I am excited that there are still churches that will stand up for Social Justice.

I recommend that those on either side of this issue read it — including the footnotes.

I would further urge you to recognize that bigotry doesn’t always emanate from the “usual suspects.” Case in point: you earlier suggested that an immensely qualified, brilliant scientist — and someone you clearly had no knowledge of — was a purveyor of junk science and an accessory to bigotry. It’s clear that your opinion was based not on fact but on preconceived notions. I think that fits the definition of bigotry (a prejudging intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own).

I thought this was a place where all views could be discussed. I was mistaken. I shall look elsewhere.

He is Distinguished Visiting Professor of Science and Mathematics at The King’s College, New York City and a Visiting Scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich. He also teaches at the C. G. Jung Institute in Zürich. He was the youngest person ever to have delivered the William James Lectures at Harvard. He has written widely on subjects such as narcissism, religious history, cryptology, psychoanalysis, Jungian psychology, complex systems theory, physics and finance.

Satinover was born in Chicago, Illinois, USA, September 4, 1947 to Joseph and Sena Satinover. He demonstrated an early interest in physics and for a time visited and corresponded with the Caltech physicist Richard Feynman.

Satinover won a National Merit Scholarship to M.I.T. He subsequently obtained his B.S. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an Ed.M. in Clinical Psychology and Public Practice from Harvard University, and his M.D. at the University of Texas and later an M.S. in physics at Yale University. He completed psychoanalytic training at the C. G. Jung Institute of Zürich, their youngest-ever graduate. In 2008 he completed a Ph.D. in physics (summa cum laude) at the University of Nice, France.

Satinover is a former state flight surgeon having served in the 1/169th combat-support helicopter battalion of the Connecticut Army National Guard, and Army Reserve Psychiatrist (rank of major). He practiced clinical psychiatry between 1986 and 2003, and psychoanalysis between 1976 and 2003, early in his career as a Jungian analyst, having trained at the C. G. Jung Institute in Zurich.

In 1974 Satinover was the William James Lecturer in Psychology and Religion at Harvard University. He is a past-President of the C. G. Jung Foundation of New York. He is a former fellow (resident) in psychiatry and child Psychiatry at Yale where he was twice awarded the department of psychiatry’s Seymour Lustman Residency Research Prize (2nd place). After twenty-five years in the medical and psychotherapeutic arena, he returned to school.

You are citing a “doctor” from NARTH? Wow. That explains a lot.

You use junk science to justify your bigotry. I have lost all respect for you and any “expertise” cited on this website. Thank you for opening my eyes.

[Editor's note: Just for clarification, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover (a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and physicist) isn't employed by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). He is the author of a paper published by NARTH, and he has served on the organization's Scientific Advisory Committee.

Dr. Satinover earned a his undergraduate degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He holds an Ed.M. in Clinical Psychology and Public Practice from Harvard University, an M.D. from the University of Texas, and an M.S. in physics from Yale University. He earned his Ph.D. in physics from the the University of Nice—Sophia Antipolis (France).

For those unfamiliar with NARTH, the group's mission statement is shown below. NARTH's web site is NARTH.com.]

Mission statement of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality:

We respect the right of all individuals to choose their own destiny. NARTH is a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality. As an organization, we disseminate educational information, conduct and collect scientific research, promote effective therapeutic treatment, and provide referrals to those who seek our assistance.

NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care and the right of professionals to offer that care. We welcome the participation of all individuals who will join us in the pursuit of these goals.

In a great example of this one of the key researchers responsible for removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in the 70s suggested, only recently, that sexual orientation could possibly change in select individuals.

With respect to homosexuality, to what extent it is the result of nature vs. nurture is unknown and will likely remain that way for the foreseeable future. Those who speak otherwise are speaking from ignorance.

