Homosexuality, the Bible and the Church PDF Free Download
1 / 374/374
100%
Copyright © 2021 by National Council of Churches of Singapore
Published by National Council of Churches of Singapore
1 Coleman Street
B1-27 The Adelphi
Singapore 179803
Email: admin@nccs.org.sg
www.nccs.org.sg
Design & Layout by The Bible Society of Singapore
www.bible.org.sg
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the
copyright owner.
Scripture quotations marked (esv) are taken from The Holy Bible, English
Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good
News publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked (niv) are taken from The Holy Bible, New
International Version® NIV® Copyright© 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica,
Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked (nrsv) are taken from New Revised Standard
Version Bible, copyright © 1989 Division of Christian Education of the
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.
Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked (nasb 1995) are taken from the New American
Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1971, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman
Foundation. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Printed in Singapore
ISBN: 978-981-18-1556-0
Second Printing 2021 ∙ 0.5M
It has become increasingly difcult for Christians to speak biblically
about God’s will for human sexuality without provoking signicant
offence and opposition. And yet we must not neglect speaking
out on this important subject. The writers of Homosexuality, the
Bible and the Church have done an admirable job in addressing
this issue holistically, presenting their arguments reasonably
and convincingly while being pastorally sensitive to the struggles
of those who experience same-sex attraction. Many of us would
appreciate some wise counsel as we serve as God’s truth-bearers on
such a contentious issue, and this book offers it in no small measure.
I am condent that it will be a valuable resource for the Church in
Singapore and beyond, and I am pleased to commend it to you.
Rt Rev Dr Titus Chung
Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Singapore
President, National Council of Churches of Singapore
LGBTQ is one of the most contentious issues in society today,
even among Christians, simply because scriptures are diversely
interpreted. The authors of this book have sought to be faithful to
the scriptures, upholding the long-standing tradition of Christian
marriage as between a man and a woman. But this book goes beyond
scripture, theology and morality. It offers a pastoral approach in
reaching out to those in Same-Sex Relationships, especially those
who seek to be faithful to the gospel teaching of Christ. I applaud the
authors for their thorough, multi-faceted and objective exploration
of the subject, and the discussions which are presented with much
truthfulness, sincerity and charity. This book will benet those who
are unsure of the basis of Church teaching on Christian marriage
Endorsements
ENDORSEMENTS
and sexuality. It will reinforce their faith in Christian marriage as
taught in the bible and the Church’s tradition.
Archbishop William Goh
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Singapore
In a world where the tone and rhetoric used in our social media
dominated world is frequently rude and unkind, it is important to
read articles on important subjects that are expressed with clarity
and courteous civility. Homosexuality, the Bible and the Church is
a collection of such courteous and civil essays on an important topic
today which suffers from much misunderstanding and abuse. I am
happy to commend this NCCS publication for careful consideration
and Christ-like response.
Bishop Dr Gordon Wong
Bishop of the Methodist Church in Singapore
Vice-President, National Council of Churches of Singapore
Homosexuality, the Bible and the Church is a timely and welcomed
resource! Family and marriages are under tremendous assault—we
need to do all we can to enable these to thrive for the good of society.
This book anchors us in the key texts of the Scriptures, grounds
us in the larger frame of GOD’s design, engages current issues
competently and help us to frame loving response as individuals
and as a society. It will be very helpful for believers and those
seeking to make sense of the current conundrum. May it also give
us the courage to fully stand rm and truly love well!
Rev Dr Chua Chung Kai
Chairman, Evangelical Free Church of Singapore
Member, Executive Committee of NCCS
Sexual identity and same-sex attraction have become issues of
intense debate in society and the church today. Because they speak
to paramount matters such as civil rights, social justice, and even
the institution of marriage, these discussions often risk turning
heated and emotive. As Christians saved by the grace of God alone,
it is incumbent on us not to avoid these discussions but to engage
HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
them head-on. We do so mindful of our duty to search the Scriptures
to see if these things are so, and to heed the call to love Christ
and neighbour. To that end, this volume—containing essays on
hermeneutics and doctrine as well as invaluable reections and
accounts of pastors, lay leaders, and church workers who have
walked alongside members of their ocks who struggle with same-
sex attraction—serves as a welcome reference and guide down that
path.
Dr Joseph Liow
Tan Kah Kee Chair Professor in Comparative and International
Politics, Nanyang Technological University
Dean of College of Humanity, Arts, and Social Sciences, Nanyang
Technological University
Endorsements
CONTENTS
Writers’ Prole ix
Introduction
Rev Dr Keith Lai 1
PART 1: SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
1 Homosexuality and the Old Testament
Rev Dr Maggie Low 11
2 Homosexuality and the New Testament
Quek Tze-Ming 33
3 Homosexuality and the Christian Tradition
Dr Lai Pak Wah and Mr Quek Tze-Ming 51
PART 2: MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
4 Christian Understanding of Marriage and Family
Rev Dr Christopher Chia 73
5 Christian Critique of Same-Sex Marriage
Dr Leow Theng Huat 97
6 Same-Sex Parenting: A Matter of Orientation
Dr Eliza Lian-Ding 119
PART 3: CHASTITY AND SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP
7 Spiritual Friendship and Celibate Same-Sex Attracted
Christians
Dr Mark Chan 139
8 Chastity and the Christian Tradition
Dr Tan Loe Joo 159
PART 4: PASTORAL CARE AND OUTREACH
9 Homosexuality and Pastoral Care: Some Reections
Ian Toh and Jason Wong 181
10 Sharing the Gospel with those in Same-Sex Relationships
Rev Dr Edmund Fong 197
PART 5: SCIENCE, PUBLIC POLICY AND THE LAW
11 Born This Way? The Science and Politics of Sexuality
Dr Roland Chia 219
12 Homosexuality, Public Policy and the Law
Dominic Chan 243
PART 6: CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS
13 Christian Discipleship and Sexuality
Bishop Rennis Ponniah 263
Endnotes 279
Bibliography 351
WRITERS' PROFILE
Writers'
Rev Dr Keith Lai
Rev Dr Keith Lai Chee Kheong is the Synod Moderator of the
Presbyterian Church in Singapore for the term 2019-2021. He was
also elected as the President of National Council of Churches in
2020. He has been a Senior Pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church
since 1992 and previously served as an Operation Mobilization
(OM) missionary with LOGOS for four years. He is a graduate of
Singapore Bible College and Regent College in Vancouver. Rev Lai
is married to Mui Fong and they have two young adult sons.
Rev Dr Maggie Low
Rev Dr Maggie Low is an Old Testament lecturer in Trinity
Theological College since 2009. Formerly trained as a lawyer, she
is an ordained Presbyterian minister and has pastored a church for
eleven years.
Quek Tze-Ming
Quek Tze-Ming is the Director of Academic Planning, and Lecturer
in New Testament at the Biblical Graduate School of Theology.
After leaving legal practice, he obtained two Masters degrees
from Regent College, Vancouver, and is a PhD candidate in New
Testament Studies at the University of Cambridge. His special area
of studies is in the use of the Old Testament in the New. He serves
in the teaching ministry of Zion Bishan Bible-Presbyterian Church,
and maintains a lively interest in local food, football, and movies.
Dr Lai Pak Wah
Dr Lai Pak Wah is a Principal and Lecturer in Church History &
Historical Theology at Biblical Graduate School of Theology (BGST).
ix
A graduate from BGST (Grad Dip CS) & Regent College, Vancouver
(MCS, ThM), Dr Lai completed his PhD at Durham University,
where he specialised in Patristic Studies. He has publicised articles
and chapters on John Chrysostom’s preaching, soteriology and
Trinitarian doctrine. He is also author of The Dao of Healing:
Christian Perspectives of Chinese Medicine. Previously, Pak
Wah was a full-time lecturer at the School of Business, Singapore
Polytechnic, and was engaged in investment promotion work with
the Singapore Economic Development Board.
Rev Dr Christopher Chia
Christopher Chia is a Senior Pastor of Adam Road Presbyterian
Church. He worked in the media before becoming a pastor. He is
married to Mona and they have two children. He loves nature,
walks, music, movies, dogs and his wife—but not in that order.
Dr Leow Theng Huat
Dr Leow Theng Huat is a lecturer of theology at Trinity Theological
College. He obtained his M.Div. from Trinity Theological College and
his PhD from the University of St Andrews in the United Kingdom.
Theng Huat is a member and local preacher of Wesley Methodist
Church. His research interests include the role of paradox and
tension in Christian theology and the integration of the curriculum
for theological education.
Dr Eliza Lian-Ding
Dr Eliza Lian-Ding is a practising Counselling Psychologist trained
in the United States. She lectures at Trinity Theological College in
Marriage and Family and worships with her family at Covenant
Community Methodist Church.
Dr Mark Chan
Dr Mark Chan is Earnest Lau Professor of Systematic Theology
at Trinity Theological College. He teaches hermeneutics, homiletics
and other theological subjects at TTC. An alumnus of London
University and TTC, Mark did his graduate theological studies at
Fuller Theological Seminary and completed his PhD in philosophical
hermeneutics and Christology at the University of Nottingham.
x HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
xi
Dr Tan Loe Joo
Dr Tan Loe Joo is a lecturer in Systematic Theology and Historical
Theology at Trinity Theological College. He was previously a full-time
staff with the Fellowship of Evangelical Students (FES) in charge
of the NUS Campus Ministry, and a Senior Member of Technical
Staff (SMTS)/Project Manager of the Centre for Electronic Warfare
at DSO National Laboratories. His recent book, The Trinity and the
Religions: A Cappadocian Assessment of Gavin D’Costa’s Theology
of Religions is published by Fortress Academic/Lexington Books.
Ps Ian Toh
Ps Ian Toh is the founding pastor of 3:16 Church. His heart burns
ercely for the destiny of Singapore and her next generation. 3:16
started Truelove.is ministry. A ministry that seeks to resource
the church of SG on LGBT matters. The church seeks to be real,
relevant and ready in today’s world and in particular, that people
far from God may know what God’s family feels like.
Jason Wong
Jason Wong is known in Singapore to have initiated two national
movements, namely the Yellow Ribbon Project to help ex-offenders
reintegrate back to society, and the Dads for Life movement to turn
hearts of fathers to their children. Since leaving public service,
which he served for over 24 years, he has been volunteering with
organisations such as Focus on the Family and Centre for Fathering,
and mentoring fathers, LGBTs and the next generation.
Rev Dr Edmund Fong
Rev Dr Edmund Fong lectures in the areas of Systematic Theology,
Reformed Theology, Presbyterianism, and Hermeneutics at
Trinity Theological College. He is also an ordained minister of the
Presbyterian Church in Singapore, and continues to participate in
the pastoral and teaching ministries at Adam Road Presbyterian
Church. Edmund is married to Mei Ying, and God has blessed them
with three children—Phoebe, Chloe, and Jonathan. Besides reading,
Edmund enjoys running, cooking, eating and watching movies (not
necessarily in that order!)
Dr Roland Chia
Dr Roland Chia is Chew Hock Hin Professor of Christian Doctrine
at Trinity Theological College and Theological and Research
Advisor at the Ethos Institute for Public Christianity. Dr Chia has
published numerous articles and books including Revelation and
Theology: The Knowledge of God According to Balthasar and Barth
(1999), Hope for the World (2006) and Biomedical Ethics and the
Church: An Introduction (2010).
Dominic Chan
Dominic Chan (LLB, NUS; M.A., Augustine Institute, summa cum
laude) is a practising litigation lawyer with 14 years of experience,
and is also a lay theologian and a member of the Catholic Theology
Network. Using his training in law and theology, he has been
examining, researching and writing on contemporary moral issues
in Singapore.
Bishop Rennis Ponniah
The Rt Revd Rennis S. Ponniah was the ninth Bishop of the Diocese
of Singapore (The Anglican Church) from 2012 to 2020. Prior to
this, he served as Vicar of St John’s-St Margaret’s Church for
almost 20 years from 1993 to 2012. Bishop Rennis also served as
President of the National Council of Churches of Singapore from
2016-2018, and he was Chairperson of the Celebration of Hope
national evangelistic rallies in 2019. He holds a B Soc Sc (Hon) in
Sociology from the University of Singapore and a MDiv from Trinity
Theological College, Singapore. Upon retirement as diocesan bishop
in 2020, Bishop Rennis continues to serve the Anglican Church as
Hon Fellow of St Peter’s Hall, the training and spiritual formation
arm of the Anglican Church in Singapore.
xii HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
INTRODUCTION
Intro
The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love
me?”. Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time,
“Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things, you know
that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.” (John 21:17 NIV)
Divine love notwithstanding, answering afrmatively for the third
time, Christ’s nal mandate is “Feed my sheep”. It may be a simple
three-word sentence, but it encapsulates our Lord’s overarching
and primary concern for the well-being of His sheep, His people,
His church. Therein lies a tall order—the task of guiding, educating
and protecting His sheep from the onslaught of false teachings
and ungodliness. This mandate has been passed down the ages to
us in leadership, and as good shepherds we are to do likewise, in
demonstration of our love for Our Lord Jesus. And we all certainly
need His strength to navigate our daunting task ahead.
The failure to feed the sheep results in severe consequences and
carries a strong indictment from the Lord in Hosea 4:6, “My people
are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected
knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you
have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.”
This volume comes as a timely tool, one that is wholistic and
life-giving—to feed, educate and equip people, everyone that faces
the many challenging and perplexing questions surrounding this
whole topic of “Homosexuality, the Bible and the Church”.
1. Role of Council
The National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) is a
fellowship of co-operating member churches, originally founded
by mainline churches. Notwithstanding, one of NCCS core objects
1
2 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
enshrined is “to form Christian public opinion and to bring it to
bear on the moral, social, national and international issues of the
day, particularly those which may affect the life and welfare of the
people of Singapore.”
Over the past twelve years, the NCCS has been actively
responding to numerous signicant issues that have arisen in
Singapore. These issues are not only relevant and pertinent to
the church and other religious communities, but impact, directly
or indirectly, every member of our society, including those with or
without faith as well.
To this end, the Council’s consistent modus operandi has
been one of calm and rational approach. This has won not only the
appreciation of the governing authorities, but its trust as well. To
be sure, creditable leadership must be built upon a bedrock of trust
and no less. In a notable discourse on, “Christian Witness in the
Public Square: Retrospection and Projection” by Dr Roland Chia, its
importance was highlighted: “In a religious milieu like ours, where
Christians are a signicant and visible minority, it is imperative
that an organisation like the Council, which represents a signicant
segment of Protestant and Orthodox churches here, continue to
deepen that trust.”
2. Homosexuality and the Church
In recent times the issue of homosexuality and related matters of
LGBTQ (lesbian, gal bisexual, transgender and queer) people has
often emerge to the fore, albeit intermittently. This stems from
the publicity it has generated, with a small but seemingly growing
partisan group in the foreseeable future, often more vociferous in
human rights issues. In particular, where the repeal of Section
377A of the Penal Code is concerned. This we foresee will be a rising
concern inevitably, in a fast-changing world where societal values
and norms, culture, long standing traditions of our forefathers
among others, had all but come under siege—in the name of change.
3. Changing trend
Almost a month, after the conclusion of GE 2020, the Straits Times
ran an article (Insight/National Day 9 Aug) entitled: “What does
a united Singapore mean to us.” Making a point, the journalist
surmised, “where older generations may nd difcult to talk about
certain issues, younger ones seem more willing to address them
head on.” Closer home, he added, among other things, that “there
are the beginnings of greater legal protections for LGBTQ people”
in terms of Singapore being a young nation, we have some way
to go before “accepting the community more fully and equally as
members of society.”
This will mean the pursuit of more engagements to come,
the majority of young people being more attuned and open to
the discourse on homosexuality where perhaps the need to be
enlightened is there.
Generally, the percentage of LGBTQ people in any population
is considered a minority, with same sex attractions prevalent
among certain friends, family members or they themselves are
into it. Nevertheless, our Christian leadership has to ensure its
preparedness at all times to provide its invariably constant rationale
for maintaining the status-quo.
4. First Council Publication
From a historical perspective, the rst book published by NCCS
in 2003 entitled A Christian Response to Homosexuality was the
result of a conference organised by Trinity Theological College, the
purpose of which was to elucidate the Christian position on this
issue. The conference was well attended and eventful, as a number
of questions were raised, but mostly from certain participants of the
pro-gay community which apparently dominated the session.
The early 2000s saw some attempts made by pro-gay activists
to get the government to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code.
Several arguments put forth in support of the appeal included its
archaic character and its effective practical implementation, among
others. At the same time, many Christians who are against any
repeal of the Act, opined their fears of the consequences, including
opening of the oodgates of liberal pro-gay policies into Singapore.
The online petitions via signature creation often seen arising
during engaging situations, can also be viewed as a double-edged
sword—not a monopoly, since both the opposing sides can also
adopt similar strategy to pursue their different respective ends or
interests. Good timing is of the essence too. In 2014, amid the furore
over the FAQs on Sexuality issued by the Health Promotion Board,
Council prudently waited patiently for the dust to settle down and
with the heat abated, only then did the Council articulated its stand
once again—similar to the 2003 statement made earlier.
Introduction 3
That same year (2003), saw Council’s rst statement, ‘A
Christian Response to Homosexuality’ being published. Council also
issued a statement on homosexuality, ‘the practice of homosexuality
is clearly incompatible with the teachings of the Christian faith’. It
added, ‘The only sexual relationship that is sanctioned by God is
that between a man and a female within the bounds of monogamous
marriage.’ Furthermore, in a more succinct and direct tone, the
subsequent sentence states, ‘we do not condone homosexual practice
and we consider homosexual lifestyle as sinful and unacceptable.’
Concerning Section 377A of the Penal Code, the Council states: ‘We
urge our government to maintain: (1) current legislation concerning
homosexuality; (2) its policy of not permitting the registration of
homosexual societies or clubs; and (3) its policy of not allowing the
promotion of homosexual lifestyle and activities’.
‘The Presbyterian Church in Singapore’ (PCS), where 37
Presbyterian churches belong, had made a similar stand on the
related issue of the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code.
On 26 September 2018, PCS issued a statement, ‘A
Denominational Statement on Section 7A: Current Issues and
Future Hope’ which claries its stand, ‘The PCS agrees with and
is united in the stance of the National Council of Churches of
Singapore, the Diocese of Singapore, the Roman Catholic Church
of Singapore and PERGAS to support our Government and our
Courts’ carefully calibrated position expressed in these signicant
legal, executive and social touchstones.’
Nevertheless, the PCS Statement concluded with its expression
of empathy ‘with those struggling with same sex attraction and their
reasons to repeal Section 377A. We regard everyone, regardless of
sexual orientation, with equal respect and worthy of God’s love and
mercy.’
5. Second Council Publication
In 2014, the Council published a substantially revised version of
its Q&A on Homosexuality. More comprehensive, it supersedes
the original version published in 2003. Among other things, it
deals with the biblical as well as scientic questions surrounding
homosexuality. Homosexuality: Questions and Answers was
initiated by former NCCS President Bishop Terry Kee, in view of
public attitude towards LGBT, including discernible change even
among some Christians. The book once again reinforces the status-
quo position of the Council, since its 2003 statement. Moreover, it
4 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
also hopes to help Christians understand broadly some of the issues
related to the topic, including the possible role genetics or neurology
plays in same-sex attraction. Also, the Christian view of same-sex
marriage, gay-parenting, and homosexuality, public policy and the
law among others.
6. Third Council Publication
A book with multiple authors is often invariably a literary treat.
Like a good anthology inspired by a common theme. Also, a combo
that just can’t go wrong with something to suit everybody’s taste or
interest. A rst in terms of scale, the Council has embarked on this
edition with an array of distinguished Christian professionals, each
in their own respective eld of engagement. It is well-researched
too. We trust this can be pivotal to promote greater understanding
and insight of homosexuality holistically and unsurprisingly—with
all its complexities.
The latest book Homosexuality, the Bible and the Church
will be launched at the NCCS National Day Thanksgiving
Service on 19 August 2021. Besides, the book will attest to the
NCCS’s commitment and reafrms its position that it has found
no valid reasoning or justication whatsoever, but to stand by its
unwavering stance it had maintained all these years and beyond,
amid a changing globalised world with its sweeping consequences
and challenges, across all spheres of human endeavours, including
the status quo of things, be it social, cultural and the spiritual.
7. Handling issues of Homosexuality as Church
The issue on homosexuality is rather a complex and delicate one,
given that most people would rather “look away” than be embroiled
in taking a position privately, let alone publicly.
Nevertheless, as born-again Christians, we have a special
obligation that falls on us, more so as leaders of the faith, to continue
to respond appropriately, but always with care, to guide our fellow
brethren whose perspective need to be enlightened since one of
Christianity’s hallmarks is essentially a relational one. “If you
really keep the royal law found in Scripture: ‘Love your neighbour
as yourself,’ you are doing right.’ (James 2:8 NIV)
Often, our silence or indifference to respond can sometimes be
construed as “potentially complicit” in the condoning of attitude or
behaviours generally considered as contrary to “the normal”. Thus,
Introduction 5
whether under the guise of human rights justice, or otherwise,
especially more so those which are in direct contrast and counter to
one of the most profound tradition of our Christian faith.
Sam Allberry, global speaker for evangelist Ravi, in: The
Bible and Same Sex Attraction, pointed out that God’s blueprint
is interwoven throughout Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation.
However, he said what surprises many is to discover that there are
only a handful of passages in the Bible that directly mention same
sex relationship. Nonetheless, he advises: ‘the need to understand
them in the wider biblical framework of teaching on sex. More
importantly, one has to avoid the twin mistakes of homophobia and
thinking God is indifferent about how we use our sexuality.’
From the medical viewpoint, Dr Andre stated: ‘the health effects
of same sex sexual behaviour are many. The public, government,
and judiciary are being led to believe that same-sex sexuality is
a normal variant with interactions and results equivalent to
heterosexual sexuality. However, this position runs contrary to
professional literature and the track record of history.’ (Negative
Health Consequences of Same-Sex Sexual Behaviour—Andre Van
Mol, MD)
8. The Future of Engagement
‘A strong and vibrant Council will be of benet to both the Christian
community and society’ as Dr Chia pointed out. In the context of a
fast-changing landscape of both, the cultural and political situation
in Singapore, the church can no longer exist in cloistered seclusion
from what is happening around it—like the proverbial ostrich
which buries its head in the sand when in danger. Neither should
the church succumb to the secularist rhetoric that religious views
must be conned to the private sphere and that they have no place
in public debates.
These are the signicant non-negotiable requisites for
meaningful and constructive Christian engagement in a nation
like Singapore. Its advantages are a unique conuence of religious
diversity, a vocal and sometimes virulent minority of secularists,
and a government that is at once secular and pragmatic, but never
totally dismissive of the given religious views and sentiments.
In this pluralistic context, however, Christians must learn to
communicate their vision of society calmly and clearly, condent
in the wisdom of her great theological and moral traditions that
received their inspiration from the Gospel of Christ.
6 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
9. A Wholistic Spread and Coverage
This volume offers a smorgasbord of different pertinent issues and
challenges that most people grapple with and at different times.
What are some of these wholistic questions and responses that the
authors are highlighting for us?
To begin with, for the modern reader, the question of trying
to distinguish between the ne line of what is moral and ritual in
the body of laws in Old Testament’s Holiness Code" (Leviticus) may
be understandably daunting. Nonetheless, the way forward to turn
our mess into blessings is to set one’s priorities right by starting to
give God rst place in all that we do.
The centrality of Chastity is to put in perspective its place in our
churches and human society as a whole, beginning with Scripture,
where “the notion of chasteness is inextricably linked with the idea
of being faithful.”
Examining the key issues pertaining to protection and
promotion of what constitute as “common good” in Singapore context
is another essential call that have to be considered.
What place does Christian tradition play in the whole process?
It is not merely a history of factual events, people living in biblical
times in relation to God’s revelation, collection of creeds, confessions
and doctrinal statements. More than that they are revelation of life-
changing experiences as Disciples and Followers of Christ.
What makes the difference in our journey with folks struggling
with same-sex attraction? It is the patience and resilience to go
the extra mile. The Good Samaritan story as a timeless appeal
to inspiration and motivation in pastoral care setting—especially
providing support for people struggling with homosexuality issues
for an inclusive helping process.
How can we cultivate greater honesty and clarity in deciphering
of Biblical texts amid today’s multi-faceted complexities surrounding
homosexuality? How do we understand relevant biblical references,
including Paul’s position on same sex relations which transcend
beyond the cultural norm? Since time immemorial, the concept of
“One-esh” unity between a man and a woman, culminating in the
procreation and nurture of children in tandem with God’s design,
blessing and command to be fruitful, the foundational teaching on
marriage relationship aspirations need to be freshly expounded for
today’s audience.
Introduction 7
In recent times, despite the onslaught of rapid social landscape
changes, however extreme in scope and impact, basic questions still
remain to be addressed on the marriage institution and the “Divine
Design” factor.
A daunting challenge we continually face is how to stay on
course for the long haul in our call to Christian discipleship without
caving in to mounting pressure to compromise. What does it really
mean to remain faithful in doctrine and practical living?
Unlike the past, in today’s vastly different context and more
vibrant society, there’s a need to delve deeper in the reviewing of
key arguments in support of a monogamous, faithful, same-sex
sexual relationship covered under the orbit of the Scriptures.
Equally important to clarifying our theological position is
the recognition of our own “blind-spots” as well as to emphatically
respond to an urgent need to walk with “strugglers” in understanding
their challenges.
10. Conclusion
Finally, this book is a tting testimony of the collective wisdom by
our esteemed authors, each in their own distinctive literary style.
In our quest to full the Christian vision of sexuality, marriage,
society and family, it has important relevance towards current
debates on homosexuality and the continuing surge of LGBT
activists for legal redress. In times like this, we need to be better
equipped lest we succumb to any outside forces and deviate from
the truth which we hold dear always.
My sincere appreciation to all the authors for their efforts
to shed greater light into an otherwise vexing subject with all its
ramications for our benet.
“God shapes the world by prayer,” is a vital reminder from E.M.
Bounds, of the importance of maintaining a posture of prayerful
dependence and reliance on the Spirit of truth to guide everyone
into His liberating truth. So, let us immerse this book in abiding
prayer that God may open the eyes of our hearts to understand His
life-giving words.
To God be the Glory!
Rev Dr Keith Lai
President National Council of Churches of Singapore
July 2020 to April 2021
8 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
One
In my ministry, I have counselled those who struggle with
same-sex issues and have seen God at work in their lives. This
includes healing in family relationships, sexual orientation or
simply making God their priority. Putting God rst is not a loss of
freedom but a commitment to glorify Him and nd fullness of life.
So while I disagree with those who interpret the Bible in support of
homosexuality, I welcome and walk with same-sex oriented persons
as people cherished by God.
Three categories of Old Testament passages are relevant to the
issue of homosexuality. They are
I) The laws in Leviticus 18 and 20
II) The narrative about Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19
and its parallel story of the Levite’s concubine in Judges 19
III) The creation account in Genesis 1-2
I will also look briey at the relationship between David and
Jonathan in 1 Samuel 18-23, for though it is not directly about a gay
relationship, it has been used as an example of one. We will begin
with the Levitical (or priestly) laws because they contain the clearest
prohibition against homosexuality. The laws will also inuence
how we interpret the Genesis 19 and Judges 19 narratives. Lastly,
the creation account in Genesis 1-2 will help us understand the
signicance of gender in God’s creation of humanity and marriage.
HOMOSEXUALITY
AND THE OLD TESTAMENT Rev Dr Maggie Low
11
I. The Levitical Laws (Leviticus 18 and 20)
Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a
woman; it is an abomination (to‘evah).1
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as one does with
a woman, both of them have committed an abomination
(to‘evah); they are to be put to death; their blood is upon
them.
The laws in Leviticus 18 are stated in an apodictic manner, i.e.,
as general principles, while Leviticus 20 lays out the casuistic
penalties, i.e., for specic cases. The plain meaning of the above laws
is usually circumvented by arguing that (1) Leviticus is irrelevant
for today, (2) the term to‘evah (detestable, abomination) refers only
to ritual sins, (3) the prohibition applies only in an idolatrous cultic
context, and (4) Leviticus is not a comprehensive guide because it
omits lesbianism. To put it simply, it is claimed that the Levitical
laws do not envisage the modern consensual and committed gay
relationship, which has nothing to do with idolatry.2
1. The Relevance of Leviticus
While much of the Levitical rules are not followed literally today,
the underlying principle pronounced by God, “Be holy, for I am
holy” (Leviticus 11:44, 45; 19:2; 20:26), still resounds in the New
Testament. Jesus himself echoed this in Matthew 5:48, “Be perfect,
therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”3
While the book of Hebrews argues that temple sacrices in
Leviticus 1-10 are no longer carried out today because they merely
foreshadowed Christ, Old Testament scholar Gordon Wenham
shows how the purposes of the sacrices are taken up in the New
Testament.4 For example, Paul’s encouragement to share nancially
with those who preach the gospel is based on the temple priests
being given a portion in the cereal offerings (1 Corinthians 9:13-14).
Then there are the seemingly archaic purity laws in Leviticus
11-16 regarding what is clean and unclean in terms of food, body
discharges, and so on. In the Old Testament context, to observe
God’s boundaries and order in nature (as recorded in Genesis 1) is
to keep to God’s moral and social order in creation.5 In Mark 7:14-
23, Jesus declared all food clean, but he made it clear that the moral
principle still holds, i.e., it is not what goes into the stomach that
deles but evil intentions that comes out of the heart.6
12 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
The laws against homosexuality are contained in a body
of laws called “the Holiness Code” (Leviticus 17-27). What is
difcult for the modern reader is that the Old Testament does not
differentiate the laws into distinct moral and ritual categories.7 For
instance, Leviticus 18:19-23 describes several taboos, including
homosexuality:
19You shall not approach a woman to uncover her
nakedness while she is in her menstrual uncleanness.
20You shall not have sexual relations with your kinsman’s
wife, and dele yourself with her.
21You shall not give any of your offspring to sacrice them
to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the
Lord.
22You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an
abomination.
23You shall not have sexual relations with any animal and
dele yourself with it, nor shall any woman give herself to
an animal to have sexual relations with it: it is perversion.
In the ancient context, moral and ritual laws were integrated
because the outward forms expressed some universal values. For
instance, Leviticus 17 bans the eating of blood, but 17:10 explains
that blood represents life, and therefore, all should respect the life
that comes from God. This understanding of blood helps to explain
the prohibition against intercourse with a menstruating woman in
Leviticus 18:19. Other laws are more clearly moral, such as the law
against adultery and bestiality (Leviticus 18:20, 23). The injunction
against child sacrice in Leviticus 18:21 is both a moral and ritual
law because it is not only a case of murder but also idolatry.
While Leviticus does not differentiate between ritual and
moral laws, it does recognise different severity of sins by assigning
different types of penalties. Besides homosexuality (Leviticus
20:13), Leviticus 20 imposes the death penalty8 for child sacrice
(20:1), adultery (20:10), incest with close relatives (20:11, 12, 14),
and bestiality (20:15, 16)—a list that contains moral deviations.
On the other hand, intercourse with a woman during her period
only gets the couple “cut off” (20:18). Wenham argues that “cutting
off” is “a threat of direct punishment by God usually in the form
of premature death.”9 In other words, one can leave such ritual
delements to God rather than take it to a human court.
13
The prescriptive status of the book of Leviticus is afrmed
by Jesus’s citation of Leviticus 19:8 as the second greatest
commandment: love your neighbour like yourself. In fact, this
ancient book contains many guidelines for social justice in terms of
taking care of the poor, needy, and foreigners that are also taken up
in the New Testament. It is not just a book of outmoded rituals but
an abiding guide for moral living.10 However, homosexuality is the
only sin in Leviticus that is called a to‘evah (abomination), which
some say points to its purely ritual nature. This calls for a lexical
study of the word in question.
2. The Meaning of To‘evah (abomination)
Davian Aw, for instance, links this word strictly to idolatry. He
cites from Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon: “Especially used of
things which are made impure and illicit by the decrees of religion;
specially used of things belonging to the worship of idols; and of
idols themselves.” This is a case of cherry-picking because he
omits Gesenius’ other references in Proverbs that show the ethical
meaning of to‘evah, e.g., false balance (Proverbs 11:1) and crooked
minds (Proverbs 11:20).11
Others, like John Boswell, describe to‘evah as merely something
ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or menstruation. It refers
to things that are ceremonially unclean rather than inherently
evil, like rape or theft.12 This understanding is wrong on two
counts: to‘evah does have moral implications, and mere ceremonial
uncleanness would not incur the death penalty or even a “cutting
off”.
First, the moral connotation of to‘evah can be gathered simply
by reading the context of Leviticus 18. After a list of sexual sins, the
chapter concludes with a summary in Leviticus 18:24-30, in which
the plural form, “abominations” (to’evoth), is used four times to refer
to all the sexual sins.
Leviticus 18: 26But you shall keep my statutes and my
ordinances and commit none of these abominations
(to’evoth), either the citizen or the alien who resides
among you 27(for the inhabitants of the land, who were
before you, committed all of these abominations
(to’evoth), and the land became deled); 28otherwise the
land will vomit you out for deling it, as it vomited out the
nation that was before you. 29For whoever commits any of
14 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
these abominations (to’evoth) shall be cut off from their
people. 30So keep my charge not to commit any of these
abominations (to’evoth) that were done before you, and
not to dele yourselves by them: I am the Lord your God.
Thus, all forms of incest, sleeping with a woman during her
menstruation, adultery, child sacrice, homosexuality, and
bestiality were to’evoth, indicating that the word describes acts that
were both morally and religiously repugnant.
This is also how the priestly prophet, Ezekiel, understands the
word. He uses to‘evah most frequently in the Old Testament (43
out of 117 times) and expands its meaning to include other ethical
offences:
Ezekiel 18: 10If he has a son who is violent, a shedder of
blood, 11who does any of these things (though his father
does none of them), who eats upon the mountains, deles
his neighbor’s wife, 12oppresses the poor and needy,
commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his
eyes to the idols, commits abomination (to‘evah), 13takes
advance or accrued interest; shall he then live? He shall
not. He has done all these abominable things (to’evoth);
he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself.
Besides the religious sin of idolatry (eating upon the mountains and
lifting his eyes to the idols), the rest of the sins are moral in nature:
violence, murder, adultery, oppression, robbery, not restoring the
pledge, taking interest.13
In fact, the more updated Brown-Drivers-Briggs Hebrew and
English Lexicon lists to‘evah under two separate categories: ritual or
ethical. It classies Leviticus 18 under the latter sense.14 The more
expansive Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament explains:
Within the OT, then, to‘evah refers to something in the
human realm that is ethically abhorrent, either as an
idea or as an action; above all it is irreconcilable with
Yahweh, contrary to his character and his will as an
expression of that character, an ethical and cultic taboo.
To call something to‘evah is to characterise it as chaotic
and alien, and therefore dangerous, within the cosmic and
social order.15
15
Similarly, Robert Gagnon distils the essence of to‘evah as crossing
boundaries established by God and is thus detestable to him.16
The other problem with taking to‘evah as referring only to ritual
uncleanness is that it will result in a disproportionate punishment.
Ritual uncleanness, such as childbirth, seminal emission,
heterosexual intercourse, and menstruation, are not called to‘evah,
nor are they punished. They merely require purication by bathing
and offering a sacrice (see Leviticus 15).17 In contrast, to‘evah
incurs either the death penalty or being “cut off” from God’s people.
Apart from the word to‘evah, some use Deuteronomy 23:17-
18 as pointing to idolatry as the main issue. In other words, if
homosexuality is practised apart from idol worship, it is not against
the Bible. We now take a closer look at this text in Deuteronomy.
3. The Cultic Context of Homosexual Acts
Deuteronomy 23:17-18 None of the daughters of Israel
shall be a temple prostitute (Hebrew, qadesha, “a holy
woman”); none of the sons of Israel shall be a temple
prostitute (Hebrew, qadesh, “a holy man”).
You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute (Hebrew, zonah)
or the wages of a male prostitute (Hebrew, kelev, “a dog”)
into the house of the Lord your God in payment for any
vow, for both of these are abhorrent (to‘evah) to the Lord
your God.
Qadesh (a holy man) is better understood as a man dedicated to
a deity. Temple prostitution was connected to idolatry in the time
of the monarchy. In 1 Kings 15:12, King Asa “put away the male
temple prostitutes (Hebrew, qedeshim, the plural of qadesh) out of
the land, and removed all the idols that his ancestors had made.”
In response to the claim that homosexuality is only wrong in
the context of idol worship, we will compare the Deuteronomic text
with the Levitical command and then consider the broader ancient
Near Eastern view of homosexual practice. I will show that the
Levitical laws forbid any kinds of voluntary homosexual acts.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 do not use the word qadesh for a
man committing homosexuality. Leviticus 20:13, “If a man (‘ish) lies
with a male (zakhar)…,” uses the general Hebrew words for man
and male, irrespective of any idolatrous association. Besides, the
context of Leviticus 18 and 20 censures many other sexual acts, such
as incest and adultery, which are not related to temple worship.
16 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
As for the wider religious-cultural context, Gagnon makes
the pointed argument that outside of Israel, homosexual acts were
tolerated only in the cult. Since the Bible rejects the most culturally
acceptable form of homosexuality in Deuteronomy 23, then it is
rejecting all types of homosexual behaviour reected in Leviticus
18 and 20.18
Martti Nissinen writes about Mesopotamian male cult
prostitutes, called assinnus, who were connected with the
androgynous goddess Inanna in Sumeria or Ishtar in Assyria. It
was believed that the goddess transformed such men into a “man-
woman” or even a “dog-woman” (indicating coitus in a doglike
position). A man would have intercourse with an assinnu to access
the power of the goddess herself. Despite the cultic institution of the
assinnus, such feminised men were treated disdainfully like “dogs”
(a term also used in Deuteronomy 23:18).19
Outside of the cult, homosexual acts were condemned by the
Middle Assyrian Laws of the late second millennium B.C.E.
Tablet A, Law 19: If a man furtively spreads rumors about
his comrade, saying, “Everyone sodomises him” or in a
quarrel in public says to him “Everyone sodomises you,”
and further, “I can prove the charges against you,” but
he is unable to prove the charges and does not prove the
charges, they shall strike that man 50 blows with rods; he
shall perform the king’s service for one full month; they
cut off his hair; and moreover, he shall pay 3,600 shekels
of lead.
Tablet A, Law 20: If a man sodomises his comrade and
they prove the charges against him and nd him guilty,
they shall sodomise him and they shall turn him into a
eunuch.20
Law 19 refers to slandering a man for being a voluntary passive
partner, which was regarded as a shameful act.21 It is not clear
whether Law 20 refers to a man forcing himself on an unwilling
partner, but it probably refers to rape; otherwise, the case would
not have ended up in court. The law of lex talionis then demands
that the perpetrator be castrated to take away his manhood just as
he took away the manhood of another.22
It may be asked whether Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 similarly
addresses a case of rape rather than a consensual gay act. In biblical
laws, the element of force is signied by other words, e.g., “seize”,
17
in place of or in addition to “lie with”. A case law in Deuteronomy
22:25–26 makes this clear:
Deuteronomy 22:25-26 But if the man meets the engaged
woman in the open country, and the man seizes her and
lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall
die. You shall do nothing to the young woman; the young
woman has not committed an offense punishable by death,
because this case is like that of someone who attacks and
murders a neighbor.23
Another word that is translated as rape is ‘anah (literally, be put
down or aficted). This is used of Amnon’s rape of Tamar: “But
he would not listen to her; and being stronger than she, he forced
(‘anah) her and lay with her” (2 Samuel 13:14). Such words of duress
are not used in Leviticus 18 and 20, meaning that the sexual acts
are consensual, which explains why both parties are subject to the
same punishment.
In summary, extra-biblical evidence shows that non-Israelites
accept voluntary homosexual practice only within the cultic circle.
Even so, they regard such temple prostitutes (assinnus) with
contempt. Hence, if the Hebrew Scripture bans homosexuality in
the temple, which is the most tolerated form, then a fortiori it bans
it anywhere else, as Leviticus makes clear.
However, some have questioned the validity of Leviticus as a
comprehensive guide in gender issues because it omits sex between
females.24 We will examine this issue next.
4. Female Homosexuality
Regarding lesbianism, Aw argues it cannot be said that women had
no sexual agency in the ancient context, since both men and women
were forbidden to engage in bestiality (Leviticus 18:23). However,
sexual intercourse is understood as penile penetration, which would
explain why bestiality applies to both men and women, as a woman
may be penetrated by a male animal.
The concern with penile penetration in the ancient patriarchal
context was to protect male paternity. For instance, adultery
called for the death penalty because it endangered another man’s
posterity, but intercourse with a virgin only required the offender
to marry the victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).25 Another humane
concern was to protect the weaker members of society by regulating
male behaviour.26
18 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Gagnon adds that lesbianism was possibly unknown to the
Israelites and/or Canaanites, as it goes unmentioned in other legal
materials from the ancient Near East.27 However, Paul had no
doubt in Romans 1:26 that the Old Testament injunction against
homosexuality applies to both women and men.
I have shown the continuing relevance of the Levitical laws,
the religious and moral meaning of to‘evah, the application of the
laws outside of idolatry, and why lesbian sex is not mentioned. We
are now in a better position to discuss the narratives in Genesis 19
and Judges 19.
II. Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 and the Levite’s
Concubine in Judges 19
In these accounts, a group of men violently demanded to “know”
some male guests who arrived in their city. In both cases, women
were offered to the mob to protect the men. For Lot, he and his two
daughters were rescued by two angels, while the Levite’s ill-fated
concubine was gang-raped and left for dead.
Those who advocate for gay relationship usually raise
three issues with these texts: (1) this is not a breach of sexuality
but hospitality, (2) even if it is a breach of sexuality, it is only a
condemnation of gang rape, not consensual gay relationship, and
(3) later biblical authors (Ezekiel 16:49-50; Jude 1:7) did not include
homosexuality when describing the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah.
1. The Breach of Hospitality Argument
Genesis 19:4-5 But before they lay down, the men of the
city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people
to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to
Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring
them out to us, so that we may know (yada‘) them.”
It is claimed that to “know” (yada‘) in Genesis 19:5 and Judges
19:22 merely means to know someone cognitively. The mob wanted
to interrogate the strangers, thus breaching the ancient tradition of
hospitality.
While yada‘ generally refers to mental knowledge, it can refer
to sexual intercourse, depending on the context. E.g., Genesis 4:1,
“Now the man knew (yada‘) his wife Eve, and she conceived and
bore Cain.” In Genesis 19:8, Lot responded to the men’s demand by
saying, “Look, I have two daughters who have not known (yada‘) a
19
man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please.”
Lot’s offer would not make sense if the men only wanted information
about the strangers. The demand for sex is undeniable in Judges 19,
where the Levite’s response to the horde’s demand was to seize his
concubine and “put her out to them. They wantonly raped her, and
abused her all through the night until the morning” (Judges 19:8).28
Since to “know” means to have sexual intercourse in these
tests, the argument is made that the crime is only about gang rape.
2. The Gang Rape Argument
The threat of violence in Genesis 19:9 and Judges 19:22 certainly
indicates the intention to commit rape. Men committing rape on
men has been practised in ancient times, not necessarily out of
homosexual orientation but as an act of dominance, especially in
wars.29 Therefore, some argue that the Sodom and Gibeah accounts
only condemn gang rape and not consensual gay sex.
However, this is a false dichotomy between sex and violence—a
violent sex act does not inevitably mean that the same act is
acceptable if there is no assault. Incest and bestiality, for instance,
are still offences, even if both parties were willing, as seen in
Leviticus 18 and 20.
Therefore, homosexual rape is a crime not only because of
physical abuse but also because of sexual aberration. As pointed out
above in the Middle Assyrian Laws, falsely accusing another man
of allowing himself to be sodomised incurs the penalty of a beating
and a ne. In comparison, homosexual rape results in a more brutal
punishment of castration, showing that the crime is both physical
and sexual in nature. That is, outside of the cult, both voluntary
and involuntary homosexual acts are unacceptable.
Were the men of Sodom and Gibeah merely asserting dominance,
or did they have a gay interest as well? While the texts do not make
a distinction, their initial request to know (yada‘) rather than to
afict (‘anah) the men, or other similar words of assault, indicates
a sexual interest and not just an intention to subjugate. The sexual
transgression is picked up in 2 Peter 2:10, which describes Sodom
and Gomorrah as “those who indulge their esh in depraved lust”.
Lust that is denounced, whether consensual or not.
However, another objection is that later biblical authors like
Ezekiel and Jude did not indict Sodom for homosexuality. A careful
reading of both these texts will show that this is not accurate.
20 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
3. The Later Interpretation Argument
Ezekiel 16:49-50 This was the guilt of your sister Sodom:
she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and
prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.
50They were haughty, and did abominable things (to‘evah)
before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.
It seems that Ezekiel condemned Sodom for social injustice rather
than for sexual sin. However, the Hebrew text of Ezekiel 16:50 has
the singular to‘evah rather than the plural to’evoth. So, the more
accurate translation is that not that Sodom did “abominable things”
as a summary of the preceding sins but that she did “an abominable
thing”. The question, then, is what is this “abominable thing”?
The difference between the singular and plural terms can be
better understood in the context of Ezekiel 18:10-13, where both the
singular and plural forms are used:
If he has a son who is violent, a shedder of blood, who does
any of these things (though his father does none of them),
who eats upon the mountains, deles his neighbor’s wife,
oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not
restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits
abomination (to‘evah), takes advance or accrued interest;
shall he then live? He shall not. He has done all these
abominable things (to’evoth); he shall surely die; his blood
shall be upon himself.
As discussed before, the plural to’evoth (abominable things) in
Ezekiel 18:13 summarises the preceding list of sins, both ritual
and moral. The singular to‘evah (an abomination) in 18:12 must
therefore refer to a more specic sin. What Ezekiel means must be
found in Leviticus, which uses the singular to‘evah to refer only to
homosexual intercourse in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.30
Both Ezekiel and Leviticus were written by priestly authors,
and scholars have pointed out the verbal similarity between Ezekiel
18 and the Holiness Code in Leviticus 17-27.31 Both use the plural
to’evoth to summarise a list of moral and ritual sins (in Leviticus 18
and Ezekiel 18), and so the singular to‘evah in Ezekiel would mean
the same as in Leviticus, i.e., the homosexual act. Ezekiel 16:49–
50 root Sodom’s offence in “pride” and being “haughty”. Gagnon
explains:
21
Pride, by denition, is the rejection of the Creator and the
divinely sanctioned order of creation...an instance of pride,
a supplanting of God’s design in creation for sexuality in
favor of one’s own design.32
Another later biblical interpreter of Sodom is the New Testament
writer Jude, who censures Sodom and Gomorrah for sexual
immorality.
Jude 7 Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the
surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they,
indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust
(Greek, sarkos heteras, “other esh”), serve as an example
by undergoing a punishment of eternal re.
Nonetheless, some point out that the problem in Jude is not
homosexuality but wanting to have intercourse with other esh, i.e.,
angelic beings. However, the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were
not aware that the strangers were angels. Instead, Jude is warning
his readers not to be like the Sodomites who in pursuit of their lust
for other men, inadvertently put themselves in the sacrilegious
position of pursuing intercourse with angels.33
Thus, later biblical interpretations showed that Sodom and
Gomorrah were judged for sexual depravity. This is not just a sin
of inhospitality, and neither is it merely about gang rape—consent
does not justify all sexual acts, as seen in the Levitical laws.
What is the basis for the biblical rejection of homosexuality?
We will explore the creation accounts in Genesis 1-2 to understand
the nature of marriage and what it means to be created in the image
of God as male and female.
III. The Creation Accounts in Genesis 1-2
Below are the relevant texts that we will discuss in this section:
Genesis 1:27 So God created humankind in his image, in
the image of God he created them; male and female he
created them.
Genesis 1:28 God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be
fruitful and multiply, and ll the earth and subdue it; and
have dominion over the sh of the sea and over the birds
of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the
earth.”
22 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Genesis 2:18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that
the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his
partner.”
Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his
mother and clings to his wife, and they become one esh.
In order to accommodate gay relationships, the following points about
marriage are usually put forward: (1) because of overpopulation
today, procreation is no longer mandatory, (2) Genesis 1-2 is silent
about a homosexual marriage, (3) the aetiology of marriage is
merely descriptive not prescriptive, and (4) “a helper as his partner”
does not have to be of the opposite sex. A second set of argument
concerns the image of God that (1) it is not based on gender and (2)
calls for a trajectory of freedom for humans, including gays.
1. On Marriage
1.1 Procreation (Genesis 1:28)
It may be argued that male and female coupling for procreation is
no longer necessary due to overpopulation. While overpopulation
needs to be managed, God’s creation of human genders and union is
embedded in the material creation and is not dependent on external
circumstances. I agree that marriage is not solely for procreation:
God’s reason for creating the woman in Genesis 2:18 is to address
the man’s need for companionship, not explicitly for childbearing.34
In fact, the verbs “be fruitful and multiply” in Genesis 1:28, though
in the Hebrew imperative form, are intended as a blessing.35
Nevertheless, to reject a divine blessing is an act of hubris,
declaring that one does not need God’s help and has no desire to
follow God’s intention. The potential for procreation represents
God’s plan for humanity to ll the earth for the purpose of having
dominion over every living thing (Genesis 1:28-29). In the Old
Testament context, this is about establishing God’s order in a world
of chaos, which will also benet humanity’s own sustenance.
As Gagnon says, “procreation is vital because God’s people play
a special role in discerning God’s will for the created order and for
communicating that will to the next generation.” Simon Chan and
William Wan ask more pointedly whether the non-procreative gay
act can represent a self-giving act of love if it does not point to a
good beyond itself.36
23
Some couples may be unable to have children because we live
in a fallen world; some may have valid reasons not to do so, like
to Paul’s advice to be single in view of the eschatological crisis in
1 Corinthians 7. Heterosexuals should examine their reasons for
not having children, just as gays should examine whether they are
living according to God’s design.
1.2 Silence on homosexual marriage
Another argument against heterosexual marriage is to say that
Genesis only describes the norm (or standard model) for marriage,
but it is not normative because a committed gay relationship was
unknown in the ancient historical context. However, the Middle
Assyrian materials show that consensual homosexuality was known
and frowned on, while it was merely tolerated in the cultic context.
Further, an argument from silence is a tenuous one: what is
not sanctioned in the creation accounts does not make it acceptable.
Genesis 1-2 makes no mention of a sibling union, but Leviticus 18
prohibits incestuous relationships within the extended family. The
next argument below about the aetiology (origin) of marriage will
show that a heterosexual union is meant to be normative, i.e., it is
what God intends.
1.3 The aetiology of marriage (Genesis 2:24)
Some argue aetiologies (stories of origin), like Genesis 2:24,
“Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to
his wife, and they become one esh,” are merely descriptive not
prescriptive, i.e., explaining things as they are, not as they should
be. They say, for example, that besides monogamy, the Bible did
not limit other forms of unions such as polygamy and concubinage,
especially among the patriarchs like Abraham and Jacob, and also
the Israelite kings.
However, aetiologies can be both descriptive and prescriptive:
they describe why things are in order to prescribe what should be.
Genesis 2:24, for instance, explains in order to become one esh,
a man should give priority to his wife over his parents. Also, non-
monogamous relationships are portrayed negatively, e.g., family
conicts were caused by the patriarchs’ wives and the kings’ rival
children. Polygamy was ultimately rejected in the New Testament (2
Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 require church leaders to be married
to only one wife).
24 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
The prescriptive nature of Genesis 1-2 is also conrmed by
Jesus in Matthew 19:1-6 and Mark 10:1-9. When asked about
divorce, Jesus cited Genesis 1:26-27 that God created them male
and female as the basis for the inseparable bond of one esh in
2:24. Wesley Hill writes that “in this way, sexual difference and the
meaning of marriage are pulled together and intertwined.”37
The aetiology of Genesis 2:24 prescribes not only spousal priority
in a marriage, but also exogamy (marrying outside the family)
because the man has to leave his parents, and heterosexuality.
Despite their own personal stand, Danna Nolan Fewell and David
M. Gunn conclude:
Just as relationship with parents and children are
diminished, so, too, are excluded relations between
people of the same sex. The ‘helper corresponding to (like-
opposite)’ the human/man is a sexual ‘opposite.’ According
to this claim, human sexuality is clearly monogamous
exogamous heterosexuality: one partner, outside the
family, of the opposite sex. Partnership, according to this
agenda, demands sexual and familial difference.38
Despite this aetiology, some writers argue that a one-esh union
only requires human similarity not sexual complementarity because
the problem was not “incompleteness” but “aloneness”.39 For this,
we take a closer look at Genesis 2:18.
1.4 A helper as his partner (Genesis 2:18)
Genesis 2:18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that
the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his
partner (‘ezer kenegdo).”
Those with same-sex inclination would claim that a gay partner
meets their needs more deeply than a heterosexual one. However,
we need to understand the text before interpreting it through our
subjective feelings.
God’s plan was to create an ‘ezer kenegdo. ‘Ezer means a help,
just as God is often described as our help (e.g., Psalm 121:2 “My help
comes from the Lord…”). Kenegdo is a hapax legomenon, meaning
that it occurs only once in the Hebrew Scripture. It means “like” (ke)
“his opposite” (negdo). This emphasises the idea of an egalitarian
complementarity. The woman is the same or like the man, yet his
opposite. If God created another human being who is just like the
25
man, then the Hebrew preposition would be kamohu (like him)
rather than kenegdo.40
The notion of complementarity is afrmed when the man
exclaimed that the new being is not only like him in bone and esh,
but she is to be called “Woman”, having been taken out of “Man”
(Genesis 2:23). It is both similarity and complementarity that
accomplishes a marital union and companionship intended by God.
James V. Brownson rightly objects to building ethics solely
on biology. He disagrees that a marital union is based on gender
complementarity simply because the penis ts the vagina rather
than the anus. While Gagnon talks about gender complementarity,
he explains that it is “expressed not only in basic sexual anatomy
but also in a more holistic sense,” i.e., it is also about interpersonal
connection for companionship and support.41 A study of human ‘ezer
shows that they provide both physical and psychological help. While
most of the biblical references are to military help, there are also
those who render moral and social support (e.g., Isaiah 41:6; Ezra
10:15).
At the same time, Brownson admits that bodies convey
meanings.42 The Bible has a holistic view of human beings: they
cannot be dichotomised into a soul that happens to be encased in
a male or female body. Rather, as body-persons, sexual differences
are a matter of both physiology and psychology. Thus, Chan and
Wan write:
The implication of the concept of body-person with regard
to homosexuality is clear: a body-person ought to manifest
congruence between the physical and non-physical
(psychological, spiritual, etc.) dimensions. In other words,
sexual union is not merely a joining of heart and mind;
it must also be a physical joining of bodies in which the
proper functioning of body-persons as male and female is
recognised.43
In other words, only a physical union between two complementary
bodies can bring about a spiritual union between two persons. Thus,
the gay sexual act is incomplete, both physically and psychically.
God’s design for a heterosexual marriage is intended to bring about
a complete and fullling union.
Of course, the Fall (Genesis 3) has brought about fractures
in relationships so that there is no perfect heterosexual union.
Nonetheless, Ephesians 5:21-33 points to the hope that the one-
26 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
27
esh union between a husband and wife may be restored in Christ.44
In the same way, the Fall has ruptured God’s image of humanity.
The question now is whether gender is an essential aspect of the
imago Dei.
2. On the Imago Dei (Genesis 1:27)
2.1 Not based on gender
It has been put forward that the image of God (Genesis 1:27) is solely
about being in a community of persons, irrespective of genders.
There is some truth in this, but it is not the whole picture. First,
we need to unpack the meanings of the imago Dei in its historical
and literary contexts, and then consider what this means for the
question of gender.
The majority of Old Testament scholars understand the imago
Dei in the functional sense as being God’s royal representatives on
earth. Both Egyptian and Assyrian texts describe kings as being in
the image of God. The Hebrew Scripture, however, democratised
this concept to make every man and woman God’s rulers to serve
him in his world.45 For this purpose of ruling, gender would not be
an integral aspect of being in the image of God.
Another view was propounded by Karl Barth, who argues
that the imago Dei points to the human capacity to relate to God
in a unique relationship. Barth also considers the male-female
relationship as reecting a corresponding mutual bond within the
Godhead itself, thus making sexual differentiation fundamental to
the imago Dei.46 Barth has been rightly criticised for ignoring the
historical context.
However, what is often overlooked is the broader literary
context of the imago Dei in the Primeval History (Genesis 1-11).
Andreas Schüle points out that there are two other texts that refer
to the image of God:
Genesis 5:1-3 This is the list of the descendants of Adam.
When God created humankind, he made them in the
likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and
he blessed them and named them “Humankind” when
they were created. When Adam had lived one hundred
thirty years, he became the father of a son in his likeness,
according to his image, and named him Seth.
Genesis 9:6 Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a
human shall that person’s blood be shed; for in his own
image God made humankind.
Schüle argues that the imago Dei needs to be understood in the
context of a concrete network of connections: between husband and
wife (and generally the sexes) in Genesis 1:27, between parents and
children (and the generations) in Genesis 5:1-3, and between the
human being and his neighbours in Genesis 9:4-6.47
In other words, God’s image is reected in how humans relate
as a man or woman, a parent or child, and a neighbour. Spelling
this out in detail will be beyond the scope of this essay, but it would
encompass ideas of egalitarian complementarity, marital delity,
parental and lial responsibility, and neighbourly love. This fuller
view of the imago Dei means that a person has dignity regardless
of gender, age, marital status, ethnicity, and other identiers. At
the same time, gender is also part and parcel of being in the image
of God.
As Chan and Wan point out, God created us as body-persons,
not as souls encased in a body. Our physical gender is part of our
personhood, and to distort one is to distort the other. God originally
intended for a person to be holistically male or female, that is, to
have a male body with a male gender identity or to have a female
body with a female gender identity.
However, the Fall resulted in human disintegration at all
levels—with God, spouse, family, community, the environment, and
oneself. Thus, I advocate for empathy not enmity with those who
struggle with same-sex attraction. Unfortunately, those who ignore
the Fall and its harmful effects on the self and community contend
that one should simply give in to one’s homosexual inclination,
irrespective of one’s physical maleness or femaleness. However,
denying one’s sex is to defy God’s design and God himself. In the
biblical context, to rebel against creation order is to descend into
chaos, as illustrated in Judges 19-21, where homosexual demands
ultimately lead to communal breakdown.
This is why Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 regard the homosexual
act as to‘evah—that which is contrary to God’s character and will.
In fact, the Hebrew text of these verses is better translated as
indicting the man who lies with a male not as with a woman (the
insertive partner) but as a woman (the receptive partner).
Leviticus 18:22 translated literally from the Hebrew is “and
with a male you shall not lie down lyings down of a woman.” Jerome
28 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
29
Walsh has demonstrated that a cognate direct object construction,
such as “lie down lyings down”, “dream dreams”, or “sin sins”,
describes an action performed by the subject himself, not an action
performed by another. Thus, the man who does the “lyings down of
a woman” offers himself as the receptive partner.48
Walsh concludes that the central issue is “precisely gender
confusion wherein the free male citizen takes on the ‘female’ role.”49
The transgression of gender boundaries disrupts the created order
that God pronounced “good” in Genesis 1. While the receptive male
denies his God-given maleness, Leviticus 20:13 indicts both the
passive and active partners because the insertive male is treating
another male sexually as if he were a female.
Fundamentally, the rejection of one’s gender, an innate
component of the imago Dei, distorts one’s relationship with God,
self, and others. However, just as in Christ there is restorative hope
for marriages, there is also hope for gender dysphoria and same-sex
attraction, though full restoration may only be when Christ comes
again. Meanwhile, some argue that there should be in an increasing
acceptance of gays just as there is for women. This is considered in
the next section.
2.2 Trajectory of liberation
Taking the whole canon, one can observe that there is a trajectory
of liberation for slaves and women, especially as pronounced in
Galatians 3:28, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer
slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one
in Christ Jesus.” This egalitarian principle is found throughout the
Old and New Testaments, although patriarchy is in the background
of the ancient culture.50
Regarding homosexuality, however, William Webb shows that
it is consistently rejected in the New Testament as well (Romans
1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10).51 There are attempts
to dispute the meaning of these New Testament texts, but a proper
study will show that they are even clearer than the Old Testament
in their rejection of homosexuality.
In summary, Genesis 1-3 presents God’s intent of a heterosexual
marriage through the blessing of fertility, the prescriptive nature
of the marriage aetiology, and the creation of an equal and
complementary partner. Further, a biblical understanding of an
integrated body-person means that a spiritual union is experienced
through a physical heterosexual union. Similarly, the imago Dei
consists of marital, familial, and communal relationships as holistic
males and females. The Levitical laws are directed at those who
subvert God’s creation of gender. Given this divine design, there is
no acceptance of a monogamous, consensual gay relationship either
in the Old or New Testament.
Besides the above three texts, some have used the bond between
David and Jonathan as an implicit support for homosexuality. We
will take a closer look at this relationship.
IV. David and Jonathan
I will deal with a few texts in 1 and 2 Samuel to show how they have
been taken out of their historical and literary context.
1 Samuel 18:1 When David had nished speaking to Saul,
the soul of Jonathan was bound (Hebrew root, qashar) to
the soul of David, and Jonathan loved (Hebrew root,’ahev)
him as his own soul.
First, the word “bound” (qashar) is never used in a romantic
relationship. Mostly, it refers to a conspiracy, i.e., when people work
together for a political purpose. In this context, Jonathan is tying
his fortune to David, politically and emotionally.52 Secondly, while
ahev (loved) can be used between a man and a woman, it is also
used in covenant treaties. King Hiram of Tyre, for example, was
called David’s “friend” (participle of ahev, i.e., a “loving one”). In
fact, in the same chapter as the above text in 1 Sam., all Israel and
Judah “loved” (ahev) David (1 Samuel 18:16).
1 Samuel 20:41 ...they kissed each other, and wept with
each other.
Gagnon points out that it was an ancient Near Eastern custom for
men to kiss each other, especially between family members. Only
three occurrences of a kiss in the Old Testament are between a man
and a woman (Song of Solomon 1:2; 8:1; Proverbs 7:13).53
2 Samuel 1:26 …your love (ahavah) to me was wonderful,
passing the love (ahavah) of women.
Ahavah (love) is the noun of ahev, which, as I have explained, is used
in a treaty or covenant context. Jonathan had willingly sacriced
his position, life, and kingdom because he believed that God had
made David the rightful king (1 Samuel 23:17). For this, David
eulogises Jonathan for having done more for him than any women.
30 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
From the above, any erotic interpretation of David and
Jonathan’s friendship is simply due to eisegesis, i.e., reading one’s
own bias into the text, rather than an ob-jective exegesis, i.e.,
understanding the text in its context.
Conclusion
Finally, some say that despite the teaching of Scripture, its
application for us today should consider modern discoveries
and knowledge. Choon-Leong Seow appeals to the approach of
wisdom theology demonstrated in the books of Proverbs, Job, and
Ecclesiastes. He writes that ethical decisions need to pay attention
to science and human experiences. Similarly, William Loader argues
that our understanding of sexuality needs to be supplemented by
the examples of faithful gay Christians.54
However, what science tells us is that non-genetic factors
(such as environment, upbringing, personality, nurture) are far
more signicant in inuencing a person’s behaviour, to the extent
that he or she may feel that they do not have a choice in sexual
tendencies.55 But should moral responsibility be based solely on
science or experience? Addictions are also caused by genes and
social environment, but such causes do not make the behaviours
acceptable or unalterable.
If one is to consider biological, social, and psychological data,
then one should also look at research showing that gays can change.
Various studies have shown that 50% of gays experience complete
to signicant reorientation. In fact, Robert Spitzer, who in 1973
had promoted the removal of homosexuality as a mental disease
in the American Psychiatric Association Manual, became convinced
in his own 2003 study that gay people can change.56 I myself have
seen this happen when the underlying interpersonal problems are
addressed with God’s help.
In conclusion, the moral principles of the Levitical laws must
still be taken seriously today because they establish God’s order
for human well-being. Regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, both gang
rape and homosexual lust is condemned, which is how Ezekiel
and Jude interpret it. The Genesis creation accounts show that
marriage is intended to be heterosexual and that the image of God
includes the aspect of gender. Wisdom requires us to be open to the
full range of the sciences and human experiences, especially when
such experiences testify to the transforming love and power of God.
31
Two
INTRODUCTION: THE BIBLE SAYS…?
Six passages in the Bible have been identied to mention
homosexual relations. They have been traditionally understood
to say that homosexual activity is wrong:
Genesis 19:1-9;
Leviticus 18:22;
Leviticus 20:13;
Romans 1:26-27;
1 Corinthians 6:9;
1 Timothy 1:10.
These have been deployed so often in heated argument that they
have been called “clobber passages”—scriptures used to beat the
other side into submission.1 But there is a now an ongoing debate in
biblical studies about whether these passages apply to consensual,
life-long, monogamous, same-sex relations.2 This is, as NT scholar
Preston Sprinkle says, the core question, since nobody is seriously
arguing that the bible allows for pederasty, or same-sex prostitution,
or serial or open same-sex unions.3
Does the Bible really address and prohibit this type of
relations? Opposing answers have been given, with proponents on
both sides accusing the other of doing violence to the texts. In fact,
Mr Quek Tze-Ming
HOMOSEXUALITY
AND THE NEW TESTAMENT
33
the majority of bible or theology scholars who have written books
about homosexuality in the last forty years have concluded that the
Bible does not condemn consensual, life-long, monogamous, same-
sex relations.4
While much could be said about the New Testament’s teaching
on human sexuality in general, this essay will be limited to an
examination of some interpretations of the three NT passages
mentioned above, and their relevance to a Christian sexual ethic,
particularly in the area of same-sex relations (leaving the OT
discussion to my esteemed colleague).
Following convention, “nonafrming” is used throughout
to describe those who think God does not afrm consensual, life-
long, monogamous, same-sex relations. And “afrming” is used to
describe those who believe that consensual, life-long, monogamous,
same-sex sexual relations can be afrmed by God.5
So, what does the NT say about homosexual activity? As we
begin our examination of the NT passages, we remember that the
conclusions we reach, and the posture we take, affect the lives of
people made in the image of God.
ROMANS 1:26-27
Interpreters agree that Romans 1 contains the most important
passage in the debate about same-sex relations. In a wide-ranging
argument sustained all the way through to Romans 3:26, the
Apostle Paul shows how everyone is condemned without Christ,
because we are all under sin. In the section that highlights the sins
and sinfulness of the Gentiles, Paul says:
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.
For their women exchanged natural relations for those
that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up
natural relations with women and were consumed with
passion for one another, men committing shameless acts
with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for
their error. (Romans 1:26-27, ESV)
That sounds like a straightforward critique of same-sex relations.
What more needs to be said? But, there are interpretations of this
text that afrm same-sex relations, or at least argue that this text
doesn’t condemn consensual, life-long, monogamous same-sex
relations. Here are three examples of these afrming interpretations:
34 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
1. Paul is talking about heterosexuals having homosexual
sex.
Some have argued that when Paul says they “exchanged natural
relations for those that are contrary to nature” (Romans 1:26), he
is referring only to those born with a heterosexual orientation. The
problem, so the argument goes, is that these heterosexuals are acting
contrary to their nature; that is, contrary to their orientation.6 The
implication is that what Paul says is not relevant to people who are
born with a homosexual orientation. But is that what “contrary to
nature” means: against one’s personal sexual nature or orientation?
2. Paul is talking about pederasty (sex with boys).
In his inuential book, Homosexuality in the New Testament, Robin
Scroggs argued that the only form of homosexual practice known
to Paul was pederasty (“love of boys”; which included an older man
having sex with a boy). This must be what Paul is critiquing in
Romans, so the argument goes, and therefore Romans 1 is irrelevant
to loving, consensual, monogamous, same-sex relations.7 But is
pederasty the only form of same-sex practice that Paul is concerned
about in Romans 1?
3. Paul is critiquing excessive lust.
Some argue that Paul does not condemn all same-sex relations,
but only those that result from excessive lust and uncontrollable
passions. This argument is based on the observation—entirely
correct—that many Graeco-Roman writers believed that same-
sex intercourse was the byproduct of excessive lust. The idea is:
some men got bored with having sex with women and, going out-
of-control with desire for the exotic, started to have sex with other
men.8 If this is what Paul has in mind, then Romans 1 does not
apply to loving, consensual, non lustful same-sex relations that take
place in same-sex marriages. This may be the best of the afrming
interpretations of Romans 1, being held by some who have written
recently on the subject: Matthew Vines, James Brownson, and Yale
scholar Dale Martin.9 But is Paul in Romans 1 critiquing only same-
sex relations that arise from excessive lust?
These interesting arguments challenge the traditional
nonafrming interpretation. What can we say about them? Three
observations are pertinent.
35
The Language of Mutuality
First, Paul uses the language of mutuality. Both parties involved
in the sex act are considered morally culpable in Romans 1:26-27.
Paul says this explicitly for male same-sex partners in v. 27, and
probably implies it for female same-sex partners too.
Furthermore, from what we know from sources, female same-
sex relations in the ancient world were mainly consensual. Unlike
many male same-sex relations, they weren’t pederastic or based on
power differences between the parties.10 So, when Paul condemns
female same-sex activity in verse 26, and parallels it with male
same-sex activity in verse 27, it seems best to understand Paul to
be condemning all same-sex acts—including consensual same-sex
acts.
This renders Scroggs’ “pederasty” interpretation highly
unlikely. If pederasty was the only form of same-sex practice in
view, why would Paul blame BOTH parties: man and boy? And how
does one account for Paul’s mention of female same-sex relations,
since pederastic relations were hardly known among females in the
ancient world?
Nothing in Paul’s actual language in Romans 1 limits
condemnation to specic forms of same-sex relations. The language
is all-inclusive, and it is the language of mutuality (in moral
culpability and punishment). Paul doesn’t refer to rape, or to
pederasty, or to men having sex with male prostitutes. He never
singles out the active or the dominant partner of the sex act, which
would be what one expects if his condemnation was limited to
exploitative same-sex activity. Yes, Paul would condemn all these
forms of same-sex activity, but his language in Romans 1:26-27 is
too general to be limited to those or any particular form of same-sex
relations.
The Language of Creation
The second observation is that Paul’s argument here is lled with
allusions to the Creation account of Genesis 1 and 2.11 Paul mentions
“ever since the creation of the world” (1:20); God as “the Creator”
(1:25), He uses specic gender terms: “males” (arsen) and “females”
(theleiai) (1:26-27). These two terms were paired in the Greek
translation of Genesis 1:27, highlighting the different genders:
“male and female he created them.” But just in case we still don’t
get it, there is one more verse in Romans 1 which Paul goes over the
36 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
top to point his readers to Genesis. It’s in Romans 1:23:
[They] exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images
[eikonos] in the likeness of [homoomati] mortal mankind
[anthropou] and birds [peteinon] and animals and reptiles
[herpeton].
Compare that with the Greek translation of Genesis 1:26:
Then God said, “Let us make mankind [anthropon] in our
image [eikona], in our likeness [homoiosin], so that they
may rule over the sh in the sea and the birds [peteinon]
in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,
and over all the reptiles [herpeton] that move along the
ground.”12
There are ve words in common in the space of a verse. It is reasonable
to conclude that Paul writes Romans 1 with an intentional nod
towards Genesis 1-2. But for what purpose?
Paul is drawing attention to the creation account because
his argument is based on God’s creation of humans into different
biological sexes. In Genesis 1, God commissions humanity (male
and female) to exercise dominion over the earth and its creatures. In
Romans 1, Paul says that instead of worshiping God by exercising
dominion over the earth and its creatures, they made idols of their
fellow creatures of the earth and turned their back on their Creator.
Humanity has departed from God’s original intention; humanity
has left the way God designed them to be as gendered humans.
This triggers the “exchanges” in Romans 1: Humanity exchanges
the Creator for creatures; females exchange sexual relations with
males for females; males exchange sexual relations with females
for males. Difference is exchanged for sameness. The relationship
of communion with the other—Creator with creature, mirrored in
the relationship of males with females (and vice versa) in marriage
—collapses into a relationship of sameness.
For Paul, the same-sex acts in 1:26-27 violate gender
boundaries, which go against the way humans were created as
males and females. They are contrary to God’s design or intention
in creation.13 Paul’s disapproval then cannot be limited to some
cultural way of behaving. For Paul, what is wrong with same-sex
relations transcends culture. They go against the way God created
males and females and intended them to relate to each other
sexually.
37
“Contrary to Nature”
The third observation concerns the phrase “contrary to nature” in
1:26. The Greek phrase is para physin. Some translations render
this as “unnatural” (NIV).
What does para physin mean?
The phrase has a long history in Greek literature. Plato used it to
refer to same-sex intercourse in his Laws.14 It was then used by
Graeco-Roman moral philosophers and Greek-speaking Jews, who
believed that same-sex intercourse was contrary to the will of God
or the design of nature.15
Many of these ancient writers critiqued or prohibited all sorts
of sexual behaviour as immoral. Some condemned masturbation,
others sex during menstruation, or even sex with an infertile
wife. Still others considered any sex motivated by pleasure
instead of parenthood to be sin. But, when they discussed sexual
immorality, the phrase para physin is always used only for same-
sex intercourse.16 So, para physin was stock language used by other
Roman and Jewish writers to condemn same-sex relations. Whether
the same-sex relations were extramarital or marital, consensual or
nonconsensual, pederastic or peer, they were para physin—against
the design of nature. Paul appears to be simply using a well-known
phrase in its usual context to refer to its typical referent.17 And
when he uses it in a context lled with allusions to Genesis 1-2, he
is saying that same-sex intercourse is contrary to the design and
intention of the Creator.
This meaning of para physin throws serious doubts on some
the afrming interpretations above. Paul in Romans 1 cannot be
talking about heterosexuals engaging in same-sex intercourse
against their own personal sexual orientation.18 That is not what
para physin means.
Also, this meaning of para physin makes it unlikely that
Paul is condemning only same-sex relations that are products of
excessive lust. Paul never said that same-sex relations were wrong
because they result from excessive lust. What he does say is that
same-sex relations are para physin, and para physin does not mean
excessive lust. As we have seen, Paul appears to be using para
physin typically: the phrase implies that same-sex relations are a
fundamental departure from how the Creator intended men and
women to relate sexually.
38 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
And while we’re on this excessive-lust interpretation, here are
some further reasons that make this interpretation an unlikely one:
First, the excessive-lust interpretation doesn’t work for female
same-sex relations, which Paul mentions in Romans 1:26. Yes,
many Graeco-Roman writers critiqued male-male same-sex acts on
the basis of excessive lust. But, as far as we know, female same-
sex relations were mutual, non pederastic, and rarely (if ever)
considered the byproduct of excessive lust. And yet, Paul still says
that they are “contrary to nature.”
Second, while Paul uses the terms “lust” (1:24), “passion” (1:26)
and “desire” (1:27) in Romans 1, he doesn’t talk about “excessive
lust” in the same way that the other Graeco-Roman writers do.
“’Desire’ (epithumia) and ‘passion’ (pathos) are considered wrong
in Romans 1 not because such desires are excessive—Paul never
says they are excessive—but because they grow into sinful sexual
actions.”19 It is the action, not excessive desire, that Paul labels as
para physin.
For Paul, same-sex relations are wrong because they are para
physin—contrary to the Creator’s intention for male-female sexual
relations. His language is general, and is the language of mutuality,
and his condemnation applies to all forms of same-sex intercourse,
not just exploitative, pederastic, temple prostitution, excessive-
lust driven, or other more specic forms of same-sex activity. That
negative appraisal also applies to consensual, life-long, monogamous
same-sex relations.
But remember the context…
The many allusions to the Creation account serve to bolster the
idea that God does have a design for humanity to ourish, a design
involving relationships of communion with the other—Creator with
creature, male with female in marriage. This design for human
ourishing has been spurned by sinful and idolatrous humanity.
If this is so, then it is actually not loving, and not promoting a
person’s ourishing, if we encourage a person to pursue same-sex
sexual intimacy. But, saying “no” to same-sex sexual intimacy ies
in the face of contemporary culture, for which the deep resonances of
the word “love” have become attened into something approaching
“indulgence.” It is also perceived as judgemental, and unloving.
And indeed, those of us who say “no” must guard against
judgementalism. One way is to remember the context of Romans
39
1. Paul doesn’t write this chapter to condemn gay people. He writes
it to condemn all people. Romans 1:26-27 is part of the section that
leads up to the sad universal indictment: All are sinners. All people
are under God’s wrath. All have chosen this for ourselves (Rom
3:19-20, and 23).
If we read in context, there cannot be any sense of moral pride
or spiritual superiority. It would be extraordinarily hypocritical for
us to look on with disgust and revulsion at the homosexual acts of
Romans 1, but at the same time ignore our own pride, boastfulness,
envy, covetousness, judgementalism, and hypocrisy, all of which are
also mentioned in Romans 1-2. To adapt a popular saying, a beggar
who has found bread and looks down on another beggar who hasn’t,
is only a hypocritical, proud beggar.20
1 CORINTHIANS 6:9 AND 1 TIMOTHY 1:10
Do 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 mention some form of
same-sex activity? Most would say yes. But there is debate among
scholars over what kind of same-sex activity Paul is referring to.
Many of us are unaware of this, because the usual English
versions we rely on have settled the matter for us, for better or
worse. The issue is about the meaning and translation of two Greek
words: malakoi and arsenokoites.
This is how the updated NIV renders these verses:
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually
immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have
sex with men [malakoi and arsenokoitai] nor thieves nor
the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers
will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10,
NIV2011)
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous
but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful,
the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers
or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for
those practicing homosexuality [arsenokoitai], for slave
traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else
is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the
gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he
entrusted to me. (1 Timothy 1:9-11, NIV2011)
40 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
We read the NIV or the ESV, both products of evangelical scholarship,
and wonder what the fuss is about. Aren’t the texts clear?
Malakoi and Arsenokoites in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV) renders the Greek words malakoi and
arsenokoitai, not with two equivalent English words, but as a phrase:
“men who have sex with men.” The ESV also uses a phrase: “men
who practice homosexuality.” But is this the correct translation?
Afrming scholars say this is over-interpreted. They say the
meanings of these two Greek words are unknown, or are too uncertain
for them to be used to condemn all homosexuals.21 As Dale Martin
of Yale says: “I am not claiming to know what arsenokoites meant. I
am claiming that no one knows what it meant.”22 Some want to limit
the words to some sort of exploitative same-sex behaviour like male
prostitution or pederasty. That way, 1 Corinthians 6:9 has nothing
to say about the core question of consensual, loving, monogamous
same-sex relations. We have seen this interpretive move earlier, to
limit the application to particular exploitative forms of same-sex
activity.
Nonafrming scholars usually say that malakoi refers to the
passive partner in male homosexual intercourse, while arsenokoites
refers to the active partner, hence the translated phrase in the
NIV2011 and ESV. This is actually stated in the footnotes in both
versions.
What are the issues involved with these two words?
Malakoi
Malakoi is the plural form of the adjective malakos, which usually
means “soft” or “delicate.”23 The context of 1 Corinthians 6:9 is
that of a vice or sin list. Malakoi is one in a list which includes the
sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, greedy, drunkards,
and so on. From this we know that malakoi refers to a certain kind
of person involved in some sort of sinful action. But what kind?
Since Paul never uses this word in his other letters, we have
to look at how other people in the Graeco-Roman world used this
word: malakos was used to describe men who looked and acted like
women. They acted like women, talked like women, or they had
sex like women (that is, they were penetrated). These are men who
fundamentally confused gender distinctions by the standards of the
ancient Roman world.24
By itself, malakos does not mean “the passive partner in male
41
homosexual intercourse.” The word is much broader than that, and
its meaning is dependent on the standards of gender distinction in
the ancient Roman world. So, a man who showed too much public
affection to his wife would be malakos, because that showed a lack
of control, which, by the standards of Graeco-Roman culture, was
considered womanly. And, a man who shaved his chest hair was
malakos, since chest hair was a sign of manliness. But—and here is
where we get an extended meaning—if a man was willing to shave
this manly chest, this may make people wonder what other unmanly
acts he was willing to engage in. Thus, a Roman writer says that a
man’s lack of bodily hair is evidence that he played the passive role
in sex with other men.25
As Preston Sprinkle has helpfully summarised: Not every
person accused of being a malakos necessarily engaged in sex with
other men, but every man who played the passive role in homosexual
sex could be called malakos.26 Malakos doesn’t have to refer only to
same-sex intercourse, but it often did.
Paul uses the word in 1 Corinthians 6:9 without further
explanation. It appears to refer generally to effeminacy; that is,
a man who is acting like a woman, according to standards in the
Graeco-Roman world. Does Paul’s usage include same-sex activity?
Possibly, because it often did in surrounding culture. We don’t have
to be reminded that Paul is writing to the Greek city of Corinth with
the assumption that they do know what the word means. Maybe the
next word in Paul’s list can help us further.
Arsenokoites
If the scholarly disagreement over malakos is a skirmish, the debate
over what arsenokoites means is a full-blown war. The problem is
two-fold:
First, this is the rst time the word occurs in all of the
ancient Greek literature we have. We can’t compare how earlier
or contemporary writers have used the word (like we did with
malakoi), because there are none.
Secondly, and worse, the word arsenokoites occurs in a list of
vices in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Lists are hard to interpret. If Paul had
said something like: “The arsenokoites looked deeply in the eyes of
his boyfriend and kissed him,” that would have made things easier.
We would have a narrative context to gure out what Paul meant.
But Paul simply puts the word in a list. All we know is that it refers
to persons, who are associated with some kind of sinful behaviour.
42 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
So how can we interpret this word? Or, to put it another way,
what made the translators of the NIV and ESV come up with what
they have?
Here are some considerations:
1. What do the different parts of the compound word
arsenokoites mean by themselves?
Arsenokoites is a compound word made up of two Greek words:
arsen and koite. Arsen simply means “male” and refers to the
male gender irrespective of age. Koite means “a structure for lying
down” or “bed.” With a verbal idea, it can carry the extended sexual
meaning of “to sleep with,” i.e., sexual intercourse. We know of
other compound words that have koite in them, and they often carry
a sexual meaning. So doulokoites—formed by doulos (“slave”) and
koite (“bed”)—means “one who has sex with slaves.” Metrokoites—
from meter (“mother”) and koite (“bed”) means “one who has sex
with his mother.” Following the same logic, arsenokoites may refer
to someone who sleeps with other males.27
But we have to be very careful when we determine the meaning
of a compound word based on its individual parts. As Dale Martin
rightly points out, a compound word may have a meaning completely
different from the sum of its parts.28 “Buttery”, for instance, has
nothing to do with a dairy product, or a house pest. On the other
hand, it doesn’t necessarily follow that arsenokoites cannot ever
mean “one who sleeps with other males.” After all, “businessman”
does mean someone who engages in business, and “birdwatcher”
does mean someone who watches birds.
