Jack. Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, (2006): 73-75.
23
Swartley, Willard D. Homosexuality, Biblical Interpretation and Moral Discernment. Scottdale, PA:
Herald, (2003): 67-71.

13
 Kyle Shanebeck

excuse to not know Him, but turning away from God man has created for himself idols in

the image of animals from God’s creation bringing the wrath of God upon them, so that

he darkened their eyes and turned their wisdom to foolishness.24 Because of this God

gave them over to their sinful desires, degrading themselves with one another, they

exchanged natural relations with members of the opposite sex and instead were inflamed

with passion for members their same gender, men committing “indecent acts” with other

men and receiving the due punishment for their perversion.25

It could be argued by supporters of homosexuality that in this passage Paul refers

to homogenital acts as “impure” meaning they were subject to social disproval not that

they were necessarily ethical wrong, which the structure of the passage leads us to see a

separation of the socially wrong homogenital acts and the morally wrong sin on the other

hand. 26 Paul specifically uses the words para physin (“against nature”) to refer to this

meaning not that homosexuality was wrong, but that it went against the social norm. 27

Paul is not saying it goes against God’s created order, but instead what was not normal

for the time. Paul doesn’t say “unethical” but instead peculiar or atypical. The point of

this passage is idolatry not sexuality. Corinth was a commonly known cesspool of sexual

immorality, and the Jewish readers of Paul’s letter would have found it easy to feel self-

righteous in that situation. Paul then hits them with a plethora of sins that come out of

idolatry, rebellion, foolishness, faithlessness, heartlessness, ruthlessness, he is then

talking to all of us reminding us that we are all sinners, no one is righteous. 28 It could

24
Romans 1:18-22, New International Version
25
Romans 1:24-27, New International Version
26
Helminiak, Ph.D., Daniel A. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. New Mexico: Alamo
Square, 2000): 75-79.
27
Rogers, Jack. Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, (2006): 77-79.
28
Helminiak, Ph.D., Daniel A. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. New Mexico: Alamo
Square, 2000): 80-91

14
 Kyle Shanebeck

also be construed that this “unnatural” desires Paul was referring to was actually

heterosexuals who turned to homosexuality and where therefore acting “unnaturally,”

which would make sense in the context of idolatry and its association with female and

male prostitution in their day.

In response to the prior claims made by pro-gay theologians, one must truly look

not only at the context of this passage but the specific word choice Paul employs when

discussing these epithymiais (impure lusts). 29 Three times Paul uses the word metellaxan

to reference and exchange (exchanging the glory of God for idols [v.23], exchanging

truth of God for a lie [v25], and exchanging the natural for the unnatural [v26-27])

therefore Paul is not referring to same-sex desire as a freely chosen wanton sexuality, but

instead the act of God disowning culture and substituting the worship of Him, with the

worship of one another and therefore they are right that the main topic of this passage is

idolatry, but homosexuality is directly referenced as a form of idolatry. As would be

expected there is no reference made to any difference between orientation and behavior,

on the contrary they seem to be blended together in the text without benefit of

considering one away from the other. No where also does Paul qualify consistency or

prolific nature of the homosexual behavior, therefore there is no distinction between

“excessive” homosexual behavior and monogamous homosexual behavior, and they are

condemned one and the same. 30 Like adultery or fornication it’s no less of a sin if it’s

committed once in a lifetime or in a lifetime with a partner, the condemnation is on the

thing itself, no qualifiers of frequency, intention, or pureness of heart factor in. Nor does

Paul reference here “heterosexuals” who perform homosexual acts against their “nature.”

29
Rogers, Jack. Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, (2006): 50-54.
30
Dallas, Joe. The Gay Gospel? Eugene, OR: Harvest House, (2007): 203-207.

15
 Kyle Shanebeck

There is nothing in the text that would lead us to believe that there is such a thing as a

“true” homosexual or then a “false” one. In fact he chooses words in this passage that

most clearly distinguish woman and men by their most physiological distinct natures:

arsenes and theleias, both words which are not very often used in the New Testament and

when they do appear it is to emphasize the gender of the subject. 31 With all of this in

consideration and remembering that Paul states that they “inflamed with lust for one

another” there is no doubt that Paul forthright condemns any and all homosexual

behavior whether it is constant, monogamous, pervasive, or lewd, it is all sin.

With the knowledge of the controversies and differing view points that surround

this topic, there are still some questions that remain unanswered by scripture. First of all

scripture does not address the current social argument or nature vs. nurture, choice vs.

orientation. How does someone become homosexual? We are also left with no

knowledge as to how we need to address this issue on a restorative level, how people who

struggle with homosexuality can overcome it, if at all. And lastly we are left to wonder

how to properly address a society which continually grows to accept homosexuality as

natural. How do we respond in love and truth to a culture that doesn’t understand the

conservative perspective and sees them as bigots?

These questions will be addressed in the following sections. But now for the sake

of mediation and prayer I would close with a passage from I Timothy:

“Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus

came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. But for that
very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ
Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who
would believe on him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal,

31
Dallas, Joe. The Gay Gospel? Eugene, OR: Harvest House, (2007): 203-207.

16
 Kyle Shanebeck

immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.
Amen.”32
It must not be forgotten in our biblical exegesis of the theology of homosexuality that no

matter how true it is that homosexuality is a sin, Jesus came to save sinners first and his

good news is for “homosexuals” just as much as for anyone else. He didn’t come to tend

the well, but to heal the sick and that is the hope we can have in him. To Him be all the

honor and glory forever, Amen.

III. Academic Survey: A Bias Based in Implications

A biblical survey of the bible leaves the reader with a distinct impression that

homosexuality is a sin (no matter how monogamous and loving). However, many

questions remain unanswered. The most pressing question is the origin of sexual

orientation, specifically homosexuality. In recent years there has been a shift of thought
32
I Timothy 1:15-17, New International Version

17
 Kyle Shanebeck

in the psychological world as homosexuality ceased to be considered a mental disorder

and was accepted as a natural “orientation.” In the 1990s there was a explosion of

scientific study to determine if homosexuality was biologically mandated, which caused a

significant change of thought concerning the origins of homosexuality, setting a

precedence that sexual orientation is biologically determined. Today, there is on ongoing

argument between conservatives and liberals as to whether homosexuality is a choice or

biological determined. In the following section prominent academic literature will be

addressed in order to sift through the bias of the political debates to try and discover the

answer to the pressing question: what causes homosexuality?

Academic Writings on Homosexuality

1) Bos, Henny M. W., Theo G.M. Sandfort, Eddy H. de Bruyn, Esther M. Hakvoort.
“Same-Sex Attraction, Social Relationships, Psychosocial Functioning, and School
Performance in Early Adolescence.” Developmental Psychology, 44 (the American
Psychological Association, 2008): 59-69
The authors research centered around the analysis of students (ages 12-15) in

the Netherlands who experienced same-sex attraction (SSA) in comparison to those

who did not, specifically to compare their relationships with parents, mentors, and

peers, while noting any psychological issues (such as depression). The results

showed that boys experiencing SSA reported significantly less open relationships

with their fathers (more so than girls), it was also noted that those experiencing SSA

attraction also reported lower levels of social acceptance. The authors explained

this facet of their report by saying that students feel less open to sharing with their

fathers because of SSA, however it leaves open the possibility that poor boy-father

relations may be a contributing factor to homosexuality as well as low social

standing or poor relationships with peers. These things may be because of SSA

18
 Kyle Shanebeck

attraction however it is noted in the study that these reports came from children in

the “pre-coming out” stage of development, and therefore it is unlikely these poor

relationships are related to fear of homophobic response especially considering the

study was done in the Netherlands which is very pro-homosexual.