Those people, Christian and otherwise, who oppose marriage redefinition are not necessarily desiring to persecute homosexuals or anyone else. In fact, they can, if they choose, use science to undergird their positions every bit as much as their opponents by citing numerous studies indicating that children do much better when brought up by married heterosexuals. But the end-all be-all in this area should not be some “study.” Common sense and traditional moral understandings should play a role.

I maintain that proper use of science will, more often than not, UNDERGIRD rather than undermine traditional moral understandings of what works best for the family and, as a consequence, for the culture.

We spend a lot of time using the Bible to tell other people they are not good enough to come to God as they are.

Perhaps science has no place in your beliefs, but it does in mine. This is the world that God created, and when I learn more about it, sometimes the things that I thought were clear no longer are. The American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973, and yet there are those among us who insist on fixing what is not broken.

Is it the word “sex”? Seems to me that God gave us that, too, but we sure are uptight about it.

My brother is gay, and I would not change a thing about him. I don’t think God would, either. He has been blessed to find love. Would you take that away from him?

Each of us should spend more time worrying about our own sins and let others worry about theirs.

[Editor's note: For a detailed analysis of the American Psychological Association's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, see the 2006 paper, "The 'Trojan Couch': How the Mental Health Associations Misrepresent Science" (PDF) by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a publication of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

The United Methodist Church calls people to "responsible stewardship" of the "sacred gift" of human sexuality. "Although all persons are sexual beings whether or not they are married, sexual relations are affirmed only with the covenant of monogamous, heterosexual marriage" (¶161F, Book of Discipline—2008).

Further, the UMC "deplore[s] all forms of the commercialization, abuse, and exploitation of sex” and “call[s] for strict global enforcement of laws prohibiting the sexual exploitation of children and for adequate protection, guidance, and counseling for abused children.”]

The self-styled sexual illuminati who called the marriage certificate “just a piece of paper” 30 or 40 years ago (the social carnage is now apparent) are the same ones currently hailing marriage as a necessity for homosexuals and possibly others, including those who practice polyamory. They should should have no credibility among thinking people.

One cannot justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. You don’t clean up a mess with the same strategy that created it.

Partly because of increasing number of divorced persons, many churches offer special ministry to them, but that doesn’t mean the church endorses divorce any more than it endorses homosexual behavior.

We are all sinful persons in need of God’s forgiveness. We cannot lessen sin by repackaging it in a more palatable wrapper. We only fool ourselves by doing so.

Matthew 5:31-32 seems to be overlooked in most discussions of sexual morality. Divorce is more rampant and less discussed (so as not to offend pew sitters) yet is widely accepted. Homosexuality is vilified.

Pull the log out before attacking the cinders.

[Editor's note: Like other Christian communions, the United Methodist Church has struggled to respond to the growing incidence of divorce, both in society at large as well as within the church. Still, the UMC has not wavered from the view that "God's plan is for lifelong, faithful marriage" (¶161C, Book of Discipline—2008).

The Book of Discipline further calls on the church to "be on the forefront of premarital, marital, and post marital counseling in order to create and preserve strong marriages."

The Discipline characterizes "divorce is a regrettable alternative in the midst of brokenness," noting that it brings about "devastating emotional, spiritual, and economic consequences."

In light of these consequences, the Discipline "encourage[s] an intentional commitment of the Church and society to minister compassionately to those in the process of divorce, as well as members of divorced and remarried families, in a community of faith where God’s grace is shared by all.”]

If we believe that all Scripture is God-breathed, we cannot pick and choose according to our own inclinations. The role of Scripture is to convict us; without it, we have no way of discerning truth. And truth is more important than human feelings or offenses. And this is love.

If I tell someone he or she is wrong about something, why is this interpreted as hating that person? (I have been told I am wrong out of love.) It is love for God and his truth that motivates us. Anything else is selfishness.

The homosexual agenda is to have everyone to agree that homosexuality is a gift from God. But the Bible is clear on this matter. It does not take a Bible scholar to understand what the Bible teaches. Any 4th grader can understand it. I pray that all Christians will be on the alert and be armed with the Word of God because a battle is on the horizon.