So, arsenokoites may mean what the parts suggest—“men who
sleep with other men”—but it’s not conclusive. Let’s look at some
additional evidence.
2. Does the Old Testament contain any similar words or
phrases that may inform Paul’s use of the word
arsenokoites?
The exact word arsenokoites does not appear in the Septuagint, the
Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, which was the version of the
OT used by most NT writers. But in the Septuagint, we can nd a
similar phrase made up of the word’s individual parts. Arsen and
koite are found in close proximity in two very signicant verses of
the Greek Old Testament. Here is what the Greek of the relevant
portion looks like, with a very wooden translation:
43
Leviticus 18:22: kai meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten
gunaikeian “and you shall not lie with a male with the
lying of a woman”
Leviticus 20:13: kai hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten
gynaikos…“and whoever lies with a male with the lying of
a woman…”
These are precisely the two verses in Leviticus that explicit condemn
male same-sex relations. The similarity is striking, especially in
Leviticus 20:13. The two words arsenos and koiten, which form
Paul’s compound word arsenokoites, occur right next to each other.
So we have Paul, the Pharisee, the expert on the Law; using
a compound word arsenokoites, the parts of which can mean “one
who sleeps with males,” which parts are also very similar to the
only two verses in the entire Old Testament that talk about men
sleeping with males. Some afrming scholars ignore or downplay
the Leviticus connection.29 But other afrming scholars are fairer
with this evidence and admit that Paul possibly or even probably
had Leviticus in mind when he uses arsenokoites.30 I think Paul
wrote arsenokoites with Leviticus in the background.
3. Does the word occur anywhere in other Jewish literature?
Later Jewish writers used a Hebrew phrase mishkab zakur (“lying
with a male”). This Hebrew phrase reects the wording of Leviticus
18:22 and 20:13 and was widely used in Judaism to describe same-
sex relations.31
Both the Hebrew phrase mishkab zakur and the Greek word
arsenokoites are almost identical to the wording of Leviticus 20:13.
Paul is bilingual; he knows Hebrew and Greek. He’s writing to an
audience in 1 Corinthians that knows Greek. He uses a Greek word
apparently based on the Greek of Leviticus 20:13, which parallels
the Hebrew phrase mishkab zakur which is used in later Judaism
(and possibly earlier) to refer to male same-sex intercourse. All the
evidence points towards translating arsenokoites as “men who have
sex with males.”
Furthermore, arsenokoites, whenever used in later Christian
writings, and whenever translated into other languages (Latin,
Coptic, Syriac) consistently takes on the meaning “men who have
sex with males.”32
44 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Summary for Malakoi and Arsenokoites in 1 Corinthians 6:9-
10
First, the two words that form the compound word arsenokoites
can mean “men who sleep with males.” Second, arsenokoites seems
to have been derived from Leviticus 18:22 and especially 20:13,
where arsen and koite occur and are used to prohibit male same-sex
intercourse. Third, the Hebrew equivalent mishkab zakur (“lying
with a male”) was used as a technical term in Jewish writings for
same-sex intercourse based on Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
There is good evidence for understanding arsenokoites to
refer to men who have sex with other males. And, since Paul lists
malakoi right before arsenokoites, it is reasonable to take malakoi
to mean men who cross gender boundaries by receiving sex from
other men. Arsenokoites then would refer to the active partner in
same-sex intercourse.
Some afrming scholars agree with this, but limit the meaning
to particular forms of same-sex relations. They say that malakoi are
“call boys” who sell themselves to other men, and that arsenokoites
are the men who pay for the services of the malakoi. Other scholars
say that 1 Corinthians 6:9 refers to pederasty. Certainly, Paul’s
words include such people, but the words and associated usage are
so general that there is no compelling reason to limit their meaning
to prostitution or pederasty.
Furthermore, if Paul had pederasty in view, why didn’t he use
one of the many terms available that refer specically to pederasty?
After all, there were other Greek words that were widely used by
Christians, Jews, pagans, to refer to pederasty: paiderastes (“the
love of boys”), or paidophthoros (“corruptor of boys”) or paidophtoreo
(“seducer of boys”). Jewish authors especially used the latter two
terms to condemn the practice. Why not these more specic words,
if this is the more limited meaning that Paul had in mind?
Arsenokoites in 1 Timothy 1:10
Paul uses arsenokoites one other time in 1 Timothy 1:10. Like 1
Corinthians 6, arsenokoites occurs in a list of vices, but this time
without the companion term malakoi. The context doesn’t seem too
different from Paul’s use of the same word in 1 Corinthians 6, and
so it seems reasonable to conclude that Paul is referring to men who
play the active role in same-sex intercourse.
In these two Pauline texts 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy
1:10, malakoi refers to men who thoroughly cross gender boundaries
45
by receiving sex from other men. Arsenokoites refers to men who
play the active role in having sex with other males. The negative
appraisal of such acts would appear to include those that take place
in a consensual, life-long, monogamous same-sex relationship.
CONCLUSION
We have examined the NT texts that have been identied as speaking
explicitly about same-sex relations. We considered interpretations
of these passages that argue that they do not condemn consensual,
life-long, monogamous, same-sex relations. But a careful exegesis
reveals these texts either assume or argue that same-sex activity of
all kinds is contrary to the purpose of God, and are expressions of
humanity’s sinful rebellion against God.
But it would be against the shape of the gospel to end here. Too
often discussions of this sort end with a kind of mental stop: “Thank
God the church has interpreted this correctly all this time. This is
sin, and it is to be condemned.” But that’s not exactly Gospel. At
least, not yet.
One of the dangers of examining a couple of verses in detail
is that we can often miss the forest for the trees. Let me end with
Wesley Hill’s observation on these New Testament texts, situating
them in their gospel-shaped larger context.
One of the most striking things about the New Testament’s
teaching on homosexuality is that, right on the heels of
the passages that condemn homosexual activity, there
are, without exception, resounding afrmations of God’s
extravagant mercy and redemption. God condemns
homosexual behaviour and amazingly, proigately, at
great cost to himself, lavishes his love on homosexual
persons.33
And so, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11:
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually
immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have
sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards
nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of
God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NIV2011)
46 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
This is a harsh saying. But in the immediate next verse, Paul goes
on to pronounce: “And that is what some of you were. But you were
washed, you were sanctied, you were justied in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (v. 11). That is the
ring of good news, Gospel, that the unrighteous may be redeemed.
Sinners—gay or straight—may be forgiven and made holy as God’s
treasure no matter what they’ve done in the past.
Then in 1 Timothy 1:9-11, Paul lists a rogues’ gallery of sinners,
“lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and
irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,
for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for
slave traders and liars and perjurers.” (1 Timothy 1:9-10, NIV2011)
That sounds grim. But again, just a few verses down, we
hear from Paul the ring of gospel: “Here is a trustworthy saying
that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to
save sinners” (v. 15), including the all the types of sinners he just
mentioned, including those who practice homosexuality.
In Romans 1:26-27, as part of Paul’s sweeping indictment of all
humanity, we hear the specic charge sheet for Gentiles:
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.
For their women exchanged natural relations for those
that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up
natural relations with women and were consumed with
passion for one another, men committing shameless acts
with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for
their error. (Romans 1:26-27, ESV)
But what follows in the next section in Romans 3:21-26 is an
astonishing display of God’s righteousness, revealed in the atoning
work of Christ. It is astonishing because God’s righteousness, instead
of judging us for our sins, covers and erases them permanently, and
brings us into covenant relationship with God. The condemnation
of Romans 1:26-27 is there precisely as a counterpoint for all of us
to hear one of the grandest and most powerful statements of the
gospel: “All (who) have sinned…are justied by [God’s] grace as a
gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (3:23-24). All
our sins—whether we are Jew or Gentile, gay or straight, murderer
or moralist—have been dealt with in Christ. All of us can be made
righteous by God as a gift. All are sinners, all can be made righteous.
This gospel promises forgiveness of sins—all sins, including
homosexual acts—to anyone who will receive it through Jesus’
47
death and resurrection. I trust we all agree these verses must never
be detached from their life-giving, gospel-pointing purpose.34
Brief Endnote:
There is one remaining task. In our examination of 1 Corinthians
6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10, we concluded that Paul likely had in
mind the OT prohibitions against same-sex intercourse in Leviticus
18:22 and 20:13. This raises the question about the death penalty
attached to the end of Leviticus 20:13. We may think it obvious that
executing men who have same-sex intercourse no longer applies
today. But do we realise how offensive Leviticus 20:13 sounds? Do
we know how scary it sounds to gay and lesbian people, especially to
the majority who have—at some point in their lives—faced bullying,
discrimination, hatred and even physical abuse because of their
orientation? Many popular level conservative Christian books don’t
mention the death penalty when Leviticus 20:13 is discussed.35 I
think this is a huge blind spot that needs to change.
So, if Paul assumes the continuing validity of Leviticus 20:13,
and consequently we say that the prohibition of Leviticus 20:13 is
still authoritative today, what do we mean?
I think we mean that same-sex relations are still viewed
negatively. It is still sin, an act of rebellion against God. But the
stated judicial punishment no longer applies today, because God’s
people are now constituted differently under the New Covenant,
in which God’s dealings with his people have been dramatically
changed with the coming of Jesus Christ and the sending of the Holy
Spirit.36 In the same way, adultery is sin, and cursing of parents is
sin, though the church doesn’t put adulterers or sons who curse
their parents to death, even if Leviticus 20:9 and 10 says so.
What Paul does in 1 Corinthians 5 provides a helpful analogy.
There, a man was having sex with his stepmother (“his father’s
wife”). Paul says that this form of sexual immorality was so bad even
the non-believers didn’t tolerate it. Here’s the interesting thing:
Paul didn’t say, “put those perverts to death.” That’s what Leviticus
20:11 says. What Paul prescribes instead is church discipline. Most
scholars think Paul is prescribing some kind of excommunication,
to put the offender out into Satan’s domain (that is, outside of
the church) for the express purpose of his eventual restoration (1
Corinthians 5:5).37 Death is not the last word, salvation is.
By analogy: Is the prohibition against same-sex relations in
Leviticus still authoritative for Christians today? Yes. And Paul
48 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
appears to base his sexual ethic on them. Does the death penalty
still apply? Not literally. But some form of church discipline may,
for the purpose of restoration. I know it’s cumbersome, but if we
wish to use this text in discussion, I think it is our duty to explain
the whole picture—including what we do with that death penalty—
and not just cite or quote or tweet the verse and leave it hanging.
49
CHRISTIAN TRADITION
While the term “Christian tradition” is often viewed suspiciously
in Protestant circles, a complete disregard of it actually does
no justice to the Reformation. In their debates with the medieval
Roman church, the magisterial Reformers appealed to Christian
tradition, especially the Church Fathers. While Protestantism
afrms that the Bible alone is the nal source of authority for
faith and practice, it never denies intermediate sources which may
inform and guide. Actually, attempting to understand and expound
Scripture apart from this historic deposit of the universal church is
not just hubristic, but hazardous. As C.S. Lewis said, neglecting the
literature of the Christian past is akin to the embarrassing confusion
one experiences when joining at eleven o’clock a conversation that
started at eight.1
What tradition does is to provide interpreters a sense of
direction, guard-rails against distortion, and assurance of numbers.
Christian faith and practice is best discerned in conversation with
the historic testimony of the saints over the centuries.
But what do we mean by “Christian tradition”? We understand
Christian tradition as the history of what God’s people have believed
and how they have lived based on God’s revelation. It is not just a
collection of creeds, confessions, and doctrinal statements, but also
expectations for ways of living for those who would follow Christ.
HOMOSEXUALITY AND
THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION
Dr Lai Pak Wah &
Mr Quek Tze-Ming
51
That is not to say that Christian tradition is necessarily
monolithic for every matter of faith and practice. On issues such
as the institution of slavery, and the place of women in society
and church, Christian tradition is self-evidently not univocal. This
mirrors and probably reects the ambiguity/nuance of the scriptural
sources.2 But where the particular matter under discussion has
unambiguous scriptural basis, and is supported by the consistent
and entire testimony of Christian tradition over the centuries, then
any attempt to overturn or reinterpret that consensus has to be an
extraordinarily strong case.
This is in fact the situation with the question of homosexual
practice. Despite some modern revisionist accounts (more on this
later), Christian tradition consistently views all forms of homosexual
practice as sin, and opposes it.
In the rst half of this essay, we will present samplings of
Christian tradition on homosexuality from a) Early Christianity and
the Church Fathers; b) The Medieval Period; and c) Reformation
and Counter-Reformation, offering comments throughout. In the
second half, we will examine in more detail recent theologising
by Archbishop Rowan Williams and Eugene Rogers, and end with
some helpful proposals by the theologian Oliver O’Donovan.
EARLY CHRISTIANTIY AND THE CHURCH FATHERS
The early church was concerned to distinguish Christian ways of life
from pagan ones, and sexuality was one main area where this took
place. Fornication and adultery were condemned. Several church
fathers explicitly condemned sexual activity between members
of the same sex. While many do mention pederasty, prostitution,
temple prostitution, orgies, and the like (often in a vice list), it is
also clear that their negative view is not limited only to homosexual
activity in these contexts. Contrary to what some revisionist
historians like John Boswell have argued, the Fathers did not
condemn ONLY specic homosexual activity involving exploitation
or violence, pagan idolatry, or non-monogamous licentiousness.3 As
David F. Wright and others have shown, this is a misrepresentation
of the Fathers. There is instead strong evidence that the Fathers
condemned ALL homosexual activity, and precisely for the reason
that it is contrary to God’s intended design (or, to use Augustine’s
terminology, against man’s created nature).4
52 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Here are a few examples:
The Instructor, Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200)
This long passage is instructive (pun intended!) because it illustrates
how carefully we need to interpret the Fathers. Clement inveighs
against several types of sexual sin in this passage, including
effeminate men and masculine women, adultery, promiscuity,
prostitution, pederasty, and even incest. While the majority of these
acts that would be sin whether heterosexual or homosexual actors
are involved, it is nevertheless telling that his main critique of
homosexual activity is because it is contrary to nature (cf. Romans
1:26).
To such an extent, then, has luxury advanced, that not
only are the female sex deranged about this frivolous
pursuit, but men also are infected with the disease. For
not being free of the love of nery, they are not in health;
but inclining to voluptuousness, they become effeminate,
cutting their hair in an ungentlemanlike and meretricious
way, clothed in ne and transparent garments, chewing
mastich, smelling of perfume. What can one say on seeing
them? Like one who judges people by their foreheads,
he will divine them to be adulterers and effeminate,
addicted to both kinds of venery, haters of hair, destitute
of hair, detesting the bloom of manliness, and adorning
their locks like women...and boys, taught to deny their
sex, act the part of women...Men play the part of women,
and women that of men, contrary to nature; women are
at once wives and husbands: no passage is closed against
libidinousness; and their promiscuous lechery is a public
institution, and luxury is domesticated. O miserable
spectacle! horrible conduct! ...What, then, will not women
with strong propensities to lust practice, when they look
on men perpetrating such enormities? Rather we ought
not to call such as these men, but lewd wretches, and
effeminate, whose voices are feeble, and whose clothes are
womanish both in feel and dye. And such creatures are
manifestly shown to be what they are from their external
appearance, their clothes, shoes, form, walk, cut of their
hair, look. “For from his look shall a man be known,”
says the Scripture, “and from meeting a man the man is
53
known: the dress of a man, the step of his foot, the laugh
of his teeth, tell tales of him.” (3.1)5
Apology, Tertullian (ca. 197)
Here Tertullian is indeed speaking of pederasty, but it is notable
how he assumes that pederasty is an expression of homosexual
activity, rather than paedophilia. In other words, rightly or wrongly,
Tertullian thinks, with most Christians of the time, that the main
problem with pederasty is not exploitation of minors (though that
is sometimes mentioned), but that it involves same-sex relations.
But if we challenge you to comparison in the virtue of
chastity, I turn to a part of the sentence passed by the
Athenians against Socrates, who was pronounced a
corrupter of youth. The Christian connes himself to the
female sex...(46)6
Against the Valentinians, Tertullian (ca. 200)
I should suppose the coupling of two males to be a very
shameful thing.(11)7
Homilies on Romans, Chrysostom (397)
Chrysostom is one of many who: a) comment on Romans 1:26-27
and interpret it as a condemnation of homosexual activity because
it is unnatural (“all things are turned upside down, … “transgressed
the laws”); and b) appeal to the Sodom episode as an example of
God’s judgement for such acts. There is of course ongoing debate
today whether or not Genesis 19 and its record of attempted
homosexual gang-rape is directly applicable to current discussions
of consensual, life-long, monogamous, same-sex relations. But what
is indisputable here is that when the Fathers do mention Sodom,
they use it to condemn all homosexual activity.
Chrysostom also specically mentions female same-sex
activity, calling it disgraceful. This is notable because in the
ancient world, female same-sex relations were mainly consensual,
not pederastic or based on power differences between the parties
(as was the case in many male same-sex relations).8 It seems the
Fathers are following the Apostle Paul closely in their diagnosis of
the problem (“against nature”), and the extent of the condemnation:
all homosexual activity, not just specic kinds.
54 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
But when God hath left one, then all things are turned
upside down. And thus not only was their doctrine
Satanical, but their life too was diabolical...Which is an
evident proof of the last degree of corruptness, when both
sexes are abandoned...For everything which transgressed
the laws by God appointed, lusted after monstrous things
which be customary...For not the soul only, but the body
also of one who hath been so treated, is disgraced, and
deserves to be driven out everywhere. How many hells
shall be enough for such? But if you scoff at hearing of
hell and believe not that re, remember Sodom.(1)
And yet a more disgraceful thing than these is it, when
even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to
have more sense of shame than men.(4)9
Confessions, Augustine (397)
It is tting to end our brief sampling of the Fathers with the fourth
to fth century North African Bishop Augustine, since his shadow
looms large over any discussion of Christian views on marriage
and sexuality. His teaching on marriage—found in his Marriage
and Virginity, and On Genesis—can be easily summarised in the
memorable “goods” of marriage: proles (offspring), des (faithfulness),
and sacramentum (a visible, permanent sign of the love of God in
Christ). Augustine’s work remains the most inuential synthesis of
the scriptural account of marriage in the Western Church. This is
reected today not only in formal theological teaching and catechesis,
but also in marriage counselling, and wedding liturgies.10
Given the rst “good” proles, we are not surprised to nd
Augustine condemning same-sex activity. Any sexual activity that
is not intrinsically ordered towards actual or potential reproduction
is “contrary to nature everywhere and at all times” (i.e., not culture-
bound) and is sin against divine law.
Therefore those offenses which be contrary to nature are
everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and
punished; such were those of the Sodomites, which should
all nations commit, they should be held guilty of the same
crime by the divine law, which had not so made men
that they should in that way abuse one another. For even
that fellowship which should be between God and us is
55
violated, when that same nature of which He is author is
polluted by the perversity of lust...But You avenge that
which men perpetrate against themselves, seeing also
that when they sin against You, they do wickedly against
their own souls; and iniquity gives itself the lie, either by
corrupting or perverting their nature, which You have
made and ordained, or by an immoderate use of things
permitted, or in “burning” in things forbidden to that use
which is against nature.(3.8)11
We can draw some conclusions from our sampling of the Fathers.
First, given their diverse ethnicities and geographical locations,
there is remarkable consensus on the moral status of ALL same-sex
activity. It is grievous sin against God because it violates the design
of the Creator who made men and women for each other.
Second, this consensus is drawn from both Old and New
Testaments, with the sexual ethics of the Old Testament being
foundational to New Testament teaching on Christian faith and
practice.12 Inuential for their thinking are the Apostle Paul’s
teachings (esp. Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9), but also
the interpretation that Sodom’s sin was (primarily) homosexual
relations (Genesis 18-19).
Third, the negative view of homosexual relations is part
of a wider concern to distinguish Christian ways of life from the
surrounding Graeco-Roman milieu. In the area of sexual ethics,
Christian tradition consistently holds that sexual relations were
acceptable and holy only within the connes of heterosexual
marriage. According to Kyle Harper, what was truly distinguishing
about the Christian sex ethic, as set out by Paul and followed in
Christian tradition, was that “gender difference—rather than age
or status—was the prime determinant in the propriety of a sexual
act.”13 The morality of sex was distilled to its basic constituents of
male and female (and their relationship).
THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD
This consensus continued into the medieval period. This can be
seen in sources as diverse as penitentials,14 decrees in ecumenical
councils,15 works of scholastic theology, and accounts of mystical
experiences. Examples of the latter two are illustrative:
56 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas (1274)
Thomas discussed the Christian view on homosexual acts using
Scripture, the Fathers, and reason, as is typical for all the topics he
discusses. Following the drawn-out scholastic argumentation of the
day, he agrees with Augustine that this “vice against nature” was
sin that violated God’s design for procreation. Here is one of several
passages that could be cited:
The sin of lust consists in seeking venereal pleasure
not in accordance with right reason...First, because it is
inconsistent with the end of the venereal act. On this way,
as hindering the begetting of children, there is the vice
against nature which attaches to every venereal act from
which generation cannot follow.
Wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity
whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there
is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two
ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and
this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in
addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal
act as becoming to the human race: and this is called the
unnatural vice. This may happen...by copulation with an
undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the
Apostle states (Romans 1:27): and this is called the vice of
sodomy.16
“Know the Ways of the Lord”, Hildegard of Bingen (1179)
Lest we suppose that the negative views on homosexual acts all
come from stuffy church hierarchy comprising exclusively uptight
men, here is Hildegard, a German nun and mystic who recorded
this message she claims to have received from God in a vision:
For many are found among both spiritual and secular
people who not only pollute themselves in fornication with
women but also assume a heavy burden of condemnation
by contaminating themselves in perverted forms. How? A
man who sins with another man as if with a woman sins
bitterly against God and against the union with which
God united male and female. Hence both in God’s sight
are polluted, black and wanton, horrible and harmful to
God and humanity, and guilty of death; for they go against
57
their Creator and His creature, which is in them. How?
God united man and woman, thus joining the strong to
the weak, that each might sustain the other. But these
perverted adulterers change their virile strength into
perverse weakness, rejecting the proper male and female
roles, and in their wickedness they shamefully follow
Satan, who in his pride sought to split and divide Him Who
is indivisible. They create in themselves by their wicked
deeds a strange and perverse adultery, and so appear
polluted and shameful in My sight...And a woman who
takes up devilish ways and plays a male role in coupling
with another woman is most vile in My sight, and so is
she who subjects herself to such a one in this evil deed.
For they should be ashamed of their passion, and instead
they impudently usurped a right that was not theirs. And,
having put themselves into alien ways, they are to Me
transformed and contemptible.17
While Aquinas and Hildegard have quite different ways of
speaking, it is not difcult to see that they agree with, and express
the consensus of Christian tradition. Yet again we see a blanket
condemnation of all homosexual acts, because it is contrary to God’s
design.
REFORMATION AND COUNTER-REFORMATION
One of the concerns of the Reformation was immorality—including
sexual immorality—among clerics in the medieval Roman church.
Luther argued against mandatory clerical celibacy, saying that it
was the cause of hypocrisy and even homosexual activity.18 Many
by this time were calling it the “abominable vice” and “unnatural.”
In this polemical context, we nd the universal assumption that
homosexual acts were sinful. The following are examples from when
Reformation thought was systemised, one each from the Lutheran
tradition, the Reformed tradition, and the English-speaking Puritan
tradition.
Augsburg Confession (1530)
Among all people, both of high and of low degree, there has
been a loud complaint throughout the world concerning
the agrant immorality and dissolute life of priests who
58 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
were not able to remain continent and who went so far as to
engage in abominable vices...The vow of celibacy has been
the cause of so much frightful and unchristian offense, so
much adultery, and such terrible, shocking immorality
and abominable vice that even some honest men among
the cathedral clergy and some of the courtiers in Rome
have often acknowledged this and have complained that
such vices among the clergy would, on account of the
abomination and prevalence, arouse the wrath of God.19
The Heidelberg Catechism (1563)
Can those who do not turn to God from their ungrateful,
impenitent life be saved? The answer: Certainly not!
Scripture says, “Surely you know that the unjust will
never come into possession of the kingdom of God. Make
no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty
either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves
or grabbers or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers, will
possess the kingdom of God.”20
Westminster Larger Catechism (1648)
Q. 139: What particular sins does the seventh
commandment forbid? The answer: In addition to failing
to do what is required, the seventh commandment
forbids: adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy and all
unnatural desires.21
To end this section on Reformation thought, one further item is
worth nothing. Amidst all the disagreements and rancour over
fundamental doctrines (Scripture, Authority, Justication, etc.), the
Roman church shared the Reformers’ negative view on homosexual
acts. They were indeed concerned that priests must be an example
to their ock, and there was no place for in the kingdom of God for
“liers with mankind” (i.e., men who sleep with men, see Leviticus
10:13; 1 Corinthians 6.9-10). Here is an example from the counter-
reformation document par excellence:
Council of Trent (1545-63)
Defending the doctrine of the divine law, which excludes
from the kingdom of God not only unbelieving, but the
59
faithful also (who are) fornicators, adulterers, effeminate,
liers with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers,
extortioners, and all others who commit deadly sins.
(Sixth Session, Chapter XV)22
CHURCH CEREMONIES OF SAME-SEX UNIONS?
Given the unanimity of teaching and attitudes from the New
Testament and early church, through the medieval era, into the
Reformation period, it is surprising that some have argued for
the existence of church ceremonies that blessed same-sex unions.
Boswell is the most inuential, in his proposal that the adelphopoiesis
(“brother-making”) ceremony in Greek Orthodox churches were (or
can be) a prototype for modern church-blessed same-sex marriage.
He cites an eleventh-century text which he styles “Ofce for Same-
Sex Union”:
The priest<shall say>:
Forasmuch as Thou, O Lord and Ruler, art merciful and
loving, who didst establish humankind after thine image
and likeness, who didst deem it meet that thy holy apostles
Philip and Bartholomew be united, bound one unto the
other not by nature but by faith and the spirit. As Thou
didst nd thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus worthy to
be united together, bless also these thy servants, N. and
N., joined together not by the bond of nature but by faith
and in the mode of the spirit, granting unto them peace
and love and oneness of mind. Cleanse from their hearts
every stain and impurity, and vouchsafe unto them to love
one another without hatred and without scandal all the
days of their lives, with the aid of the Mother of God and
all thy saints, forasmuch as all glory is thine.23
This is worth reproducing in full so we can italicise parts of this text.
The wording consciously guards the “union” from any accusations
of impropriety: “not by nature, ...but by faith and in the mode of
the spirit,” “cleanse...every stain and impurity,” “without scandal.”
Given the stream of church tradition, which informed the moral
standards of the day, this cannot be a “same-sex marriage.”
Boswell’s special pleading is not convincing. Perhaps the
assumptions of the hyper-sexualised age of the late modern West
60 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
have (de-)formed us so that many of us cannot see this ceremony
for what it is: for pledging spiritual friendship and brotherhood
with a priest presiding. There are in fact analogous (non-Christian)
ceremonies of “sworn brothers” in East Asian cultures.
This adelphopoiesis ceremony is no basis for condoning church-
blessed same-sex marriages, though it does suggest how Christians
today need to recapture spiritual friendship—between men or
between women, whether opposite-sex or same-sex attracted—as a
way of deep spiritual formation.24
In the second half of this essay, we will explore in more detail
recent theology within Christian tradition that speaks on the
subject, and seeks to revise the historical consensus towards a more
afrming stance.
The Body’s Grace, Rowan Williams (1989)
The former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams originally
delivered The Body’s Grace in 1989 as an address to the Lesbian and
Gay Christian Movement. Since then, it has been described as “the
best 10 pages written about sexuality in the twentieth century.”25
The essay begins by noting that “grace, for the Christian
believer, is a transformation that depends in large part on knowing
yourself to be seen in a certain way: as signicant, as wanted.”26
This notion of being desired and wanted, is fundamental to the
Christian Gospel since the whole story of creation, incarnation and
our incorporation into the fellowship of Christ's body tells us that
God desires us, as if we were God, as if we were that unconditional
response to God's giving that God's self makes in the life of the
Trinity. We are created so that we may be caught up in this; so that
we may grow into the wholehearted love of God by learning that
God loves us as God loves God. The life of the Christian community
has as its rationale—if not invariably its practical reality—the task
of teaching us this: so ordering our relations that human beings
may see themselves as desired, as the occasion of joy.27
Sexual desires, as Williams sees it, closely parallels God’s
desires for us since, through it, one discovers that “her body can
be the cause of happiness to her and to another.” Indeed, my
desire, if it is going to be sustained and developed, must itself be
perceived; and, if it is to develop as it naturally tends to, it must be
perceived as desirable by the other—that is my arousal and desire
must become the cause of someone else's desire.28 In other words,
there is a reciprocal nature in sexual desire that brings into focus
61
God’s love and desire for us. This is what Williams conceives as the
‘Body’s Grace’: that by our very bodies engaged in the acts of sexual
desiring, we catch a glimpse of God’s grace, God’s desire for us.
Having outlined what is a theology of sexual desire, Williams
then develops the idea by considering how heterosexuality, celibacy
and homosexuality sheds further light on this subject. Heterosexual
relationships, explains Williams, often do not help us see “what part
sexuality plays in our learning to be human with one another, to enter
the body's grace, because all we need to know is that sexual activity
is licensed in one context and in no other.”29 To put it differently:
because the legitimacy of heterosexuality seems so self-evident, one
rarely, if ever, reects on its theological signicance when engaged
in it. Yet, if we reect deeper on the grace that our bodies might
reveal to us, we will discover that sexual faithfulness is no less than
“the creation of a context in which grace can abound because there
is a commitment not to run away from the perception of another.”
Indeed, it is a sphere where couples “may have a certain freedom to
‘take time,’ to mature and become as profoundly nurturing as they
can,” and in this way participate in the body’s grace.30
It is with this in mind that Williams perceives the celibates
and homosexuals as playing unique roles in the Church’s
understanding of the body’s grace. With regards to the former, he
suggests that these are called into a vocation of singleness because
the community needs some who are called beyond or aside from the
ordinary patterns of sexual relation to put their identities direct
into the hands of God in the single life. …[and] to see if they can
nd themselves, their bodily selves, in a life dependent simply upon
trust in the generous delight of God.31
As for the latter, sexual desire does not play the so-called
instrumental role that it often has in heterosexual relations, since
it can never have as its end “the peopling of the world.” For this
reason, “same-sex love annoyingly poses the question of what the
meaning of desire is in itself,” i.e., it forces the church to reect
deeper and to perceive clearer what the nature and telos of sexual
desire is.32
Williams’ sensitive exploration of sexual desire is profound in
many ways, but yet strange in others. Let us start with the positives:
a) First of all, by focusing on the analogical and teleological
signicance of sexual desire, he is working in continuity with a
rich tradition in Christian theology, in company with luminaries
62 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
such as Augustine and C.S. Lewis. In this way, Williams’
theological reection is remarkably traditional and is no mere
imposition of liberal instincts upon classical Christian teaching.
b) Secondly, Williams is right to suggest that because
heterosexual relationship is so taken for granted by all,
its theological signicance has been missed by most.
His exploration of the grace embedded within our
sexual desires for our spouses is rich, illuminating, and
profound for our understanding of the sacramental role
of sexual union within marriages.
c) Thirdly, Williams also helpfully brings into focus the iconic role
that celibates or singles (whether voluntary or involuntary)
play in the Church: that they demonstrate in their own lives
and bodies an utter dependence on God for the satisfaction
of their deepest desires.
This being said, Williams’ essay is problematic in two ways:
a) First, it is always hazardous to start from a psychological
experience (or desire) and reach out to posit a corresponding
social form. This is because what we think we desire may not
be what we truly mean or need. Oliver O’ Donovan illustrates
this well: we may have “a desire for a quiet retirement to a
cottage in the countryside, or the desire to own a fast racecar.
[Yet] we cannot take any of them at their face value. ‘It wasn’t
what I really wanted!’ is the favourite complaint of a
disappointed literalism.’ ” Rather, as O’Donovan advises,
how we should proceed is to start from “given social forms,
marriage and singleness [as it should be the case on the
legitimacy of homosexuality], and using these as a
baseline from which to reach out analogically to interpret
an elusive and mysterious experience.”33
b) Secondly, while Williams’ theology of sexual desire is profound
in the context of spousal love, this doctrine on its own appears
to legitimate all sexual desires, whether heterosexual or
homosexual. Its incompleteness is laid bare in the possibility
that the same theological logic he propounds may well be
extended to other forms of sexual relations usually censured by
most societies: (i) consensual incest, (ii) consensual sex between
an adult and a minor or perhaps even (iii) a human being’s
63
sexual relation with another animal (bestiality). Arguably, in all
cases, there can be sexual desire shown by one and reciprocated
by the other (even in the case of an animal). Arguably, in all
cases, the sexual encounter that transpires does deepen
both parties’ deeper perception of the body’s grace and thus
the teleological nature of their desires (it is of course debatable
whether an animal may perceive divine grace through sexual
relations, but this may be well be a difference in degree rather
than quality of perception).
It is unlikely that supporters of Williams’ theology would ever be
supportive of the sexual relations mentioned above. Yet, they would
be in no position to disagree since a theology of the body’s grace
alone seems sufcient to legitimate such relations.
Williams is not completely wrong. The “body’s grace” can be
profound in the context of spousal love. This leads us to conclude that
his insights are incomplete and in need of other theological input.
Indeed, what is missing is a robust theology of God’s ordinance for
creation, or more specically the reection that desires are only
rightly ordered when they have both right objects and right means
and context of expressing those desires. One might say Williams
needs more Augustine (or even Genesis!).
Sanctication, Homosexuality and God’s Triune Life, Eugene
Rogers
In his essay, Sanctication, Homosexuality and God’s Triune Life,
Rogers attempts to address two key questions:
a) “Given that gay and lesbian people are not going to go away,
what shall the church do with them?”
b) “Given that gay and lesbian people are part of the church,
how much shall it allow their bodies to mean? …By what sort of
sacramental practices can the church best teach gay and lesbian
Christians to see themselves as occasions of joy, that God
desires them as if they were God?”34
The answer to these questions, as Rogers sees it, is to allow
homosexual couples to participate in the sacrament of marriage
so that the goods that are involved in this sacrament (the ascetic
practice, the development of one’s love for God and our neighbours,
etc) may be enjoyed by these couples.
64 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Rogers begins with the premise that marriage is a sacrament
because it is (i) an important analogy of God’s (or Christ’s) love for
the Church and vice versa, and (ii) it tells us much about who we
are as images of God. This being said, he rejects the claim by some
that procreation is intrinsic to the analogical value of marriage.35
Rather, its analogical value is to be found in the free love and self-
giving between two humans, since it is in this way that humans
participate in God’s love.36
The question that follows is, of course: whether marriage
should be restricted only to heterosexuals in order for it to function
effectively as an analogy of God’s love for humanity? Roger’s answer
to this is negative. His reasons are as follows:
a) Firstly, God has, in the past, worked “contrary to nature”
(para physin, Romans 11:24 cf. Romans 1:26), as it is the case
of him grafting the wild branches (or Gentiles) to the olive Tree
(Israelites). The whole intent of this superseding of nature,
as Rogers sees it, is to enable humanity to experience more
deeply the love and communion with the Trinity. If the latter
is the aim of salvation and the analogical value of marriage,
one should therefore not let sexual orientation frustrate the
analogical intent of marriage.37
b) Secondly, the above interpretation is also in line with the
spirit of Galatians 3:28, where Paul declares that “there is no
longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is
no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ
Jesus.” Paul, as Rogers understands him, would have taken
the distinction between Jews and Gentiles to be both a natural
(ethnic) and moral distinction. Again, if ethnic and moral
boundaries were transcended for the sake of salvation, we
should not then let gender boundaries frustrate the analogical
intent of marriage.38
c) Thirdly, the heterosexuality commonly assumed in marriage
does not play a signicant analogical role in depicting God’s
relationship with His Church. This is because (i) God/Christ
is not male and has sometimes been depicted in feminine terms
(during the medieval times, Jesus has been depicted as a mother
par excellence); and (ii) the Church has never been entirely
female since it consisted of both women and men.39
65
d) Fourthly, Christianity is a religion that takes seriously the
role of the body in salvation. If this is the case, one’s sexual
orientation should become a means by which a homosexual
Christian sanctify himself. The most appropriate arena for
this then is a monogamous homosexual marriage.40
More importantly, marriage as a sacrament has always been
intended by the Church to be an important means by which
Christians sanctify themselves and learn how to love God and his
neighbour. It is an askesis not unlike monasticism.41 Indeed, it is
for this reason that the Orthodox Church would also crown both the
bride and bridegroom since their marriage will be for them, a kind
of martyrdom for Christ.
Thus, while Rogers acknowledges that “the male-female
version of the one esh can be especially apt for representing the
union of Christ with his bride the church,” he also believes that
“not everyone need [to] represent this union in the same way,” since
“the analogy is exible enough already that both celibates and the
married can represent it. Gay and lesbian couples also need not
threaten the aptness of the relation between Christ and the church,
but can be taken up into it.”42
Rogers’ thesis presupposes Williams’ proposal in the Body’s
Grace and can therefore be understood as the logical extension of
the former.43 Namely, if we grant that sexual desire, on its own, is a
sufcient analogy of God’s love for humanity, what better way then
is it to embody this analogical logic but to do so in the sacrament of
marriage?
This similarity also means that the Rogers’ proposal suffers
the same weaknesses as that of Williams’. Like Williams, his
interpretation of the analogical value of marriage does not take
seriously the argument that the analogy only operates effectively
within the God’s ordinances for creation. It should take seriously
the embodiments that God has ordained for and given the world.
CONCLUSION
By way of extended conclusion on this survey of homosexuality
and Christian Tradition, we recount Oliver O’ Donovan helpful
observations and proposals from both his book, Church in Crisis,
and his essay, Homosexuality in the Church: Can There Be a Fruitful
Theological Debate?44
66 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
O’Donovan commends “a principle in the hermeneutics of
biblical ethics,” that will allow Scriptural precepts [to] bear upon us
as they are mediated through evangelical doctrine.”
Fundamental Identity in Christ
He begins with the observation that discourse about homosexual
identity have often set homosexuals in stark contrast to the
heterosexuals. In so doing, the rhetoric seems to presume that
sexuality is constitutive of our humanity and that which separates
us from one other. But the question is, “can there be such a thing as
a homosexual identity?”
The answer, he believes, is negative. “Our identities, [as] the
Gospel tells us, are given in Christ risen from the dead; they are
to be found within that lordly humanity which stands before God
in the ‘last Adam’.” For this reason, “other identities, whether
national, class, family or whatever, are relative and secondary.”45
The same is to be said about one’s gender, not to mention one’s
sexual orientation. Indeed, humanity’s fundamental identity is not
to be found in our sexuality, but in Christ, the second Adam.
Homosexuality is not the determining factor in any human
being’s existence; therefore it cannot be the determining factor in
the way we treat a human being, and should not be the determining
factor in the way a human being treats him—or herself. Gays are
children of Adam and Eve, brothers and sisters in Christ. There is
no other foundation laid than that.46
Diversity as Vocation
This being said, the differences found within human lives, whether
it is our given genetic, environmental, occupational or other forms of
circumstances do set us apart from one another. Yet, as O’Donovan
argues,
Not every form of apartness is a denial of that fundamental
togetherness. …At Pentecost all heard the Gospel in
their own language; none had to abandon their linguistic
identity to hear it.47
Rather, our differences, whether it is gender, ethnic or otherwise
could become for us a vocation that can enable us to serve God “in
a certain distinct context and manner.”48 For example, a Chinese
67
who becomes Christian, because of the fact of his Chineseness, puts
him in the unique position to reect theologically about his Chinese
culture, to understand Chinese religious sentiments and therefore
being able to be a better witness for Christ among the Chinese. This
is the same for the student, or the banker, or the soldier.
It is in within this context of Christian vocation that one should
reect on the homosexual phenomenon. “Could we,” as O’Donovan
puts it, “nd an analogy here? Could a homosexual ‘identity’ become
a vocation?”49 Indeed, one may venture further to ask:
‘How does the homosexually inclined person show Christ to the
world?’ For if the gay Christian is to be addressed as a believer and
a disciple, a recipient of the good news, he has also to be addressed
as a potential evangelist.50
Same Gospel
Reections on one’s Christian vocation, however, should always
bear in mind the fact that we are addressed from the same Gospel.
There should not be “a gospel for the homosexual any more than a
gospel for the teacher of literature, for the civil magistrate, or for
the successful merchant.” So, “the preaching of the gospel can and
must address distinct vocations, even though it must address them
only in the second place, after it has spoken to us all as human
beings, not in the rst place.”
What arises then are pastoral concerns. It is the recognition
that: “in light of the gospel, neither literature nor government
nor money [or any other vocational settings) are mere neutral
technicalities. They are dangerous powers in human life, foci upon
which idolatry, envy, and hatred easily concentrate. Those who
deal with them need to know what it is they handle. The teacher,
politician, and banker who have not yet woken up to the battle
raging in the heavenly places around the stuff of their daily lives,
have still to face the challenge of the gospel. Is it any different with
the powers of sexual sensibility?”51
Wisdom of Tradition
Our pastoral reections, continues O’Donovan, should not be de
novo. Rather, it must pay due attention and respect to the wisdom
of those who have come before, i.e., Christian tradition. What then
is the role of tradition in our reections of a so-called ‘homosexual
vocation’?