2) Hamner, Dean H., Simon LeVay. “Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male
Homosexuality.” Scientific American (May 1994): 43-55
This “historical” report was published in the Scientific American in 1994,

spurring a frenzy in the media of the time. Hamner and LeVay summarize

Hamner’s studies to discover the “gay gene” as well as the studies of LeVay who

did work in the physical analysis of deceased homosexual brains. They seek to

claim that the implications of these two studies (which they admit are not entirely

conclusive) point to the effects of biology on sexual orientation. LeVay discovered

after dissecting that brains of 19 homosexual men and 16 heterosexual men (whom

died of AIDS) that the INAH3 section of the hypothalamus was three times as large

in heterosexual men as in homosexual men (the homosexual men’s INAH3 section

being more similar to the size in that of women). He claims this points towards

proof of the biological nature of sexual preference, though he admits that it cannot

be determined if these changes existed from early development (and therefore are

genetic) or came about because of a lifetime of chosen behavior or that there is no

sexual connection at all.

Second the authors expound on the genetic research of Dean Hamner who

embarked on a study of the X chromosome because of the implications of heredity

seen in statistics of homosexuals and their families. They took DNA samples from

40 families with gay men but no father-son gay pairs, the samples were typed along

19
 Kyle Shanebeck

22 markers on the X chromosome. The results showed that in an area of the

chromosome marked as Xq28 there was an increased localization of markers for

homosexuals; however (supposed) heterosexual’s markers were normally

distributed. Once again however the results were inconclusive and the authors

admit that it is difficult to state if the area is important at all to sexual orientation

determination or if there is even a gene in the location which codes for sexuality.

3) West, Donald J. “Supposed Origins of Homosexuality.” In Sociological Control of

Homosexuality, A Multi-Nation Comparison, ed. Richard Green, 313-327. New
York: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.
In his chapter “Supposed Origins of Homosexuality” West begins the

conclusion of his book by outlining the sociological effects and responses to

homosexuality around the world focusing on a wide variety of nations from the

prosperous to the impoverished. In this chapter he addresses both the biological

and environmental influences of homosexuality and discusses the social

implications of the knowledge of the origins of homosexual attraction. West

outlines the significant research being done in the possible effects of sex hormones

on the developing brain in early development (mostly researched in males) and

concludes this may be a contributing factor in orientation. According to West the

evidence for hereditary predisposition to homosexuality is strong, as families with

numerous homosexual members have been reported, but he admits that this could

be due to upbringing or influences in the family environment. He concludes,

recognizing that more work needs to be done in the area, scientific research often

being sensationalized and exaggerated in the media without actual concrete research

findings coming about.

20
 Kyle Shanebeck

West states that despite the possibility of innate predisposition to

homosexuality, it is “likely” that environmental pressures as well as learning

experiences may “affect the development of sexual orientation.”33 Obviously

effeminate boys will often become homosexual adults, it is often assumed that a

biological predisposition causes both the cross-gender characteristics and the

homosexual orientation, but it could be equally true that culture has a strong role in

the determination of sexual orientation by stating “masculine” and “feminine”

actions. West also outlines another environmental factor called the “seduction

theory” which suggests that sexually excitable young people, who experience

homosexual sex first in life, develop a lasting preference for that form of

gratification. However he concludes in his mention of the social implications of

homosexuality that given the complexity in the possible biological and

environmental factors that contribute to sexual orientation. It is likely that the

sexual impulses of an individual are largely innate in their psyche and are therefore

not a “choice,” which means that for many there is no option of change.

4) Yarhouse, Mark A. “Sexual Identity Development: The Effects of Valuative

Frameworks on Identity Synthesis.” Psychotherapy, 38 (Fall 2001): 331-342.
Yarhouse outlines the process of homosexuals when they finally define their

sexual identity. It can be summarized in a six step process: questioning of one’s

identity because of same-sex attraction, determination that one is different because

of said attraction, assumption that that experience means the individual is gay,

acceptance that same-sex attraction means a person is gay, taking pride in one’s

“gay” identity, and a synthesis of the belief that one’s identity as “gay” is

33
West, Donald J, Richard Green. Sociological Control of Homosexuality, A Multi-Nation Comparison.
(New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002), 317.

21
 Kyle Shanebeck

intrinsically part of who one is. He then compares this in light of the socio-

religious influences on identity synthesis which cause drastic variations in

individuals realization of sexual identity and the problems present by the ex-gay

(“homosexuals” who have left the gay lifestyle to become “heterosexuals”) as well

as the ex-ex-gay (ex-gays who re-enter the gay world) accounts. The author

concludes that because of the number of discovered identity development models

(often producing completely different paths of sexual identity and recognition) that

more research needs to be done on the effects of religious valuative frameworks on

sexual identity synthesis

5) Buccino, Daniel. “Homosexuality and Psychosis in the Clinic.” In Homosexuality

and Psychoanalysis, ed. Tim Dean and Christopher Lane, 265-287. The University
of Chicago Press, 2001.
In his chapter, Buccino expounds on the debate in psychoanalysis which

revolves around the struggle to advance Freudian theory concerning sexuality.

Buccino references other studies when he explains unconscious sexuality and

identity in the three registers of the symbolic, imaginary, and real, stating that

specific symptoms or sexual performances are not very helpful to analysts who seek

to make structural diagnosis of neurosis, psychosis, or perversion in reference to

homosexuality. He argues that one’s certainties of self concerning: male or female,

straight or gay, or even a coherent view of “self” as all imaginary identities, and

facades of the ego. He concludes therefore that there is an inherent bisexual

undertone of sexuality and that any conclusion by an individual toward homo or

hetero-sexuality belies conflict, and compromise, the more certain one is of

sexuality the more psychotic they prove themselves to be.

22
 Kyle Shanebeck

6) Kirk, K.M., J.M. Bailey, N.G. Martin. “Etiology of Male Sexual Orientation in an
Australian Twin Sample.” Psychology, Evolution, and Gender 2.3 (December
2000), 300-311.
In the 50’s a very famous study was done on Australian twins to determine if

there was a familial and therefore genetic link to homosexuality. This study is a

modern response to that famous study, in an attempt to widen the spectrum of

individuals studied and to eliminate the error of volunteer bias. They took surveys

from a large community population of Australian male twins ages 18-52, asking

various questions to determine psychological and behavioral measures concerning

homosexuality. They found that there was a significant familial link in twins

(meaning the twins answered the same) concerning questions of sexual behavior,

feelings and fantasies, as well as lifetime number of sexual partners (both male and

female). However the researches discovered there was not a significant link

(meaning the twins did not answer the same) concerning self-rating of sexual

orientation (homo-, hetero-, or bi-sexual), attraction to women and attitude to

heterosexual sex. While significant correlation was seen between twins concerning

sexual fantasies and attraction to members of the same sex, it is impossible to say

whether these familial similarities were due to genetic or shared environmental

factors. Interestingly 96.3% of all participants answered “yes” to the question of

ever having been attracted to the opposite sex.