I suspect that the Apostle Paul (who also wrote the “love chapter” in 1 Corinthians) would never be invited as a guest speaker to a church that supports the homosexual agenda.

I do not study the Bible for a living, but it seems that even those who do cannot agree on much of what is debated here. But a few points ring false to this layperson. I cite Elizabeth Moreau:

“If we take seriously the notion of human sin, then we finally cannot allow human knowledge and experience to judge divine revelation; rather, divine revelation judges human knowledge and experience. The role of Scripture is to take human experiences of sin, darkness, and death, and through the light of revelation, bring human beings to the fullness of life in Jesus Christ….”

Really? I was not aware that the Methodist Church was a fundamentalist organization to the point that “human knowledge and experience” have no place in scriptural interpretation. I wasn’t aware that the Methodist Church believes that Moses closed his eyes while God guided his pen, and that his cultural upbringing and personal views on life and the world had no influence whatsoever on his writing.

How long did it take the Methodist church to stop using “divine revelation” as an excuse to view interracial marriage as morally wrong or unnatural? With this attitude, no wonder it took Christians so long to realize that the earth really does revolve around the sun, or that the world is round and not flat.

“In short, changing The United Methodist Church’s position on homosexuality is like pulling a thread, which then unravels the whole fabric….”

Oh, here we go with the thinly veiled “culture of death” reference that the Catholic Church uses. It is not the church’s job to fix people who don’t ask to be fixed. It is not the church’s job to judge who is truly broken. What our neighbor does is his business, and should not threaten who we are, unless our faith is so fragile that it cannot withstand a “moral challenge.” God gave us free will, but it seems that the Church wants to employ a “we know what’s good for you” attitude.

How many gays have been irreparably harmed by the Church’s attempts to fix what is not broken?

The Methodist Church’s stance that same-sex marriage is unholy and not good enough, and that openly gay people should not be church leaders is archaic. The excuse that an attitude has been unchanged for thousands of years is no reason not to constantly reexamine and question it.

[Editors note: For a thoroughgoing discussion of biblical teaching as it relates to sexual relations between persons of the same sex, see chapter 16 of Dr. Richard B. Hays 1996 book, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, available in part here via Google Books.

Regarding the authority of the Scriptures, the United Methodist Book of Discipline (Article IV, The Confession of Faith) states: "We believe the Holy Bible, Old and New Testaments, reveals the Word of God so far as it is necessary for our salvation. It is to be received through the Holy Spirit as the true rule and guide for faith and practice." Further, the Discipline states, with respect to the Old Testament law, that "no Christian...is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral."]

No, we don’t worship the Bible, but the Christian faith views the Bible as inspired by God and thus authoritative. When you leave that foundational tenet you stray into, as my GPS would say, “unverified territory.” In essence you are remaking the faith. We are not permitted to do that, and, even if we were, I don’t think we’ve suddenly become enlightened about the issue of homosexuality. It’s arrogant to think otherwise. It’s also arrogant for those on the other side of this issue to view homosexual behavior as somehow deserving of special condemnation as compared to other sins.

But let me address the comments of Taylor more specifically. With respect to the statement from Billy Abraham, Taylor argues that the cited statement from Abraham is based on a false premise. Actually, if you want to use the purely logical approach that Taylor seems to be advocating, that particular assertion from Taylor is based on a false premise.

If we are to be consistent in following Taylor’s reasoning, the most objective thing we can say about Dr. Abraham’s statement, assuming we don’t have other data to either support or discredit it, is that we don’t know for sure if it’s based on a false premise. In other words, we violate Taylor’s own rules of logic if we buy his deterministic conclusion about the Abraham premise. So, Taylor is swimming in the same water as Dr. Abraham while claiming to be in the boat.

Now, once we wade into relevant data we encounter many variables and we get more into the area of opinion, but I think Dr. Abraham’s premise is much more supportable than discreditable. As proof I would offer not only the clear teaching of Scripture but also the numerous other articles that have been referenced on this website.