68 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
The Christian facing the perils and possibilities of a
special position must be equipped, as a rst step, with the
moral wisdom of those who have taken that path before,
the rules that have been distilled from their experience. A
soldier needs to learn about “just war,” a nancier about
“just price,” and so on. Again, can it be any different in the
realm of sexual sensibility? Discernment is not acquired
in a vacuum; it is learned by listening to the tradition
of the Christian community reecting upon Scripture.
…[While] no element formed by tradition can claim
absolute allegiance, …the right to revise traditions is not
everybody’s right; it has to be won by learning their moral
truths as deeply as they can be learned. …[Indeed,] the
tradition may not have the nal word, but it is certain
they will not nd the nal words the tradition offers. …
No one who has not learned to be traditional can dare to
innovate. (italics mine)52
As O’Donovan sees it, this is the main difculty for revisionist
historians of Christian tradition, with regards homosexuality (and
those who would follow them).
If this gay Christian, then, directed to traditional rules of
sexual conduct as bearers of help, complains that the good
news is difcult to hear because his position is treated
as compromised from the onset, he has misunderstood
something. There is only one position compromised from
the outset, and that is the position that is ‘revisionist’
from the outset, determined by the assumption that the
Church’s past reections on the gospel have nothing
helpful to offer. Certainly no one who sets out from that
starting point will end up in a catholic communion, for
catholic communion presupposes a catholic mind.53
Here is also where we can see the main problem with Williams’
and Rogers’ proposals. Responding most likely to Rowan Williams’
theology of the Body’s Grace, O’Donovan reminds us that not all
desires are equally legitimate. Not all are goods of God. Indeed,
…to all desire its appropriate self-questioning: what
wider, broader good does this desire serve? How does it
spring out of our strengths, and how does it spring out
of our weaknesses? Where in relation to this desire does
69
real fullment lie? It is in interpreting our desires that
we need the wisdom of tradition, which teaches us to
beware of the illusory character of immediate emotional
data, helping us to sort through our desires and clarify
them.54 (italics mine)
May we all take these helpful words to heart, as all of us (gay or
straight) who would seek wisdom to obey our vocation today sit
around a table where the conversation has been going on for quite
some time.
70 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Four
Introduction
The twin pillars that form the bedrock of society—marriage and
family—are being assailed in our twenty rst century world as
never before in human history. The postmodern cultural icons of
western libertarian freedom and individual choice combine to form
an ever tightening grip choking out the majesty and beauty in God’s
original design for marriage and family. Combine this tightening
grip of western liberalism with the loosening of traditional Asian
values of marriage and family in Singapore, it is little wonder that
Christians and churches are confused and conicted about the
Biblical view of these twin axioms and building blocks of society.
This essay will trace God’s design for marriage and family. We
will do this by tracing the biblical theology of marriage and family—
from creation, to the fall, to Israel and, nally, to Jesus and his
restoration of God’s good purposes in the church. We conclude by
looking at the implications of marriage and family for the church’s
mission dei. We will see that though the family and church are
linked yet there are nuanced and distinctive differences between
them which should be simplistically collapsed. In conclusion, this
paper will recommend a necessary rethink of our ecclesiology,
missiology and eschatology for church and family, especially in a
post-Covid-19 world, so that we can prayerfully rise to God’s call to
be a beacon of gospel light in a fallen and darkened world.
Rev Dr Christopher Chia
CHRISTIAN UNDERSTANDING
OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
73
Biblical Theology of Marriage and Family
Marriage and Family at Creation
The Bible’s narrative unambiguously declares that marriage and
family are God’s good ideas, based neither on subjective human
conventions of cultural traditions nor on contemporary worldviews.
This divine design and purpose of marriage means that we are not
free to “renegotiate or redene marriage and the family in any way
they choose”.1 Put another way, the marriage institution cannot be
improved on. Only marriages within God’s divine institution can
improve. We cannot diminish God’s design based on our ckleness
nor can we dismiss them outright as archaic conservative cultural
norms. We cannot dilute their God-given signicance over time. We
tinker with marriage and family at our own personal peril, familial
decay and societal collapse.
Genesis 2:23-24 is the foundational blueprint of marriage.
This comes after the only pejorative pronouncement in the Genesis
creation account: “It is not good for man to be alone” (Genesis
2:18). This is neither a divine critique of aloneness or, worse still,
a condemnation of singleness. Rather, it sets out God’s good design
for marriage. Adam found “no suitable helper for himself” even in
the wondrous beauty of Eden endowed with trees. The text captures
the increasing desperation while creating the growing anticipation
that even, after naming all the animals subject to him, Adam found
nothing in creation commensurate to share in his unique God-
given image and mandate to rule the world as God’s representative
(Genesis 1:26-31).
It is at this critical moment of felt aloneness in Eden that
God creates woman and Adam encounters his newly minted wife,
graciously given to him by God. Adam receives her with such relief
of his aloneness and such joy of a shared life of tending the garden
under God for God’s glory that he gushes the rst recorded human
poetic verse: ‘This at last is bone of my bones and esh of my esh;
this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.’
Adam rejoices over the woman not simply because she completes or
complements him but more so that she complements God’s design
for man and woman (Genesis 1:26-27). She is equal yet different
to him in that her unique role is to be his God-intended helper
(Genesis 2:17). All these build up to a crescendo to the one verse
which is lled with divine gravitas for marriages: ‘Therefore a man
74 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they
become one esh’ (Genesis 2:24). The author’s clear focus here—
extrapolating from God’s creation of the rst woman taken from
his very body—is that human marriage is a “one esh” union, two
words which are central to the biblical denition of marriage.2 This
“one-eshness” consists of four essential truths about marriage:
intimacy, exclusiveness, permanence and covenant.3
A unique intimacy
Marriage involves “leaving” our family of origin and “being united”
to one’s spouse, signifying the establishment of a new family unit.
God’s call to leave one’s family to establish a whole new family unit
with a hitherto stranger calls for maturation of faith and obedience
rooted in the theology of “one eshness”. This “one eshness” has
two stand out principles. The rst is a “one esh” union which
overrides even blood relationships to create a new kinship which
becomes the most signicant bond between a man and woman.
Ortlund aptly states it this way:
“Marriage puts a barrier around a husband and his wife
and destroys all barriers between them; they belong
fully to one another, and to one another only. All other
relational claims are subordinate to those of marriage.
Our ‘one eshness’ entails a life-long, exclusive clinging of
one man to one woman in one life fully shared.”4
A Unique Exclusiveness
Secondly, a married man’s leaving of his parents of origin is matched
by a call to cling to his wife. This is the positive counter point of
leaving his parents. The outcome of this “one esh” union is God’s
call to love one another to exclusion of all others. “One esh” suggests
sexual intercourse and, consequentially, procreation. Sexual union,
as God designed it originally, is the icing on the cake of marriage—
adorning, infusing and completing this sacred institution with all
its divine manifest goodness and beauty.
A Unique Permanence
The complementary concepts established by God of “leaving” parents
and “cleaving” to a spouse for one eshness implies that marriage
75
is intended to be permanent. This permanence was unanimously
afrmed by none more important than our Lord Jesus Christ when
he was quizzed about his views of divorce. It was a most vexed
ethical issue of his generation which split Jewish society into two
camps—the conservative and liberal schools. Jesus, in his response,
did not waste time addressing the subjective human schools of
thought about divorce but very poignantly afrmed God’s original
blueprint of the permanence of marriage at creation (Matthew 19:6
and Mark 10:9). The Lord Jesus castigated their laissez faire view
of elevating divorce—which was granted by God through Moses as
an exception to the rule due their hardness of heart—into a popular
societal rule or norm.
A Unique Covenant
These three sides of intimacy, exclusiveness and permanence of the
one eshness in God’s design of marriage coalesce around the central
theme of covenant. The Bible is redolent with covenant—from the
Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic to the new covenant
fullled in Jesus—with nuanced differences yet one over-riding
constancy. God, as the divine initiator and keeper of this covenant is
also the divine witness to all human vows in relationships. Rightly
understood and humbly lived out, a marriage entered into before
God involves a husband, a wife and God, as witness. The sacredness
of marriage is ultimately safeguarded by none other than God
himself binding them to a delity “till death do us part.”
Marriage after The Fall: Distortion
God’s beatic vision of man and woman in blissful seless one-esh
union (Genesis 2:24-25), lling the earth with progeny (Genesis 1:26-
28) and fullling the divine image of representative rule is rudely
disrupted by the fall (Genesis 3). The equal yet complementary “one
eshness” of Adam and Eve is shattered by mistakenly listening
to the serpent, instead of rightly listening to God. Their rebellion
brings about dire distortions to their divine image and dislocations
of their harmonious relationships.
All these unfold from God’s divine judgement over their
rebellion: “To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly increase your
pangs in childbearing, in pain you shall bring forth children; and
your desire shall be for your husband, but he shall rule over you.”
(Genesis 3:16). Outside Eden and God’s presence, the woman now
76 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
has to endure pain in childbirth and in marriage. Her desire for her
husband degenerates into an idolatrous controlling penchant (see
the analogous Hebrew word in Genesis 4:7, where sin is crouching
at Cain’s door “desiring” to overwhelm him). Meanwhile, her
husband will go from his legitimate ruling over the created world
and creaturely realm to his unwarranted lording over his wife in
the domestic scene. Henceforth, the woman’s idolatrous “desiring”
of her husband and the man’s sinful “lording” over his wife has
scarred every marriage and marred every family in varying degrees
of dysfunction.
The rest of Genesis 3-50 is a sad catalogue of the distortion
of sin in the lives of the patriarchs, the forefathers to the nation
of Israel. This state of massive dislocation—springing from female
subversion matched by male domination—unfold in all their
ugliness in every patriarch’s dysfunctional marriage and family.
The litany of family breakdown litters the whole of Genesis—from
Abram’s cowardice which jeopardises Sarai (Genesis 12:10-20),
to Rebekah’s favouritism and deception of her husband (Genesis
27:5-17), to Jacob’s selsh deception of Esau and nally to Joseph’s
heart-wrenching betrayal by his brothers. Indeed, Genesis records
the spread of sin from the rst couple (Genesis 3), to the rst family
(Genesis 4 where Cain kills his brother), to the rst polygamy
(Genesis 4:19 where Lamech took two wives), culminating in two
successive waves of societal rebellion that elicits God’s judgement
of the ood (Genesis 9) and the confusion of tongues at the tower of
Babel (Genesis 11).
This unstoppable spread of sin sees the human race cascading
helplessly from one level of depravity to the next. A brief survey of
the biblical history of marriage and family in Israel’s life conrms
the dire consequences of rebellion against God and his divine
purposes. Kostenbeger lists six negative consequences of marital
breakdown from God’s original ideal—polygamy, divorce, adultery,
homosexuality, sterility and gender role confusion.5
Genesis 4:19 records the sad truth that barely after Adam had
died, Lamech—the seventh from Cain’s genealogy—took two wives,
and boasted about it. This will be followed in quick succession by
the notable men in Israel’s history—Abraham, Esau, Jacob, Gideon,
Elkanah, David and Solomon—succumbing to polygamy. Polygamy
not just grieved God and fell short of his good original design, it
often resulted in destructive favouritism, jealousy and, most
seriously, descend into idolatry which ran counter to the exclusive
77
worship of Yahweh. Divorce, the second compromise of God’s ideal
for marriage, undermines the permanence of marriage. Divorce
became so normalised in Israel’s life that it elicited stringent
constraints in the Mosaic code (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) as a check, not
as a cure, for hardened hearts. Divorce, then, was understandably
used as the main analogy for Israel’s spiritual apostasy (Isaiah 50:1
and Jeremiah 3:8).
Adultery, the third casualty of Israel’s covenant fracture, was
the breaking of one’s sacred marriage vows. The Ten Commandments
stipulated this resoundingly: “You shall not commit adultery”
(Exodus 20:14). The Law which was given to expose and condemn
sin, was not meant to eradicate sin, let alone the pernicious sin
of adultery. King David’s adultery with Bathsheba was arguably
the most glaring example how adultery had infected the whole
covenant nation—from king to the common man (2 Samuel 11).
Little wonder, the wisdom book of Proverbs rightly labels adultery
as ultimate marital folly (Proverbs 5:3-22 and 6:32-33). Adultery,
like divorce, would be a frequent analogy of the spiritual two-timing
of Israel (Hosea 1:1–3:5).
Kostenberger identies homosexuality as the fourth mark of
falling away from God’s creation purposes. He says “it violates the
divine will for marriage to be between one man and one woman. As
Genesis 2:24 stipulates, “A man (masculine) shall leave his father
and his mother and hold fast to his wife (feminine), and the two shall
become one esh.” Heterosexuality is the only possible arrangement
for marriage, as the Creator has commanded and expects married
couples to ‘be fruitful and multiply and ll the earth’ (Genesis 1:28).
Since homosexuality involves same-sex intercourse that cannot
lead to procreation, it is unnatural and cannot logically entail the
possibility of marriage.”6
Sterility was the fth shortcoming of God’s ideal for marriage.
Fertility, contra sterility, was the blessed outcome of the “one esh”
union of man and wife. It is instructive that the matriarchs—Sarah,
Rebekah and Rachel—are barren until God opens their wombs to
bear the promised progeny for world blessings (Genesis 12:1-3). At
times, sterility is presented as a fact of our fallen nature (Genesis
11:30 and 1 Samuel 1:2) while, in other circumstances, the lack
of fertility is said to be the result of personal sin (Genesis 20:17-
18; 2 Samuel 6:23). The nal result of our rebellion against God
is gender confusion which runs counter to his design of binary
and complementary genders for one eshness, procreation and
78 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
preservation of the human race. The suppression of God’s truth and
substitution of the creator with the creature (Romans 1:18-32) will
blur the lines of what it means to be man and woman. Spiritual
rebellion will inevitably lead God “giving us” over to sexual depravity
and uidity.
In summary, the post-fall picture is bleak but never hopeless.
Israel’s covenant-making and covenant-keeping God will hold out
redeeming grace to not merely mitigate our sinfulness but to reverse
our rebellion. The Old Testament, therefore, continues to extol the
virtues of the excellent wife (Proverbs 31:10-31) and to celebrate
the beauty of sex in marriage (Song of Solomon). These glimpses of
gospel hope—together with prophetic visions of a new Jerusalem
lled with redeemed worshippers from all nations (Isaiah 2:1-11
and Micah 2)—point unswervingly not simply to a cosmic reversal
of our rebellion but to the ultimate restoration and glorication of
God’s creational purposes in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Marriage: God’s Restoration & Glorication
The Mystery of Marriage (Ephesians 5:22-33)
Ortlund astutely commends that Ephesians 5:22-33 as the theological
and hermeneutical intersection through which all biblical questions
about marriage must eventually pass. He states it aptly as:
Here the Apostle Paul identies the institution of
marriage as a “mystery” revealing Jesus Christ and the
church. The declaration in Ephesians 5:30 that “we are
members of [Christ’s] body” draws a typological connection
with Genesis 2:24 (‘one esh’) in verse 31. The apostle’s
reasoning is stunning. ‘We are members of [Christ’s] body.
“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother
and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one
esh” ’ (vv 30-31).7
Paul’s instruction that a man should love his wife as he loves his
own body (Ephesians 5:28) cannot be misunderstood as self-interest
as it is rooted in Christ’s love which took him to the cross for his
church, the ultimate one eshness with his people (Ephesians
5:31). In Paul’s logic, Christ and the church is the reality. Human
marriage is the earthly type, pointing towards the spiritual reality
of Christ and the church, not the reverse. Put another way, Christ’s
79
perfect union with the church as a loving head to his body is the
raison d’etre why a husband becomes one esh with his wife. It is
Christ’s heavenly marriage that infuses and dignies an earthly
marriage, not vice versa.
The mystery of Christ and the church burst forth in all its
majesty but only if we rightly understand in the context God’s cosmic
plan of salvation “to bring all things in heaven and on earth together
under one head, even Christ” (Ephesians 1:10). In short, marriage
is not an end in itself but part of God’s end-time restoration of all
things in the person of Jesus Christ. The crucible of this restoration
is that all evil powers are defeated, subsumed and submitted to the
supreme authority of Christ who defeated the Devil, atoned for sin
and reversed death (Ephesians 1:21-22).
With all things being summed under the headship of Christ,
what is God’s redemptive pattern for marriage and family? Firstly,
we should note that Paul addresses marital roles as part of a bigger
“household code” for God’s new society. Here is how Jesus’ redeemed
people live out redeemed relationships Paul addresses three primal
sets of relationships—wives and husbands (Ephesians 5:22-33);
children and parents (Ephesians 6:1-4) and, nally, slaves and then
masters (Ephesians 6:5-9). In each pair, the former (wives, children
and slaves) are instructed to submit. The latter, on the other
hand, are not given carte blanche right to misuse, but to rightly
use, their God-given authority for the other person’s welfare. Both
parties in each relationship are equal ontologically (in creation, sin
and salvation) but differentiated functionally. So, husbands are to
exercise endless love and ceaseless care for the good of their wives,
whom they are to regard as their own bodies.
Secondly, we are to note that Paul’s exhortations for redeemed
behaviours in redeemed relationships is never predicated on human
goodwill or resolution but solely on our need to be continually lled
with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 5:18-21). Marriages and families
will therefore be foolish to attempt any radical change based on
self-will and self-improvement. Last, but not least, God’s pattern
of headship and submission in all three relationships are placed
within the larger context of spiritual warfare. It begins with
Christ’s headship over all other powers, which Paul addressed at
the beginning of his letter (Ephesians 1:10 and 1:20-23). He returns
to this theme of cosmic warfare at the end of his epistle. He exhorts
urges all Christians—husbands and wives, parents and children—
to put on the “whole armor of God” so they can stand against the
devil’s many schemes (Ephesians 6:10-20).
80 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
We ignore this cosmic warfare waged in our hearts and
homes at our own peril and detriment. In this spiritual battle, the
Christian’s struggle is not against esh and blood but against the
evil supernatural principalities and powers (Ephesians 6:12). Only
armed with God’s gospel arsenal availed by faith in Christ—his
truth, righteousness, the gospel, faith, salvation and God’s word—
will we be able to discern, expose, stand rm and resist the devil
“in the evil day” (Ephesians 6:13). It is this spiritual sensitivity to
spiritual warfare against the power of Satan and his forces that
explains why there is so much confusion and befuddlement in many
marriages and families today. Yet, it is often this very spiritual
blindspot we miss in addressing the burgeoning divorce rates and
family breakdowns. We do well to factor in Satan’s massive assault
on marriage and family if we are confront and reverse this.
A Biblical theological survey of marriage and family will not be
complete without a peek at the book of Revelation. There the new
Jerusalem comes down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride
adorned for her husband (Revelation 21:2). There, the bridegroom
presents the church to himself in splendour, without a spot or
wrinkle or anything of the kind (Ephesians 5:26-27).
In summary, in our survey of the biblical theology of marriage
stretching from Genesis to Revelation, we see that it both pivots on
and points to the “one-eshness” of human marriage as the main
typology of Jesus and his church. Earthly marriages keep pointing
beyond the human and temporal to the divine and eternal when
we will be nally enraptured and consumed by the perfect love of
Christ for his beloved bride for whom he laid down his life.
Biblical Contours of Church and Family
We now turn to discuss the practical implications of marriage and
family for the church’s missio dei. We will explore the Biblical
meanings of church and family before attempting to relate marriage
and family to the church as God intends.
To be sure, the origins of the church does harken all the way
back to the Old Testament—springing rstly from God’s call to
Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3) and culminating in Israel as Yahweh’s
worshipping community of a “kingdom of priests” (Exodus19:1-3).
However, if we stay closer with the Lord Jesus’ and the apostle’s
descriptions of the church (ekklesia), it comes into full bloom as a
result of the nished work of Christ and the ongoing work of the
Holy Spirit, rst poured out on the rst believers in Jesus Messiah
81
at Pentecost in Acts 2. Indeed, the word “church” (ekklesia) is rarely
used by Jesus (only twice in the Gospels)—rst to refer to the
“messianic community” and, then, to the proleptic “I will build my
church” vision (in Matthew 16:18 and 18:17 respectively).8 Luke’s
Gospel, likewise, does not feature the term ekklesia until the book
of Acts where it bursts forth with a plethora meanings is its twenty-
four uses. This suggests that the concept of the church comes into
full orb only after the ascension of Christ and the subsequent
outpouring of the Spirit.
We nd the bulk of the New Testament teaching on ekklesia
mainly in Acts and the Pauline epistles. The New Testament
teaching on church is unambiguous. Authentic church membership
in the kingdom of God inaugurated by Jesus Messiah is predicated
solely upon personal repentance and faith in Jesus as Saviour, Lord
and God. It is this that results in regeneration, the indwelling of
and gifting by the Holy Spirit (Acts 4:10, 1 Corinthians 13:1-15
and Titus 3:4-7). Only those who humbly bend the knee to Jesus
(Philippians 2:1-11) receive forgiveness (Ephesians 1:7), justication
(Romans 5:1), the Spirit (Ephesians 1:14-15) and spiritual gifts
for the edication of his church for Jesus’ mission for God’s glory
(Ephesians 1:13-14). Put simply—for our consideration of the nexus
of church, marriage and family—“when a person comes to faith, his
or her familial state is of no consequence, whether married, single,
divorced, or widowed”9
What are the main descriptions of the nature and functions
of church? The “body of Christ” seem to predominate as the main
metaphor in Pauline ecclesiology (Romans 12:4-8, 1 Corinthians 12-
14, Ephesians 4:11-17). The emphasis of the body metaphor is on
the “one eshness” between Christ as the “head” and the church as
his “body”. Paul draws the audit trail of one esh theology—all the
back from God’s original creation (Genesis 2:24) to his new creation
in Christ—when he corrected the libertine Corinthians believers for
their low view of body theology when he wrote 1 Corinthians 6:15-
20.
15“Do you not know that your bodies are members of
Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make
them members of a prostitute? Never! 16Or do you not
know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one
body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become
one esh.” 17But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one
spirit with him. 18Flee from sexual immorality. Every
82 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the
sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19Or
do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy
Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not
your own, 20for you were bought with a price. So glorify
God in your body.”
Central to this is oneness between Christ and his church is the
Spirit’s indwelling in believers sealing this covenant oneness
(Ephesians 1:14). The Spirit empowers and ensures the continued
holiness of Christ’s church in an unholy world. He does this by
bestowing spiritual gifts and unleashing ministries, foremost among
these are those of pastor-teachers, whose main role is to prepare
God’s people for works of service (Ephesians 4:11-12). While fathers
have a God-given responsibility as spiritual leaders in their homes,
Kstenberger rightly observes that the familial realm is distinct
from the ecclesiastical realm. It is, therefore, important to note that
the work of equipping believers for ministry is placed in the hands
of spiritually endowed pastor-teachers in the church (Ephesians
4:11-12) and who meet the qualications for church leadership (1
Timothy 3 and Titus 1).
The next popular depiction of church in the New Testament
is that of the “household” or “family of God” (1 Timothy 3:4-5, 5:1-2
and Titus 2:1-5).
Believers are to relate to one another as family. So, Paul
exhorts us to relate to older people in church as our “fathers” and
“mothers” and to those of the same age or younger as our “brothers”
and “sisters” in Christ (1 Timothy 5:1-2). This is predicated on
Jesus’ seminal and radical teaching that all who do the will of the
Father—by believing in Jesus Messiah—are his “brothers” and
“sisters” (Mark 3:31-35 and Luke 11:27-28).
There is, however, an important caveat. The “household”
metaphor does not simplistically mean that the New Testament
conceives of God’s ekklesia as “a family of families with individual
family units” forming the main bricks and mortar of the church.
This has important implications for what God intended of the nature
and function of his church and our natural or biological families.
In 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul speaks of believers as “the household of
God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of
the truth.” This is Paul’s clear distinction and clarion call for God’s
church, not the family, to be the “pillar and buttress of the truth”.
Therefore, “the realms of the family and the church, though linked,
83
should remain distinct and not be collapsed to the point of being
indistinguishable.”10
So, what are the respective roles of the church and of the
family? The church’s call to be “a pillar and buttress of the truth”
(1 Timothy 3:15) gives it a distinctive and unique missio dei. The
church stands as a distinctive witness to God’s revelation of truth
and to God’s redemption in Christ. God’s ekklesia is composed only
of the regenerate.
“The constitutive principle for New Testament church
membership is personal faith in Jesus Christ…where
believers by their common faith in Jesus Christ are
adopted into God’s family to become spiritual ‘brothers’
and ‘sisters’ in Christ. The important principle to
remember is that this takes place on the basis of personal
faith apart from their biological family (sometimes called
‘the organic principle’)”.11
Marriage, on the other hand, although created by God, is entered
by both regenerate and unregenerate, believers and unbelievers,
Christians and non Christians. For this reason, marriage and
family cannot serve as “sufcient vehicles of God’s truth” vis a vis
the church.
“It is the church, not the family, that is therefore primarily
charged with preaching the gospel to a lost world and to
fulll the Great Commission. It is the church which is
called to worship God and to evangelize and to disciple
the nations (Matthew 28:16-20). The apostles received
this commission as representatives of the church, not as
heads of families.”12
Therefore, Peter, Paul, Barnabas and Silas—the main players of
the early church’s mission recorded in Acts—are seen engaging
in gospel preaching as ministers of the gospel apart from their
familial roles. Indeed, Paul taught that the concerns for our earthly
marriages and families may present a burden or encumbrance to
kingdom proclamation and eternal priorities (1 Corinthians 7:32-
35). Likewise, discipleship is also the primal calling of the church
to go and make disciples of all the nations (Matthew 28:19). To
be sure, Christian parents have a seminal role to play at home
where fathers are exhorted to bring up children in the training and
84 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:1-4) but this does not mitigate
or change the fact that it is the ekklesia that was given the mandate
to make disciples by teaching them to obey all that the Lord Jesus
Christ had commanded them to do (Matthew 28:20).
In this light, we need to ask what is God’s intended role of
the family? As discussed earlier, the family and the church are
not identical. The family is neither the foundation nor the super-
structure of the church. We now look at some of the main contours
of family in the Bible.
Firstly, from the beginning of creation, heretosexual marriage
and family has been and remains God’s original and unchanging
blueprint for procreation and childrearing. This was to full God’s
creational mandate to “be fruitful and multiply and ll the earth
and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28). Secondly, family has always existed to
care for the spiritual, physical and social wellbeing of its members.
This familial provision, protection and care spanned from its Old
Testament practice—rooted in the Mosaic Law to honor parents
(Exodus 20:4) and to raise children with Godly wisdom for their
spiritual and physical succour (Proverbs 1-7)—to New Testament
families. In fact, the abrogation of responsibility for the physical
provision and care of our families would be a mark of unbelief (1
Timothy 5:18).
In summary, the family plays a crucial role for the continuation
and wellbeing of human society. Christian families who live according
to God’s original creational design and, nally, in submission to
Christ’s redeemed purposes revealed in God’s Word contribute to
the vibrancy of Christ’s Spirit-infused church in its witness to a
fallen and broken world. Yet, there should be no confusion that the
family is not the church and vice versa. The family and the church
play unique roles and serve distinct purposes in God’s original
creational, continued providential and nal redemptive purposes.
Therefore, family and church should not be simplistically confused
or carelessly collapsed into one.
Wither Marriage, Family and Church?
Since the end of the second world war in 1945, the combined forces
of economic globalisation and liberal western values have slowly
chipped away at traditional marriages and families. The growing
scepticism post-World War II leading to the outright repudiation of
the Judeo-Christian framework of marriage and family has caused
85
massive dislocations in western society. It is evident that the church
in the West has failed to live out God’s creational and redemptive
purposes.13 The major lapses—the church’s failure to gospel the
Biblical roles of manhood and womanhood, weak male spiritual
leadership, strident feminism against family, wanton careerism
and the unbridled pursuit of self actualisation—all coaslesce as a
massive assault on God’s design for marriages and family.
This gloomy trend has not spared Singapore and all nations
who embark on the pathway of economic globalisation and imbibe
its attendant liberal western philosophy. In 2020, as a case in point,
fewer couples in Singapore got married and more marriages ended
in divorce, the Singapore Department of Statistics (SingStat).14
A total of 25,434 marriages were registered in 2019, 5.8
per cent lower than the 27,007 marriages registered
in 2018. A total of 7,623 marriages ended in divorce or
annulment last year, an increase of 3.8 per cent from
7,344 in the previous year. Between 2015 and 2019, the
average number of marital dissolutions was 7,536 a year,
an increase from 7,402 in the preceding ve-year period,
SingStat said. The majority of civil divorces in 2019 were
initiated by wives (65 per cent), slightly higher than in
2009 (64.2 per cent). The top reason among women ling
for divorce was “unreasonable behaviour” of spouse, cited
by 58.5 per cent. Among men ling for divorce, the top
reason was “lived apart or separated for three years or
more”, cited by 51.9 per cent.
The key question that must be asked in the church, from the west to
the east, is: “What can be done to stop the slippery slide of marriage
and family?” It is a question that Christ’s church in every epoch—
from the decadence of rst century Rome to our twenty rst century
information age—have to honestly ask as part of fullling God’s
missio dei. We must ask these searching questions not simply
to proclaim the gospel but to enesh, adorn and commend the
glorious gospel of Jesus Messiah to a fallen world burdened with
increasing dysfunctionality—that radiates from the epicentre of the
disintegration of the family unit to the fragmentation of society.
The Family-Integrated Movement
This is one of the latest responses in the United States of America to
counter the decline of family in church. Admittedly, the movement is
86 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
still recent, evolving and not monochromatic. However, proponents
share these salient commonalities. First, they are sincere responses
to the real and perceived failures of the so-called “segregation” church
model which has driven a false wedge into God’s church along age
demographics—Sunday School, youth, adult and elderly—which
they say runs counter to God’s family unit. Advocates of family
integration say the traditional approach “illegitimately separates
people at church into age and other afnity groups”.
Second, the central planks of the family-integrated approach
are threefold. Foremost is that fathers, as heads of households, are
to be spiritual leaders in the home and the church. Voddie Baucham
Jr. in his book Family Driven Faith is a vocal advocate of this.15 So,
for instance, rather than employing a youth pastor, a family-based
youth ministry will have parents as the key drivers of discipling
teenagers. Mark Fox makes a noteworthy contribution with his
Family-Integrated Church: Healthy Families, Healthy Church,
as he chronicles his own journey on this pathway.16 Next, is the
insistence that families worship together even at church and stay
together as they study the Scriptures, fellowship and engage in other
worship-related activities. Finally, this integrated approach which
centres on orienting their ministry to fathers as the natural heads
of households, assert that this better represents the Old Testament
pattern and is more in keeping with Puritan ecclesiology, which
undergirded early American Christianity.17
Kostenberger rightly raises three concerns about the family
integrated movement:
“Nowhere in Scripture is it taught that families must
cluster together at all times when the church is gathered.
Just as fathers may lead their family in worship and Bible
reading at home, so the pastor of a local church may lead
the entire congregation made up of people from a variety
of familial and social backgrounds, in joint worship. The
same can be said about a variety of other forums and
settings—such as Sunday School, children’s worship, or
youth group—which the church may choose to institute in
order to fulll its scriptural mandate to instruct and edify
believers.18
The second concern is whether a wholly family-integrated approach
is unequivocally rooted in biblical theology or more on methodology.
Related to this is whether a family-integrated approach is so
87
clearly predicated on a valid theology of “continuity between Old
Testament Israel and the New Testament church” at the expense
of the New Testament emphasis on personal faith. We should note
that Israel was a temporal theocracy based on kinship ties, so a
“straightforward transposition of the Old Testament patriarchal
model onto the New Testament church” may be both simplistic and
problematic.
A Holistic Christ-centric and Family-focussed Approach
In our sincere quest of gospel delity to put Biblical theoria into
praxis, we do well to always proceed with epistemic humility. This
often means avoiding and rejecting “either-or” approaches. The
family-integration movement has risen as a polemic and timely
corrective to the ill-termed “segregation” model that has falsely
divided up the body of Christ into distinct age demographics.
Extremist integration proponents, however, may end up seeing
the church as an enemy of the family unit which must be kept at
bay and even opposed as an interference to Godly parenting and
discipleship. Unbridled segregationists, on the other hand, might
elevate the role and ministry of the church as a substitute or
replacement of parental duty in raising Christian family.
Rather, we should wisely and humbly adopt a “both-an”
approach where church and family view and value one another as
gospel partners in the task of discipling each “Next Gen” of children
and progeny commensurate to the threats and opportunities of their
times as there is a season for everything under God (Ecclesiastes
3:1-14). Paul’s dictum in Colossians 3:11—“Here there is not Greek
and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian,
slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all”—holds out a salient gospel
truth for our consideration of praxis. Authentic gospel ministries
and churches must constantly seek to uphold the centrality that
“Christ is all that matters” (akin to the hub of a bicycle wheel) while
promoting the equality of “Christ is in all” (the spokes of a bicycle
wheel). In a robust gospel partnership, both parents and church
can constantly seek to be Christ-centred, much like the hub of a
bicycle wheel, while holding together the different bicycle spokes for
different strokes of family-focussed ministries. We must never swap
our “centering” on the eternality of Christ for the temporal “focus”
of our ministries.
In this model of a gospel bicycle, consisting of a “Christ-centric
hub and family-friendly ministry spokes”, both church and family
88 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
can function intentionally and comfortably as “gospel catalysts” in
pedalling the two wheels to hit the road for God’s mission of reaching
the nations more efcaciously. The church, akin to the front wheel,
hits the road for Christ to pass the glorious gospel forward to the
world in its mission witness while the family, as the rear wheel,
hits the road to pass the gospel downwards to the “Next Gen”. The
front wheel hits the road with the aroma of Christ, while the rear
wheel must be a showcase of how this aroma has permeated and
transformed individuals, marriages and families under Christ. This
holistic approach will avoid pitting “church vs family” in extremist
expressions of the segregation and integration models.
Church and family who relate and function as gospel catalysts
are better poised to decide whether to play a “complementary role”
to make up for what may be missing or a “supplementary role”
to strengthen what may be weak in each other’s distinct purview
of ministries under God’s mission. The Covid-19 pandemic, as a
case in point, had exposed these distinctive “churching at home”
and “churching together” realms and needs. When physical onsite
church services and ministries were rstly suspended and nally
disrupted due to the circuit breaker here in Singapore, many
Christian parents and families oundered as they were left to fend
for themselves in terms of the “what” and “how” of churching for
spiritual growth at home—from praying, reading the Bible and
worshipping together to leading family devotions.
Put another way, for too long, “churching together” was the
main or only means of family ministry. Covid-19 exposed two deep
spiritual fault lines. First, is that many churches have not been
intentional in equipping families for spiritual growth at home.
On the ipside, parents conveniently outsourced and relegated
Christian catechism almost wholesale to the church. In short,
“churching at home” was in crisis. This was a global awakening for
the universal church.
Repenting, Re-thinking and Re-doing Marriage, Family and
Church
A new normal post-Covid-19 must see a necessary reset of ministry.
Church has to repent and rethink how to support and strengthen
marriages and families. “This requires churches to be more
intentional in their approach to mentoring and discipleship”.19 How
might this work in practice?
89
Rethinking Our Ecclesiology: Recovering Gospel Manhood
and Families
First, there should be a deliberate rethink of our ecclesiology by
focussing on recovering gospel manhood through equipping men,
especially fathers, to practice their Christian faith as spiritual
leaders of their homes as Paul exhorted in Ephesians 6:4—“Fathers,
do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the
discipline and instruction of the Lord”. The goal is to constantly
strive to mature men to be the husbands and fathers God created
and redeemed them to be.
Second, this recovery of gospel manhood should be embarked
on as a churchwide movement of the Spirit transforming singles,
unmarried, men, women and children into gospel families (1
Timothy 5:1-5 and Titus 2:1-10). This is to be preferred to an ad-
hoc problem-solving basis of piecemeal programs on singleness,
marriage and the family. Ideally, a gospel-centred church with a
“Christ-centric hub and family-friendly spokes” ekkesia should
be oriented toward everyone in their family context, which must
include the singles and unmarried in every koinonia. We turn now
to a brief consideration of singleness and the unmarried state.
“The overwhelming norm in Old Testament times was
marriage. This was in keeping with the foundational
creation narrative in Genesis 1 and 2. Singleness was rare
and was limited to widows, eunuchs, those who could not
marry due to diseases such as leprosy or severe economic
difculties…A different picture emerges in the New
Testament. The major gures in salvation history—John
the Baptist, Jesus, Paul and Timothy—were unmarried.
Jesus spoke favorably about ‘eunuchs for the sake of the
kingdom of heaven’ (Matthew 19:12), and Paul even called
celibacy a ‘gift from God’ (1 Corinthians 7:7).”20
In short, the sweep of biblical history trends from marriage as the
norm with singleness as the exception in the Old Testament to a new
kingdom ethic inaugurated by Jesus Messiah in the New Testament.
The Messiah’s new kingdom ethic has three foci. First, the Lord
Jesus Christ is simultaneously the paradigm of Godly singleness as
one who chooses celibacy for the sake of the kingdom yet he is also
the perfect bridegroom who lays down his life for his bride. Second,
in apostolic teaching that ows from Jesus Messiah, this new
90 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
kingdom ethic upholds both singleness and marriage as concomitant
gifts from God where the advantages and disadvantages of both
marriage are afrmed. Finally, Jesus himself taught there will be
no more marriage in our eternal state as all will be “like angels in
heaven” (Matthew 22:29-30). Paradoxically, this marriage-less state
in heaven rests solely on the only marriage of Jesus, the heavenly
bridegroom, to his spiritual bride. In practice, this means a gospel-
centred church must necessarily lean towards a ekkelsia where both
singleness and marriage are proclaimed, received and experienced
as valid kingdom gifts, choices and stations respectively—with the
overarching goal of obeying and glorifying God regardless of our
marital status—while acknowledging the realities of competing
devotions from our earthly familial duties (1 Corinthians 7:32-35).
In summary, we do well to re-envision a gospel-centred church
with a “Christ-centric hub and family-friendly spokes” ekkesia
that must include singles, the unmarried and families as God’s
holistic koinonia that avoids pitting “church vs family” in extremist
segregation and integration models. Yet, we must keep asking:
“How do we get from vision to reality?”
Rethinking our Missiology: Revaluing our Values
The second plank of our rethinking is missiological. To remake
church, marriage and family for our mission we have to revalue
what has been devalued by paganism in each era. Today, our
urgent task is to reweigh our values vis a vis strident humanism
and secularism. This battle is not new. Fallen humanity—from
Canaanite religions of Old Testament to the 1st century Rome to
our 21st world—has often been characterised by a low view of sex,
marriage and family. God had to warn his redeemed people of the
pernicious idolatries and immoralities of both Egypt where they
exited from and to Canaan where they were to enter.
Leviticus 18 spells this out unequivocally:
“The Lord said to Moses, 2“Speak to the Israelites and say
to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. 3You must not do as
they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not
do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing
you. Do not follow their practices.” (NIV)
Put simply, God’s covenant people had to covenant with Yahweh
not to depart from his lofty or high view of the unique intimacy,
91
exclusiveness and permanence of one-esh covenanted marriage.
Israel could only embark on this by being graced by God’s love
and guided by his Law for undivided devotion to Yahweh (“I am
the Lord your God”) to not be tempted to “buy in” to depraved and
humanistic low views of sex, marriage and family of pagan cultures.
In the New Testament, the apostle Paul had to face off with these
alternative worldviews of sex and marriage which regarded such
matters lightly as temporal bodily appetites, choices and actions
with no eternal consequences. The centrepiece to his corrective of
libertine Corinthian sexual immorality was neither legalism nor
mistaken celibacy within marriage (1 Corinthians 7:1-4) but this
simple dictum in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20:
“Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy
Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not
your own, 20for you were bought with a price. So glorify
God in your body.”
The church of Jesus Christ has to step up to in a twenty rst
century world drowning under the weight of a sex-mad culture so
freely accessed by our gadgets. Undiscerning digital consumption
has a way of morphing into unconfessed digital addictions that
result, nally, in the unintended digital destruction of our hearts,
marriages, families and societies. Josh McDowell Ministry
conducted the most wide-ranging survey on pornography of nearly
3,000 including in-depth surveys among the American teenagers,
Christian pastors and the Christian church.21 The survey found that
70% of Christian youth pastors have had at least one teen come to
them for help in dealing with porn in the past 12 months, the highest
were among high school boys (92%). Sadly, 21% of youth pastors
and 14% of pastors admit they currently struggle with using porn.
Pornography is called it a “quiet family killer.” The study found that
56% of divorces had one partner with an obsessive interest in porn.
That’s the admitted gure.
Church can only regain and push back on this cultural onslaught
of secular, subjective and low views of marriage and family with a
return to sound or healthy gospel doctrine. That is what the pastoral
epistles exhort us to in the “last days” when people will indulge in an
intoxicating mix of misplaced loves—of pleasures, money and self—
at the expense of a rightful love of God and neighbour (2 Timothy
3:1-4). This deliberate return to a healthy gospel doctrine for all
ages in our congregations—from older men and women to young
92 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
men and women—has one common element (Titus 2:1-10). There
is an overwhelming focus for both genders and all ages to work out
godliness in the sacredness of family or, put specically for younger
women, being “keepers of home” (οἰκουργούς). This is not so much a
domestication of the gospel but the proclamation of the true gospel
that redeems domestic relationships from destructive self loves.