7) Hanson, Graeme M.D., Lawrence Hartmann M.D. “Latency Development in

PreHomosexual Boys.” In the Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health, ed.
Robert P. Cabaj, M.D., and Terry S Stein, M.D. 253-267. American Pschyiatric
Press, Washington D.C., 1996.
Hanson and Hartmann claim that nature and nurture are vital elements of

development for all humankind. They claim according to current scientific research

that prehomosexual boys may possess significant biological factors for their

23
 Kyle Shanebeck

sexuality however “environmental responses in tune affect and change the child.”34

They go on to outline many environmental factors that influence homosexual

action, they place particular emphasis on the effect of absent or abusive fathers on

the development of prehomosexual boys. They also reference the effect of social

gender definition on boys who do not fit in to the social “norm” of what it means to

be male (for example boys who do not enjoy rough and tumble play) and therefore

in early social interaction see themselves as “different” from their peers. Some

children use this difference to develop individual traits (art, music, leadership)

while others lose contact from their male peers, who in turn look to their parents for

support, parents who may be uncomfortable with their “sissy” boys. The authors

conclude stating that “one of the most important aspects of latency development for

many of them [prehomosexual boys] is the psychology of feeling or being different-

different in a way that is often inexplicable both to the child and to the environment,

and perhaps different in a way that sets one apart form one’s parents.”35

8) DuPree, Michael G., Brian S. Mustanski, Sven Bocklandt, Caroline Nievergelt, Dean
H. Hamer. “A Candidate Gene Study of CYP19 (Aromatase) and Male Sexual
Orientation.” Behavior Genetics 34, (May 2004) 241-251.
The most promising study for the discovery of the genetic causes of

homosexuality has come from the theory of atypical hormone action during

gestation, specifically the presence of Androgen. This study focused on the

determination of linkage for the gene that causes the aromatization of androgen to

estrogen in fetal brains. Homosexual brothers were used to determine if the gene

34
Graeme Hanson MD and Lawrence Hartmann M.D. “Latency Development in PreHomosexual Boys.”
In the Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health, ed. Robert P. Cabaj, M.D., and Terry S Stein, M.D.
(American Pschyiatric Press, Washington D.C., 1996) 255.
35
Graeme Hanson MD and Lawrence Hartmann M.D. “Latency Development in PreHomosexual Boys.”
In the Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health, ed. Robert P. Cabaj, M.D., and Terry S Stein, M.D.
(American Pschyiatric Press, Washington D.C., 1996) 265.

24
 Kyle Shanebeck

encoding the aromatase enzyme influenced sexual orientation. Expression was

found to not be significantly different between homosexual and heterosexual men,

and the variation of this gene therefore is not likely to be a factor in the

development of sexual orientation.

9) Drescher, Jack M.D. “Psychoanalytic Subjectivity and Male Homosexuality.” In the

Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health, ed. Robert P. Cabaj, M.D., and
Terry S Stein, M.D. 173-189. American Pschyiatric Press, Washington D.C., 1996.
In this chapter Drescher argues that the theoretical controversy regarding

homosexuality reflects on the larger argument of psychoanalysis itself, is it a

science or a hermeneutic discipline? The argument over homosexuality has evolved

over the years and has become a political argument based in defrauding both sides

scientific proof in order to prove one’s right standing. Drescher claims then that

psychoanalytic theories cannot be separated from the political, cultural, and

personal context in which they are postulated. Homosexuality he claims cannot be

proven to be biological by the psychoanalytic method; however in some cases it can

prove that homosexuality is not genetic. Yet Drescher emphasizes that sexual

orientation is beyond the patient’s conscious or unconscious control, and even if it

was constructed the analyst cannot believe it to be inferior to heterosexuality.

10) Stein, Edward. “The Emerging Scientific Program for the Study of Sexual
Orientation.” In The Mismeasure of Desire. New York: Oxford University Press,
1999.
In his book The Mismeasure of Desire Stein confronts the most prevalent claims

in science today about the biological sources of sexual orientation. He addresses

specifically the three major areas of argument, looking for biological

predetermination in the body, family tree, and genes (which includes LeVay and

Hamner’s studies). The evidence shown by the central media would assume that all

25
 Kyle Shanebeck

of these studies point strongly toward a biological influence in sexual identity,

however Stein argues that these programs and deceiving and biased, with little

actual tangible proof to say that the effects they find are biological rather than

environmental.

Summary of Findings and Concluding Remarks

Concerning the current academic thought on the causes of homosexuality it can be

summarized that there is a strong assumption by all disciplines that homosexuality is at

least in some way biologically determined (even if the actual cause of this is unclear).

Aside from this assumption, however, there are many other factors that seem to either

contribute to or are secondary to the presumed biological imperative. Maybe the most

commonly understood environmental factor that influences homosexuality is a boy’s

relationship with his father (lesbianism on the other hand has been very sparsely

researched and no statements can be accurately made concerning the influence of parental

relationships in its development). Frequently unhealthy in nature, many homosexual and

prehomosexual men report their relationships with their fathers to be poor, non-existent

or even abusive (as seen in the study done amidst Danish children who experienced same

sex attraction who reported poor relationships with their fathers).36 Another frequently

seen factor is the effect of societal gender relationships concerning children who do not

exemplify the traditional gender traits such as boys who are sensitive, openly emotional,

and creative. Such children are often labeled as “sissies” and begin to feel as if they are

intrinsically different than their peers, this leads to confusion and a crisis of gender

identity. Some respond to this “by increasing gender-conforming behavior, with or

36
Bos, Henny M. W., Theo G.M. Sandfort, Eddy H. de Bruyn, Esther M. Hakvoort. “Same-Sex Attraction,
Social Relationships, Psychosocial Functioning, and School Performance in Early Adolescence.”
Developmental Psychology, (the American Psychological Association, 2008).

26
 Kyle Shanebeck

without consciously conflicted feelings” or “with lowering self-esteem, depression, and

lowered ability to interact with, enjoy, and learn from peers.”37 They just suddenly don’t

seem to be “one of the boys.” A third major factor seen often affecting the early

development of homosexuals is deep religious convictions concerning homosexuality.

Young men who hold to strong religious belief then can feel conflicted and isolated

further, and make them believe they are somehow not understood or a valid human being.

Religion then acts to keep these boys completely quite and secret on the basis of guilt,

shame, and fear or ridicule. This drastically affects how boys see themselves influences

the later acceptance of their sexual orientation.38 However, current scientific thought

views these factors as secondary or inconsequential next to the assumption that pervades

scientific thought today.

In recent years it has become a cultural imperative that homosexuality be

understood as biologically determined, the cry of the pro-gay movement: “God made me

this way.” Yet where is the science that confirms this universal assumption? If the

psychological world and the biological world are so sure that homosexuality is biological

mandated, one would assume that the proof has been found. However, the search for the

“gay gene” continues even after the media hypes in 1995 that proclaimed that the

scientist were closing in on the gay gene (in reference to Dean Hamner’s studies in the X

chromosome locus Xq28). The debate continues in physiological and genetic circles,

liberals and conservative’s alike calling for proof of the biological origins of

homosexuality. Yet for fourteen years science has been silent. The most avid supporters
37
Hanson, Graeme M.D., Lawrence Hartmann M.D. “Latency Development in PreHomosexual Boys.” In
the Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health, ed. Robert P. Cabaj, M.D., and Terry S Stein, M.D.
253-267. American Pschyiatric Press, Washington D.C., 1996.
38
Hanson, Graeme M.D., Lawrence Hartmann M.D. “Latency Development in PreHomosexual Boys.” In
the Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health, ed. Robert P. Cabaj, M.D., and Terry S Stein, M.D.
253-267. American Pschyiatric Press, Washington D.C., 1996.

27
 Kyle Shanebeck

of biological homosexuality themselves admitting that science still has not found the

answer, yet still they cling to the belief that homosexuality is genetic. In their article

arguing for the biological roots of homosexuality, Hamner and LeVay conclude saying:

“Our research has attracted an extraordinary degree of public attention, not

so much because of any conceptual breakthrough-the idea that genes and
the brain are involved in human behavior is hardly new-but because it
touches on a deep conflict in contemporary American society. We believe
scientific research can help dispel some of the myths about homosexuality
that in the past have clouded the image of lesbians and gay men.”39

This worldview permeates most of academic literature today, a direct response to the

traditional view that homosexuality is a choice, and a moral wrong. Yet looking at the

major studies that claim to have found “implications” of the biological roots of

homosexuality, all have come up dry. Hamner’s work in the Xq28 section of the X

chromosome proved to be a dead end; LeVay’s studies on the human brain were narrow

and involved only homosexuals who died of AIDS, Hamner’s future work in the hormone

control of fetal aromatase proved not linked at all to sexual orientation, and the

continuation of the famous twin studies have shown that there is no apparent link

between genetically identical twins and sexual orientation. Yet the assumption remains

in society today and science and psychology continue to produce reports of the supposed

link between sexual orientation and biology without any hard proof to support their

scientific claims.