Taylor also says, “It is simply not necessarily the case that a reconsideration of the church’s current teaching, even when backed by significant biblical witness, equals actually always a repudiation of divine revelation.” If I’m not mistaken I believe the divine revelation to which Dr. Abraham refers is the Bible. If that’s the case then Taylor’s comment could be re-written thusly: “It is simply not necessarily the case that a reconsideration of the church’s current teaching, even when backed by significant divine revelation, equals actually always a repudiation of divine revelation.” The statement appears contradictory from a logical standpoint. (Taylor may once again be out-backstroking Abraham.)

If Taylor wants to hold that we have somehow reached enlightenment “in some more significant way” with respect to understanding Biblical divine revelation regarding homosexuality, then I would respectfully re-assert that such a view is not only unsupported but arrogant (though he may not consciously intend it that way).

Taylor further references the “binding and loosing” that, according to him, the church has “regularly exercised in matters of doctrine and practice.” While there may have been numerous changes in practice (though I would dispute use of the modifier “regularly”), I would argue that in matters of doctrine the church has been quite consistent. And on the issue of homosexuality it has been exceptionally consistent, essentially speaking with one voice throughout antiquity.

In characterizing the argument as a “straw man,” Taylor goes on to assert that he is “unaware of any serious arguments proposing the “abandonment of the authoritative teaching of the Bible.” I just have to scratch my head at that statement. What provokes this whole discourse is the abandonment of the authoritative Biblical teaching with respect to homosexuality.

Taylor subsequently proposes that, even if one longstanding authoritative teaching were dismissed by current-day illuminati, that would not necessarily lead to the total repudiation of the entire Biblical witness. Maybe not, but it’s a good start.

David was confronted by Nathan about his sins of adultery & murder, and David repented.

Blessings & Hope,

Kevin

- Adulterous individual of great faith — David.

We are looking at this question from different perspectives, Jason. I do understand where you’re coming from. I can’t change my mind that true compassion comes from acceptance. I take comfort that we both love our God and this unites us.

Peace and grace.

For the record here, I am not arguing against the current teaching. I am rather saying that not all the ARGUMENTS for it may be as “airtight” as might be supposed. And I would further put that any arguments made, on either side, SHOULD be as sound and coherent as possible if they are to be worthy of consideration as part of the rationale of the church for so believing and so teaching.

This applies equally to both sides of the argument.

However, since this post presents no actual arguments from those not defending the current teaching, I will limit my comments here to the arguments actually presented.

And I will limit my comments further to just two pieces from two of the three arguments presented.

First, I note this part of the argument from Billy Abraham:

“…the rejection of divine revelation involves the unraveling of the fabric of faith and the radical undermining of the canonical commitments of The United Methodist Church.”

This statement may well be accurate in that it describes the sort of logic that some who defend the current teaching in doing so. But it is not a self-evidently logical or true statement or argument itself. First, its major premise is faulty. It is simply not necessarily the case that a reconsideration of the church’s current teaching, even when backed by significant biblical witness, equals actually always a repudiation of divine revelation. It could also rather entail a different understanding of how to interpret that revelation, and so come under the rubric of the kind of “binding and loosing” the church has regularly exercised in matters of doctrine and practice, an authority give to the church by Jesus himself and on evidence in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

In saying that, however, I am not making any sort of counter-proposal viz our current teaching. Rather, I am noting that the premise, as stated, seems to ignore significant actual instances where the church has changed its previous teaching while not understanding itself, in so doing, in fact to be repudiating divine teaching, but rather to be fulfilling it in some more significant way.

Also, what in this statement is an immediate move from “rejection of divine revelation” (if one were to grant that) to “unraveling of the fabric of the faith” seems to be missing at least several intermediary steps for the case that such a rejection actually equaled so dire an outcome to be made. Such steps might be present in other places, and might even be able to be offered in a way that sustains the conclusion. But I simply note they are not presented here. So in this case, this “argument” is flawed both in its premise and in its actual argumentation.