This is of vital importance as feminism and careerism may have
levelled the educational and professional playing eld but it has, at
the same time, magnied the confusion and conict of marital roles
and familial ties. If the goal of secular parenting is to produce the
next worker for the economy, then the goal of Christian parenting
is to produce the next worshipper of God and follower of Jesus. The
post-modern virtues of freedom, rights and self-actualisation are
not pushover icons to confront, let alone pushback. In post-modern
secularism, marital duties and familial ministries are often viewed
as hindrances to the altar of selsm and happiness.
Hence, a robust annual Christian curriculum—whether for
churching@home or churching together—must include a regular
dose of catechism championing the mystery yet beauty of one-
esh covenant marriages. This curriculum should not merely
proclaim the rightness of redemptive marriages and families but
incarnate the goodness of these in daily living. A young man burst
out in exasperation at a question and answer session at a church
camp I was preaching at with words along these lines: “It would
be helpful to see some godly marriages in our church, instead of
being repeatedly taught the ideal of marriage all the time.” He was
saying that authentic gospel proclamation should be matched by
authentic gospel living. The power of the gospel must be signposted
by the power of testimony of gospel-shaped lives. At the same time,
as much as we proclaim the goodness of one-esh marriages as a
pointer to Christ and his church, we should also the extol the virtues
of Jesus’ new kingdom ethic of singleness, we will now address.
Reviewing Our Eschatology: Seeing All Things Through
Gospel Lenses
The nal plank is our need to readjust our gospel lenses so that we
live more truly with a now-but-not-yet eschatology. A signicant
number of the problems of New Testament churches arose from
either an under-realised or over-realised eschatology. Under-
realised eschatology may lead to either a fake libertarianism as we
indulge in this world’s pleasures or a Christianised atheism as we
93
drown in endless and pointless suffering. Over-realised eschatology
often leads to a false exuberance by promising of a problem-free,
pain-free and sickness-free life as the full salvation blessings of
heaven has already arrived on earth. The hymn they sing is “this
world is my home”, with little or no expectation of a new Jerusalem
coming down from heaven. We should avoid “over-valuation” and
“under-valuation” theologies in regards to the things of God but
pray to rightly value all gospel truths for more authentic gospel
living. The apostle Paul teaches this clearly in 1 Corinthians:
“29This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has
grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives
live as though they had none, 30and those who mourn as
though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice
as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy
as though they had no goods, 31and those who deal with
the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the
present form of this world is passing away.” (1 Corinthians
7:29-31).
A now-but-not-yet eschatology stops marrieds from living as silent
compromisers in unhappy marriages while exhorting singles to not
see themselves as half-lled believers waiting for the ideal marriage
partner. Rather, both can securely predicate their lives on Christ
and articulate it condently in their different earthly status as they
ourish in their faith union with Christ, treasuring ever more truly
and deeply the joys of being loved so lavishly by his redeeming love,
which have made them one esh with him.
Conclusion
Our world views marriage and family with growing cynicism and
scepticism. Many today hold a secularised, transactional and
utilitarian view of marriage. It is a social convention that can be
entered into and dissolved by the partners at will, our will. If the
marriage relationship meets the needs, couples might hang on.
If the marital relationship dares fall short of our cultural idols of
freedom, choice and self-actualisation, couples dump marriage as
their rst or only option, not as last resort.
On the other hand, from our survey of Biblical theology of
marriage and family—from creation, the fall, Israel, Jesus and
nally to the earthly church—they are a divine creation, they are
94 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
gifts yet a task to keep. God intended to propel them onto our human
experience so that we would experience the beauty of a Saviour who
gives himself sacricially for his bride and his bride who yielding
herself gratefully to him in one-esh union. The only institution
that stands between the onslaught of Satan and the world against
marriage and family—instituted at creation and redeemed at the
cross—is the church. No matter how feeble, God’s ekklesia can
continue to hold out hope in a fallen, sinful and darkened world if
we continually repent, rethink and redo our ecclesiology, missiology
and eschatology to behold a more perfect union with Christ and a
more faithful witness to him. As it was in the rst century, so it is
today, that Christiandom towers above all pagan worldviews to be a
beacon of the good design of a holy God who is invincibly determined
to be one-esh with his people through the work of His Son and his
Spirit, now and forever. The apostle John caught a glimpse of this
beatic vision.
21 “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the rst
heaven and the rst earth had passed away, and the sea
was no more. 2And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem,
coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride
adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from
the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God
is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be
his people, and God himself will be with them as their
God. 4He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and
death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning,
nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have
passed away.” (Revelation 21:1-4).
95
Five
Introduction
The title of my article could not be more unambiguous. My remit
for this publication is to offer a critique, from the Christian
perspective, of “marriage” between two persons of the same biological
sex. Such marriages are obviously gaining greater acceptance at
a rapid rate all over the world. Many of its proponents, including
the Christians among them, see the opposition to such practice to
be based on a blind adherence to outmoded traditions and cultural
norms. The accusation is that those who oppose same-sex marriage
do so out of the fear of change, without any credible basis. This
article seeks to demonstrate that, as far as Christianity is concerned,
this is not the case. There are cogent arguments, based on our basic
beliefs, which impel us to afrm the traditional view that marriage
is to be between a man and woman.
I shall present these arguments through two main sections. The
rst sets out the positive case for seeing marriage as an institution
to be entered into by two persons of the opposite sex. The second
engages with what has been recognised as a particularly compelling
case, made on Christian grounds, for same-sex marriage. This is the
proposal advanced by contemporary American theologian Eugene
Rogers. I argue that, while Rogers’ approach is of signicant
profundity and contains helpful insights, it is nally unconvincing.
In this essay, I will not engage in a detailed analysis of the
specic Bible passages which Christians have traditionally relied
Dr Leow Theng Huat
CHRISTIAN CRITIQUE
97
98 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
on to argue that sexual acts between two persons of the same sex
are sinful. While these passages are obviously relevant to my case,
I understand that other authors in this publication have been
given the task of focusing on these passages. I shall adopt a more
“theological” approach and present the Christian perspective at a
broader level.
Marriage as Exclusively Between a Man and Woman
In this rst section, I wish to present the Christian understanding
of marriage from two perspectives. The rst is from the creation
narrative, given primarily in the opening chapters of the Bible,
in the book of Genesis. The second is from the Bible’s depiction
of marriage as a symbol of the relationship between (in the Old
Testament) God and Israel and (in the New) Christ and his church.
I shall argue that these two perspectives present a clear picture of
marriage as an exclusively man-woman relationship.
From the Perspective of the Creation Narrative
The image of God as human beings, male and female, in
fellowship
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in
our likeness, so that they may rule over the sh in the
sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the
wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along
the ground.”
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27)
With these pivotal statements, the opening chapter of the Bible
describes the creation of human beings in the image of God (imago
Dei). But what is this “image”? The church, in her long history, has
given a variety of answers to this question. Some see the image
as referring to something inherent in humanity, like our ability to
reason or our free will. Others prefer to understand the image as
what we possess when we relate rightly to God. Still others think
of the image in a functional way, as largely synonymous with our
commission to rule the earth. There are also other perspectives.1
These views are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and it is likely
99
that a multi-faceted approach is preferable to choosing any one
of these options. For the purposes of this essay, I shall consider a
particularly compelling proposal concerning the imago Dei made by
the great Swiss-German theologian Karl Barth.
Barth notices that, in Genesis 1:27, the image of God is closely
associated with human beings being created male and female. This
leads Barth to the perceptive insight that the imago Dei is to be
found in the male-female duality in the human species, rather than
any attribute or characteristic the solitary human being possesses.2
How does the male-female distinction reect God’s image? The
Christian understanding of God is that he is the holy Trinity: He
is one God in three persons—God the Father, God the Son and God
the Holy Spirit. This means that, within God’s own being, there
is both “plurality and unity”; difference and sameness.3 The three
members of the Trinity relate to one another in their own unique
ways, but in the context of them having the same nature and
together constituting one God. It is this aspect of God that is imaged
in the male-female distinction in humanity.
Thus, God pronounces in Genesis 2:18 that “it is not good for
man to be alone”, since a solitary human being is unable to reect
both the plurality and unity in God’s own being.4 This solitariness
of man could not be overcome even by the presence of “all the
livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals” (Genesis
2:20). These creatures were wholly distinct from Adam (the rst
man) and therefore could not provide a corresponding unity. It was
only when God created a woman “from the rib he had taken out of
the man” that a suitable companion was nally found for Adam
(Genesis 2:21-24). This particular creature had the right measure
of both sameness with and difference from Adam. In Barth’s own
words,
What is sought is a being resembling man but different
from him. Were this creature only like him, a repetition,
a numerical multiplication, his solitariness would not be
eliminated, for such a creature would not confront him
as another but it would merely recognise himself in it.
Again, if this one were only different from him, a being
of a wholly different order, his solitariness would not be
eliminated, for it would confront him as another, yet not
as another which actually belongs to him…not as a fellow-
occupant of this sphere fullling the duty allotted within
it. To be created good, man needs a being like him and yet
different from him, so that in it he will recognise himself
but not only himself, since it is to him a Thou as truly as
he is an I, and he is to it a Thou as truly as it is an I.5
According to Barth, therefore, God wishes the human creature to be
distinct from him (in that it is not God) but yet a being “to which His
own divine form of life is not alien; which in a creaturely repetition,
as a copy and imitation, can be a bearer of this form of life”.6 God
desires, in other words, for human beings, male and female, to relate
to one another in the context of both their difference and sameness,
as this reects the pattern of relationships found within God’s own
life; between the members of the holy Trinity. The purpose of this
is so that human beings, made in God’s image, can be in fellowship
with God as his counterpart.7 This fellowship would ultimately take
the form of a covenant, which God would subsequently establish
by his grace.8 Therefore, by being created male and female (i.e., in
God’s image), human beings were “formally prepared for grace”.9
Human beings can be distinguished from one another in
numerous ways (e.g. race, height, character). One implication of
Barth’s view of the imago Dei is that the difference between male and
female is the most fundamental of all. It is the primordial distinction
which God effected for humanity; the one which effectively renders
human creatures “beings-in-relation”.10 In the words of another
author, being male or female is not simply a human attribute; it is,
rather , “constitutive for the person”.11 It introduces an ontological
difference: Both man and woman are fully human, but they are
human in different ways.12 This, in turn, means that some form of
encounter between the two sexes is necessary for us to realise the
image of God. As theologian Stanley Grenz puts it, “we discover
God’s intention for us to be the divine image bearers—and hence our
full humanness—through our interaction with one another as male
and female”. Marriage is, of course, one form of such interaction
(the highest, as we shall see). But the interaction Grenz refers to
includes other forms like friendship and day-to-day contact.13 The
point is that both the married and unmarried need persons of the
opposite sex “to full their humanity made in God’s image”.14
Barth’s proposal that the image of God be understood as
human beings, male and female, in fellowship with one another, is
a profound insight which accords well with the creation narrative
and with who we know God to be from biblical revelation. It should
100 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
therefore be embraced as a correct understanding of the imago
Dei, although not necessarily to the exclusion of the other views.
We proceed next to consider the highest form of such male-female
fellowship: Marriage.
The Highest Form of Male-Female Fellowship: Marriage
In the account of the creation of humanity in Genesis 2, the initial
encounter between the rst man and woman (described in 2:22-
23) is immediately followed by a statement on marriage: “That is
why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife,
and they become one esh” (2:24). This points us to the highest
form of relationship between a man and a woman: Marriage.15 It
is, in Barth’s words, the “crown and centre” of the male-female
relationship.16 It is in marriage that two human beings, different
from each other in the primordial sense described in the previous
section, achieve a “two-become-one unity”, described in Genesis
2:24 as the union into “one esh”.17
That marriage is designed by God to be entered into by a man
and woman is evident from the sequence of the narrative in the
opening chapters of Genesis. Marriage is presented as the epitome
of the man-woman relationship, which has already been given
prominence as that feature of humanity which enables us to be in
the image of God. There are, in addition, two other points in the
account of creation in Genesis which carry the clear implication
that marriage is an exclusively male-female institution.
The Christian faith has always insisted that sexual intercourse
should only take place within the context of marriage. This act is an
aspect of the “one esh” union that a married couple achieves. It is
also a potent symbol of this unity, as the couple joins their bodies to
each other in a physical manner.
An act, however, is only able serve as a symbol if its components
represent in a tting way the higher reality to which it points.18
Vaginal coitus between a husband and wife serves as an appropriate
symbol of the “one esh” unity referred to in Genesis 2. Grenz
explains:
Each engages in the sex act through the whole body, of
course, but primarily through those body parts (vagina
and penis) that most explicitly symbolize their existence
as embodied, sexual beings, that most explicitly separate
male from female, and that most readily allow male and
101
female to complement the other. In this manner, both
their own personal identities and their “otherness” or
difference from each other as sexual creatures become
the foundation for the expression of the unity of the bond
they share. As a result, the sex act itself serves as a ritual
act, an appropriate symbol of the union of two who are
sexually “other” into a sexual bond.19
Sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex, conversely, is
unable to serve as a symbol of the type of unity envisaged in Genesis
2.20 Grenz, once again, explains it well:
The partners in same-sex intercourse also bring to the
act the physical features that most deeply represent their
existence as sexual beings. But in this act, the specic body
part each contributes to the act does not represent what
distinguishes each from the other. Nor does it represent
the unique contribution each brings to their sexual union,
for their roles in the act can be interchanged. Further,
in same-sex intercourse, some other body part (nger or
even articial penis in lesbian acts, mouth or anus in male
homosexual acts) routinely substitutes for the sexual
organ that neither partner can provide. But whenever this
occurs, one or the other partner presses an aspect of his or
her anatomy into service of the sex act that, because it is
not the denitive mark of the person as a sexual being, is
not normally viewed as sexual. In this manner, same-sex
intercourse loses the symbolic dimension of two-becoming-
one present in male-female sex.21
Therefore, the sexual intercourse which is an aspect of the “one esh”
union between a married couple, and which in turn symbolises such
union, must (in the context of Genesis 1 and 2) be vaginal coitus.
Since marriage is the only context in which sexual intercourse
should take place, it follows that marriage is an institution to be
entered into by two persons of the opposite sex.
The second point which the opening chapters of Genesis makes
is that the bearing of children is an integral aspect of the institution
of marriage. Immediately after creating human beings, male and
female, God issued them a command, “Be fruitful and increase in
number; ll the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28). The bearing
of children is also implied in the “one esh” reference in Genesis
102 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
2:24. A child conceived through sexual intercourse by a married
couple can be seen as the yet another aspect of the “one esh” unity
they share—he or she being a living physical symbol of its reality.22
Robert Song sums up well the message Genesis 1-2 conveys,
“Children do not appear here as an optional extra to the otherwise
self-contained nature of marriage...Rather…the procreation and
nurture of children is an inseparable and intrinsic good of marriage,
the result of God’s blessing and command to be fruitful.”23
This explains why the Christian tradition, at least since
Augustine of Hippo proposed it in the 5th century, has seen the
bearing of offspring as one of the three “goods” of marriage—three
aspects which “together distinguish marriage from all other forms
of relationship” (the other two being faithfulness on the part of the
couple and the permanent nature of the relationship).24 Unlike
modern conceptions of marriage, the Christian view is that a
married couple is obliged to be open to the procreative potential of
their relationship, because this is an integral part of their union.25
Some couples, of course, do not have children because they are
biologically unable to conceive. Also, the church has, traditionally,
not forbidden male-female couples in such situations from getting
married. But this does not affect the principle that, viewed as a
whole, the institution of marriage is to be between a man and woman,
since this is the only context in which procreation can take place.26
Alastair Roberts explains with an analogy: “Many genuine football
matches end in goalless draws, some without a single attempt on
goal…However, a form of ‘football’ without scoring would not be
football at all.”27
The listing of procreation as one of the “goods” of marriage
rules out the possibility that persons of the same sex can be married
to each other. A same-sex couple is able to incorporate children into
their lives via adoption, use of donor sperm or eggs, or surrogacy
arrangements. Technological developments might, in the future,
even allow women to reproduce with any male contribution.28 But
these methods of obtaining children do not constitute procreation,
as understood in the Genesis account and the Christian tradition.
Therefore, same-sex relationships, by denition, do not possess this
particular “good” of marriage, and cannot consequently be identied
as such.
103
From the Perspective of the Relationship between God and
his People
We noted, in the previous section, Barth’s point that human beings
have been made in God’s image in order that we might be in
fellowship with God, particularly in the form of a covenant which
God would establish. We quoted Barth’s statement that, by being
created male and female, human beings were “formally prepared
for grace”. After such formal preparation, human beings did receive
God’s grace in abundance, as God enacted his saving acts and
redeemed his people for a covenant relationship with him. It is also
at this point that marriage attains its most exalted status, as it is
elevated to serve as a symbol of the relationship of grace between,
rstly, God and Israel, and, subsequently, Christ and his church.
In the Old Testament, the prophets constantly used marriage
as a symbol of the relationship between God and his chosen people
Israel. We nd this, for example, in the message of Jeremiah (3:6-
14, 31:31-33), Isaiah (62:4-5), Ezekiel (16:32-34) and, perhaps most
memorably, Hosea, where the relationship between the prophet and
his unfaithful wife Gomer was used to represent the relationship
Yahweh has with Israel. In the New Testament, there is a change
in the dramatis personae,29 and marriage came to be seen as a
representation of the relationship between Jesus Christ and his
church. The passage which presents this in the fullest detail is
Ephesians 5:21-33. Here, the apostle Paul instructs wives to submit
to their husbands as the church submits to Christ, and husbands
to love their wives in like manner as Christ loves the church. Paul
also utilises marriage in this symbolic way in 2 Corinthians 11:2,
where he describes his ministry as one which aims to betroth the
church to Christ, her husband. In the Gospels, Jesus is described
as the “bridegroom” in numerous passages (e.g. Matthew 25:1-13,
Mark 2:19-20, John 3:29). Another prominent use of the symbolism
of marriage occurs in the Book of Revelation, where the New
Jerusalem is portrayed as a bride for Christ (19:6-9, 21:1-3, 22:17).
Because of such rich testimony in Scripture, the church, from
an early point in her history, has termed marriage a “sacrament”.
This means that she sees marriage as an earthly act capable of
signifying invisible and heavenly realities, and capable also of
“effecting what it signies”—i.e., conferring grace on the recipients
of the act, to the end that what is being signied becomes a reality
in their lives.30 The Protestant Reformers in the 16th century, as
104 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
they reduced the number of ofcial church sacraments from seven
to two, denied that marriage is properly called a sacrament. But the
best strands of the Protestant tradition have retained the notion
that marriage is “sacramental”, in that it serves as God’s appointed
symbol of the heavenly reality of the church’s relationship to Christ
her Saviour.31
We arrive once again at the principle that, for an act to serve as
an effective symbol, its components must depict in a tting way the
reality it represents. When we focus on the relationship between
God and Israel, or Christ and the church, we see two features in
particular. The rst is that the nature of the relationship between
both parties is in the form of a covenant; this is the case whether we
speak of the “old” or “new” covenant. It follows from this that the
human parties to a marriage have to be “created for covenant” with
each other. In order for marriage to serve its sacramental purpose
adequately.32 The primordial covenant between human beings
mentioned in Scripture is that of marriage between the rst man
and woman, who were created in a complementary fashion for one
another (Genesis 1-2). We can conclude from this that marriage is to
be between persons of the opposite sex, as male and female persons
have been “created for covenant” with each other in a sense which
persons of the same sex are not.
The second feature of the God-Israel and Christ-church
relationships is that they are relationships between two parties
who are similar and yet very different. Because human beings have
been created in God’s image, there is a similarity which enables
us to have fellowship with God as his counterpart. But we remain
creatures, distinct from the holy, transcendent and eternal God.
Jesus Christ has an additional point of similarity with the members
of his church, in that both are fully human. But Jesus is also fully
divine, and his church is not. Therefore, for marriage to serve as an
appropriate symbol for the God-Israel or Christ-church relationship,
the parties to the marriage must have that apt measure of both
sameness and difference. It is only in the male-female relationship
that such a requisite degree of plurality and unity is found.33 This
is the case, when we look at human beings not through cultural,
psychological or philosophical lenses, but theological ones. As we
have seen, the key primordial distinction between human beings
is that between male and female, and this must be present for
marriage to have the required measure of difference for it to
perform its sacramental function. God’s love for us is love for the
105
other; for creatures different from him. Same-sex relationships are
unable to represent in adequate measure such love.34 They may also
carry the connotation that the roles between Christ and his church
are interchangeable rather than irreversible, which fundamentally
contradicts the Christian narrative.35
Marriage, in the words of Douglas Farrow, “has become a sign
of something eternally higher and better. It has become a witness
of the possibility of human communion with God, the author of life;
that is, to the mystery of the union of the church with Christ, the
prince of life.”36 God has, in his sovereign grace, chosen to bestow
this exalted role to earthly marriage, even though, in our fallen
world, this institution often brings more trouble, pain and sorrow
to its members than peace, comfort and joy. The state of marriages
may vary, and, as a result, they testify to a lesser or greater degree
to the heavenly truth of the profound relationship of love between
Christ and his church. But there remains one basic prerequisite for
marriage to perform its sacramental role: It must be entered into
by persons of the opposite sex, as only such a couple is “created for
covenant” with each other and have the required degree of sameness
and difference. Hosea’s marriage to Gomer was, by many standards,
a disastrous one. To encounter an unfaithful spouse is one of the
worst outcomes of a marriage. Yet, because it was a marriage, in
that it was a union between a man and a woman, God was able to
use it as a symbol of his relationship with Israel.
A Case for Same-Sex Marriage: Consideration and Critique
Having established, from the Christian perspective, that marriage
is an institution to be entered into by two persons of the opposite
sex, I turn now to consider the case for same-sex marriage made by
Eugene Rogers. His position is described most comprehensively in
his highly-praised book Sexuality and the Christian Body: Their Way
into the Triune God,37 and supplemented by a few articles. Although
Sexuality was published back in 1999, it remains, in the opinion
of theologian Stephen Holmes, the “go-to defence of extending
Christian marriage to same-sex couples”.38 Fellow British scholar
Francis Watson, who reviewed the book, thinks “it is tempting to
conclude that, if there is a serious theological case to be made for
same-sex marriage, this is it.”39 American thinker Jeffrey Stout
praises it as “ the most profound, creative, and revealing treatment
of the Trinitarian premises of Christian marriage doctrine” that he
has read.40
106 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Rogers’ proposal is complex and multifaceted. My brief
interaction does not permit me to cover his points in an exhaustive
manner. I shall focus on the issues especially relevant to the view
of marriage presented in the rst section. In what follows, I shall
set out the basic contours of Rogers’ position, punctuated by two
sections of engagement and critique.
God, Eros and Marriage
A good starting point for understanding Rogers’ proposal is to look
at his description of God, as the holy Trinity. Rogers envisages the
intra-Trinitarian relationships to consist of the love between the
Father and the Son, which is witnessed, blessed and celebrated
by the Holy Spirit. He does not shy away from using the analogy
of marriage to depict these sets of relationships: The Spirit can be
likened to a third party at a wedding, celebrating the love between
the Father and the Son.41 We do not have the space here to unpack
the intricacies of the doctrine of the Trinity. It would sufce to
observe that Rogers’ description seems to rely (at least partially)
on the understanding in the Western church of the Holy Spirit as
the “bond of love” between the Father and the Son.42 In spite of
being able to appeal to this lineage, Rogers’ description of the intra-
Trinitarian relationships is truly novel, and has attracted criticism
for this reason.43 It is, however, what Rogers says next that really
raises eyebrows.
Rogers notes that the notion of an erotic love has had somewhat
of a bad reputation in Christian circles.44 His project can be seen as
an attempt to rehabilitate the status of such love. He begins with
God. The love by which Jesus the Son pleases God the Father is,
according to Rogers, described in Scripture as an erotic love:
It is not a genital or a sexual love; it is not a homosexual love
in any interesting sense. It is an eros that (like monasticism
and marriage) ends in goodness, righteousness, holiness,
and the fullment of the trinitarian purpose. That does
not make the love not erotic; it makes the erotic a subset
of the love of the Son for human beings and the love for
which the Father loves the Son, the love in which the Holy
Spirit delights and—with the gracious inclusion of human
beings—celebrates as a wedding.45
As alluded to in the quotation, God’s love for humanity, since it
is based on the eternal love between the Father and the Son, is
107
erotic in nature as well. So, “the love by which God loves human
beings is eros, if eros is a love that yearns for union with the other,
yearns for the esh of the other, is made vulnerable and passionate
for the other”.46 When God the Son came to our world as Jesus the
human being, he assumed “eshly eros” too, but in a transgured
form which was without sin. Jesus’ love for his church is therefore
also an erotic one.47
Since the pure eternal love which exists within the Godhead
is (at least partially) erotic in nature, and since Jesus assumed
“eshly eros”, we should not view our human erotic passions in
an entirely negative light. It is true that our expression of eros as
fallen creatures is decient and tainted by sin.48 On a fundamental
level, however, eros is that which God “[inscribes] in the image”;
that which God graciously bestows to humanity in order that we
might perceive the imago Dei in our neighbours, through our desire
for them (and their bodies). So, “it is through the body that the
neighbour, and through the neighbour Christ, by the Spirit, does
not leave human beings alone”.49 Rogers can be said to hold a very
robust natural theology—one based on the operations of the eros in
human beings. Eros is the connecting point between God and us; it
is something God can utilise as “bait and hook” to capture human
beings to a life of holy communion with him and others.50
As if this was not sufciently bold, Rogers goes on to rehabilitate
the notion of concupiscence too. In Christianity, concupiscence has
generally been portrayed as a negative condition; one where a person’s
sensuous appetites overcome our sound reason and judgement,
leading us into sin. Rogers, however, sees concupiscence simply as
the “eros appropriate to material human beings”. Concupiscence is
therefore the feature in humanity which enables “God’s desire for
human beings [to echo] in the human desire for human beings”. It
is “the very root of human salvation”, both “God’s way into human
creatures, and the human creature’s way into God”.51
The church is therefore mistaken, according to Rogers, to see
human eros in too negative a light. She is also wrong, in particular,
to see homosexual desires as sinful. This causes persons with such
desires to try to deny them. But a person who does not acknowledge
and express his or her eros is rejecting “the very reex in them of
desiring God”, through their desire for their neighbour. They lose
the one means by which God may reach and capture them.52
Having covered Rogers’ view of God and of eros (and how
they are connected), we are in a position to consider the last piece
108 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
of this portion of the jigsaw puzzle: Marriage. Rogers refutes the
rather shallow perspective that marriage is primarily a means to
satisfy our sexual desires. It is rather a commitment to an ascetic
life. Marriage is the institution which God has ordained in order to
discipline our eros; to purify it so that it becomes more and more
like God’s holy love for his people; to ultimately transform eros into
agape—a love that moves from self-centredness to self-giving.53 The
asceticism of marriage leads Rogers to the somewhat surprising
conclusion that it is fundamentally similar to monasticism. Relying
on the work of Eastern Orthodox thinker Paul Evdokimov, Rogers
sees both marriage and monasticism to be aimed at sanctication,
since “both involve a commitment to living with others in which
one cannot escape being transformed by their perceptions”.54
The starting point for such sanctication, for both marriage and
monasticism, is our eros; our bodily desires.55 This, as mentioned
earlier, is the “bait and hook” by which God reaches us:
God can use my body in two ways to teach me that God
loves me: either directly, when God’s use (rapid or slow)
of my bodily desires causes me to understand God’s love
through the mediation of a whole community of human
others as my affectional commitment—then I have a
vocation to serve the community, in its ofce of teaching
human beings that God loves them, as a celibate monk;
or indirectly, when my bodily desires causes me to
understand God’s love through the human mediation of
one affectional focus—then I have a vocation to serve the
community, in the same ofce of teaching human beings
that God loves them, in marriage…56
On this basis, Rogers urges the church to endorse same-sex
marriages. If marriage is essentially about the disciplining of our
eros; if marriage is God’s appointed way of transforming sinful
human love into the likeness of God’s holy love, why should
Christians with the erotic desire for same-sex persons be denied
this critical means of sanctication? Why should those of them “not
called to celibacy” not be given the opportunity to come under the
“tutelage and rule” of the Holy Spirit in marriage, and be allowed to
express God’s love through “the love of a committed sexual partner
for the other”?57 Farrow observes, rightly, that, in Rogers’ scheme,
withholding marriage from Christians effectively amounts to
excommunication; to denying them salvation; to “[consigning] them
109
to a ‘destiny towards nothing’ ”.58 Rogers therefore issues the rather
stern warning that not to celebrate same-sex marriage is “morally
dangerous”. We might nd ourselves in the position of the man who,
in Jesus’ parable of the king’s wedding feast (Matthew 22:1-13),
attended the celebrations without the proper wedding garments.
He ended up being bound and cast into the outer darkness, the
place of weeping and gnashing of teeth.59
Responses to Rogers’ Proposal (Part One)
This is an appropriate juncture to respond to Rogers’ proposal,
as set out thus far. I would like to offer two points of critique.
The rst has to do with Rogers’ treatment of eros. While he has
helpfully challenged a tendency in the history of Christian thought
to view our human eros in a wholly negative manner, Rogers has
probably gone too far in the opposite direction, and exalted eros to a
position it does not merit. To identify the eternal love between God
the Father and God the Son as eros, and to speak of a “marriage”
(even by analogy) between these two members of the Trinity, is the
likely result of an illegitimate projection of our human desires and
practices unto God. Watson reminds us that the New Testament
does draw a signicant distinction between eros and agape, and that
God’s love is described primarily in terms of the latter.60 Farrow, on
his part, notes the reliance Rogers places on the way Jesus loves as
a basis for conceptualising the love shared by the members of the
Trinity. While Jesus is indeed the highest and clearest revelation
of God, Farrow cautions that we still have to be careful what we
project from Jesus into the life of God, because Jesus came to us as a
human being. He concludes, rightly in my view, that Rogers is guilty
of unduly projecting the “human needs, desires and vulnerability”
of Jesus onto the eternal God, rendering God erotic in a way too
similar to us.61
It is helpful, on this point, to contrast Rogers’ approach with
that of Barth’s and the larger Christian tradition. While Barth
does see the male-female human distinction as a crucial aspect of
how we image God as the holy Trinity, he is careful to restrict the
similarity to the fact that, in both God and human beings, there is
plurality and unity. Similarly, the way the church has understood
the symbolic import of marriage is to see it representing the Christ-
church relationship because the human parties to a marriage
have been “created for covenant” and have the requisite balance
of difference and sameness, which allows them to be profoundly
110 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
united as “one esh”. The erotic love between a man and woman,
even in its proper context of matrimony, is not imputed into God’s
intra-Trinitarian relationships.
While Rogers has engaged in an extended theological discourse
of some profundity, it is difcult to avoid the conclusion that what
he has essentially done is to put the human experience of eros as the
starting point of his theological scheme, and to allow it to direct his
project. While human experience is a legitimate source of Christian
theology, Rogers has probably placed undue reliance upon it, at the
expense of the other sources.62 In this sense, Rogers’ defence of same-
sex marriage exhibits a characteristic common to many other such
endeavours. They take the human erotic experience as the starting
point and construct their theological structures on this foundation.
The second point of critique is that Rogers’ scheme seems
tainted with a Pelagian slant.63 What results in our salvation, in
his proposal, does not seem to be the redemption won by Jesus
and mediated to us through the church and her sacraments, but
our eros, disciplined and transformed either through marriage
or monasticism. The assumption seems to be that, if Christians
are allowed to work through their erotic desires within the right
contexts (no doubt superintended by the Holy Spirit), God’s agape
love would ourish in their lives. Farrow is right to conclude that,
for Rogers, “eros is the real mediator here, not Jesus Christ”, and
“[salvation] does not lie at the intersection where God in Christ
meets and restores a fallen creation. It lies rather in the ‘overplus’
of the Spirit; that is, in the synergy produced as human eros
meets divine Eros”.64 Another commentator, Christopher Roberts,
questions if marriage is able to bear the theological weight which
Rogers has put upon it. He asks pointedly: Is not what is really
needed a “better theology of baptism” rather than the development
of a novel theology of marriage, if what we wish to do is to afrm
the worth of Christians in God’s sight, including those attracted to
members of the same sex?65
This charge of having Pelagian overtones should not come as a
surprise, if we are right in seeing the starting point of Roger’s scheme
as the human experience of erotic love. If with the human we begin,
it is likely that with the human we end. It is our human eros, from
start to end, which draws us to God and ultimately connects us to
him, guided, in a rather vague way, by the Holy Spirit. It is difcult
to nd a meaningful role for Jesus in this scheme, other than as an
example of a person who also expresses the vital erotic experience.
111
Male and Female, and Procreation
In the previous section, we see Rogers advocating two similar ways
of disciplining and transforming our human eros, i.e., marriage and
celibacy. A question naturally arises: Why does he not exhort those
attracted to persons of the same sex to pursue the option of a celibate
life, as the proper context in which they are to nd their way to
sanctication? Rogers’ answer seems to be that those “not called to
celibacy” should have the opportunity to get married, whether they
are members of the same or opposite sex.66 But what does it mean to
be “called”, either to celibacy or marriage? Does such calling depend
on one’s subjective desires and preferences? Or is there something
more objective to guide our decisions? The traditional Christian
position is that the objective reality of one’s biological sex has a huge
bearing on how we are to discern one’s calling: If we are attracted
to those of the same sex, our calling may tend towards the path of a
celibate life. Rogers would disagree. He argues that our identity as
male and female carries no real theological signicance.
Rogers begins his argument by praising Barth’s view of the
sexes. Barth’s notion of the complementarity between male and
female is “very strong—indeed, far and away the strongest one
available”.67 This praise of Barth, however, serves to set the stage
for Rogers’ attempt to eliminate all notions of complementarity
between the sexes. Since Barth’s position is the strongest one
available, Rogers, by undermining it, can claim to have succeeded
in his endeavour.68
Rogers basically accuses Barth of illegitimately exalting the
phenomenological distinction between man and woman into an
ontological one, making it a paradigm for human complementarity.69
The cause, Rogers postulates, is an overly “romantic” notion of the
rst couple, drawn from modern European culture. If we look, with
realistic eyes, at Adam and Eve, we see a far less ideal relationship.
They do not treat each other in a commendable way, and the “one
esh” unity they attained was used with irony by the biblical
author subsequently to allude to their “solidary in sin and blame”.70
Rogers proposes that we look at other relationships in the Bible
for models of ideal human interaction. Not surprisingly, two of the
three he suggests are same-sex relationships: That between Ruth
and her mother-in-law Naomi, and David and Jonathan. (The third
relationship Rogers cites is the Hosea-Gomer marriage.) These
relationships manifest a greater loyalty and foreshadow Christ’s
sacrice of love far better than the one between Adam and Eve.71
112 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Moreover, Rogers continues, insisting on the image of God
being based on the male-female fellowship renders Jesus a
“decient case of the image, not its fullness”. This is because Jesus
remained unmarried. This means that he has failed to attain to the
culmination of the imago Dei found in matrimony between a man
and woman. To avoid this patently ridiculous conclusion, Rogers
proposes a redenition: We manifest the imago Dei when we love
humankind. Jesus is in the image of God because he is the perfect
“lover of humankind”. Consistent with his other statements, Rogers
describes such love as essentially erotic in nature.72
Overall, Rogers’ strategy seems to be to downplay the
importance of a physical instantiation of what one represents
guratively. Insistence on such physicality results in a rigid and
unimaginative “insert-tab-A-in-slot-B” mentality. What truly
matters is how well one’s life and relationships mirror God’s love
for his people.73 God has the freedom to choose how he would like to
be represented, which we must not limit. Rogers cites the example
of the women mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus (Matthew
1:1-17), namely Tamar, Ruth, Rahab and Bathsheba. They had
(what Rogers calls) “irregular sexual unions”, but that did not
prevent God from using these unions for his purposes.74
Having reduced the male-female distinction in humanity
to a mere phenomenological reality, Rogers takes aim, nally, at
procreation. He denies its status as one of the “goods” of marriage.
It is indeed a “good”, but one of the entire human species, rather
than of each and every married couple. For this good to be realised,
not every married couple has to procreate. Empirically, the problem
with our world seems to be overpopulation, rather than insufcient
instances of procreation.75
“Sex before God is for sanctication, for God’s catching us up
into God’s triune life…The chief end of sex is not to make children
of human beings, but to make children of God.”76 These lines sum
up well Rogers’ view of procreation in marriage. It is an optional
extra; something which the couple chooses to effect if they wish.
Rogers goes on to state a preference for the practice of adoption.
The New Testament, as he reads it, emphasises adoption rather
than procreation, not least in the holy family, which “has more
of adoption in it than nature”.77 Adoption, for Rogers, has a more
powerful symbolic effect than procreation. He reminds us, for
example, that the Bible portrays Gentile Christians as having been
adopted by God, in contrast to Israel, the natural children of the
patriarch Abraham.78
113
Responses to Rogers’ Proposal (Part Two)
Having described Rogers’ position in what I hope is a fair and
comprehensive (though not exhaustive) manner, I would like to offer
my nal three comments. The rst deals with Rogers’ attempt to
eviscerate one’s biological sex of theological signicance. We should
note, for a start, that this represents a major act of retreat on the
part of Christianity from being able to explain and account for the
realities we experience in our world. The male-female distinction
is one which impacts our everyday lives in a signicant way, from
determining the way we construct and organise our toilets to the
way we draw up our laws and customs. Rogers’ proposal, if accepted,
would render Christianity unable to account for why the male-
female distinction is so important and pervasive in everyday life.
It might be due to evolutionary development, cultural conditioning
or historical prejudices, but (whatever it is) Christianity has no
meaningful contribution to make on this issue.79
Rogers’s downplaying of the male-female distinction in
humanity also opens him to the charge of a Gnostic denial of our
bodily reality.80 In his defence, Rogers can point to his repeated
emphasis on human beings working out our salvation as embodied
creatures and the exalted role he allocates to our bodily desires.81
But I think it is fair to say that the human body, for Rogers, is often
used as a cipher to denote our erotic drive and its satisfaction. It is
our eros that is key; the love ultimately derived from the eternal
love between God the Father and God the Son; the spiritual reality
we are to participate in. The truly material aspects of our body, like
its physical form and the sexual organs we possess, are, for Rogers,
of no signicance.82 Song’s warning against seeking a Gnostic escape
from “the formed matter of creation, including the form of the body”
seems applicable to Rogers.83
The traditional position that one’s identity as biological male or
female has ontological signicance seems far more respectful of the
goodness and integrity of God’s creation (including its materiality)
than what Rogers proposes. We share Rogers’ concern that we
should not unduly limit God’s freedom. But he seems unwilling to
acknowledge the possibility that God, in his freedom, might have
decided, when creating human beings, to lay down normative rules
based on their ontology for how they may marry and have sexual
relations. Appealing to the examples of the women mentioned in
Matthew’s genealogy seems, quite honestly, a desperate move. God
is, of course, able to work through “irregular sexual unions” for his
114 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
sovereign purposes. Christianity, however, has always taught that,
just because God is able to use our sinful acts to accomplish his
plans, it does not make these acts any less sinful. In any case, the
“sexual unions” referred to here are all male-female ones.
Once we accept that there is ontological signicance in God’s
decision to create human beings male and female, Roger’s attempts
to redene the imago Dei and replace the paradigmatic status of
the Adam-Eve relationship with others in the Bible also fall to the
ground. They represent a basic confusion between ontology and
ethics (which one commonly sees in defences of same-sex marriage).
A relationship might demonstrate exemplary ethics, in terms of
loyalty and self-giving, but it is ontology which determines which
categories such relationships may legitimately fall under. Roberts
puts it well:
[Human] desire needs to be interrogated by ontology in
order to see the direction in which it must ultimately be
refashioned for its own satisfaction. What we truly are,
what God has made us to be and commands us to be,
needs to have sovereignty over our appetite…Thus the
Augustinian line says ontology reveals our true desires;
Rogers says our desires reveal our true ontology.
We come back, therefore, to a choice of our starting points. Do we
begin with our human desires and follow its lead in constructing
our theological positions (remembering that these are the desires of
a fallen humanity), or do we seek to discern God’s purposes for his
creatures through the way the Bible describes how we were created
and what marriage symbolises?84
We deal with our nal two points with greater brevity. As
Roberts has pointed out, Rogers’ insistence that Barth’s position
leads invariably to the conclusion that an unmarried Jesus lacks
the fullness of the imago Dei is untenable. Barth does not insist
that a person must be married or have sex in order to represent
God’s image to the full. What he stipulates is that there should be
interaction between the sexes for the image to be brought forth,
and Jesus and his apostles were, as the Gospels tell us, constantly
accompanied by his female disciples. For Barth, sexual difference is
as signicant for the celibate as for the married. Choosing the path of
chastity is “as much a response to sexual difference as marrying”.85
We might also add that Rogers’ point confuses the symbol and the
reality. Marriage is ultimately a symbol of a deeper reality: The
115
relationship between Christ and his church. In this deeper reality,
Jesus did enter into marriage—with his bride, the church. Having
fullled this reality, there is surely no necessity for him to re-enact
the symbol. Drawing inspiration from Jesus’ words in Mark 2:27,
we might say that human marriage was made for Jesus, and not
Jesus for human marriage.