Less apparent than the assumption that homosexuality is biologically

programmed, it is a general assumption held by scholars today that homosexuality is a

natural orientation for human beings. A radical shift from the generally accepted thought

of fifty years ago which assumed “homosexuality” to be an “ego weakness” with

39
Hamner, Dean H., Simon LeVay. “Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality.”
Scientific American, 49 (May 1994).

28
 Kyle Shanebeck

“profound preoedipal pathology and lack of impulse control” that is “entirely defensive

and pathologically conflicted.”40 Almost the entire Psychological world today holds to

the affirmation that a person is either homo-, hetero-, or bi-sexual, and that those specific

orientations are natural to human nature.

This assumption goes hand in hand with another line of current thought which

claims that a “homosexual” child’s upbringing has little to do with the development of

their sexual orientation. Any data collected that points to certain trends of pre-

homosexual children such as distant fathers, poor same-sex friend relationships, or

childhood trauma are categorized as secondary to biological imperatives in sexual

orientation determination. Through their study of Dutch school children who expressed

feelings of same-sex attraction it was noted that those students commonly related that

they had poor relationships with their parents. The authors assumed that “it is more

difficult for adolescents to talk to their fathers about their feelings... It

might even be more difficult for adolescents who feel sexually

attracted to someone of the same sex to share this with their father.”41

The study however, only inquired if the students had open relations

with their fathers not if they felt comfortable expressing their same-sex

attraction, and it should be noted these children were picked because

they were pre-homosexual (before the average age of sexual

orientation identity recognition). Yet it was a common theme among

40
Buccino, Daniel. “Homosexuality and Psychosis in the Clinic.” In Homosexuality and Psychoanalysis,
ed. Tim Dean and Christopher Lane, 266 (The University of Chicago Press, 2001).
41
Bos, Henny M. W., Theo G.M. Sandfort, Eddy H. de Bruyn, Esther M. Hakvoort. “Same-Sex Attraction,
Social Relationships, Psychosocial Functioning, and School Performance in Early Adolescence.”
Developmental Psychology, 65-66 (the American Psychological Association, 2008).

29
 Kyle Shanebeck

all male students experiencing same-sex attraction to have poor

relationships with their fathers.

Lastly, it should be noted that there is consistent belief amidst

the debaters of homosexuality today that they only standpoints

available for argument are choice or biology. Most likely in response to

the conservative argument that homosexuality is a moral wrong and

an individual’s choice, pro-gay supporters believe that the only way to

combat this offensive line of thinking is to prove that homosexuality is

biological and therefore unchangeable. As mentioned before all

discussion as to the environmental influences of early childhood on

sexual orientation is brushed aside as secondary to the biology debate.

They believe memories of childhood to be inaccurate at best, and

therefore only science can be used to prove that homosexuality is not

a choice.

“It would be useful for many reasons to have a

comprehensive understanding of early development of
boys who seem to be, or later may or will become,
homosexual or bisexual… most attempts have been based
on retrospective reconstructions derived from adult
memories. This is a common… but limited approach,
venerable to major inaccuracy, exaggeration, and over-
extrapolation.”42

So any study that has been done into the environmental influences of

parents and childhood experience on homosexuality has been limited

to a secondary source in the explanation of sexual orientation. It

42
Drescher, Jack M.D. “Psychoanalytic Subjectivity and Male Homosexuality.” In the Textbook of
Homosexuality and Mental Health, ed. Robert P. Cabaj, M.D., and Terry S Stein, M.D. 256. (American
Pschyiatric Press, Washington D.C., 1996)

30
 Kyle Shanebeck

should be noted however, that in many of the academic sources that

were reviewed for this paper reference was consistently made to the

commonality of poor father-son relationships in homosexual men, as

well as the influence of peer, societal and religious worldviews in the

formation of self-sexual identity.

What then is the conclusion to be drawn from the modern

academic thought of today? Biology, though it is assumed to be the

dominant factor in sexual orientation development (specifically

homosexuality) has no hard proof in scientific research that support

this assumption (in fact all studies into the matter have produced only

the “implication” that it “might” be biologically influenced). It is

generally excepted by psychologists and researchers that there is a

common link between homosexuals, including adverse relationships

with their father figures, a feeling of being marginalization amidst their

peers because they are “different” during childhood, a psychological

inclination to social/emotional attitudes often contributed to the

opposite gender, poor peer relationships with members of the same-

sex, and a deep felt shame and internalization of all these confusing

feelings because of violent religious opposition to homosexuality. It is

the assumption of the author that it is clear that the environmental

factors of a child’s early gender and sexual development are what

cause a person to become “homosexual.” It is not, therefore, a

“choice” nor is it biologically mandated, but is instead a deep rooted

31
 Kyle Shanebeck

confusion of one’s gender and socio-sexual identity. In the following

sections a further response will be made as to a comparison of the

special and general revelation on this topic as well as a conclusion

concerning the proper response of the church as a whole.

IV. Experiential Survey: a Church, a Support Group, a Friend.

To supplement the previous study of the biblical and academic revelation

concerning homosexuality, I engaged in some first-hand experience to deepen my

understanding and heart for the topic. To capture the essence of what I have been

researching it became clear that for the experiential portion of this paper I would have to

participate in more than just one experience. I wanted to encounter the whole scope of

what I am discussing so I could speak from a physical experience not just theological

knowledge. In the end I pursued three separate opportunities: I attended the Metropolitan

Community Church’s celebration service in Los Angeles, I visited a support group at

“The Center” in Santa Ana, and interviewed a friend and Biola student concerning his

experience with same sex attraction.

When thinking about what I could do to experience personally some of the social

as well as spiritual implications of same sex attraction I was immediately drawn to the

Metropolitan Community Church. I had read about their founding preacher Troy Perry in

the course of my research for the biblical survey section of this paper and was already

aware that the MCC was the most prominent pro-gay church in the United States, and had

listened and watched many sermons from their senior pastor. The founding congregation

still meets in Los Angeles now part of an intra-national denomination that spans from

coast to coast. I was blessed to be informed about the church’s location and website by a

32
 Kyle Shanebeck

friend whose father is a practicing homosexual and attends the church. On a Sunday

morning I went with my friend Tianna to attend the morning eleven o’clock

“Celebration” service (there is also a 9:00 liturgical service). Our first experience upon

walking in the small church (in the middle of renovation) was to notice that we were the

youngest people in the service by about 10 years. The congregation was almost entirely

middle-age to older male couples, with less women about the same age and a few

heterosexual couples. The service was similar to Methodist services I have visited

before, with traditional hymns that were very neutral concerning theology (praise songs

focused on God’s love for us) or very liberal non-mainstream hymns that included many

cultural worldviews including the repeated reference to God as Father as well as Mother,

focusing on his love and acceptance of all people. Reverend Neil Thomas (the senior

pastor) preached from Luke 4:14-21 the thesis of his sermon was that we are to seize our

destinies and make them happen for ourselves. “Today” he said, we are to take hold of

our lives not tomorrow in this, the year of the Lord’s favor (no other biblical passages

were used to support his theology). After there was a time of communion, the church

does not deny communion to anyone because they seek to not exclude anyone, so you do

not have to profess to be a believer to partake. They invited people to come up as

individuals or as couples (most went up with their same sex partners) and the elders of

the church prayed over every person who took communion.