As a second instance, consider this statement by Elizabeth Moreau:

“If it is necessary to abandon the authoritative teaching of the Bible, then we have little to offer the homosexual community, and everyone else for that matter.”

Once again, the premise is suspect. It is a classic case of a “straw man.” I am unaware of any serious arguments proposing the “abandonment of the authoritative teaching of the Bible,” much less arguments that call for such a drastic action as a necessity.

But again, let us assume that the interlocutor being addressed had proposed, in all earnestness, that on this one point “the authoritative teaching of the Bible” MUST be abandoned for some considerably weighty reason. The conclusion that follows that premise still seems a rather far stretch from premise itself — unless, again, as in Dr. Abraham’s statement quoted above, quite a number of intermediary propositions also were being made and sustained. Is it the really case, on the face of it, logically speaking, that “abandoning” one teaching makes the whole of the Bible and the witness of those who have been guided by its counsel so diminished that we actually have “little else to say” to “the homosexual community” or “anyone else?” We are given no evidence in the argument itself to reach such a remarkable conclusion. Instead, as before, we have in these remarks a rhetorical escalation upon a faulty premise rather than a solid argument to defend our teaching.

The church needs and should expect better arguments than these — on whatever issues it faces.

Here’s hoping we get some!

[Editor's note: Mr. Burton-Edwards is the Director of Worship Resources for the UMC's General Board of Discipleship.

Those wishing to engage the fuller theological and historical arguments offered by Dr. Abraham, the Rev. Moreau, and the other authors featured in Staying the Course: Supporting the Church’s Position on Homosexuality, are encouraged to read their complete essays in the book.

As noted, the book is available for purchase via Cokesbury and Barnes & Noble. It can also be found in the 136 libraries listed here.]

Now my 2 cents…

I am tired. I am tired of this debate. But I am not going to quit. I agree with those who posted that the Biblical witness on the issue is clear. I also agree with the Book of Discipline‘s stance on the subject.

We are all in need of forgiveness and regeneration. It is a shame that focus is drawn away from the mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, by our constant debate over the issue of homosexuality. I appreciate the concern for for individuals demonstrated by people on the other side of this issue, but I agree with Jason, that true compassion for people should lead us to present them with the love of Jesus through the forgiveness of sin.

This is not about “social justice.” This is about the Church condoning and supporting sin in rebellion and opposition to what our God has spoken. How can we be for something that God is against?

It doesn’t take a biblical scholar to interpret 1 Corinthians 9:6-11. What about that text is unclear? The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Homosexuals are included in a short list of the unrighteous who will not inherit the kingdom. Paul then says that such were some of you. He says “were,” meaning that they no longer are because they have been “washed,” “justified,” and “sanctified.” This is very clear wording, is it not? What other interpretation can there be?

I absolutely deny that there are such people as “homosexual individuals of great faith.” How is this any different from saying:

- Murderous individuals of great faith
- Adulterous individuals of great faith
- Fornicating individuals of great faith
- Thieving individuals of great faith
- Idolatrous individuals of great faith?

If a person is living an unrepentant, sinful life, then their “faith” is no faith at all. It is a false faith. There can be no saving faith where there is no repentance.

I was saved two years ago and, by God’s grace, immediately dropped adultery, lust, and pornography (among many other sins) as though they were deadly diseases. I hate those things now and I haven’t gone back to them (thank GOD), but that doesn’t mean that I won’t fight against temptation for the rest of my life. The Holy Spirit has taken up residence within me and He helps me, keeps me, empowers me, teaches me, strengthens me, sanctifies me!

Yes, homosexual people are our neighbors who deserve our love, but they are in desperate need of God’s redemption and forgiveness. That forgiveness can only happen when they see homosexual behavior for what it really is: sin. Your view of love denies this reality to them and prevents them from true repentance, true faith and true salvation. Please rethink your position! You’re inhibiting the salvation of your friends and family and fighting against God.