Our nal comment has to do with Rogers’ demotion of
procreation from its traditional status as one of the “goods” of
marriage. Here, we would like to express our appreciation for Rogers’
profound insights into the theological signicance of adoption. This
is a message which Christian married couples need to hear, in the
light of our widespread leeriness towards such a practice. But the
relationship between adoption and procreation is not a zero-sum
game. The fact that adoption is theologically signicant, especially
in the New Testament, does not mean that procreation has been
rendered obsolete.86 There is nothing in the New Testament which
suggests that the nature of marriage has changed, even with the
introduction of celibacy as a valid alternative. Any suggestion to
the contrary, including the attempt to remove procreation as a
“good” of marriage, drives a dangerous wedge between creation
and redemption; between the God of the Old and New Testaments.
The threat is nothing less than a revival of the ancient heresy of
Marcionism.87 Since it remains, procreation continues to point us
towards the normative model for marriage: a “one-esh” relationship
between a man and woman.
Conclusion
This essay has offered a critique, from the Christian perspective,
of the possibility of marriage between two persons of the same
biological sex. It has done so by rst setting out the positive case for
seeing marriage as an exclusively male-female relationship. This
was done by looking at what Christianity says about marriage from
the creation narrative and the depiction of marriage as a symbol of
the relationship between God and Israel and Christ and his church.
We then engaged substantially with the case for same-sex marriage
made by Eugene Rogers. While he appealed to numerous profound
theological concepts to make his case, Rogers’ scheme is fatally
awed because of a wrong starting point, which leads him to sub-
Christian conclusions, tainted by teachings which the church had
rejected long ago.
116 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
The remit given me has meant that I needed to assert what
I see to be the correct Christian position in a rather condent and
(even) forceful manner. I fully understand, however, that theological
arguments form only a part (perhaps a smaller part than what we
theologians like to think!) of the church’s overall ministry to uphold
the traditional conception of marriage. Understanding the genuine
struggles of those “on the other side”, walking the difcult journey
of the cross together with them and being open to see and repent of
our own deciencies and wrongdoings are also key aspects of this
ministry.88 Let this contribution, therefore, be seen for what it is: A
small part of a much larger whole, as represented by the diversity
of the essays in this publication, and the even greater diversity in
the ministry of the church.
117
Six
While embedded in Asian context, Singapore has been deeply
impacted by values of individualism and freedom afforded by
wide exposure to Western cultures. With our God-given autonomy,
listening to our own internal voices for why we should embrace
any limits at all, requires humble recognition of our place in God’s
universe. In the area of human sexuality and fulllment there is
an ever-increasing challenge to test normative boundaries. We
see this evidently in the pursuit of same-sex marriage and rights
to parenting by same-sex attracted persons, as it is about the
assertion of individual freedom fueled by a desire for social approval
and recognition. In the last 50 years, rapid changes on the social
landscape in the West has impacted choices people are making in
Singapore today with regard to family formation. We have same-sex
couples forming intentional families in Singapore through the use of
known or anonymous donors of sperm or egg cells, and commercial
surrogacy and articial insemination performed overseas. A local
support group, SG Rainbow Parents has a website providing
information for LGBTQ people who wish to have children. Most
same-sex parents are lesbians who have left heterosexual marriages
with their children to form alternative families with same-sex
partners while others are bisexual persons engaged in co-parenting
with their heterosexual ex-spouse. For the most part, intentional
same-sex parenting assumes that children do not need two parents
Dr Eliza Lian-Ding
A MATTER OF ORIENTATION
119
of the opposite sex to be raised well. To examine this premise, this
essay will explore the legitimacy of ndings in the social sciences on
same-sex parenting against the backdrop of a Biblical perspective
on parenting, and the psychological processes that are involved in
the developmental growth of a young person. Effects on persons who
experienced same-sex parenting in comparison with those raised by
married biological parents of the opposite sex will be discussed and
recommendations made for the informed reader when consuming
research and when considering the needs of sexual minorities in
Singapore churches.
Is there a Problem with Same-sex Parenting?
Numerous challenges are present in addressing the issues of same-
sex parenting, including the inuences of larger culture and agenda.
Children are indeed an afterthought as powerful adults manipulate
social science and legal systems to undermine family development
as intended by our Maker. With the sexual revolution in the United
States spurred by Alfred Kinsey’s studies on sexual variations in
the late 1940s and the removal of “homosexuality” as a mental
disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual by the American
Psychiatric Association in 1973, gay-afrmative causes have
advanced much. The scientic community itself has been biased
in how it explores the questions surrounding same-sex parenting.
Denying inherent differences between same-sex attracted persons
and heterosexuals, many studies have emerged purporting to the
absence of difference between children raised by same-sex parents
and heterosexual parents. As we shall see, whom we sample (parent,
child or third party evaluator), when they are asked (at which life
stage of child, adolescent, young adult or adult), how samples are
selected, and what measures are used have signicant bearings on
the types of results and hence usefulness of ndings.
Fifty-nine studies formed the basis for the American
Psychological Association’s (APA) claim in 2005 supporting lesbian
and gay parenting. However, of these only one was evaluated
by Loren Marks to be a valid study when testifying as an expert
witness in DeBoer v Snyder, which challenged Michigan state’s
ban on adoption by same-sex parent.1 Most of the studies cited
by the APA were based on small, non-representative convenience
samples with fewer than 100 participants. Sullins notes that “in
most populations, less than three of a thousand households with
120 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
children are headed by same-sex parents,”2 presenting a challenge
in the sampling process. A careful reading of early studies in gay
and lesbian parenting show that small convenience samples were
often recruited from LGBT interest, advocacy or support groups,
therefore severely restricting the generalisability of such ndings.
Such samples more accurately reect the resourceful, educated and
employed groups and may not accurately represent the population
of same-sex parents and their children. Regnerus further notes
that “results from nonprobability samples—from which meaningful
statistics cannot be generated—are also regularly compared with
population-level samples of heterosexual parents, which no doubt
are comprised of a blend of higher and lower quality parents.”3
This results in unfair comparisons, making the data less useful for
determining the outcome of family structure on child well-being.
Despite signicant shortcomings in sampling procedures used,
such studies have been cited in legal cases supporting same-sex
marriage and adoption by same-sex individuals and couples in
the United States. Rather than relying on longitudinal studies to
examine cause and effect, the need to generate immediate support
for lesbians and gays in child custody cases resulted in numerous
studies focusing on the perspectives of children and adolescents.
These studies reported “no difference” between those raised by same-
sex parents and opposite-sex parents.4 This is not surprising to nd,
given the dependencies and loyalty of younger persons. However,
when the same subjects are assessed as adults, results seem to
differ, much like the groundbreaking ndings on adult children of
divorce by Wallerstein, et al.5 Indeed, examining the results from a
longitudinal study measuring mental health outcomes at ages 15, 22
and 28, Sullins found that adults raised by same-sex parents were
at over twice the risk of depression as persons raised by opposite-
sex parents.6
Furthermore, whose perspective is sampled (whether
parents or children/adolescents’ self-report) matters. In a meta-
analysis of developmental outcomes for children of same-sex and
heterosexual parents, Crowl et al. found that non-heterosexual
parents on average self-reported signicantly better relationships
with their children when compared to heterosexual parents while
the children’s reports on their relationships with parents yielded
no differences.7 Admittedly, the authors mention the possibility
of a social desirability bias inherent in obtaining adult volunteer
participants where they may represent themselves in the best way
121
possible.8 One might wonder why heterosexual parents would not
likewise have reported themselves in the most positive light. Given
that these studies were conducted in the United States before the
legalisation of same-sex marriage in 2015, non-heterosexual parents
had more at stake. In fact, Tasker suggests a caution: “Parental
self-report, of course, may be biased. It is plausible to argue that, in
a prejudiced social climate, lesbian and gay parents may have more
at stake in presenting a positive picture.”9
Finally, sampling aws have also been noted in control groups
that same-sex parents and their children have been compared with.
As noted by Gallagher et al., “The most serious methodological
critique of these studies at least with reference to the family
structure debate, is that the vast majority of these studies compare
single lesbian mother to single heterosexual mothers.”10 Since there
are generally more lesbians raising children than gay parents,
the most available samples of same-sex parents have been lesbian
women with their children. These lesbian-headed households
have been compared most often with single heterosexual women
raising children to yield measures of “no difference”, rather than
more appropriately compared with married heterosexual parents
and their children.11 When comparing the results of children in
divorced lesbian mother-headed families with children in divorced
heterosexual mother-headed families, we are not surprised at
the ndings of “no difference” because single-parent families
have similar challenges such as economic limitations, child-care
concerns, etc.12 The best that one can conclude is that these studies
are limited in generalisability and hence do not provide a basis for
deciding that children raised by same-sex parents are not different
from those raised in two-parent opposite sex families. Furthermore,
Marquardt has noted: “If both groups of children overall were
suffering the well-documented effects of divorce, such problems
would not appear when comparing these two samples.”13 The
unfortunate outcome from such conclusions is that these children
do not receive the attention needed to support them through
developmental challenges of growing up in homes socialised by only
one gender in a two-gendered world.
Divine Design
In exploring alternative family structures by same-sex persons,
basic questions have come to the fore: What is “marriage”? What
is the purpose of marriage? What is “parenthood”? And what is
122 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
parenthood for? Divine wisdom has naturally ordered procreation to
occur within the context of married commitment between a husband
and wife. God has fore-ordained unique contributions from both
sexes in the formation of life, so gender matters. And it is within the
complementary context between both sexes that children are able to
develop most completely. A husband and wife’s commitment within
marriage models for their off-springs God’s enduring faithfulness
in giving and preserving life, so family life teaches children that
authority gures are trustworthy. And the ability to trust gives
life for without security growth is compromised. God has designed
life to come from the union of male and female for the purpose of
forming human civilisation. His mandate in Deuteronomy 6, tells
us that what makes humanity civilised is its orientation toward
loving our Maker. This fundamental human capacity to form
trusting relationships is the basis of security from which civilization
ourishes.
According to the book of Genesis, all life begins with God’s
initiative and from him ows our purpose on earth. Incredibly, our
all-knowing and all-wise God has passed on the amazing privilege
and awesome responsibility for procreation onto his vice-regents
with the simple charge: “Be fruitful and multiply and ll the earth
and subdue it and have dominion…” (Genesis 1:28a ESV). What was
God’s intent with this blanket charge? Taking a macro-perspective
of the Bible, it is clear that we have a God who actively pursues his
children and desires to be known by us. The relationship God offers
his creation is life-preserving much like the care of any human
parent for her own offspring. When one is grounded on the truths
of Scripture, the sense of belonging eternally and intimately to a
holy and benevolent God undergirds the ourishing of the human
person.
In the wisdom literature of Proverbs, we read multiple
instructions from parent to child for training her up with life-giving
knowledge and fear of God. Hence the rst duty of every parent is
to teach his child about her Maker from all the ways possible as the
child’s personal caregiver. What are we to teach as parents? The
command for the people of God is explicit in Deuteronomy 6:4-7,
when Moses charged the nation of Israel:
“Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You
shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with
all your soul and with all your might. And these words
that I command you today shall be on your heart. You
123
shall teach them diligently to your children and shall talk
of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by
the way and when you lie down and when you rise.”
When a mother is responsive and attuned to her child, she is forming
the base for the child to develop a secure faith in God who is present.
When a father is nurturing and protective, he models for the child
a powerfully loving Heavenly Father. Clearly, Scripture records
instances of both mother and father taking an active part in the
training of a child (Proverbs 1-8, 13). Together, the complementary
roles of both mother and father allow children to develop most fully
and reect the cooperative, loving relationship within our Triune
God. When both married parents of the opposite sex are secure
in their love for each other as they live out the command of our
Lord Jesus Christ to love neighbour as self (Matthew 22:39), they
form the foundation for a child to develop in the most optimal
way. Children need moms and dads who are married to each other
because marriage does something unique: it holds the unit together
when both are committed to a common vision and purpose larger
than themselves. Children need moms and dads because each has
unique contributions that the other cannot duplicate.14
In recent decades however, there has been a rapid deconstruction
of human families which acclaimed cultural critic Mary Eberstadt
attributes to the perfect storm created during the sexual revolution
of the 1960s with the advent of the birth-control pill and no-fault
divorce in the United States.15 According to Eberstadt, new freedoms
explored from the Enlightenment allowed men and women to
reconsider their roles, as sex became unhinged from procreation
and family responsibilities. Without families as the conduit of faith,
secularisation followed naturally.16 Not wanting to be limited by
traditional values, we are now further able to defy natural order
with technology in assisted reproduction. The pursuit of individual
autonomous adult rights within a moral vacuum means that anyone
can form any kind of family in any way possible. In fact, there are
considerations now within social science to explore what it means
to raise children in poly-parent families as adults enter and exit
partnerships leaving children with step-parents.17
Developmental Needs and Children’s Rights
Biologically belonging to one’s own two married parents of opposite
sex provides a child with a sense of identity and worth that is
124 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
profoundly lost when a child is deprived of a relationship with one
parent. What happens when we transgress God’s model of a two-
parent family formed between a mother and father permanently
married to each other? Perhaps one way to address this question is
to explore the alternatives used by same-sex couples in formation
of families. Children born of “anonymous donor” material so often
long to know their other biological parent and wonder about the
loss in kinship with an extended family. These are vital connections
that cannot be engineered in petri dishes but remain an integral
part of a person’s sense of self. For a fundamental question of
identity that maturing children ask as they enter adolescence is,
“Who am I?” This is most often anchored securely when they have
a sense of belonging to persons who gave life to them. For the child
who enters the world through “anonymous donor” as a biological
parent, however, questions eventually abound as they mature and
naturally wonder about their origin. Marquardt et al. explored the
experiences of 485 adults aged 18-45 whose mothers had used a
sperm donor to conceive in My Daddy’s Name is Donor with the
following observations:
We learned that, on average, young adults conceived
through sperm donation are hurting more, are more
confused, and feel more isolated from their families. They
fare worse than their peers raised by biological parents
on important outcomes such as depression, delinquency
and substance abuse. Nearly two-thirds agree, “My sperm
donor is half of who I am.” Nearly half are disturbed that
money was involved in their conception. More than half
say that when they see someone who resembles them,
they wonder if they are related. Almost as many say they
have feared being attracted to or having sexual relations
with someone to whom they are unknowingly related.
Approximately two-thirds afrm the right of donor
offspring to know the truth about their origins. And about
half of donor offspring have concerns about or serious
objections to donor conception itself, even when parents
tell their children the truth.18
Meeting natural desires for family formation with unnatural means
dees God’s order and has its ensuing consequences on following
generations. These must surely be weighed heavily for children are
persons given life, not specically for the consumption of parents.
125
The Catholic Church’s “Donum Vitae” asserts that “The child is not
an object to which one has a right, nor can he be considered as an
object of ownership: rather, a child is a gift, the ‘supreme gift’ and
the most gratuitous gift of marriage, and is a living testimony of the
mutual giving of his parents.”19 As persons created in the image of
God, we cooperate with our Maker in life-making in the order that
he has ordained from the beginning of time. When we tamper with
the manufacture of life with the support of a billion-dollar fertility
industry worldwide, we court unknown consequences future
generations will have to bear. These decisions are being supported
by social “science” intent on asserting individual freedom unfettered
by authoritative moral code.
Eects of Being Raised in Same-sex Homes
Findings from the social sciences have long afrmed the signicant
roles both mother and father play in a child and adolescent’s
development, when they are married with low conict.20 Children
raised in motherless homes develop severe trust issues while
fatherlessness results in a host of well-documented challenges
including emotional and psychosocial adjustments, aggression,
behaviour problems in school and problems in school performance.21
Daughters of lesbian mothers are more apt to explore same-sex
sexual identity and behaviour,22 and have a higher number of sexual
partners in young adulthood than those raised by heterosexual
mothers.23 Importantly, Sarantakos has noted in his study of
young adult children with gay and lesbian parents: “If we perceive
deviance in a general sense to include excessive drinking, drug
use, truancy, sexual deviance and criminal offenses, and if we rely
on the statements made by adult children (over 18 years of age),
[then] children of homosexual parents report deviance in higher
proportions than children of (married or cohabiting) heterosexual
couples.”24
In exploring the new permutations of family forms with the
assistance of technology, Marquardt, in “One Parent or Five” notes,
“existing research suggests that there is something about the
marriage of a child’s biological mother and father that carries these
benets.”25 Both genders have a unique role to play in family life and
marriage provides the base of security that allows both parents to
invest heavily in the welfare of their offspring. This effort is further
supported socially by the extended family so that the environment
a child develops within is enriched.
126 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Yet, marriage between same-sex parents does not yield similar
results according to research. In his 2015 re-analysis of Wainright
and Patterson’s three studies of adolescents with same-sex
parents,26 Sullins found that adolescents whose same-sex parents
were married experienced more depression and were over twice
as likely to have above-average negative interpersonal symptoms
than adolescents with unmarried same-sex parent.27 He further
concluded that marriage did bring stability into those families,
“but stability did not bring better child outcomes: married same-
sex parents were much more stable, though child well-being was
generally lower than were unmarried same-sex parents.”28 This
surprising outcome Sullins surmises, is a possible result of trauma
from the higher rates of transition from one set of parents to another
among the same-sex couples.29 Indeed, Robert Oscar Lopez who
was raised by a lesbian mother and her partner, speculates that “If
the gay adults get married, it will mean that children will simply
have more pressure from the legal system to obey the commands
and met the emotional needs of one or two people who aren’t really
their parents.”30 This includes the pressure to protect their beloved
parent from judgement and criticism of others, placing the children
in a bind. Such children feel a need to be loyal to their parents while
struggling with their own sense of aloneness as they navigate their
non-traditional upbringing. This isolation is further exacerbated
by the unstable family life that many such children suffer due to
the nature of same-sex relationships and pressures within the
homosexual community not to present with any problems. This is
especially disturbing when we consider that a tendency towards
greater levels of intimate partner violence, well documented in
same-sex partnerships, was present in parental relationships in
Sullins’ 2016 study on delayed onset of depression among adults
with same-sex parents.31 Using data from the US National Survey
of Adolescent to Adult Health, Sullins reports: “Ninety percent of
the same-sex parented children reported parental abuse at Wave
III, dropping only to 85% at Wave IV.”32
Instability
Studies have emerged from Scandinavian countries which were the
earliest to legalise same-sex marriage and parenting, conrming
higher divorce risk in same-sex couples when compared with opposite
sex couples. Data from over two decades of same-sex marriage in
Sweden showed that lesbian women were more likely to marry and
127
have children than gay men but were also most prone to divorce
when compared with gay married men and opposite-sex marriages.33
Similarly, Wiik et al. noted the divorce risk of female couples in
Norway was 2.28 times that of opposite-sex couples.34 Biblarz et al.
suggest that the reason more lesbian marriages fail may be due to
their higher expectations for intimate unions.35 Furthermore, they
reasoned that lesbian donor-inseminated co-mothers are vulnerable
because they value egalitarian relationships and are confronted by
“asymmetrical legal, biological and cultural ties to children, that
can exacerbate maternal competition and jealousy.”36 Nevertheless,
greater traumatic effect on children is notable when we consider
that while children of gay men in Sweden are more likely to have a
registered mother, the children of lesbian couples are more likely to
have no father registered.37
While the presence of children typically has protective factors
on marriage, Wiik et al. noted “that the divorce risk for couples in
which one or both partners had children from a prior relationship
was, on the other hand, signicantly higher than that for couples
without any prior children.”38 In fact, the risk of divorce for male
couples with children was found to be 76% higher than that for
childless counterparts.39
With higher rates of same-sex relationships dissolving than
opposite-sex marriages, it is no wonder that emotional problems
were found to be over twice as prevalent for children with same-
sex parents than for children with opposite-sex parents according
to a study by Sullins.40 What is debilitating in such young persons’
developmental journey towards forming intimate relationships is
the desire to bond that is met with great insecurity about one’s own
ability to handle conicts and to trust implicitly. This is the classic
effect of having experienced a divorce in the home. It impacts future
relationships as well as future parenting of their own children,
affecting attachment across generations. For example, Fond et al.
noted that the rst study on adult attachment styles in French
women with gay or bisexual fathers found them to be signicantly
less comfortable with closeness and intimacy, less able to trust and
depend on others, and experience more anxiety in relationships
than women with heterosexual fathers.41
Missing Role Model
Not surprisingly, adult children who have been raised by same-sex
parents have come to recognise the devastating effects from lack of
128 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
opposite-sex modelling, feeling themselves to be queer and unable
to navigate social landscapes as they matured. This left them
vulnerable to bullying and experimenting sexually as they strove
to discover their own identities. Illustrating the maladjustments
and disadvantages that growing up different from others made,
Lopez, in Growing up with Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View,
reports, “I had no male gure at all to follow, and my mother and her
partner were both unlike traditional fathers or traditional mothers.
As a result, I had very few recognisable social cues to offer potential
male or female friends, since I was neither condent nor sensitive
to others. Thus I befriended people rarely and alienated others
easily.”42 The formation of self is always done within the context of
relationships. One can imagine that with only single-sex parenting,
a child is left with guesswork about the self in relationship to the
missing other-sex parent. Girls growing up in lesbian families, for
example, are more prone to developing orientations similar to their
mothers, while boys with lesbian mothers are less masculinised.
Boys missing a mother in gay households have difculty feeling
safe in relationships because the role of the mother is crucial in
establishing a child’s ability to trust.43 Thus, we see that there is no
way to deviate from God’s natural order without reaping injurious
consequences. In fact, as Eberstadt observed, “the more an age
forthrightly rejects the Christian code, the more does the forceful
insistence that there is a right and wrong exert a gravitational pull
all its own, with or without the demographic advantages of living
according to the law.”44
Unhappy Landscape
What is tragic about the emerging narrative is the truly unhappy
outcome when we reap what we have sown. A meta-analysis of
mental disorders, substance misuse and suicide found that, suicide
attempts in lesbian, gay and bisexual persons is twofold while risk
for depression and anxiety disorders are 1.5 times higher.45 While
some have suggested that “minority stress” has an impact on the
psychiatric vulnerabilities of same-sex attracted persons, even in
places where same-sex attracted persons have experienced more
acceptance such as in the Netherlands, no decline in mental health
problems have been noted among them.46 Indeed, despite enjoying
favourable public opinions towards homosexuality in countries
such as Denmark, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Sweden
and Switzerland, same-sex couples have had lower levels of self-
129
rated health and happiness than heterosexual couples.47 Hence
researchers such as Michael Bailey have suggested that perhaps
there is something about the increased prevalence of mental health
problems among homosexual persons that is in part “the cause,
rather than the effect, of increased self-reported experiences of
stigmatisation, prejudice, and discrimination.”48 To be sure, this
combination of mental health vulnerability and perception of
stigmatisation is not unique among the same-sex attracted alone.
However, the cumulative effect of such negativity should not be
ignored since growing up with same-sex parents increases the rates
of same sex orientation among children of such couples and the
likelihood of same suffering endured beyond a single generation.49
Hidden Anguish
Concluding that there are “no differences” between children raised
by same-sex parents and those by opposite sex parents, leaves these
children who struggle with their identity, sense of belonging and
adjustments untreated because they remain hidden. Consequently,
these children grow up knowing there is something different about
them because of their experiences but have no place to articulate or
make sense of them. A child who grows up with same-sex parents
may later struggle with his or her own sexual identity but will
feel deep internal conict if he doesn’t want feelings of same-sex
attraction. In recent years, adults who have been raised by same-
sex parents have made attempts to tell their stories but have not
been given due attention by the general media. Their testimonies
of familial instability, lack of modelling, early exposure to
promiscuous lifestyles and its accompanying pathogens and abuse
are inconvenient truths that have implications on the choices of
adults asserting their freedom. Indeed, these children, adolescents
and young adults in same-sex families have not been accorded
equal opportunities to voice their needs and concerns for protection
without fear of harassment. Recognising the effects of queerness
in their own upbringing, Lopez and others have testied of the
personal risks endured while being raised in homes by same-sex
parents.50 In his amicus brief, Lopez stressed impassionedly against
same sex marriage and adoption because of many similar stories of
pain and damage inicted by the absence of a biological parent and
the unwanted “step-parent” type relationship demanded by their
homosexual parents’ lovers.51 Lopez, who was estranged from his
father until his own battle with cancer in adulthood, found that the
130 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
return to his father for care was pivotal in his transition “from being
lost and sexually confused to being stable and romantically fullled”
with his wife and eventually, two children.52 Indeed, the formation
of identity includes experiences that allow for healing, and this
happens most effectively in the context of relational belonging that
every child needs with his own father and mother. One’s sense of self
formed in attachment relationships with two parents of the same
sex is clearly different from the experience of self that is derived
when nurtured by both mother and father. When a child grows up
missing a mother or father gure in his life, he naturally searches
for love outside the home, as did Lopez. How the church responds
to such children can be pivotal for their eventual faith development
and growth as persons made in God’s image.
Looking at the post-sexual revolution landscape of families in
this recent half-century, we see something deeply awry as adults
assert their rights over children’s rights by forming families
unnaturally. This yields painful consequences, as found by
Marquardt et al. that adult donor off-springs of lesbian couples were
nearly twice as likely as those raised by their biological parents
to have struggled with substance abuse issues.53 Pope Paul VI had
warned of dire consequences in 1968 with publication of the Human
Vitae when perceiving that we are not satised to be “ministers of
the design established by the Creator” but would rather be “masters
of the sources of life.”54 Social science afrms the truths in God’s
moral order in the patterns revealed both by those who conform and
those who do not. We have thus far noted the sufferings in children
when deprived of the optimal family structure. If forming families
through articial means hurts children, how should the church of
Jesus Christ respond to natural and deep human needs of belonging
that persons with same-sex attraction have?
Church’s Response
Bryan Shen, who ministers to persons with same-sex attraction
through counselling and educational training in Singapore has noted
that at the very core, these are persons who deeply need afrmation
in their relationships.55 Likewise, Hallman, in The Heart of Female
Same Sex Attractions has noted that lesbians deeply long for a
sense of home with themselves and others.56 The search for love
and acceptance is fundamental to all. When considering ministry
to such persons, how might the church of Jesus Christ incorporate
them into the family of God? The story of God in families of the Old
131
Testament, is the story of faith transmission so that generations
may know their Maker and in doing so, have life as He intended.
Interestingly, the answer to the needs of persons with same-sex
attraction might come in the form of whole families who can extend
deep and embracing friendships, creating extended relationships to
form kin-like ties with them.
While addressing a crowd, Matthew 12:46-49 records for us,
controversial words used by Jesus: “Who is my mother, and who
are my brothers?” before declaring that those who obey his Father
in heaven are brother and sister and mother to him. It is also
interesting to note that post-resurrection, there was no specic
record in Scripture of Jesus meeting with his earthly family to
comfort them in any way. The singular mention of his earthly family
member was in the Apostle Paul’s rst letter to the Corinthian
church, where he cursorily mentions James among those seen by
Jesus. In fact, Jesus’ nal act of lial care towards his mother, Mary
was in entrusting her to his disciple, John at the foot of the cross.
Clearly our Lord is open to embracing into his spiritual family—
persons beyond biological relationships. If a Christian brother with
same-sex attraction elects not to pursue a gay lifestyle because of his
faith commitment, what options remain for his sense of belonging
to a family? Following the lead in our Lord’s example, would not
the church be the natural family for one seeking faithfulness
before God on the challenging journey of sexual purity? As a gay
celibate Christian, Wesley Hill found his home with friends who
invited his participation in Christian community as godfather to
their daughter.57 If we are faithful to follow Christ, we too, would
recognise that all those who long to obey our Heavenly Father are
our brothers and sisters and mothers. This means opening our
homes, sharing our families and inviting into inner circles, those
longing to participate in life together.
Hospitality for Children of Same-sex Parents
As demonstrated by our Lord Jesus Christ, all children are
welcomed in his presence. Hence his church should similarly have
open doors to extend modelling of intact heterosexual families
to children from same-sex parented families. Such children will
benet from friendships with nurturing adults who can complement
with experiences missing in their own homes. When embraced into
friendships with two-parent families of the opposite sex, children
being raised by lesbian parents can witness what fatherly love
132 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
is like, and when loved appropriately, learn what healthy and
protective boundaries are like. Similarly, when a child is raised
by gay parents, he will naturally long for a mother-gure and
may nd solace in homes of friends whose mothers can provide
the caring attention he hungers. Importantly, these children will
have opportunities to observe subtle interpersonal cues between
two-gendered parents that are vital for every child’s socialisation.
Recording the testimonies of adolescents and adults raised by same-
sex parents, Lopez and Edelman note an unnamed girl’s experience
being raised by lesbians:
“I have gay parents. I spend most of my time at my best
friends [sic] house. I hang out with her Dad cuz I never had
one and he is this awesome guy…Mostly at my friend’s
house it feels like I can just be myself. Someone has to say
it cuz I dont [sic] hear it but gay parents are selsh in a
way. They dont [sic] think what it's going to be like for me
to live in their world...Am I a bad daughter because I wish
I had a Dad? Is there anyone else who has 2 Moms or 2
Dads who wonders what it would be like if they were born
into a normal family? Is there anyone who wants to be
able to use the word normal without gettin [sic] a lecture
on what is normal??? I dont [sic] know my real father and
never will. Its [sic] weird but I miss him. I miss this man I
will never know. Is it wrong for me to long for a father like
my friends have?”58
The church of Jesus Christ has an incredible opportunity to extend
loving relationships to those being raised in skewed environments so
that these children have a glimpse of family life as intended by their
Maker. If we have the privilege of contact with children growing up
with same-sex parents, the church must lean into relationships with
them to build trust so that these may have opportunities to know
their Maker and locate their primary orientation as a child of God,
loved unconditionally and sacricially. Hope is a needed anchor
when we consider the instability of some home environments as well
as trauma possibly suffered from ruptured parental relationships.
Practically, this means training the church to value people
regardless of their origins. This includes teaching our children
not to bully or tease children and youths whose parents may not
be heterosexual in orientation. Importantly, it involves modelling
how we accept children who may be different, whether they are
133
effeminate or tomboys. From the pulpit, leaders can engage in active
cultivation of mindsets that will model after our Lord Jesus Christ
who saw none as untouchable. How do we love our neighbours as
ourselves?
Reaching Same-Sex Attracted Parents
A starting place for some churches may be realising that the same-
sex attracted parent is already in our midst but perhaps remains
“in the closet” for fear of rejection by her own children and others.
Consequently, there remains an internal dissonance within her and
a deep sense of shame and fear that causes her to hide her loneliness
and needs. Can she nd among the people of God, persons who will
be trustworthy? How do we help her own understanding of self in
this fallen world? As the church is challenged to teach the truth of
Scripture regarding the purpose of marriage and family, can such
persons nd solace and support for their challenging situations
as they strive to be faithful followers of Christ within their fallen
natures? The church’s effort is in directing the attention of ALL
parents, regardless of sexual orientation, to love God with all their
heart, mind, soul and strength, and to be faithful in their calling as
parents to raise children who will know God and the salvation he
offers to all.
It is possible that if we are more open to listening to people’s
stories, we might help save more marriages in the church. Most
same-sex attracted persons who are raising children are lesbians
who form new families as a result of leaving a heterosexual marriage
with their children, while in search of their “true self.” What would
need to happen in the church in order for such persons to “nd
themselves” without the cost of family dissolution? Perhaps pastors
will need to lead by example so that church can be a safe space as
God intended, for all sinners to nd a refuge, including the ability
to admit to sexual sins and temptations. How do we train entire
congregations to respond as Jesus did with the woman caught in
the act of adultery in the gospel of John chapter 8 so that no sin is
deemed greater than another?
Core Needs
In summary when we consider the key issues surrounding gay
parenting, it is evident that there is a distinct clash of concerns.
All parties express a deep care for the outcome in children but in
134 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
the end adult agendas prevail. Consequently, care must be taken
when evaluating the merits of studies that purport to demonstrate
generalisability of results against scriptural truths. A keen eye is
needed to ask key questions such as: what is the research about?
Who is being sampled? What measures are being used and what
constructs are assessed as measures of outcome?
There is no denying that the presence of one's own biological
mother and father in the home is an important factor of child
well-being. No other model offers children the best conditions for
ourishing. To deny this is to deny God’s design. Even if and when
technology permits the reproduction of children without both male
and female contributions, defying such boundaries and limits of
human freedom as in Eden will only prove in the end that God’s
design is best for His own creation. To tamper with the creation
of life apart from God’s natural design is an assertion of human
free-will that will have its consequence return with judgement for
untold suffering endured as we have seen with the children born of
anonymous donors. The Christian church must know its Biblical
stance and remain rm in God’s original design for humanity, with
the knowledge that in due time the natural consequences will be
evident, particularly in subsequent generations. When we deviate
from God’s model and remake families based on our own preferred
congurations, the cost of adult freedom is paid by the next
generation, as seen in the testimonies of adults raised by same-
sex parents. Such kinds of interpersonal suffering are not easily
quantiable as one generation deeply impacts another in countless
ways.
Therefore, the Christian church must teach that neither
marriage nor families are private affairs since the impact on culture
and society are far-reaching. Just as wedding vows are taken in the
presence of witnesses, the church as a faith community offers mutual
support and accountability to help us keep our commitments and
witness. Pastors need clarity about Biblically based fundamentals
on marriage and family and to diligently educate every generation
so that all members understand marriage as a public good that
God has instituted for all mankind. There must be clear teachings
regarding the purpose of marriage and parenthood so that all
can be held accountable to the same standards. If a heterosexual
couple within the church is found to be abusive towards each other
or their children, they should be equally held accountable so that
there is no difference in the types of sins the church considers to be
reprehensible.
135
Taking a redemptive stance, the church can rise to the call of
responding to such families in need of support and friendship so that
the Gospel of Salvation may reach into their variant experiences
with truth and hope. Sexual brokenness can be met with the love
of God that communicates acceptance of persons in search of their
true home and identity as children of God. We can orientate them to
their Maker when God’s people love Him enough to love those whom
He loves, with the truth He offers to all.
136 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Seven
People with same sex attraction (SSA) are not just out there in
the world but also found within the Church. Many in the latter
are sincere followers of Christ who want to make sense of their
SSA and to somehow reconcile their homosexual desires with their
Christian faith. In this regard, there are two contrasting approaches
that Christians have taken. On the one hand, there are those
who regard homosexual relations as morally permissible and not
sinful. These include both practising homosexuals and supportive
heterosexuals who believe that God allows for same-sex relations.1
On the other hand are those who identify themselves as gay but
reject homosexual acts as contrary to Scripture and the teachings
of the Church. They adhere to the Church’s teaching on delity
in heterosexual marriage and celibacy in singleness. Accordingly,
they keep themselves chaste and celibate, disavowing any physical
sexual relations with members of the same sex.2
Both groups are united by a common acceptance of their
homosexual proclivity as an integral part of their sexual identity.
They differ in the way they seek to live out their identity. Adopting
a revisionist attitude to the strictures of Scripture against
homosexual relations, the rst approach essentially rejects
the traditional teaching of the Church. Much of the exegetical,
theological, and pastoral arguments proffered by this afrming
rst group have already been trenchantly critiqued, and we do not
Dr Mark Chan
SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP
ATTRACTED CHRISTIANS
139
need to revisit these.3 What interests us is the proposal put forth by
some representatives of the second group, specically the notion of
“spiritual friendship” as a way forward for Christians with SSA to
be faithful to Christ and obedient to Scripture.
This essay seeks to examine the idea of “spiritual friendship” as
a proactive step forward for same-sex attracted Christians to express
their homosexual affectivity in committed friendship. Attention
will be given to two key issues arising from the proposal: (i) the
nature of homoerotic desire, and (ii) the idea of chaste covenantal
and vowed friendship between same-sex attracted believers. The
exploration will conclude by commending the pursuit of God and
sexual wholeness in the company of friends in community.
I. THE “SPIRITUAL FRIENDSHIP” MOVEMENT
“No one has greater love than this,” Jesus says, “to lay down one’s
life for one’s friends” (John 15:13). Not long after he uttered these
words, Jesus would do just that: lay down his life for his friends.
Signicantly, he says to his disciples in the very next verse: “You
are my friends” (John 15:14). Only Abraham and Moses are called
friends of God in the Bible (James 2:23; Exodus 33:11), and here
the disciples are given the same accolade by Jesus the Son of
God. The connection between “love” and “friends” in this passage
is unmistakable. “This is my commandment, that you love one
another as I have loved you” (John 15:12). And how did Jesus love?
By giving his life for his friends. This intertwining of self-giving
love and friendship is a theme that gures prominently in Christian
thinking on friendship. Theologians down the ages have reected on
friendship against a backdrop shaped not only by biblical passages
such as this one from John’s Gospel, but also the works of major
Greek and Latin writers. The ancient Greeks considered friendship
as a form of love. It is essentially related to the good and virtuous
life and is regarded as one of the noblest achievements of human
nature. To thinkers like Plato, Aristotle and Cicero, the good life
is impossible without friends living and sharing in discussion and
thought. Their insights have found their way into the writings
of Augustine, Ambrose, Aquinas, and others on the theme of
friendship. Amongst these is the well-known treatise, De spiritali
amicitia, or Spiritual Friendship4 by the twelfth-century Cistercian
monk, Aelred of Rievaulx.
Aelred of Rievaulx (1109-1167), abbot of the abbey of Rievaulx
in England, wrote a series of dialogues or imaginary conversations
140 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
over many years that was eventually published as Spiritual
Friendship. Like Augustine before him, Aelred’s thinking on
friendship was heavily inuenced by Cicero, in particular Cicero’s
On Friendship, whose structure and content are reected in
Aelred’s treatise.5 And like Augustine, Aelred recognises that true
friendship must go beyond being simply oriented to the good as the
classical philosophers suggest. It must instead be centred on the
One who is Good itself. He distinguishes three types of friendship:
carnal, worldly, and spiritual. Carnal friendship is inclined towards
lust and pleasure, while worldly friendship desires possessions
and temporal advantage. But true friendship, Aelred suggests, is
spiritual in that there is agreement (consensio) between friends to
seek the good and reject all that is unbecoming. And this agreement
is centred in Christ. As Aelred aptly describes it at the beginning of
his treatise: “You and I are here, and I hope that Christ is between
us as a third” (I.1).6 True “friendship must begin in Christ, continue
with Christ, and be perfected by Christ” (I.10). Spiritual friendship
helps friends to grow in love for each other and in their love for God.
Aelred’s Christocentric view of friendship rooted in observations
about the human need for intimacy and deep relationship based
on mutual self-disclosure and acceptance cemented his reputation
as “the unofcial patron saint of friendship.”7 In Aelred’s view,
friendship is a sacrament of God’s love. When asked if one should
say, “God is friendship” in the way God is spoken of as love by the
apostle John (1 John 4:16), Aelred replies, “This is novel indeed
and lacks the authority of Scriptures. The rest of that verse about
charity, however, I surely do not hesitate to attribute to friendship,
because the one who remains in friendship remains in God, and God
in him” (I.70).
Without going into the specics of his reections on friendship
in Spiritual Friendship as well as his earlier work, The Mirror of
Charity,8 what makes Aelred germane to the issue of same-sex
love is the possibility he holds out for monks to establish such deep
bonds of friendship that they are akin to kinship ties or even spousal
promises.9 Inspired by Aelred, a loosely afliated group of Christian
authors and bloggers who self-identify as “celibate gay Christians”
see in the cultivating of spiritual friendship a way for them to live out
a God-honouring celibate life of abstinence from homogenital sex.
Spiritual friendship allows these like-minded individuals to direct
their homosexual affectivity towards others in a way that is ordered
towards the seeking of God. Advocates for this reconciliation of SSA
141
and Christian commitment include writers like Wesley Hill, Ron
Belgau, Eve Tushnet, Nate Collins, and others. Their reections
are curated in publications as well as in the blogsite, “Spiritual
Friendship: Musings on God, Sexuality, Relationships,” co-founded
by Belgau and Hill.10 Like-minded writers and speakers—who
are not necessarily same-sex attracted—have coalesced around
the Revoice conferences,11 the rst two of which were held in July
2018 and July 2020, which are aimed at “supporting, encouraging,
and empowering gay, lesbian, same-sex-attracted, and other
LGBT Christians so they can ourish while observing the historic,
Christian doctrine of marriage and sexuality.”
There is variation in their expressions beyond sharing a
common afrmation of gay identity, chaste continence, and
acceptance of the biblical proscription against homosexual acts.12
These range from those who encourage Christians who are same-
sex attracted to develop covenantal friendship, to those who argue
for a kind of gay exceptionalism, whereby their sexual orientation
has equipped them to experience things and relate to people in ways
better than heterosexuals can. In this sense, they bring something
unique to the Christian community.13 The idea that binds these
writers together is the notion that being same-sex attracted is a
complex and multifaceted thing that impacts every area of their
lives. Among the key tenets of the movement are the following:
First, in line with traditional Christian sexual ethics, physical
sexual activity between members of the same sex is sinful and
therefore incompatible with the Christian faith. The Spiritual
Friendship writers are clear that biblical teachings prohibit same-
sex intercourse.
Second, a distinction is made between what Wesley Hill
regards as two distinct realities, namely “same-sex attraction”
and “same-sex sexual attraction.”14 While the latter is connected to
sinful homosexual practice, the former has to do with orientation
and is not sinful in itself. Furthermore, that homosexual orientation
is unchangeable and should be regarded as a normative part of
creation.