My experience attending the MCC was marked by two revelations from the spirit.

The first thing that was clear to me was that there was a great amount of suffering in the

congregation. I could tangibly feel the pain of the congregation as I observed them

worshiping the Lord, a real sense of loss and helplessness. There were repeated

33
 Kyle Shanebeck

references made from the pulpit concerning their station as outcasts of society and the

civil rights denied to them. But aside from the social pain expressed I sensed deep

spiritual hollowness, the whole service was chasing after the wind it had no substance or

depth. Second I received rather clearly from the Lord a picture that was very poignant to

me. I saw the church as it was with the congregation praising and calling out to the Lord

but there was a wall at the front of the church that separated them from right relationship

with God. Men and women at the end of difficult lives were gathered in that place,

seeking desperately to be in relationship with God. After years of running away or

denying him, the burdens of their life are too heavy, the sins unbearable and they were

there crying out to him desperate for his love and fulfillment. However they are not

willing to give up one thing and that one thing is the wall in front of the pulpit that

separates them from God. Homosexuality really is the deal breaker. Even if they

accepted that God does not support or ordain homosexuality, many would deny God and

walk away. They cling so tightly to their sexual orientation identity they cannot accept a

God who would deny them that. But without surrendering our will to God’s it is

impossible to be in right relation with him, and no matter how similar the service looks to

other churches, it will always be empty.

Having attended a Church that embraces the LGBT community I thought it would

be appropriate to step out of my comfort zone and really experience people immersed in

cultural homosexuality in a secular context. So I did some research of support groups for

homosexuals in Orange County and discovered The Center in Santa Ana. The Center’s

mission is stated as the following on their website: “The mission of The Center Orange

County is to advocate on behalf of the Orange County LGBT community, and to provide

34
 Kyle Shanebeck

services that ensure its well-being and positive identity.”43 I attended their Tuesday night

support group for young adults. The group was made up entirely of males ages 21-28

(except for the group leader and intern who was a 21 year-old female getting her degree

in gender studies at UC Irvine) from varying ethnic backgrounds. The group is a time to

discuss difficult issues pertaining to the gay community, get life advice about dating and

relationships, as well as a place of support for coming out and living in a culture that is

still very anti-homosexual. The time was spent talking with one another hanging out, as

well as a time of focused group interaction (we even played an ice breaker game called

ten fingers to get to know one another).

Interacting with openly (and some not out) homosexual individuals was a very

meaningful experience for me. There were a couple of things I noticed in relation to my

visit to the MCC. First the age difference was significant, at the MCC almost all of the

attendees were in their late forties early fifties, while the men I met at The Center were

almost all twenty some-things and younger. While I did attend a meeting for young

adults, all the people that I saw at The Center were very young (some in their mid-teens)

and I was told by the leader that most of the people who come through are young people.

While this may have to do with the fact that it is a center for support and encouragement

to the LGBT community and young people are more likely to need support groups, it

must still be noted that the secular outreach to homosexuals is attracting the younger

crowd while the MCC’s outreach is drawing in the older generation. Another thing that

was very touching to me was the interaction that went on between the men in the group.

If I didn’t know where I was, I would have just assumed it was a place for young college

43
"Mission and History." The Center Orange County. AAvacations.com/rainbow, 25 Oct. 2007. Web. 3
Nov. 2009. <http://www.thecenteroc.org/About/MissionHistory.aspx>.

35
 Kyle Shanebeck

aged men to come, make friends and hang out. Though I didn’t think it would be “weird”

there, I was struck with how similar their interactions were with my interactions with my

friends. Just like at the MCC I had a great sense of suffering at The Center. It was

different there though; it seemed to center on loneliness and abandonment. These young

men are outcasts in many aspects of society as well as outcasts in their own family, and

that center is the only place for some to have friends or family. It was devastating for me

to think what it would be like to have no where else to go but a community center to

make friends or feel excepted and valued, and my heart was breaking the whole time I

was there.

Feelings of loneliness or abandonment are not limited to the gay community. As

a completion of my experiential project I interviewed a friend of mine who struggles with

same sex attraction. I asked some pointed questions hoping to add some real-life

application to my academic literature survey, and maybe get some insight into the causes

of same sex attraction at least in one man’s life. The written excerpt of our interview has

been attached, and I think it speaks rather clearly for itself.

In the section following this I will attempt to summarize all that has been said in

an integrative theological statement. I would encourage the reader to continue to think

about the information that has been discussed in the previous sections as well as take a

look at the interview questions and answers.

36
 Kyle Shanebeck

Tuesday, November 2, 2009

Biola University, La Mirada CA

Interviewer: Kyle Shanebeck

37
 Kyle Shanebeck

The following exert has been edited by the interviewer for length and to remove any
information which could reveal the identity of the interviewee.
How old are you?
21.
Where do you go to school?
Biola University.
What year are you?
I am a senior.
Can you tell me when you excepted Christ as your savior?
First at about 5 years-old with my mother after Sunday school, mainly because I didn’t
want to go to hell. I would say I first actually believed and understood the implications
of my faith when I was in Jr. High at summer camp when I finally gave my heart over to
him. So I guess I would say when I was 12
So you have been in the church your whole life?
Yep, grew up in a white middle class American family, went to Sunday school every
Sunday from when I was a baby through high school.
How was your family life growing up?
Well like I said it was pretty normal. My parents were not divorced, and I had ok
relationships with them and my siblings. I guess though that I have always felt that my
parent’s love is conditional. I know that they love me, but it has always been expressed
to me through what I do, my grades, my personality, what I gave back to them in
attention, stuff like that. My dad went on business trips a lot when I was younger, it was
normal for him to be gone even once a month. Aside from that I guess me and my dad
have never been that close, mainly because he is introverted and doesn’t really know how
to express love in real ways. On top of that my mom is really extroverted and is kind of
the louder of the two. I guess now that I think about it I really had a much closer
relationship with my mother.
What was the spiritual relationship within your family like?
Well in my family I always knew that my parents were Christians, but that was mostly
because we went to church everyday, were involved in church events and we prayed
before we ate dinner. Aside from that we never talked about our spiritual lives. In fact
we didn’t talk about our personal lives at all. I don’t know why we didn’t, I think it was
probably mostly because my parents weren’t really transparent with us, it was always
“what we say goes” without any explanation to us about the spiritual reasons why we did
or didn’t do something.
When was the first time you recognized or experienced SSA?
Umm… I guess when I was about 8 or 9 I remember spending the night at a friend’s
house we had the kind of you show me I show you experience and I remember being very
confused at that time. But then I understood that that was not quite right and I stopped
being friends with that friend. Later in my life after a traumatic experience with a male

38
 Kyle Shanebeck

mentor figure who hurt me a lot. After that I started looking at pictures of underwear
models on the internet which then led to looking at gay pornography. This continued for
a while and led to me having a couple of experiences with friends and to me using online
dating sites to try and meet men. Though I never ended up meeting up with anyone, there
was a lot of fantasy on my part what it would be like to just be able to have a boyfriend
and find someone who would loved me.
Do you believe you were born gay?
No, I don’t think I was “born this way.”
What then do you think caused SSA in your life?
I have obviously thought about this a lot. I have come to point to a couple things in my
life that contributed to this. I guess first my relationship with my parents, the poor one I
share with my father and the overbearing nature of my mother’s personality, kind of
made me associate myself more with her than my dad. I was always sensitive as a child,
like creative things like singing and dancing and didn’t really understand what it meant to
be a man because I didn’t like sports or rough-housing. When I was in elementary school
I always hung out with the girls because I enjoyed the things they did. I guess this led to
a general sense to me that I was “different” from boys, in fact I was often violently
opposed to “boy” things. On top of that, the spiritual mentor figure who I mentioned
before that severely hurt me, was a big catalyst in the whole thing. He seriously ruined
my ability to relate with older males or open myself up to anyone. Right after that is
when I started looking at pictures of underwear models online. They were fit and
masculine, I had poor body image and a real need to be loved by other guys. My
moments of greatest weakness center around that, the desperate need to feel loved by
other men because I don’t feel loved.
How would you characterize the church’s response to homosexuality in general?
Poor to say the least. On a broad scale as a whole I grew up seeing the churches response
to the “gay agenda” as hate and judgment, which in many ways influenced the fact that I
spent my whole young life with this secret never telling one person, because I was afraid
that people would look at me different. The church says to the world that they will have
nothing to do with gay people, so how as a young Christian struggling with same sex
attraction could I tell anyone that I might be “gay?” I think there are two major ways in
which the church wrongly addresses the issue. First they say to non-Christian
homosexuals that they must first cease to sin and leave the lifestyle before they can be
saved. That is just absurd! Do we tell habitual liars or alcoholics that they have to stop
lying or stop drinking everyday before they can except Christ into their life? Second to
Christians the church has made homosexuality taboo. We don’t hear about our brothers
and sisters who struggle with it, we don’t hear stories of God’s grace in people’s lives, in
fact we don’t hear anything! Apparently Christians don’t struggle with homosexuality, at
least that’s what one would think with the way that they speak about homosexuality.
What have been the effects of the church’s stance on SSA in your own life?
Well like I said I never told anyone until I came to college that I struggled with same sex
attraction, and that was only after two years at Biola that I finally shared with someone,
and even then it was one of the hardest things I have ever done in my life. I also had a lot
of shame in my life when I was younger. I thought I was the only Christian to struggle
with this, and because of that I spent all of high school leading what I saw as a double
life, trying to fit in by being a “man” and at night fantasizing about being with men.

39
 Kyle Shanebeck

Who have you told about this part of your life?

I finally told a bible professor I really respect about it at the end of my sophomore year. I
couldn’t even say it, I had to write out my whole life story just to say it. But after that it
began to get easier and I have told other friends, most of whom are girls. That is what is
even harder to do, tell guy friends. Even though I know that they will love me even if I
told them, I am so afraid that our relationships will never be the same, that there will be
something weird in our friendship. I so desperately need my friends to just love me as a
fellow man I can’t risk losing those friendships.
Do you think you will ever be free from SSA?
I don’t know, part of me says no but the other part of me desperately wishes that it would
happen one day.
Do you think you will ever get married?
I hope with all my heart that one day I will meet a godly woman who is loving and
compassionate enough to hear my story and love me even more. It is a hope I don’t hold
to without the understanding that it may never happen, but still I sometimes imagine what
she may be like.
Is there anything you wish you could say to your fellow biola students?
Love, love, love. Love is what changes lives and breaks down the walls of pain and
shame. To the men of Biola, I can only hope that they love each other genuinely without
that suedo-gay joking that seems to be the only way they can express affection for one
another. They need to learn to love one another openly, telling each other that they love
one another because there are so many guys on this campus who desperately want love
and affirmation from their peers but they think they can’t get it because it would be
“gay.” How ironic is it that it is exactly the lack of open affection and love from other
men that makes men become “gay” to find that love they need.
To the church concerning how they treat the outside world: no matter how wrong
homosexuality may be, we will never save souls by condemning gays and lesbians from
the other side of the fence. Jesus ate with the tax collectors and prostitutes, and what a
radically different message we would send about our savior if we did something as
simple as make friends with homosexuals and eat with them in their houses?
I think that’s pretty much it.

40
 Kyle Shanebeck

V. Integrative Theology: A Call to Action

In looking at the collective revelation both special and general on this topic

(which is admittedly limited), it is essential to pause and conclude with a clear picture of

the ultimate theological truth behind the questions posed by homosexuality. The author

here regrets to say that he does not have all the answers. The bible only briefly and

limitedly addresses the topic of homosexuality (often in a context where it is not even the

centeral argument or topic), and general revelation is fraught with politics, prejudice, and

assumptions. It then seems a daunting task to create a relevant and truthful theological

conclusion. However, even amidst the maelstrom of opinion there is still the glimmer of

truth. In this section the author seeks to compare and contrast general and special

revelation on the topic, present a synthesized theology of homosexuality, and conclude

with a call to the church for action.

Summary of General and Special Revelation

It is difficult to come to a place of agreement today between the bible and

academia, and the discussion of this topic is no different. From the scriptures that

address homosexuality (either directly or indirectly) it can be concluded that

homosexuality is a sin, and deplorable in the eyes of God. In a increasingly relativistic

culture, one can conclude from the current academic literature on the topic that

homosexuality is perfectly natural (in fact biological demanded) and should be excepted

41
 Kyle Shanebeck

by all as a normal alternative to heterosexuality. However there are still some points of

complement between what we can read from special revelation and what researches have

found through general revelation.

As the bible clearly lists homosexuality as one of many sins that are deplorable to

God, it follows that from a biblical perspective homosexuality was not biologically

intended by God from creation and therefore would have no biological factor of

determination. As so far as science research proves, general revelation seems to unable

to reveal biological factors that would suggest that homosexuality is anything more than

psychological in nature. In Romans 1 it should be noted that Paul states God “gave them

over to shameful lusts,” from whence they began to act on homosexual desires (a direct

result of their idolatry).44 It may be construed then that there is some aspect of pre-

existing desire on which these men and women acted, to which the Lord gave them over

to, ruled by their lusts.

The second place of complement between special and general revelation comes

from the same passage in Romans, where Paul expands on the attitudes which led to

God’s handing over of these men and women to homosexuality. Paul starts this section

out by claiming that man lives without excuse when it comes to the believing of the

existence of God, “his invisible qualities” have been seen and understood.45 Man knew

but he did not believe and as a result his heart was darkened, and so he turned to worship

created things rather then the creator and was therefore given over to homosexual lust.

As seen from the previous research into general revelation on the topic, it can be

concluded that early childhood psychological development has a great deal to do with the

44
Romans 1:24, New International Version
45
Romans 1:18, New International Version

42
 Kyle Shanebeck

experience of same sex attraction in someone’s life.46 The need for love from the same

sex (especially the need of love from a child’s father) has then replaced the experience of

being loved by our heavenly Father. A child’s deep psychological need for earthly love

becomes a love of earthly things until the need for those earthly things becomes that

person’s idol, and they worship their need for father’s love. It is then that the Lord gives

them over to their lusts, and they “exchange natural relations for unnatural ones” and

become inflamed with lust for one another.”47 Idolatry is when a good thing becomes an

absolute thing. In the case of homosexuality, the good desire to be loved and affirmed by

one’s father or other same-sex father figures becomes an absolute need to be loved by

any member of one’s gender.

Lastly, general and special revelation agree when it comes to the denial of the

physical normalcy of homosexual intercourse. Romans 1 states that it is a “unnatural”

form of sexual relationship, which is supported by the study of the human body. While

mutual masturbation and oral sex present little danger (physically) to consenting partners,

anal sex has many adverse side effects. Aside from the possibilities of hemorrhoids,

infection, anal cancer, anal fissures and prolapsed rectum (where the rectal walls lose

their hold in the anal cavity and push out of the body), the main and widespread effect of

continual anal intercourse is anal incontinence which affects 7 out of every 20 men who

participate in recurring anal intercourse.48 General revelation on this topic then agrees

that habitual anal as apposed to vaginal sex presents is “unnatural” in that the human anus

is not designed to receive frequent penile penetration.