Third, while the psychological/emotional needs and desires
of the same-sex attracted can lead to sinful actions, they are not
wrong in themselves. As such, Christians with SSA should embrace
it as something positive and regard it as integral to who they are.
Eve Tushnet, for instance, suggests that “same-sex love is a real
142 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
and beautiful thing” and people “who long for same-sex love and
intimacy should maybe be encouraged to learn how to do that, since
it is good, and holy, and beautiful.”15 It follows that virtually all
the advocates of spiritual friendship are opened to using the term,
“gay” to describe themselves. Having a “gay identity” is considered
compatible with Christian commitment, so long as one remains
celibate and disavows homosexual practice.
Fourth, the Church should recognise and welcome self-
described celibate same-sex attracted Christians, in the hope that
the latter will nd acceptance, love, and fullment in the context of
a loving community of friends.
Fifth and nally, it is possible to nd fullment of one’s inner
needs with persons who are similarly same-sex attracted through
the kind of spiritual friendship that Aelred commends, sans physical
sex. Such close spiritual friendships allow them to experience the
fullment that comes with romantic love, the kind that is possible
for heterosexual couples. Ron Belgau maintains, “Our argument
is that properly ordered desire for same-sex love is ordered to
friendship, not sex.”16 In other words, through spiritual friendship
that is centred in Christ, Christians with SSA can transcend the
homoeroticism that is really a manifestation of a disordered love.
In so doing they are able to overcome the loneliness that results
from the renunciation of homogenital sex and same-sex marriage.
This then is the project that galvanises those who write under the
“Spiritual Friendship” banner: to hold out hope and support for
same-sex attracted Christians to live a chaste life while giving
expression to their same-sex yearnings within the framework of
close intimate friendship with similarly attracted believers.
Wesley Hill explores the possibility and pursuit of intimacy
and joy in chaste same-sex friendships in his book, Spiritual
Friendship. Hill begins by lamenting the eclipse of friendship on
account of widely accepted myths that have shaped contemporary
understanding of friendship and sexuality.17 The rst is the
Freudian suspicion that “sex wholly explains the depths of our
most profound relationships”18 such that any same-sex friendship
is perceived as somehow tied to romance. The second myth is that
marriage and the nuclear family are of “ultimate signicance,” with
all other friendships playing second ddle to our commitment to
spouses and nuclear families. The third myth is the reductionism
of evolutionary biology whereby all human loves are understood
only in terms of how they contribute to the furthering of one’s self-
143
interest. This drive runs counter to the seemingly non-productive
mutual enjoyment and appreciation in friendship. To these, Hill
adds the myth of freedom understood as independence from the
encumbrances of committed relationship.
In view of the marginalisation of friendship and the loneliness
that many people struggle with, whether married or single, Hill
shines a spotlight on the need to invest in deep friendship. This need
is all the more pronounced for Christians with SSA seeking to live
a chaste life. The longing, as Hill expresses it, is for relationships
that are more than just friends going out at night or going on
vacation with. He writes, “We need people who know what time
our plane lands, who will worry about us when we don’t show up at
the time we said we would.” He says we need friends who will be
there for us no matter what happens, those who “will stay with us,
loving us in spite of our faults and caring for us when we are down.
More than that, we need people for whom we care.”19 The same-
sex attracted Christian who chooses to remain celibate should not
be condemned to a life of loneliness. The question that exercises
Hill and his collaborators is how they might reconcile their sexual
abstinence, their same-sex desires, and their basic human need for
love, specically the need to love and be loved.
Aelred’s notion of spiritual friendship provides the beginnings
of a possible ‘solution’. In instructing his monks, the abbot of
Rievaulx opened the door to “the possibility of uniquely intimate
relationships that one monk might share with another, in which
secrets were exchanged and depths of mutual trust were attained”.20
In Hill’s assessment, “What Aelred called ‘spiritual friendship’ was
a form of same-sex intimacy that sublimated or transmuted erotic
passion rather than sanctioning its genital expression.”21 In other
words, here is the possibility for intimacy between members of the
same sex that is not reducible to romantic love. Friendship, in Hill’s
opinion, “could indeed be just as permanent, devoted, and exclusive
a form of love as marriage.”22 Such is the importance accorded
to friendship that the key leaders of the Spiritual Friendship
movement characterise homosexual sin not only as a perversion of
marriage but also as a distorted form of friendship.23
Hill looks to historical precedents in support of his proposal
for “vowed friendships,” whereby friendship ties “shade into and
perhaps even overlap with our ties of brotherhood and sisterhood,
of marriage and kinship.”24 Appealing to Alan Bray’s historical
investigation of friendship,25 Hill points to instances of pairs of
144 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
friends from the medieval through to the early modern period
who were recognised by the church as sworn or “wedded” friends.
These friendships were not romantic, but they were intimate,
committed, and seemingly exclusive. Such sworn friendships—
predominantly between men, though some women took vows of
friendship as well—were evidently religiously sanctioned and
publicly celebrated, with their spiritual unions recognised as having
communal signicance. Hill recognises that there are “potential
problems” in such sworn friendships. Nevertheless, he feels that
the benets outweigh the dangers and hopes for “the possibility
of vowed spiritual siblinghood.”26 More than just “disinterested,
disembodied companionship,” what we need, he says, is something
more permanent, regardless of sexual orientation, marital status or
age. From historical examples, Hill turns to the Bible for examples
of apparently exclusive pairs of friends, such as Naomi and Ruth,
and David and Jonathan. He shows how Christ draws men and
women into a spiritual family that is the Church and in so doing
demonstrates the gospel’s power to transform friendship.
What then do we make of this proposal of covenantal or vowed
spiritual friendship? Is this a way forward for same-sex attracted
Christians to be chaste and still nd intimacy and love with someone
who is similarly sexually attracted?
II. CRITIQUE
To begin with, one must salute the willingness of our brothers and
sisters in the Spiritual Friendship movement to share openly about
their SSA. Unless our hearts are made of stone, we can’t help but
be moved by the heartfelt testimonies of their struggles to live with
SSA. Their stories are instructive for the larger body of Christ
in the travails of these our fellow believers. There is no doubting
their sincerity to act within the boundaries of Scripture and the
traditional teaching of the church. In their different ways, they are
seeking as they see it to pursue Christian godliness in and through
their SSA.27
The Spiritual Friendship writers have endeavoured to broaden
the understanding of sexuality, moving it away from the tendency
to conne it to genitalia sex. They are right to insist that one can
relate as a sexual being without it being only and always about
physical sex. And they are certainly right to call for greater attention
to the oft neglected gift of friendship in the life of the church. There
145
is much in their recommendations about investing in committed
friendship in church that is both insightful and needed. And insofar
as their writings summon the church to a greater appreciation of
and commitment to fostering life-transforming spiritual friendship
in Christ, they deserve our gratitude.
That said, notwithstanding the laudable intentions undergirding
their project, their proposal does raise theological concerns that need
to be addressed. Principal among these are two key issues: rst,
the view that homoerotic desires, in contrast to homosexual acts,
are not sinful in themselves but are part and parcel of the identity
of Christians with SSA. Second, the notion of spiritual friendship
as same-sex committed relationship, particularly the idea of vowed
friendship that is in some sense publicly recognised by the church.
We will look at these in turn. The comments below are made in the
spirit of wanting to share genuine concerns with fellow members of
the household of faith. It is in that convivial spirit that we hope they
will be received.
How should we understand homoerotic desire?
Those who have experienced lifelong struggles with same-sex
desires testify that these desires are predominant, enduring and
not merely episodic. Homosexual desires are for them not freely
chosen in the sense that they do not have the option not to be same-
sex attracted. And to the extent that their SSA is not something
willed, they maintain that it is not a sin. Only when one acts on
that attraction and engages in homosexual practice that it becomes
a sin. And it is this afrmation, namely that sin pertains only to
homosexual acts and not to feelings, that has opened up a path for
celibate gay Christians to legitimise the expression of homoerotic
feelings, albeit within the rubric of spiritual friendship. Can a
Christian stay true to the historic teaching of the church while at
the same time seek out avenues to express homosexual desires in
interpersonal relationship? The answer hinges on what we mean by
homosexual desire and orientation.
Within evangelical Christianity, recent discussions on
homosexuality have not only dealt with questions of biblical
interpretation but also sought to incorporate insights from Christian
psychology. The works of Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse come
to mind.28 Distinctions are made between behaviour, orientation,
and identity,29 with much of the discussion centring on issues of
orientation and identity. While it is helpful to appraise SSA from
146 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
the standpoint of psychological and social studies, and while it is
necessary to take on board the testimonies of persons with SSA, it is
also important, if not more so, that we understand the phenomenon
of homoerotic desire theologically.
Despite the many attempts at denitional precision on what it
means to be gay, it seems difcult, as Catholic philosopher Rachel
Lu points out, “to identify any dening feature of a gay identity
apart from homoerotic attraction.” She goes on to assert that “a gay
identity or orientation (if such a concept is meaningful at all) appears
to have only one denitionally necessary identifying feature: the
regular and persistent experience of homoerotic desire.”30 If this is
the case, then the key issue pertains to how one understands what
homoerotic desire is. Is being same-sex attracted something that is
morally neutral, or even as something good or ordained by God,31 or
is it something that deviates fundamentally from God’s design for
human sexuality?
In this regard, the reection of the Catholic Church on this
is instructive. According to The Catechism of the Catholic Church,
“homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to
natural law.”32 In the very next paragraph, it asserts that the
homosexual “inclination” is “objectively disordered,” even when
it constitutes for the same-sex attracted as a “trial.” Note that
the ofcial view of the Catholic Church is that homosexuality is
“disordered” both in acts and inclination. Regardless of how one
feels about one’s homosexual desires being innate, and thereby
‘natural,’ that inclination itself is considered disordered.
It is important to stress that for our purpose “disordered” here
is not a psychological diagnosis33 but a theological description of
homosexuality. To those persuaded by the ideology of orientation,
the word “disordered” may come across as cruel and repulsive.
To the ears of homosexual individuals, the language of disorder
is understandably jarring and odious, where the descriptor
“disordered” sounds like a blanket rejection of them as people.
This is so because being same-sex attracted does appear to have
been made an integral part of their identity. Perhaps one of the
reasons why they nd the description hurtful is precisely because
of the category mistake they make in equating their SSA with their
identity. But surely one’s identity is much more than one’s sexual
desires. This is all the more so for the Christian. It is who a person
is in Christ that denes the person, not his or her sexual desire.
Recognising this basic grounding of one’s identity in Christ opens
147
up a space for a reappraisal of homosexual yearning as a disorder
without this necessarily undermining the person’s worth.
The characterisation of SSA as “objectively disordered” does
not mean that homosexual individuals are disordered in the
entirety of their being. It is the affections that are disordered, not
the person per se, even though from an experiential standpoint it
is difcult to separate the two. The disorder is specic to the mis-
directed teleology of homoerotic desire. The sexual urge is a God-
given instinct that is ordered for interpersonal love between a man
and a woman in the context of marriage. Through their conjugal life
and a full sexual relationship, husband and wife participate in the
realisation of God’s intended good for creation, among which is the
establishment of a stable home to nurture the children that come
out of the marital union. Insofar as homoerotic love deviates from
the divine design of sexual relations between a man and a woman
in the context of marriage and is incapable of realising that divinely
intended telos of bringing forth progeny, it may be said to be an
intrinsic disorder.34 It is in this sense that we speak of homoerotic
desire as disordered.
It is equally important to stress that the disordered sexuality
is not just conned to those with SSA. Heterosexuals are not
exempted; for on this side of the Fall, everyone is tainted by sin. Sin
as disorder, i.e., as that which deviates from and militates against
God’s will, affects all fallen humans. An adulterous husband who
engages in extramarital sex with a woman has committed a sin as
much as two men involved in homogenital sex have transgressed
God’s design. Both are instances of pursuing mistaken desires as if
they were the good intended by God. Sexual sins that are aimed at
ends other than those designed by God, whether same-sex or other-
sex, may be said to be objectively and morally disordered.
That said, a distinction must be made between a natural
heterosexual inclination and a homosexual inclination if one is to
understand why the latter is characterised as objectively disordered.
Take for instance a single young man who is attracted to an
attractive woman. That attraction in itself is natural, and, as such,
is not intrinsically disordered. But it can become a moral disorder
if the man lingers in lust or goes on to pursue a sexual relation
with the woman knowing full well that she is already married.
That adulterous liaison renders their relationship objectively and
morally disordered, even if the initial attraction is properly ordered.
In other words, a properly ordered attraction can become disordered
148 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
when it is acted upon in ways that go against God’s intended order.
However, in the case of a man who is attracted to another man,
the experience itself of being drawn to a person of the same sex,
prior to any potential homogenital sex, is always and everywhere
a disordered attraction.35 Regardless of whether that same-sex
attraction eventuates in homogenital sex or not, the desire itself is
not something that is in line with God’s ordering of human sexuality.
It is in this sense intrinsically disordered.
Apart from the fact that the line separating sinful desire and
sinful act is not as easily demarcated in practice as it is in theory,
the Bible is not silent about the sinful propensity of the heart. The
Lord Jesus himself calls attention not only to sinful deeds but also
sinful desires in the Sermon on the Mount. To say that same-sex
desire is a distorted inclination of the heart is not unlike what Christ
says about inner anger and lust as sinful (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28).
The thrust of this teaching is that sinfulness pertains not only to
one’s deeds but also to the inner orientation of the heart. Because
one cannot say that it is alright to be angry so long as it does not
eventuate in murder, or it is alright to lust if it does not lead to
adultery, so one should not regard same-sex desire as acceptable
in the heart so long as one does not engage in homogenital sex.36
Admittedly, those who do not accept that SSA sans homogenital sex
is a departure from God’s design would argue that it should not be
placed in the same category as lust and anger. Be that as it may,
the ease of passage from desire to action should caution us against
underestimating the potency of the heart’s inclination towards sin.37
Life in a fallen creation is such that we are all morally culpable
because of our dispositional orientation towards sin. In other words,
as Richard Hays reminds us, though our life “in the esh” is one
of bondage to sin, we are “still accountable to God’s righteous
judgement of our actions. In light of this theological anthropology,
it cannot be maintained that a homosexual orientation is morally
neutral because it is involuntary.”38 Thus, notwithstanding the
claim of non-moral culpability, the person who desires a member
of the same sex is giving vent to something that pertains to human
fallenness. Since the Fall, Christopher Townsend asserts, “sin has
been the root cause of a deep state of disorder within human nature.
What is found innate in men and women is not necessarily good.”
He goes on to assert,
As the Book of Common Prayer puts it, ‘there is no health in
us’: pride, greed, heterosexual lust, homosexual orientation
149
may all be ‘natural’ to a person and yet wrong. …We are
all ‘slaves to sin’ (John 8:34), lled with compelling desires
leading us into disobedient actions, living out involuntary
but culpable rebellion (see, e.g., Romans 7:13-25). Those
compelling desires are different for different people, for
some they are homosexual desires.39
Given the distorting impact of sin, determination of what is in line
with God’s will cannot be based simply on how natural something
feels. If homoerotic desire is a consequence and an indication of
humanity’s fallen condition, and if it is a departure from God’s
design for human sexuality, then wouldn’t any proactive attempt at
giving expression to homoerotic desire serve only to accentuate that
deviation? Rather than embrace SSA as an alternate instantiation
of the Creator’s design, it is hoped that believers would recognise
SSA for what it is, namely something that is out of sync with God’s
design for human sexuality. This should caution one against taking
on too readily the label “gay” as a self-identifying marker,40 as well
characterising homosexual desire as a good, holy, and beautiful
gift from God. Nate Collins, for instance, describes the gay identity
as “an aesthetic orientation,” and even allows for the possibility
that gay Christians will retain their gay identity in Heaven.41
Understandably, believers with SSA who have suffered abuse and
gone through the throes of self-rejection might wish to ‘redeem’
their orientation in some sense by incorporating it into their faith
in Christ. But just as it is unhelpful to equate one’s sexuality with
one’s identity, however closely linked they may be, it is a mistake
to take what is contrary to God’s design and turn it into a natural
good.
It is one thing to accept one’s SSA as a given reality, and
quite another to become so identied with it that it is regarded as
something good. Is this perhaps a case of the Stockholm Syndrome
at work, whereby a distortion of God’s good design has become
so much a part of one’s life that it is transmuted over time into a
good thing? That homoerotic desire is not an intrinsic good does
not mean that nothing good can come out of it. In God’s sovereign
ordering, all things, both good and bad, come together for the good
of his children. God can take this disordered reality and fashion
something good out of it in the lives of his same-sex attracted
children.42 There is no denying that for many faithful Christians
with SSA, their often painful and tumultuous journey has opened
up vistas of growth and avenues of ministry that they would not
150 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
otherwise have experienced. Nevertheless, it is one thing to say that
good has come out of the experience of living with SSA, and quite
another to say that SSA is itself a good thing. It is not.
This still leaves same-sex attracted believers with the question
on how to honour Christ when their affectional proclivities are
towards members of the same sex. The challenges entailed in this
are real and should never be minimised. The starting point in a
faithful response, we suggest, is not to redene SSA into a natural
good but to recognise it for what it is, namely an expression of
humanity’s fallen condition and a departure from God’s design for
human sexuality, even if it is involuntary. It doesn’t make all the
challenges go away; nor would it make dealing with them easier.
But it does mean starting off on a right denitional footing in
confronting them.
Without venturing into the vexed issue on whether a same-
sex attracted person can change his or her orientation,43 we want
to afrm the need for all believers to submit their sexual desires
to the Lordship of Christ. The Christian lives ever in a state of
constant contest between the spirit and the esh on this side of
the Second Coming. The apostle Paul describes this as one of living
by the Spirit of God, which enables the believer to discipline his or
her innate tendency towards gratifying “the desires of the sinful
nature” (Gal. 5:16f). Without dismissing or diminishing the power of
unwilled sexual desires, such a reading does hold out the possibility
of disciplining one’s carnal desires as one yields to the transforming
work of the Holy Spirit. This is surely something that all in the
Spiritual Friendship movement can agree on.
This battle between the spirit and the esh is common to all
believers, same-sex attracted or otherwise. The need for change and
the possibility of change is true for all followers of Christ. Rather
than fasten oneself to the notion of the immutability of sexual
orientation, perhaps the focus should be on the mortication of our
eshly desires and the possibility of spiritual transformation. This
transformation may not mean a total reversal of one’s homosexual
orientation, but the change will be in terms of the Christlike way in
which one deals with the realities of living with a fallen condition.
The invitation to give oneself to living intentionally in chastity,
seeking inner freedom through prayer, self-mastery, friendship,
and God’s will, is one that goes out to all believers who grapple with
the question of discipleship and sexuality. Our same-sex attracted
friends in Christ should not feel they are alone in this.
151
One of the haunting questions that many believers with SSA
ask repeatedly is why they should be straddled with homosexual
desires. Despite all the postulations on the socio-psychogenesis of
SSA, its origins remain shrouded in mystery. In the face of this
inscrutable mystery, those affected have long bellowed their prayers
of remonstration with God. It is here that the community of God’s
people can stand in solidarity with them, joining them in pleading
with God, “Why, O Lord? How long, O Lord?” This makes vivid and
concrete the biblical injunction, “if one member suffers, all suffer
together with it” (1 Corinthians 12:26). This is where the people of
God can rally around those who like Wesley Hill are washed clean
by God’s Son and Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:11) and are waiting in hope
for their nal transformation (Romans 8:25). When the church does
this, it says to our aficted friends that they do not have to wait
alone; the church will be there to wait with them. To our same-sex
attracted members, the act of loving solidarity testies to the way
God sustains his own through the community of friends that is the
church. Which brings us to the question of committed friendship.
Spiritual friendship as chaste same-sex committed
relationship?
The Spiritual Friendship writers are right to call for greater attention
to the cultivation of friendship in the Christian community. This
summon to friendship is for all, whether married or unmarried.
And they are equally right to remind us that same-sex attracted
believers need love like everyone else. If they could love and be loved
in committed covenantal friendships that are spiritually oriented
to Christ, that do not involve homogenital sex, and are publicly
recognised by the church, then might not that be a way for them
to be simultaneously chaste and same-sex attracted? The proposal,
however, is not without difculties, even if one accepts that spiritual
friendship in Christ is a salutary way forward. Questions remain as
to what exactly is entailed in such an intimate friendship, especially
when it is presented as an exclusive coupling in ways that mark it
off as qualitatively different from all other relationships. And what
about the idea of vowed friendships between same-sex couples that
are publicly acknowledged by the church?
Before examining the appropriateness of vowed friendship, we
will look briey at the biblical exemplars and historical precedents
cited in support of the idea. With regards to biblical examples, one
wonders if this is not a case of wanting to say more from the biblical
152 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
text than what is stated there. The friendship between David and
Jonathan is a case in point. While Hill rightly rejects the claim that
the two were lovers, he nevertheless thinks that their relationship
was more intense, committed and irrevocable than most of us would
consider friendship to be.44 Yet interestingly, when we examine
the love described in 1 Samuel 18:1-4, it is mostly on the part of
Jonathan, with the text signicantly silent on David’s response.
The one profession of love on the part of David comes towards the
end of the poem he composed to commemorate the passing of Saul
and Jonathan (2 Samuel 1:19-27). “I am distressed for you, my
brother Jonathan: greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me
was wonderful, passing the love of women” (v. 26). The closest he
comes to an attestation of love for Jonathan are the words, “greatly
beloved were you to me”. Even here, David speaks of “your love to
me” rather than his love for Jonathan. And the covenant that the
two made (1 Samuel 20:16) has more of a political dimension to it.45
So, at the very least, one should be reticent about ascribing to them
a mutuality of love akin to what is being proposed today. As for
the historical precedents of “wedded” friendships in England that
Hill alludes to, even if one accepts that the individuals concerned
were not homosexual lovers entwined in what we would describe
today as same-sex marriage,46 it is clear that these took place at a
time vastly different from our own. Ardent words of affection and
love, the writing of love letters, the solemn exchange of rings, the
embrace, the kiss, and so forth, actions that are normally associated
with romance today, were used and accepted as the currency of
friendship between men then. Considering that such words and
actions may not always mean what we mean by them today should
caution against any easy transitioning from what was done then to
what we should do now.
As for the suggestion that same-sex friends should declare their
love and commitment to each other publicly in church, one wonders
if this is not an expression of a subliminal desire to approximate to if
not emulate a marriage. Despite the assertion that this is in essence
a case of “vowed siblinghood” or “brother making,” the description of
the kind of relationship desired seems to gravitate in the direction
of celibate lovers entering into some kind of union, albeit without
sex. In all fairness, this marriage-approximation may not be
intended, but the effect is an unfortunate blurring of distinctions
between marriage and friendship. Particularly, when the spiritual
friendship envisaged seems to be only between two persons of the
153
same sex, whereby both regard each other as “the signicant other”
in their lives. Such exclusivity of commitment is really what one
would expect from a marriage, not friendship, which by its very
nature is non-exclusive. Given the inclusive nature of friendship, in
what sense should one understand the vows of commitment in the
kind of spiritual friendship envisaged?
Signicantly, in Aelred’s view, spiritual friendship is not
meant to be exclusive. The friendships between monks are not ends
in themselves but are always oriented towards a future perfection
in which the blessings of friendship shared by the few will be
extended to all. In this sense, spiritual friendship is non-exclusive.
“[T]rue and eternal friendship,” Aelred writes, “that begins here
is perfected there” in eternity. “Here it belongs to the few, for few
are good, but there it belongs to all, for there all are good.” (III.79-
80). In other words, all spiritual friendships will yield one day
to the heavenly union of all who are in Christ. It seems that it is
this inclusiveness of all in the Body of Christ that is the focus in
Aelred’s understanding of spiritual friendship, rather than some
kind of exclusive coupling. Hill acknowledges this: “True, Aelred
did envision the gradual expansion of spiritual friendship, so that
one’s circle of trusted brothers might grow to encompass a wide
community, all united by the same love… But he maintained that
that vision can only come to fruition if it begins small, with pairs or
trios of committed brothers.”47 This suggests that there is a sense
in which there will be over time a gradual expansion of the circle
of close spiritual friends. How this t into what is proposed by the
Spiritual Friendship writers is unclear, particularly in terms of
the inclusion of others who may not be same-sex attracted. If the
alleviation of loneliness and the ability to love and be loved is one of
the driving forces behind the forming of spiritual friendship, then
there is no reason why one cannot enter into a spiritual friendship
with a member of the opposite sex. Or for that matter, why not
friendship between a small group of individuals comprising same-
sex attracted and opposite-sex attracted? What we have instead is
a focus on nding room for the expression of same-sex love. This
brings us to ask if there is not in fact a conation of friendship with
homoerotic love in the kind of spiritual friendship proposed.
The Revoice conference website indicates that it does not
promote romantic same-sex relationships, nor does it advocate
“dating without sex” or “marriage without sex.”48 Nevertheless,
organisers of Revoice think that elements usually associated with
154 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
romance, such as physical affection, emotional vulnerability, verbal
expressions of love, etc, can be appropriated for friendship. Despite
their disclaimer, Steven Wedgeworth notes that the kind of friendship
that is described looks very much like a romantic relationship with
erotic overtones, even if physical sex is excluded.49 Ron Belgau, in
recounting the kind of relationship that he dreams of, describes
it in terms that sound like a marriage: he longs for someone who
understands his deep longings, someone to introduce to his parents,
someone to buy a house and set up home with, adopt children,
worship God in church and be welcomed there as a family, etc.50 The
same romantic overtone is evident also in Wesley Hill’s testimony of
the emotional turmoil he went through when a meaningful spiritual
friendship with another man came to an end. The description has
all the pathos of a romantic break-up.51 Given the intense emotions
involved in the sort of friendship recommended, it is difcult to see
how it would not be romantically tinged. Is there not a danger of
conating philia (the love of friendship) with eros (romantic love)
when a same-sex attracted Christian gets emotionally enmeshed
with a “signicant other” who is similarly sexually attracted? In
such a situation, it is not always easy to maintain the dividing line
between a Platonic philia and a sexually charged eros. Yet it is
precisely because of the potential of the former segueing into the
latter that one should be careful to keep the distinction between
them clear.
The fact that erotic attractions may possibly develop into
something unhealthy is of course no reason to forbid friendship
with a person whom one is attracted to. This applies to both the
heterosexual and the homosexual person. But if one were mindful
of the power of eros, shouldn’t one exercise care and be prudent in
setting boundaries for the levels of intimacy in such a relationship?
In the case of the same-sex attracted, surely wisdom dictates that
they should refrain from going further into an intimate relationship
with those whom they have sexual feelings for, the same way
heterosexual married people ought to do with their opposite-sex
friends. As Rachel Lu asks: “What reasonable husband would permit
his wife to enter into an intimate ‘spiritual friendship’ with another
man? What wife, upon hearing that her husband was erotically
attracted to another woman, would be satised with the assurance
that their special friendship was nonphysical?”52 Knowing that one
is drawn to another whom one nds attractive is reason enough to
be cautious and to rein in one’s involvement. But it seems pulling
155
back is not something that is being proposed. To call for caution is
not because one is an unthinking Freudian who thinks everything
is about sex. It is really a counsel of common sense.
Wesley Hill acknowledges the tension between deep friendship
and romantic/erotic love. Nevertheless, he thinks that it is neither
possible nor necessary to separate friendship entirely from erotic
love. “Eros,” he says, “isn’t an alternative to friendship; it’s one
particular form that friendship can assume.”53 In seeking and
entering into deep male friendships, Hill recognises that romantic
attraction might be involved. The question, he suggests, “is how my
friends and I will choose to respond to or negotiate that reality when
it appears.”54 Rejecting same-sex sexual partnership as contrary
to God’s will, he nevertheless wants to explore how his same-sex
attraction can be stewarded and sanctied “in such a way that it
can be a doorway to blessing and grace.”55 Despite the risks involved
in intimate same-sex friendship, Hill and his comrades are willing
to venture into it because the alternative, as they see it, is to be
condemned to a life of abject loneliness.
They are right that being same-sex attracted should not
condemn them to a lonely life bereft of love. But is the kind of
romance-tinged vowed covenantal friendship between same-sex
attracted believers the only option? Furthermore, to reiterate, if
same-sex love is understood as an unfortunate result of our fallen
condition rather than an alternate expression of God’s design for
human sexuality, wouldn’t its intentional cultivation serve only to
exacerbate that fallen condition? In the face of this, the way forward
does indeed lay in deep and meaningful spiritual friendship, in the
kind of spiritual siblinghood that is inclusive rather than exclusive,
one that is rmly rooted in the life of the Christian community.
This widening of the circle of spiritual friends recognises that all
Christians, opposite-sex attracted or otherwise, are already in a
new covenantal relationship with Christ and with each other. And
their gathering around the Eucharist is a public declaration of their
spiritual union. As the Church as the Body of Christ orders her
life around this truth, our same-sex attracted brothers and sisters
would nd in the Christian community a home in which they are
accepted and loved.
Celibate Christians with SSA are of course not alone in having
to deal with the loneliness that comes being singleness. There are
many heterosexual singles who long to be in a loving relationship and
be married but are unable to do so for various reasons. Nevertheless,
156 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
we recognise that the challenges facing our non-straight friends
are very real for them. The acute loneliness that comes with being
different should not be taken lightly. Obedience is costly, and the
call to celibacy is a call to sacricial living. The church should do
all she can to support them in living out their celibate lives. As
American pastor Caleb Kaltenbach writes, “If you’re going to ask
people not to identify with the LGBT community, you’d better have
another community ready for them!”56 This is all the more needed
in a society that tells them to not only celebrate those same-sex
desires but also to indulge them. If Christians with SSA are to
have a meaningful way to live out their commitment of obedience
to Scripture, it is imperative that they nd a community of friends
that they can be honest with about their struggles. They need to be
relationally entangled with signicant others in community.
Like the Lord Jesus Christ whom they follow, the people of
Christ must be those who are “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).
The Christian community is dened not only by its courageous
commitment to biblical truth on human sexuality, but also by
its compassionate love towards all, including those in the LGBT
community, and especially to those within the household of faith
who are homosexually inclined. One of the things supportive friends
in church can do is to ensure that they are cared for as full-edged
members of the Christian community. They are not the enemy, and
neither are they evangelistic projects. Relate to them meaningfully
as people rather than as ‘specimens’ of homosexuality. We have
argued above that our same-sex attracted brothers and sisters
should not dene themselves only in terms of their homosexual
identity. And the last thing we want to see is for the community
of faith to treat them as if they are nothing more than their
homosexual desires. What’s needed is a more holistic view of the
person that takes seriously the person’s sexuality but does not treat
it in isolation from all other dimensions of his or her life.
The community of friends that is the church must insist that
that the basic identity of all believers, whether heterosexual or
homosexual, is found in Christ. The church can best minister to
the same sex attracted in its ranks by insisting that they root their
identity in Christ and not in their sexual inclination. As Mark
Yarhouse reminds us, “a gay script is compelling to those who
struggle with same-sex attraction, especially when they see few
options emerging from their community of faith.” What the church
can do, Yarhouse suggests, is to help them “develop alternative
157
scripts that are anchored in biblical truth and centered in the
person and work of Christ.”57 May God help us as a church to be
such a home for our brothers and sisters who are straddled with the
burden of being same-sex attracted!
158 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
What is Chastity?
Chastity. It is an unfamiliar term in our modern discourse, and
when it does come to mind, the very term evokes notions of
antiquated values, unprogressive ethics, as well as recalls imagery
of a long-gone Victorian era lled with passé sensibilities. The
word does indeed have ancient roots, being derived from the Latin
word castitas, the abstract form of castus, which, as Susan L’Engle
has traced, was used together with words such as continentia
(continence) and pudicitia (purity) interchangeably to denote the
virtue regarding sexual matters.1 However, is there any relevance
for this virtue in our contemporary society, one that not only
unquestioningly relegates and regards all that has passed to be
inferior to what it cherishes today, but one that has also deemed
human sexuality as essentially private and beyond the inquiry
of outsiders? This chapter will argue that chastity continues to
have relevance for human society by tracing its long lineage in the
tradition, then examining the various types of chastity that have
been envisaged, before concluding that its value lies in it ultimately
being a spiritual discipline for the Christian journey.
We begin with denitions. In his account of the role of sex as
a civilising force throughout the history of western civilisation,
Patrick Riley has described how western society has faced an
onslaught on the notion of chastity since the sixties and traced how
Dr Tan Loe Joo
CHASTITY AND THE
CHRISTIAN TRADITION
159
the succeeding decades have amply demonstrated its deleterious
effects on American society as a whole.2 In his work, chastity was
mainly described as the “connement of deliberate genital activity
to that shared by husband and wife.”3 While his conclusions may
be judicious and astute, this characterisation of what chastity is
does fall short by neglecting to consider the existence of single
persons in church and society, and perhaps, more importantly,
focuses too narrowly on the sexual act to the exclusion of the
motivating impulses between its proposed circumscription. A more
encompassing denition has been provided by William May who
describes chastity as the virtue that enables all, married or single
persons, “to come into possession of our sexual desires, and not allow
ourselves to be possessed by them.”4 This delineation is not only more
helpful by describing what chastity is rather than what it seeks
to avoid, but it also has the benet of highlighting the underlying
motivation behind it, namely the ability of an individual to master
one’s desires rather than to be mastered by them. Chastity, thus,
is the positive constraint of genital activity through the disciplined
control of one’s sexual desires. Unchastity in that regard could be
seen as the state of allowing unfettered expression of one’s sexual
desires regardless of one’s marital status in life. By asserting that
chastity is a virtue, the implication is that it may be applicable to all
persons, whether single, married, divorced, or separated.
Before continuing the discussion on why the positive restraint
of human sexual desires and activity continues to have relevance in
our societies today, it is worth recalling there was an earlier time
when regard for it has gone too far in a certain direction, so that part
of the modern animosity towards upholding chastity may arguable
have been due to its past malpractice. During the middle ages,
chastity was a prized virtue among other ideals such as temperance,
charity, diligence, patience, kindness, and humility, or as termed by
Pope Gregory I, one of the “Seven cardinal virtues.” Susan L’Engle
has analysed that during this time, chastity was an all-pervading
concept that regulated the lives of all peoples, laypeople and clergy
alike.5 One common article of clothing then became associated
with it and it was known as the chastity girdle or belt. It was used
usually on women, including those who were married, as a means
of providing their husbands with a way of “locking” them to prevent
any illicit sexual intercourse.6 During the crusades, one of the
contemporary legends of its time was that crusading knights would
lock their wives with a chastity belt before setting off for the Holy
Land in order to preserve her faithfulness to him.
160 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Recent scholarship into this eld has suggested that many
of the stories that had circulated then about these devices were
actually ctitious and that they were not actually in use until the
16th century, and even then rarely. Albrecht Classen has traced
some of the origins behind the formation of these myths and showed
how they arose from a contorted matrix of imagining of an allegedly
historical practice.7 Among several sources, he noted how Eric
Dingwall’s work, rst published in 1923, was the stimulus for this
myth as it had proffered photos of concrete chastity belts that the
author had apparently found in several European museums and
medieval manuscript illustrations.8 However, the underlying issue
remains, that chastity was apparently so highly regarded during
that time that a husband felt it necessary to control his wife to such
an extent, even leading to a fundamental distortion of the marital
relationship. It is no wonder this namesake device has since become
a deeply awed and even despised symbol of how chastity has
been practised, and that is, often with double standards. Medieval
chastity seemed not so much concerned as to how to preserve a
woman’s honour; rather it was more concerned for the husband’s
honour whose divine duties had kept him away from her and hence
did not deserve such perdy on her part. In addition, the purported
usage of such devices for women strongly implied that medieval
wives could not be trusted to keep themselves faithful while their
husbands were away. It is no wonder that contemporary society
would recoil strongly from the idea of such a device, and rightly so,
for its very existence, whether in reality or ction, is the complete
antithesis of what the virtue of chastity stands for.
Chastity in the Christian Tradition
Coming back to our discussion that there is a necessary place for
chastity in our churches and human society as a whole, we begin
with Scripture, where the notion of chasteness is inextricably linked
with the idea of being faithful. In the area of human sexuality,
the central idea running through the Christian tradition is that
it should be an expression of radical faithfulness, not just to our
partner or partner-to-be, but ultimately to God. Many passages
of Scripture speak candidly about sex and about how our bodies
should be used to honour God irrespective of our marital station
in life. The apostle Paul exhorts the Corinthian Christians to ee
from sexual immorality (porneia) in 1 Corinthians 6:18 because
161
human bodies are to be regarded as temples of the Holy Spirit (1
Corinthians 6:19). The word porneia used here, from which the
word pornography is derived, refers generally to any form of illicit
sex.9 This assertion here that there could actually be some forms of
sex that are deemed illicit may be striking on modern sensibilities.
From the biblical narrative, however, it is not surprising and brings
into the foreground the assumption that since human beings are
the creations of God, only God himself as their maker can determine
what sex is for. This further implies that any contrary expression
of sexuality beyond the Creator’s plans is equivalent to a denial
of accepting who God is and in turn a denial of what it means to
be human. Therefore, we begin to see how the Christian notion of
sex can be completely antipodal to current culture that sees sex as
purely a private affair between consenting adults. The regulation of
sex as a human activity did not begin with New Testament apostles,
however, but began from the rst pages of the Bible with the
doctrine of creation. Since creation is a general activity referring
to all rather than a specic one only for Christians, God's plan for
created human beings is to be respected by all persons. In other
words, as the Creator of all humankind and not only Christians,
God’s plans for human sexuality are not bounded within the church
but for all of society. Another way of seeing the term “chastity,”
therefore, is as the theological term for the ordering of sexuality
within the human community according to the divine will.10
If one understands the notion that the sexual act in itself
should not be fully unconstrained and is able to accept a level of
prescription, then some of the specic injunctions that Paul puts
forth in his letter to the various New Testament churches begin to
make sense. In one of the more extended discussions, 1 Corinthians
7, the apostle advises both the unmarried and married about the
more preferable course of action for each. He exhorts the young
men not to marry if they nd themselves in possession of sufcient
self-control. For those already with wives, Paul tells them that they
“should not seek to be released” (1 Corinthians 7:27-29). At rst
sight, the instruction to married persons to remain in their state
may seem to be a contradiction of his earlier expressed opinion that
celibacy is a better option for all (1 Corinthians 7:7). However, the
apostle made it clear that it was his personal opinion, and more
importantly, a decision by singles to be married is not an act of sin
(1 Corinthians 7:28). In other words, Paul was making the case that
for those who nd themselves prone to be carried away by passion,
162 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
it is better to let the marriage bond be a source of constraint for
them rather than fall into sin (1 Corinthians 7:9). Underlying this
concession is the notion that the conjugal relations must be the nal
restraint for human sexual passions.
Practically, two rather unfortunate misinterpretations about
human sexuality and chastity have arisen from Paul’s instructions
in this chapter as observed by Gordon Fee. Firstly, Fee noted that
because of contemporary culture’s propensity to elevate the state of
marriage hood above all else, then the text in which Paul urges the
single to remain in her/his state is often simply dismissed as pure
opinion.11 Currently, most persons in a state of singlehood or not in
an active sexual relationship are often perceived to be miserable
and unfullled. On the other hand, marriage is often seen as the
highest state of a relationship and considered as most desirable
for both man and woman. In this passage, by contrast, Paul had
already noted there were some in the Corinthian community who
have indeed been called to singlehood, and he was encouraging the
church that it needs to accept and afrm these persons. The second
misinterpretation moves in the opposite direction and interprets
Paul’s injunctions as suggesting singlehood is the better option
since he did state he wished they were in the same state as he was,
i.e. unmarried. As discussed earlier, this is indeed his own personal
position, but Paul clearly does not see the conjugal state to be a
state of sin, and in fact, considers it perfectly acceptable to marry on
pastoral grounds.12 In the earlier history of the church, the second
reading has sometimes gained prominence such that singlehood
became seen as the authentic and even superior Christian station,
leading some earlier writers to advise that married persons should
refrain from intercourse after becoming Christians. One of those
who suggested was Origen of Alexandria, who, though he did not
consider the renunciation of sexual pleasure in marriage as a
requirement for marriage, did regard such renunciation to be of a
higher purity.13 Richard Finn has analysed how this conclusion could
have stemmed from a reading of the gospel according to Luke in
which the author had contrasted “the people of this age” who marry
and those who “neither marry nor be given in marriage,” based on
an understanding that the latter cannot die anymore since they are
like the angels, and are children of God and the resurrection” (Luke
20:34-36).14 In this case, as Fee has astutely noted, Paul’s position
throughout this pericope is clear, that he has “no command from the
163
Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:25), thus suggesting that the Lukan passage
was meant only to be descriptive rather than normative.15
Not all of the church fathers fully agreed with Origen’s views
on sexuality, and one of those who challenged his position directly
was Methodius of Olympus. In his work, the Symposium, which was
a dialogue modelled upon Plato’s work of the same title, Methodius
replaced the male symposiasts with female virgins who praised
virginity and chastity rather than eros in the original work.16 This
could be seen as an attempt to revise the sexual mores of his times
based on biblical values. In addition, other early writers have
interpreted this passage as an injunction being against remarriage.