46
Hanson, Graeme M.D., Lawrence Hartmann M.D. “Latency Development in PreHomosexual Boys.” In
the Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health, ed. Robert P. Cabaj, M.D., and Terry S Stein, M.D.
(American Pschyiatric Press, Washington D.C., 1996) 253-267.
47
Romans 1:26-27, New International Version
48
Miles, A. J., T. G. Allen-Mersh, and C. Wastell. "Effect of anoreceptive intercourse on anorectal
function." (Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 86.3, 1993): 144-47

43
 Kyle Shanebeck

While in very general ways special revelation agrees with the academic discovery

of general revelation, there are certain points of conflict which must be noted. The few

passages available from the bible on homosexuality focus solely on the statement that

homosexuality is a sin. However the bible gives little information about the development

of sexual orientation, about the causes of same sex attraction, or how the church should

address those who claim homosexuality is natural and acceptable. The bible says

homosexuality is a sin, yet there seem to be men and women who are or believe to be

sexually orientated toward members of their same sex and have always been. If this is an

“unnatural lust” then why are people attracted to members of their own sex outside of

their conscious control?49 The argument goes on as it is continually claimed that

homosexuals have long lasting, monogamous, happy relationships, which seems to

conflict with the continued biblical perspective of homosexuality as a perverse sexual

alternative which centers around promiscuity.

These apparent inconsistencies however are merely inconsistencies that are

predicated by contemporary western culture. The bible does not state that homosexuality

is a sin only when it is promiscuous, it merely states that lying with a man as if with a

women is “detestable,”50 that “homosexual offenders” will not inherit the kingdom,51 and

that the law was made not for the righteous but the unrighteous including homosexuals.52

No where in these passages is there any reference made to promiscuity as a contributing

factor in the sinfulness of homosexuality, it is merely the act of lying with another man

(in a sexual sense) that is detestable to the Lord. Also while it may be true that same sex
49
Drescher, Jack M.D. “Psychoanalytic Subjectivity and Male Homosexuality.” In the Textbook of
Homosexuality and Mental Health, ed. Robert P. Cabaj, M.D., and Terry S Stein, M.D. (American
Pschyiatric Press, Washington D.C. 1996) 174.
50
Leviticus 18:22, New International Version
51
I Corinthians 6:9, New International Version
52
I Timothy 1:9-10, New International Version

44
 Kyle Shanebeck

attraction is an unconscious result of early psychological development, it must be

remembered that so are many other sins. In fact we are all natural inclined to sin because

of the fall of Adam, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death

through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.”53 Even if men

and women are unconsciously predisposed to the sin of homosexuality they are still held

accountable to their sin just as a person who is predisposed to alcohol or to murder.

Homosexuality is no different than any other sin then. Sin to which all of mankind is (in

a way) genetically predisposed.

The Theology of Homosexuality

Homosexuality is defined in biblical terms as the abandonment of natural physical

relations with members of the opposite sex for the consummation of unnatural lusts with

members of the same sex. Outlined in both the Old Testament law and New Testament

demands of righteousness, homosexuality (that is same sex relational/physical intimacy)

is unequivocally and unarguably sinful. At the core of the sin lies the rejection of the

knowledge of God and the obvious presentation of his invisible qualities as creator, this

includes the abandonment of his gracious provision as God and Father to worship the

needs and desires of the sinful flesh (rooted most deeply in a child’s need for love from

members of the same sex, transmitted psychologically into a developed sexual identity

which involves a desire for physical and emotional intimacy with other men/women).

The experience of same sex attraction is not a choice of the individual, however the

immersion of one’s self into the physical/emotional consummation of these lusts as well

as the acceptance of homosexuality as an inherent part of one’s sexual identity is.

53
Romans 5:12, New International Version

45
 Kyle Shanebeck

Like all other sins, homosexuality is a result of the fall and will continue to be a

prevalent issue in society until the return of Christ. It is not merely a sexual perversion,

but the result of deep felt needs to be loved and accepted by others. Through faith and

trust in the provision and saving grace of Christ a person may be set free from the binding

desires of same sex attraction. However while we still live in imperfect bodies the sins of

the flesh will continue to haunt us, and no one is free from this reality. Though, through

the recognition of the deeper needs that homosexual desire represents, a person may

come to a realization that they do not actually desire to be sexually intimate with other

men/women, but to experience true love and acceptance from members of their sex.

In light of the culture we live in, it must be understood that while contemporary

culture is right in their prevention of discrimination against practicing homosexuals in

society, their assumption that homosexuality is biologically mandated and therefore

acceptable is false. Practicing homosexuals are no different however from any other non-

Christian, and should not be marginalized by Christians. Views concerning gay

marriage, adoption, and civil rights must all be interpreted through the filter of

understanding that homosexuality is not a choice nor is it biologically determined, but is

the result of deed psychological needs. Interactions with practicing homosexuals should

result in reactions of loved and acceptance, not for their sinful lifestyles, but for their

humanity and the recognition that we are all depraved and need to be loved.

Call to Action

The world is bruised and broken, yet three good things remain, “Faith, hope, and

love. But the greatest of these is love.”54 We look foreword to that day when we will see

no longer as in a poor reflection, but face to face, finally knowing fully what we know
54
I Corinthians 13:13, New International Version

46
 Kyle Shanebeck

only partially now. Until that day however we must not continue to see through the eyes

and pattern of this world, but renew our hearts and minds to see our world through the

filter of Christ.55 As citizens of a nation that continually denies the existence of a

problem (broken homes resulting in poor father figures, cultural gender identity

constraints and child abuse) and instead emphasizes the treatment of its victims (rights

for gays) there a few things we can do as members of society and as the body of Christ.

If we want to impact those around us and create communities which protect the

development of children there are some steps that need to be taken. First we as

Christians have the responsibility to care for the orphans of our communities. Just

because a child still has living parents, doesn’t necessarily mean they are not an orphan.

Broken homes and broken marriages can be just as psychologically damaging to children

as death. We need to step up and be those father and mother figures in children’s lives,

welcoming them into our homes so that they feel they have somewhere safe to be, where

they can be truly known and loved. Second we as a community of believers in our

society should emphasize good gender identity. We need to be people who affirm

children in their gender, encouraging them to hold firmly to and identify themselves with

members of their same sex. This also means we need to hold the boundaries of what are

“girly” activities and what are “manly” activities more loosely, encouraging children of

dissimilar emotional temperaments to do what they love (even if it is poetry, theatre, and

ballet, or rough-housing, hiking, and sports), at the same time affirming that they are a

boy dancer or a girl football player and that that is perfectly acceptable! Thus we may

change a culture that marginalizes softer tempered men and stronger-willed women into

categories of being “feminine” and overly “masculine,” and instead affirm that a man can
55
Romans 12:2, New International Version

47
 Kyle Shanebeck

be masculine while kind and quiet, and a women can be feminine while strong-willed and

driven.

Aside from our responsibilities as members of society, there are many aspects of

this topic in which the Church has failed. In the author’s process of conversing with

many different members of the gay community as well as the Christian community, it

became clear that the main message that the church has sent to society (on both sides) is

simple: “God hates fags.” While our doctrine and facades proclaim we love the sinner

but hate the sin, our actions have only shown we hate both. Christian discussion

concerning homosexuality focuses on the “attack on marriage,” the dangers of gay

adoption, and the growing prevalence and acceptance of homosexuality in America. Yet

how often do Churches interact with the gay community to express their love of the

sinner? Unfortunately the answer is little or never. Therefore the conversation has

become merely political, and the supposed love of the church inconsequential.

The author must admit that he does not directly rebuke the church for their stance

on gay marriage, or having serious concerns and questions about gay adoption, or being

generally upset about the mainstream acceptance of homosexuality in America.

However, he would question if these topics are the greatest problems in our society that

need to be addressed. He believes that the first major issue in the church that needs to be

changed is how we interact with the “secular” world. In recent years there has been a

kind of retreat by Christians from society and culture, creating a “Christian” subculture.

This subculture is an entire infrastructure in the free market within itself, which has

become the major representation of what it means to be a Christian in modern America.

Because of this many people across the nation now identify Christians with right-wing

48
 Kyle Shanebeck

conservative Republicans that stand for the bible and the discrimination of marginalized

minorities. Therefore when Christians are the major aggressors in the anti-gay marriage

movement, it can only be expected that liberals would assume that Christians hate gays.

The second way that the Church needs to change the way it does things is in our

view of sin. Some sins are acceptable (at least understandable) because they are

“normal” sins and Christians are still imperfect, however other sins (such as

homosexuality) are inexcusable because they are somehow more grievous. Therefore it

has become culturally acceptable in the church to confess to these simple sins like lying,

or cheating, or pride, or gossip because “everyone deals with those” but “uncommon”

sins like homosexuality have become taboo. If we cannot talk about difficult sins like

homosexuality though, how will people ever find the freedom or love they so desperately

need? It is all fine and good to have small groups for men to share with one another, but

not all men struggle with pornography (well at least not heterosexual pornography) and if

we as a church do not encourage authenticity and acceptance no matter what the sin, how

will people ever feel comfortable sharing their darkest sins?

This aversion to sharing about difficult sins like homosexuality ties in to the last

change that is needed in the church. The common rebuttal from the church against the

pro-gay movement in America (which claims that homosexuality is biologically

determined) has been that homosexuality is a choice. While it may be true that we all

choose to act on our sinful natures, and that we are held accountable for our own actions,

who are we to hold gays to a holiness of which they do not know or understand? Same

sex attraction is not a choice! For hundreds of men and women who experience same sex

attraction in a culture that tells them it is biologically natural, they can be expected to do

49
 Kyle Shanebeck

nothing else but believe that they were born that way. We as a church are hold a double

standard for gays we speak about the grace and freedom of Christ from one side of our

mouth, while we condemn the sinner from the other. This poor relationship with society

as a whole has bled into the body of Christ as well. By the denial of the psychological

and emotional implications of same sex attraction, we have effectively silenced those

young people in our church who struggle with this, cutting off members of our own body

from the love and affirmation they need because of our near-sightedness. We have so

vilified homosexuality that “heterosexual” men cannot even show each other love any

more, which ironically forces them to make affection and expressions of love a joke by

acting “gay.” But that love in the façade of humor cannot ever be truly felt or believed

and so even “heterosexual” men do not feel loved by one another. And so by our

rejection and vilification of homosexuality, we give it a foothold in the church.

To combat this we need to become more open in our discussions of

homosexuality. We need to talk about how same sex attraction is a result of heart issues,

of pain and young people from early childhood. We need to have more opportunities

available for students to seek help and love, programs where we encourage genuine same

sex friendships that foster tangible love and acceptance. And most importantly we need

to be the love of the father to our brothers and sisters, who did not experience the love of

a father or mother in their life. With mentorship, genuine friendships, and open

discussion about homosexuality we can win back this foothold from Satan in the church.

Christ said the greatest commandment we are to follow is simple: to love the Lord

our God with all our heart, soul, and strength, and “the second is this: 'Love your

neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.”56 If we as a church

56
Mark 12:29-31, New International Version

50
 Kyle Shanebeck

do not love homosexuals first, then we have no place at all to have discussions about gay

marriage. If we are not reaching out and spreading the good news of our gospel of love

and acceptance in the homes of homosexual couples, then we should not be fighting over

political stances about gay adoption. If we are not loving our neighbors and expressing

the ardent love of Christ for sinners (for as Jesus said: “It is not the healthy who need a

doctor, but the sick”)57 then we have no right to have any political stance in society. It

seems so simple and yet so profound, but we have forgotten what we are here to do: for

God so “loved the world,” but the greatest of these is “love,” “this is my command: love

each other,” for Christ’s “love compels us,” “serve one another in love,” be imitators of

God “dearly loved children,” be encouraged in heart and “united in love,” keep the

pattern of sound teaching with “faith and love” in Christ Jesus…58 Love, and the grace of

Christ will surpass all other things.

57
Matthew 9:12, New International Version
58
John 3:16, Mark 12:29-31, John 15:17, II Corinthians 5:14., Galatians 5:13, Ephesians 5:1, Colossians
2:2, New International Version

51
 Kyle Shanebeck

VI. Works Cited

1. Bos, Henny M. W., Theo G.M. Sandfort, Eddy H. de Bruyn, Esther M. Hakvoort.
“Same-Sex Attraction, Social Relationships, Psychosocial Functioning, and
School Performance in Early Adolescence.” Developmental Psychology, 44
(the American Psychological Association, 2008): 59-69

2. Buccino, Daniel. “Homosexuality and Psychosis in the Clinic.” In

Homosexuality and Psychoanalysis, ed. Tim Dean and Christopher Lane,
265-287. The University of Chicago Press, 2001.

3. Dallas, Joe. The Gay Gospel? Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2007. Print.

4. Drescher, Jack M.D. “Psychoanalytic Subjectivity and Male Homosexuality.” In

the Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health, ed. Robert P. Cabaj,
M.D., and Terry S Stein, M.D. 173-189. American Pschyiatric Press,
Washington D.C., 1996.

5. DuPree, Michael G., Brian S. Mustanski, Sven Bocklandt, Caroline Nievergelt,

Dean H. Hamer. “A Candidate Gene Study of CYP19 (Aromatase) and
Male Sexual Orientation.” Behavior Genetics 34, (May 2004) 241-251.

6. Fox, F. E., and David W. Virtue. Homosexuality: Good and Right in the Eyes of
God? Lightening Source, Inc., 2002. Print.

7. Hamner, Dean H., Simon LeVay. “Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male
Homosexuality.” Scientific American (May 1994): 43-55

8. Hanson, Graeme M.D., Lawrence Hartmann M.D. “Latency Development in

PreHomosexual Boys.” In the Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental
Health, ed. Robert P. Cabaj, M.D., and Terry S Stein, M.D. 253-267.
American Pschyiatric Press, Washington D.C., 1996.

9. Helminiak, Ph.D., Daniel A. What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality.
New Mexico: Alamo Square, 2000. Print.

10. Kirk, K.M., J.M. Bailey, N.G. Martin. “Etiology of Male Sexual Orientation in
an Australian Twin Sample.” Psychology, Evolution, and Gender 2.3
(December 2000), 300-311.

11. Miles, A. J., T. G. Allen-Mersh, and C. Wastell. "Effect of anoreceptive

intercourse on anorectal function." Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
86.3 (1993): 144-47. Print.

52
 Kyle Shanebeck

12. Rogers, Jack. Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 2006. Print.

13. Stein, Edward. “The Emerging Scientific Program for the Study of Sexual
Orientation.” In The Mismeasure of Desire. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1999

14. Swartley, Willard D. Homosexuality, Biblical Interpretation and Moral

Discernment. Scottdale, PA: Herald, 2003. Print.

15. West, Donald J. “Supposed Origins of Homosexuality.” In Sociological Control

of Homosexuality, A Multi-Nation Comparison, ed. Richard Green, 313-327.
New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.

16. Yarhouse, Mark A. “Sexual Identity Development: The Effects of Valuative

Frameworks on Identity Synthesis.” Psychotherapy, 38 (Fall 2001): 331-
342.

53