Tertullian of Carthage, a married man himself, allowed that
Christians might enter upon a rst marriage but argued forcefully
against remarriage which he equated with adultery. Quoting Paul,
he wrote,
If we penetrate deeply into his [Paul’s] thought, we shall
have to say that second marriage is really nothing but
a kind of fornication…This same concupiscence is of the
same nature as fornication, since the evils we see in it are
the same as those associated with fornication.17
In another work, Monogamy, he explains his views,
A woman who marries a second time would have one
husband in the esh and another in the spirit. This is
adultery—joint knowledge of one woman by two men. If
the one is physically separated from her, yet he remains
present in her heart…It is a grievous sin for any other
man to nd his dwelling place there.18
Hence, in Tertullian’s understanding, while both singlehood and
marriage are permitted states, an act of remarriage is to be seen as
an act of unfaithfulness, based the argument that the woman who
does so will now have two husbands, i.e. one in the esh and one in
the spirit, which we may interpret as being in the heart. This reading
may be seen as not so much against those who have remarried upon
the death of a spouse, but those who have done so post-divorce, and
serves as further undergirding a strong prohibition against the
dissolution of marriage in the rst place.
164 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Types of Chastity
Having briey delineated the basic contours of how human sexuality
is to be bounded by chastity based on scriptural injunctions and
some early church interpretations, we turn our attention to a more
germane matter, what does it mean to be chaste in our various
contexts, i.e. what are the different types of chastity that one
should abide by, depending on one’s marital vocation? Space does
not fully permit a full discussion of the possible states that one nds
themselves in, but basically, we may distinguish between two main
conditions as intimated earlier by Paul, that of being unmarried
and married.
Within the state of unmarriage, we can further distinguish
between two categories, one of virginity and the other of celibacy.
The prior category refers to the physical state of innocent sexual
purity that all persons nd themselves to begin with physically and
biologically. This is distinguished from that of the second category of
celibacy, which refers to when an individual decides to refrain from
sexual activity and to remain in this state of abstinence. Also known
as “consecrated virginity,” celibacy may be the vocational state for
ordained clergy in some traditions, although it is not restricted
only to those in religious orders. Regarding the former category,
virginity was especially esteemed by the ancient church as a sign
of complete devotion to God. Given the uncertainties inherent in
life, it was generally considered that a permanent partnership with
a member of the opposite sex would be of great assistance for both
to withstand the vicissitudes of life. Therefore, for an individual to
remain single and chaste is taken as a sign of one having great faith
in God such that the person does not need marriage or offspring to
secure their livelihood while alive nor their legacy after death. God
alone would sufce for all their needs. With such an exalted view of
virginity, it is not surprising that consecrated virginity or celibacy
would be seen as an admirable choice for this life. Gregory of Nyssa
represented most of the church fathers when he presented virginity
as providing “wings for man’s desires to rise to heavenly things, and
is a bond of union between the Divine and human.”19
Nonetheless, not all who are in a state of virginity may choose
a life of celibacy. The practical question arises, what should a single
person do while waiting for a possible life of marriage in the future
that may or may not come? It is a question that is relevant for those
who are heterosexual as well as those with same-sex attraction.
165
Given the clear call to chastity for the individual based on the
divine will for both the married or single in the previous discussion,
the ethical choice is one of abstinence in singleness, which refers
to a deliberate intention to refrain from any sexual contact. The
difference between abstinence in singleness and celibacy has been
pointed out by Stanley Grenz who argued that the former is not a
particular calling for certain persons, but rather an ethical ideal for
the unmarried. The latter, celibacy, on the other hand, is a chosen
and permanent response to what one has sensed to be a specic call
from God.20 Hence, while a commitment to abstinence in singleness
is a temporal state arising from the outworking of a response to
God for sexual chastity, celibacy is equally another response to God
based on a sensed call to vocational abstinence. Lauren Winner
aptly summarises that chastity is ultimately about committing to
having sex in its proper role, which means committing to having sex
only in a marital relationship, compared to celibacy that is a vow of
lifetime abstinence from sex.21 The underlying notion is that one’s
way of life with one’s human body is a powerful way of testifying
to the faithfulness of God, and the desire to remain faithful to him.
Christians sometimes forget that Jesus himself never married and,
given the Jewish background in the rst century, his remaining
so was, in fact, a radical act. There is much encouragement to be
gained for the single person from the example of Christ.
For the unmarried person, whether virgin and celibate,
therefore, chastity represents an avowed way of living in which the
person forsakes all sexual gratication. This does not mean that the
chastity is simply to be equated with physical purity. Most patristic
writers assert that that bodily integrity counts for nothing if the soul
or spirit is not chaste. Hence, Ambrose of Milan in writing to virgins
exhorts them to remember that, “mere physical virginity does not
gain merit, but rather, the integrity of the mind.”22 Beth Felker
Jones also noted that Augustine had comforted violated virgins
during the sack of Rome23 with the teaching that holiness is a virtue
of the will, “and that while the will remains rm and unshaken,
nothing that another person does with the body, or upon the body,
is any fault of the person who suffers it.”24 This means that chastity
is not something that can be taken away from one, but rather only
if one has chosen to abandon it. Kathleen Kelly summarises this
logic of the church fathers concerning physical purity that a woman
could retain her chastity even if her body is violated, so long as she
did not consent to the sexual act.25
166 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Turning our attention to married persons, for couples in a
marital relationship, chastity in their context refers to the state
when both spouses commit to a lifelong mutual dependence that
completely excludes the possibility of any sexual intimacy with
another person. Scripture is unambiguous about marital chastity
beginning from the rst book of the Bible. It was God who initiated
marriage as an institution in the opening chapters of Genesis,
which implies that any marriage between a man and woman is to be
regarded as exclusive and sacred. This exalted view of marriage must
include those marriages between non-believers, and even between
a believer and a non-believer. In the New Testament, the same call
to commitment and exclusivity rings throughout its writings. As
the letter to the Hebrews exhorts its readers, “marriage should be
honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure.” (Hebrews 13:4).
Jean Porter notes this entails that the sexually active person not
only connes his/her activities within marriage as a sacramental
bond between two people but also that marriage is seen as an
institution aimed towards the maintenance of a social network.26
For the Christian married couple, in addition to the general
sanctity of the institution of marriage for all humanity in Genesis,
the New Testament asserts an additional stratum of meaning as
symbolising the love of Christ for his Bride who is the church, a
love that is sole, exclusive and unbreakable. Therefore, just as
it is impossible to envisage Christ being faithless to his Bride or
that their union be broken, it should be equally inconceivable for
a Christian couple to envisage the possibility of being faithless
to one another or to divorce each other. Positively, it means that
for the Christian couple, sex is an activity that takes place only
within marriage. The Bible does not merely exclude premarital
and extramarital sex when it sanctions marital sex; it effectively
forbids all non-marital sex. This analogy between the love of Christ
for the church and marital love has been noted by I. A. Muirhead
who analysed that just as the church is the holy bride of Christ, so
too is the wife for the husband. In 2 Corinthians 11:2-3, he asserts
that was the point Paul was making when he describes his desire to
present the church at Corinth as a “chaste virgin to Christ”, which
has the same effect as seeing the church as “the second Eve” and the
bride of Christ, even as Christ is the second Adam.27 This does not
mean married couples cannot cultivate other human friendships in
addition to their relationship with one another. Rather, it marks a
boundary line that should not be crossed such that their friendships
167
with other persons, as deep as they could be, are not to be exclusive
in the same way as with their spouse. This can prove to be an area
of temptation in close friendships, since human persons are sexual
beings whose sexuality, whether male or female, is part of their
personality and therefore wholly involved in their friendships as
well. It can also result in tensions between husband and wife over
the extent of the relationship between one of them and a close friend.
Nonetheless, it must be noted that sexuality is not genitality, and
affectionate non-genital behaviour that expresses one’s love and
concern for friends is appropriate for a friendship. It is here that
an understanding of Christian chastity must come in and remind
the married couple there is something uniquely signicant and
exclusive about the genital touch and not to be shared with any
other.
In comparing the relationship of Christ and his Bride with
Christian marriage, the New Testament has provided an additional
layer of meaning for the Christian couple in marriage. It is not
surprising therefore while the church has always taken an active
part in facilitating and promoting marriages, traditionally it has
also frowned upon the union of a Christian and a non-Christian.
Pastorally, this can be an issue that plagues many pastors, and even
members of the congregation may be often divided as to whether
they should approve of that union. This has sometimes created
bitterness for the newlyweds when church leaders avoid attending
their wedding ceremony for fear of being seen as sanctioning an
illicit marriage. Theologically, we need to be reminded that as an
institution ordained by God, all marriages are seen as sacred, and
this includes those between two non-Christians. So what about
the theological status of a marriage between a believer and non-
believer? Admittedly, such matrimony will fall short of the exalted
status of a married Christian couple and could no longer be taken
as an analogy between Christ and his Bride. Yet, there should also
be an acknowledgement that it is still a marriage, and should not
be seen as of a theological status below that of a union between two
non-believers. All marriages are sacred, and those whom that God
has joined together should not be sundered by anyone.
Chastity and Homosexuality
What about people with a homosexual orientation? As discussed
earlier, the ethical choice is one of abstinence in singleness.
Admittedly, the practice of chastity in a single life as abstinence
168 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
from sex can be daunting for them, especially in a society that
upholds sexual expression and liberty as its prime virtues. However,
abstinence could be an acknowledgement that one can choose, and
has chosen, to conduct one’s sexuality in alignment with God’s
purposes while living in the future hope of full communion with
God himself. Benedict Groeschel has written a book specically for
those who attempt to lead a chaste single life, whether those who
are single, widowed, divorced or have a homosexual orientation.
He notes especially the scorn and ridicule that those who wish to
live chaste celibate life are likely to attract.28 Rightly identifying
that one of the main struggles such a person could face is the need
for intimacy, Groeschel puts forth several practical suggestions,
such as the need for a single person to cultivate a wide range of
relationships, and also seeking a few intimate friends from among
them.29 As Christine Gardner puts it, such abstinence proposals
are dependent on a crucial distinction being made between sexual
identity and sexual activity. This means that while the self-
identied homosexual and self-identied heterosexual persons may
have different sexual identities, both can commit to not letting this
identity completely dictate their conduct and hence choosing to
abstain from sexual activity.30
Thus far, we have seen that the Christian faith and tradition
have acknowledged two routes for embodying chastity in the way
for one to have or not to have sex, depending on the state of the
individual. For the unmarried and married person, the ways of
celibate singleness and faithful marriage respectively allow for the
declaration and proclamation that God is faithful, and hence one
can be faithful with one’s body through the power of God. Marcia
Colish concluded this is the reason why early church writers such
as Ambrose of Milan described chastity as a virtue applicable to
each individual in her/his way of their calling, and that neither way
should be advocated to the disparagement of the other.31 Both the
path of celibate singleness as well as that of faithful marriage are
equally a sign of God’s faithfulness. When a single person, whether
heterosexual or homosexual, chooses not to have sex, her/his body is
a testament to God’s faithfulness and his utter refusal to forsake us.
Likewise, when a married person remains faithful to their partner,
her/his body is a testament of faithfulness to the same God by
having chosen to live in accordance with his divine design. Stanley
Grenz also noted that the call to be chaste is for all persons, whether
homosexual or heterosexual in orientation, and that it is ultimately
169
a call to be faithful and responsible created beings who respect the
boundaries of sexual expression.32 In the end, the principal reason
for Christian sexual delity is to be a faithful witness to what God
has called that person to be in the midst of her/his circumstances
and life situation.
Chastity and Faithfulness
One of the most dramatic illustrations of God’s faithfulness, and
contrast of its lack of in humans, is when the prophet Hosea at
God’s command, married a prostitute named Gomer and remained
true to her to demonstrate God’s faithfulness to his own people
(Hosea 1:2-9). On the one hand, it was the faithful God who had
called Israel from among all the nations to be his people and who
remained steadfast in his love towards them even as they submitted
themselves to the gods and deities found in the cultures surrounding
them. The idolatrous nature of the Israelites was amply illustrated
when they were alone out in the wilderness and yet managed to
fashion a golden calf upon which to lavish their worship when Moses
tarried on Mount Sinai (Exodus 32). As William May noted, the
point that God was asking the prophet Hosea to illustrate was not
so much about the nature of marriage but rather about the nature
of his own faithfulness to his people.33 Throughout the biblical
narratives, the very faithlessness of God’s people is contrasted with
his faithfulness, as he never wavered in his covenant to them. Such
was his delity to his promises that his spokesperson, the prophet
Hosea, had the unenviable task of demonstrating this to the people
through his own married life.
Within a sexually sodden culture, the life of chastity may seem
like a lonely journey, whether for heterosexual or same-sex attracted
individuals. There is a need to recover the notion of faithfulness in
a relationship when thinking about sex in our modern times, and
Christian chastity for unmarried and married persons can go a long
way to remind Christians that it is a discipline that calls for them to
exhibit it in their lives. Thus, Beth Jones observes that the ordering
of sexuality for both married and celibate bodies could be reminded
through the Christian disciplines of feast and fast.34 If chastity is
to be re-established as a discipline, it should be recognised as an
aspect of character that a person could aspire to and achieve, and
even after straying from the path, could regain it with divine help.
By developing it as a habit of reverence for oneself and others, the
pursuit of chastity calls upon all to revere the other person for the
170 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
sake of her/his ultimate happiness. This positive understanding of
chastity has been highlighted by Jean Porter, who in her analysis
of Thomist sexual ethics, argues that Aquinas’s account of chastity
as virtue could be seen as an expression of a more general notion
of the appropriate enjoyment of the human pleasures that are
associated with the individual as well as the propagation of the life
of the species.35 Chastity, thus, is a form of faithfulness that aids
humanity in the pursuit of ourishing and happiness.
In trying to attain a better appreciation of the beauty of
chastity, it can be helpful to listen to the voices of the past. We live
in an amnesic age that believes in its own chronological superiority.
However, the wisdom and practices of the past should not be so
rashly and foolishly set aside. Instead of trying to reinvent the
conditions for human ourishing, it may be time to listen to the
community of faith that has gone before us. The larger Christian
tradition has been grappling with issues of human sexuality and
chastity for over two millennia, and the spiritual practices of
discipline that have been developed could be re-sourced for our
present context. While it is a historical fact that there have some
distorted, aberrant understandings and practices of chastity in the
past, such as the middle ages, several notable writers of the same
medieval period, such as Thomas Aquinas as mentioned earlier,
have written with a clarity and insight into the human condition
that is well worth retrieving. Josef Pieper has quoted Aquinas’s
work on chastity extensively as one that encourages the individual
to perceive reality and to make decisions that correspond to that
reality so that the human person is orientated to the divine Being
who is summum bonum, the ultimate Good himself.36
Susannah Coolidge, in her discussion of this topic and whilst
writing in the middle of the last century when the world’s population
only comprised of three billion, has cautioned that chastity should
not be seen as merely an exercise of the will, but that it is a power
“implement to responsible love” for, without it, lust becomes
inevitable.37 That a lack of chastity is related to lust serves as a
reminder of the disastrous consequences of what could go wrong
for both individuals in a relationship and for the wider society as a
whole, if sexual desires are allowed to have free rein without any
form of control. The same creative and productive energy behind the
propagation of the married couple as a family unit and of human
society as a whole could easily overow its banks and result in the
indiscriminate indulgence of sexual desire that at best is dissipative,
171
and at its worst is destructive. As Josef Pieper puts it, such forms of
unchastity ultimately destroy the person by generating a blindness
of spirit that excludes any understanding of the goods of the spirit,
and it is this blindness that is by its very nature damaging.38 This
occurs when the very same powers of self-preservation and self-
propagation become distorted as one surrenders to sensuality, and
the pursuit of love becomes not love for the other, but self-love and
the fullment of one’s own lust. Nonetheless, a distinction must also
be drawn for pastoral and pedagogical reasons, between weakness,
which is a form of sinning in a gust of passion, and malice, which
is a basic attitude of the will. As Pieper puts it, while both forms
of unchastity are destructive, that which is in the form of a lack of
self-control is less pernicious than unchastity in the form of actual
intemperance.39
There is also some room for an argument here that for the
unmarried, current abstinence from sexual activity will provide for
optimal enjoyment of the conjugal act in the future. In the same
general way that delayed gratication and temperance of any
human desire until the proper time for it to be fullled will result in
the maximum pleasure, it can be argued here specically that the
best setting for sexual acts that are necessarily of the most intimate
nature to a human person should be one that is in accordance
with the divinely designed purpose. Based on this reasoning, the
Christian faith is not one that revels in teeth-gritting acts of self-
denial but actually rejoices in the satiation of the body and spirit in
a way that results in actual joy for what is sensually beautiful and
pleasurable. In other words, the Christian is not one who does not
enjoy, but rather believes that this enjoyment should be in line with
the moral good, and therefore, takes her/his joy at the proper time
through a process that is appropriate and betting of its ultimate
end. By keeping to divine order and timing, chastity here provides
the prerequisite of the realisation of actual good.40 Keeping this in
mind, it is then possible to see unchaste lust as a means of short-
cutting the process to achieve the goals, without a full realisation
that the process is just as important as its destination. Unchastity,
therefore, allows the human will to overow and lose its direction,
and could even lead to destruction. Contra that, the chaste
individual will be able one day to look at what she/he had postponed
enjoyment for, and with a pure heart and pure eyes, delight in her/
his enjoyment for its own sake. Nonetheless, as mentioned at the
beginning, only some room can be given here for this argument,
172 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
since the reasoning breaks down in the case of a heterosexual
single who may actually never get married, and likewise for the
homosexual single, for whom no possibility of such marriage lies on
the horizon. One could even argue that the homosexual person faces
greater emotional distress since marriage is at least a theoretical
possibility for the heterosexual single, while same-sex marriages
are prohibited in the Christian faith. For that reason, this reasoning
of delayed fullment needs to be employed with care, since it can
easily come across as being insensitive and inconsiderate of the
struggles of an unmarried individual.
Chastity and those who failed
We need to address the pastoral issue of what happens to those
persons, unmarried and married, who may one day fail to meet
the continued high standards of chastity. For the former, in some
cultures, a loss of virginity is tantamount to a dark stain upon the
individual that is very difcult to erase and could result in shame
upon the entire family. Often, this standard is applied unfairly
and harshly on the female person rather than the male. Likewise,
marital indelity could be taken not only as a disgrace upon the
individual but again, typically, the fallen woman suffers more than
the fallen man. Here, cultural mores that are unfair and biased
need to be called out for what they are in reality, i.e. hypocritical
standards. However, more importantly, values of chastity that are
overly inuenced by culture and which do not leave room for any
sort of recovery for the individual needs to be recognised as being
antithetical to the good news that is the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Hence, it is especially important here to distinguish between what
is sin and what is cultural condemnation, and not confuse the two,
if any future restoration of the person is to take place. It is possible
for judgements based on cultural standards to be much more severe
on the individual than the gospel, and to even regard unchastity
as the gravest sin of all. As noted above, unchastity in the form
of a lack of self-control should be distinguished from that of real
indulgence and excess. This is where Christian ethics needs to be
grounded in a theological hamartiology that correctly identies the
crux of sinning as a wilful turning of the person from God. Seen in
this light, unchastity is not a worse sin than others, nor is it a better
one. This is not a case of attempting to minimize the gravity of the
sins against chastity, for no amount of palliation could mitigate the
173
consequences of the wilful turning away by the creature from the
Creator from whom it derives its source and continued sustenance
of life. Rather it is to note that sexual transgressions are often too
easily condemned to the neglect of other equally egregious sins,
such as our language of the “delement” of chastity, which seems to
imply the infringement was much greater than any other virtue that
can be “deled.” In fact, as Pieper has noted, the term “delement”
is rarely applied to other sins.41 The point here is that a biblical
view is crucial to the proper identication of the transgression,
especially the motivations that lie behind it, and equally critical
to the future rehabilitation of the individual within her/his church
community. The problem can become especially acute in the case of
a fallen individual who is a member of the clergy. In 1987, the Rev.
Gordon MacDonald, head of the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship,
announced his resignation after admitting to having adulterous
relationships in 1984 and early 1985. MacDonald subsequently
wrote a book in which he detailed the course of reection and
confession that he went through before his wife and congregation
reaccepted him.42 Much later, it would be his turn to provide console
and direction to an American president who all but admitted to
charges to adultery, President Bill Clinton. This could only have
been possible if the sin of unchastity is treated from the beginning
with all seriousness, yet not with a hardened and unforgiving spirit.
A forgiving spirit is especially important in ministering to
Christians with same-sex attraction tendencies. Such individuals
who lapsed into sin often face greater internal turmoil than
heterosexual persons, and hence may be tempted to give up the
ght altogether. One main reason is that the act of sodomy seems
to incur greater opprobrium than illicit vaginal penetration in the
Bible, something which they are keenly aware of since they do seek
to uphold the normative place of Scripture in their lives. Personally,
I am aware of Christian individuals struggling with this issue
because they feel that their situation is completely hopeless and am
often in deep despair. The church needs to be aware of and sensitive
to their specic struggles in this regard and not overly burden them
with condemnation even as it seeks to preach the Word of God to
them given that they are already facing struggles and conicts
with intimate needs and desires. In this regard, it is important to
remember that while there are indeed degrees of sin, ultimately the
immediate action to take once sin has occurred is to seek to recover
the sister or brother. Simply put, the need to bring the individual
174 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
back to God would the most pressing need then, rather than any
further moralising. For the situation that a person may not be fully
ready to return to God yet, a timely reminder “to sin no more” (John
8:11) to avoid further spiritual deterioration is important so that no
more hardening of the heart is to occur. Often, such individuals who
have fallen will choose to only share with one or a few persons whom
they trust deeply. The level of spiritual maturity and forgiveness of
the spirit of those persons could often be pivotal in determining the
next response of the lapsed individual. Hopefully, through the grace
of God, they will be able to mirror God’s own heart as they minister
to the brokenness of their sister or brother in the midst of their own
brokenness.
Chastity and the Church
Having explored the issue of what happens to those peoples who
lapse into unchastity, we should now place in particular emphasis
the important role the church has to play in terms of bringing them
back before God and restoring them to the congregation. Indeed,
the community of faith needs to be proactive in helping both
married and unmarried persons work towards chastity from the
very beginning. Unfortunately, ecclesial guidance from the pulpit is
often skewed in one direction, i.e. in maintaining a high view of the
state of marriage hood. Far less attention is focused on the need to
nurture unmarried people, including the basic act of speaking well
of singlehood. Unmarried singles in the church tend to be seen as
being in some sort of undesirable intermediate state, just waiting to
be married as the conjugal state is assumed to be the norm. Lasting
transformation of lives can only take place within a community,
hence, not only should individual Christians commit to chastity,
the faith community must consciously work towards it, in terms of
providing pastoral guidance, support and afrmation of singlehood
as well as the marriage hood. This is particularly important as
the number of singles grows in our churches. It can be extremely
demoralising for the unmarried person, heterosexual or homosexual,
to be in church seeming full of happily married couples with either
the patter of tiny feet or kids running around the sanctuary.
Conversation topics that one used to have with peers may change
drastically once someone gets married. In addition, when more and
more marriages take place, the nature of a cell group could take
on a different complexion and unconsciously cause the unmarried
175
person to feel that they no longer belong there. This is not helped
by Asian culture values which tend to regard those unmarried as
having not entered into full adulthood yet. For the Chinese single
especially, the annual reception of Ang Baos from elders during the
Lunar New Year is a rude reminder of their status, or even lack
of, within the immediate and extended family. Churches can help
in this regard by intentionally treating the unmarried person as
being an indispensable part of God’s family as well as seeing them
as being in a legitimate state. This would include modifying certain
annual festivities to including singles in mind, such as church
Family Day outings and shopping trips overseas which tend to focus
on stops that cater more to familial needs. Congregations will have
to learn how to provide the good company needed for these believers
in their Christian pilgrimage. Another key area in which the church
can provide pastoral leadership for the unmarried and married is
to work towards becoming a place where sexual sin can be openly
confessed and spoken of without embarrassment. This ability to
carry each other’s burdens in church is what truly distinguishes
the body of Christ from a mere social club or association. Even
what constitutes sexual sin during the phase of dating can be a
source of confusion for some couples and would often require much
pastoral guidance. Does oral sex before marriage constitute sin?
Is masturbation considered an offence against chastity? Christian
individuals have to rely here upon their pastors and church leaders
to help them make an equitable judgement about their moral
responsibility as well as to guide their actions.
Conclusions
In summary, there continues to be a role for the Christian church
to advocate for chastity within her connes as well as to the wider
world. Chastity should not be seen as a virtue that is concerned not
only with the purity of the body but also with the mind. This means
that those who have learned the meaning of being chaste have
understood what it means to be fully at peace with their sexuality
and their bodies. Seen in this light, chastity can be reclaimed from
its accumulated negative connotations of keeping oneself from
violating a set of sexual rules and recognised as a dynamic principle
of self-control and temperance that empowers one to fully embrace
her/his sexuality. At the heart of this virtue is a willingness to be
faithful to what God has made us as sexual beings to be, to learn to
regard ourselves as created beings made in the image of God and
176 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
made to honour God through our lives, whether through having sex
or abstaining from sex.
177
Nine
Learning from the Parables
Ian Toh
Epimeleomai
Luke 10:33-35 “But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where
he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to
him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he
set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care
(epimeleomai) of him. And the next day he took out two denarii
and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care (epimeleomai)
of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come
back.’ ”
The parabolic timeless story of the Good Samaritan serves as
a great inspiration and motivation for the pastoral care ministry to
people who are dealing with homosexuality. The good Samaritan
did not respond the same way as the priest and Levite. The priest
and the Levite both passed by on the other side. The priest and the
Levite can be reective of the actions and attitudes of pastors today.
Will we too pass by on the other side? When we ignore the person
who has problems, we become the people with problems.
The good Samaritan did not hesitate to take care of the dying
Jew. He did not care about what was the cause of the injury or if the
man could survive. He did not care about the ethnic background,
Ian Toh and Jason Wong
HOMOSEXUALITY
SOME REFLECTIONS
181
doctrinal belief, or his church afliation. He saw the need and leapt
into action. He did all he could. He “epimeleomai” of the man in
need. And that was the love of our Saviour and our Lord Jesus
Christ.
“Epimeleomai” was the Greek word used by Doctor Luke in
his account of the Good Samaritan and the word signies “to take
care of,” involving forethought and provision. “Epi” indicating “the
direction of the mind toward the object cared for”. There is a profound
connection between mindfulness and kindness. The priest and
Levite did not have any mind space for the dying man and so they
did not have any time space or heart space to spare for him either. It
is imperative for followers of Jesus Christ to enter sympathetically
into the plight of the person struggling with homosexuality.
Luke, the “beloved physician” took note that the loving
Samaritan “bound up” the man’s many “wounds”. This serves to stop
bleeding, aid in the healing and prevent any further contamination
of the wounds. He went on to “pouring on” of oil and wine, which the
oil (most likely) would appease the wound and wine would serve as
an antiseptic. He then took the wounded Hebrew to the inn.
It was fascinating that the good Samaritan was not the only
person who was to practise “Epimeleomai”. The innkeeper was to
do the same! “Take care of him till I come back.” “I will repay you
when I return.” These sounded so much like things that Jesus would
say. In Revelation 22:12, Jesus said, “Look, I am coming soon! My
reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what
they have done.” Could it be that we are the innkeeper in this story?
Could it be that Jesus our Lord would want us to be like Him and
take care of people in their pain and brokenness? I wonder if the
innkeeper himself was once helped by the great Samaritan and he
decided to set up an inn near that infamous treacherous path called
the ‘Ascent of Blood’ from Jericho to Jerusalem to help someone? I
might be over thinking here but I cannot overstate the importance
of us working with Jesus Christ our Lord as this could be one of the
great failings of the modern day church.
The great Samaritan was willing to set aside his agenda, his
time and his resources. He made right what was wrong. He chose
care over religious accepted protocol. Many times we have so many
qualiers and conditions attached to our concern for others. Stop
for the one. Like the good Samaritan, he practised “Epimeleomai”.
Inspired by the parable of the Prodigal son and the parable of
the Good Samaritan, Truelove.is ministry was a ministry that is
182 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
founded on telling modern parables. It is a ministry founded in 2018
together with Pastor Norman Ng to provide stories and resources
for Christians who want to know more about LGBTQ issues. The
Truelove.is team have the privilege to listen and tell the redemptive
stories of many Christians who once identied themselves as
LGBTQ+ and their experiences of the love of the good Samaritan.
We are very thankful that within a year, our stories were viewed in
about 50 nations and have garnered millions of views.
From these testimonies, we quickly realised that homosexuality
is not just a political issue but a pastoral and personal one. As Ann
Voskamp puts it, “Shame dies when stories are told in safe places.”
Stories and testimonies of these precious friends who sought God’s
best in the area of their sexuality often times made it easier for others
to speak about it. Many became more open to pastoral care within
the church as more churches are becoming safe places. Truelove.is
ministry seeks to cultivate safer environments for people to come
out and come home to Father God.
In our journey, I have learned that three very important lessons
in our ministry amongst friends with homosexuality challenges.
1) Care and the Prayer Closet
Both the priest and the Levite in the story of the Good Samaritan
saw the injured man but they did not stop for him. Only the Good
Samaritan paused to help. I want to encourage all of us to open
our eyes to look and then stop. Stop to pray. Why? Because the
plight of many people dealing with homosexuality is a difcult and
tragic one. Many are struggling with a deep suffocating sense of
loneliness. There is no quick ‘x’ and we must not be dismissive in
attitude. There are still many Christians who struggle with same-
sex attraction who are still in the closet. This consciousness of the
sacred space that we are moving into must nudge us to be constantly
on our knees in prayers. Care must start in our prayer closet. All
public and personal service must start in the private sanctuary. It
is at the place of prayers where the grace of God can ll us to be
healthy and helpful vessels for His glory.
Romans 8:26-27
Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know
what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for
us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts
183
knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes
for the saints according to the will of God.
Romans 8:34
Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than
that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed
is interceding for us.
Robert Murray M’Cheyne famously said, “If I could hear Christ
praying for me in the next room, I would not fear a million enemies.
Yet distance makes no difference. He is praying for me.” When we
pray, we are joining the Holy Spirit and the Son of God at the place
of intercession. This dual intercession keeps hope ablaze and the
place of intercession is the place of security and power.
2) Care and the Church Culture
Culture eats Strategy for breakfast is a famous quote from
management consultant and writer Peter Drucker. What is culture?
Culture is what most of the people are doing.
To be honest, when I rst started 3:16 Church, I did not know
that it was the senior pastor’s job to ensure that the church has
a healthy culture or a safe environment suitable for healing and
growth. I naively thought that my job was just to pray and preach
the Word. The Holy Spirit convicted me that that was really not
enough because the Word will only have power when it is made
esh. Apostle Paul said—“I want you to pattern your lives after
me, just as I pattern mine after Christ.” It is pertinent that pastors
live what we teach and preach. Leaders can only reproduce another
generation of leaders by our example.
God the Father began to impress on my heart that the issue
of sexuality had to be addressed within the church for change to
happen. I felt the need to open up about my own experience with
sexual brokenness—one in which I was sexually abused at a very
young age.
This is my story. It was a day like any other day as I
accompanied my father to the community centre to play chess
with the neighbours. At the chess table, my father sat at my right
and a neighbour on my left. The next thing I knew, the neighbour
had slipped his hand into my pants and touched my private part.
In shock, I was unable to understand or comprehend what had
happened to me. I was just ve years old at that time. This led
184 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
me down a dark path of pornography addiction in my growing up
years and into adulthood. God the Father never left me. He restored
me and even from my own sharing, God is making 3:16 Church a
safe place for me to share my own vulnerabilities. My father and I
had our own God-moments when he heard my journey and we cried
together as God healed both of us.
The opening up and sharing about my own story brought about
a culture of authentic sharing in the church and we began to hear
of many more stories. Stories such as a lady who had been divorced
for many years and no one else in church knew about her pain
and another lady who struggled with a drinking problem, getting
heavily intoxicated every weekend with no recollection of the events
the next day. From then on, a culture of real and honest personal
sharing and acceptance of one another as a church family began
growing in 3:16 Church. These were just early preparations for
Father God to bring more home.
As each story of breakthrough and redemption was shared,
we listened, encouraged, loved, rejoiced, and celebrated with each
brother and sister. We felt the joy of God the Father who was
welcoming more home. Just as Luke 15:32 (NIV) says, “we had to
celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is
alive again; he was lost and is found.”
A healthy church culture is one where people are authentic
and not fake. A healthy church culture always advances the
gospel and strengthens the work of disciple making in the lives of
the people in the church. This is extremely essential because we
experience the wonders and miracles when God uses broken people
to heal broken people. This is only possible in a safe space where
leaders set by example exposing themselves to vulnerability that
encourages people to come out and face theirs. The glories of God is
best shown in the stories of grace. Aren’t we all walking evidences
to the goodness of God?
Culture is invisible and yet it impacts everything. The Holy
Spirit opened my eyes to see that God was the rst Culturist! He
IS the Master Atmosphere Architect and the Chief Environment
Engineer. He created an amazing universe and planted Men in a
Paradisiacal Garden.
Genesis 2:15 (NASB1995). Then the Lord God took the man
and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.
Interestingly Adam, the rst man on earth also was given the
responsibility to tenderly cultivate the land and to tend the garden.
185
Being a pastor is a sacred calling to tend the spiritual garden of
God’s people. Pastors are to feed the sheep and to take care of them.
We are to equip the saints for the work of God. The church owes
the world an authentic encounter with Jesus Whose life can only be
seen by those who are healed, helped and lled with the love of the
Father.
What I have learnt through this all—Sharing of stories shape
safe spaces! And when a pastor can come out to share his story
of brokenness and redemption in his church, he has truly found a
safe space in his own community and set a beautiful precedence for
others to follow.
3) Care and Conversations
There are three important ways we can say when someone comes
out to us.
1. God is not ashamed of you.
Christians with same-sex attraction may struggle with a deep sense
of guilt and shame. It is not uncommon for them to feel like there's
something inherently "wrong" or "defective" about them because
they experience desires that they know God does not want them to
act upon.
This can cause them to want to hide from God or run away
from Him, because they believe God is displeased with them just for
having feelings of same-sex attraction.
It is important for them to know that God still delights over
people who experience same-sex attraction, and He cherishes them
as His own. Because He loves them, He calls them—as He calls
everyone—to follow His design for their ourishing.
2. You are still an important part of our church family.
Christians with same-sex attraction may fear rejection when they
come out to others in their church. They may be anxious about
people treating them differently or misunderstanding them after
knowing their story.
We want to help them to understand that they are still very
much valuable members of God's family. In fact, God can use their
lived experiences with same-sex attraction to glorify Him and edify
the church in unique ways.
186 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Their obedience to God makes them uniquely positioned to
teach the rest of the church how to care for those with same-sex
attraction. More than that, the ways they offer their sexuality to
God as a living sacrice is an example to many on what it means to
pursue holiness in their sexuality, even to those who do not struggle
with same-sex attraction.
There is much that the rest of the church family can learn from
them.
3. God sees your struggle and honours your obedience to
Him.
It can be a very lonely and isolating experience to struggle with
same-sex attraction, especially if the person has been afraid to come
out to the people around them. They may also feel that the difculty
of their journey to obey God is minimised or not acknowledged by
others.
The Church has a responsibility to be a safe space for those
who struggle. We can do so by assuring those who come out to us of
the truth of how God sees them. He does know the intricacies and
depth of their struggles, and He is pleased with the decisions they
make every day to overcome those struggles and obey His life-giving
ways.
The Inn and Inn-Keeper
Back to the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The original Greek term
for inn means “all receiving.” These were well sized two-storeyed
buildings with an enclosed courtyard. Some had wells in the middle.
A strong gate surrounds the inn to serve as protection from robbers.
Guests would stay upstairs or down with animals lodged in stalls
off the courtyard. Travellers come for food and supplies.
At the inn the good Samaritan “took care of ” the dangerously
wounded Jew. The cost of a night’s lodging in those times was
approximately 1/12 of one denarius. Before the Samaritan left, he
gave the innkeeper enough reserve for about three weeks lodging.
He trusted the inn keeper to take care of the injured Jew. The inn-
keeper also trusted the Good Samaritan to make good of his promise.
I believe that every local church should be an inn and every
Christian an inn-keeper. I imagine the Good Samaritan going off
to help and bring more who had been left to die in the path of the
187
‘Ascent of Blood’ to the inn. May we see every church a safe place
and more to come out and come home to the Father.
A person with a LGBTQ journey in the Church is sometimes
marginalised and even shunned. The Church may tend to view
these friends as people who need to be xed. I beg to differ, however.
In all honesty and humility, we believe that God will use them to
help the Church to become a safer place of love and acceptance. A
true Inn of God!
Towards an LGBT-Friendly Church
Jason Wong
In a survey done in 2017, out of 11,201 Christians from 24 churches,
it was found that 1.26% answered “Somewhat true” and 0.62%
answered “Very true” to the question “I identify myself as a lesbian,
gay, bisexual or transgender”. This means that there is a very
high probability that one or more of the ock in any particular
church would need pastoral care and support for their homosexual
struggles.
In the same survey, more than 50% of the youths and young
adults wanted to be equipped in issues related to homosexuality
and same-sex marriage. Though more and more churches are
organising workshops and talks on these topics, including how to
walk with someone with same-sex attractions, sadly, many more
churches are still not ready to talk about it. This has resulted in
many Christians relying on what they can nd in the social media
and from their friends.
Making Sense of the LGBT Community
Before we can reach out to, or walk with a particular community,
we need to rst understand the values, worldview, issues faced,
struggles and needs of the community. As far as the LGBT
community is concerned, there is diversity of experiences, and not
everyone believes in the same thing or behaves in the same way.
We can safely say that there are at least four broad categories—
the Activists, Moderates, Seekers or Strugglers, and the Overcomers.
188 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Activists are those who not only celebrate the way they are, but
expect others to approve of their practices as well. They proactively
push for special rights and can be very vocal against those who
oppose what they stand for. The militant ones will even go to the
extent of cancelling anyone who disagrees with them. They actively
publicise and promote their cause in the public space—both online
and ofine. This would describe those who organise or support
Pink Dot, PinkFest and Inter-University LGBTQ+ activism. It
can include Free Community Church (a gay afrming church that
subscribes to revisionist theology) and those who push for liberal
sexuality education in schools. Many are sympathisers or “straight
allies”. Young people are usually their target audience, as our youth
are the future of society.
In seeking to inuence society and culture to their cause, there
has been backlash from those who disagree with their agenda. The
majority of Singaporeans do not think the ways of other “progressive”
nations (who are similarly pushing for the legalisation of drugs such
as marijuana and for gender neutrality) are necessarily good for our
country.
Not all Activists remain an Activist for life. A number could
have “been there, done that”, become disillusioned, or even found
faith and answers in God. Just as “Saul” became “Paul”, there have
been many testimonies of Activists giving up their activism and
turning to Christ.
Moderates are those who are happy with the way they are
and wish to “live and let live”, or simply, to be left alone. They feel
189
that they are not harming anyone, and they don’t see any problem
with how they are living their life. They may attend Pink Dot and
participate in similar activities.
Moderates could join the Activists through persistent
recruitment and clarion calls by Activists, or if they perceive that
attacks on the LGBT agenda are being directed at them. Some
Moderates give up their homosexual practices, as they may get sick
and tired of living such a life, after discovering that such a life does
not satisfy their deeper needs. Others turned away after getting
HIV or AIDs.
Moderates may be your good friend or your own child. Do not
reject them. Continue to be a friend; be a loving parent. Who knows,
one day, they may be ready to talk to you or turn to you for help?
But they will come to you only if you keep your door open to them.
Seekers/Strugglers are pursuing some resolution to their
unwanted same-sex attraction. They may have sought counselling
or help, and continue to contend with how “different” they are and
whether change is really possible. They do not seek to change or
repeal any of our laws, although they may participate in Pink Dot
and the like. Yet they may nd that these activities are not able to
provide them with satisfactory answers.
They want help, but often struggle alone as they do not nd
the church a safe community to come out to. Seekers/Strugglers
need mentors, befrienders, and people to walk with them in their
loneliness. They need safe places and safe communities. Truelove.
is by 3:16 Church is an attempt to provide a platform for Seekers/
Strugglers to come out and come home.
Overcomers are those who have sufciently addressed their
same-sex attractions such that they no longer act upon them. They
have powerful testimonies which, when shared, can give hope to the
Seekers/Strugglers and educate or equip those who want to journey
with them.
Some Overcomers may still experience same-sex attraction
and are pursuing a fullling life of singleness comprising healthy
relationships with both the same sex and opposite sex. Others have
gotten married to someone of the opposite sex and established
a family together. Regardless, most Overcomers are secure in
their identity of who they are (as a child of God), choosing not to
see themselves primarily through their gender identity or sexual
orientation (as gay or straight). Those who are Christians choose
to pursue God and His holiness instead of their own sexual desires.
190 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
In recent years walking with the LGBT community, I have come
to know many overcomers amongst them. They share that making
a decision not to pursue their same-sex attraction typically results
in them being misunderstood and no longer being accepted by the
larger LGBT community. So let’s give them our fullest support and
offer love, friendship and community to them!
I am personally involved in journeying with one of them, and
have seen how his life has been transformed. You too can do the
same.
Every church should equip its leaders and members on how to
engage or relate with the different ones from the four categories of
the LGBT community.
My Personal Experience in Learning how to Walk with
Seekers/Strugglers
Around July 2013, I received an email from sister Lai Kheng, where
she wrote, “A young man is looking for mentor. I think you are
the one.” Whilst she did not specically mention that this young
man was struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions, I knew
it to be so as sister Lai Kheng knew that I was ready for such an
assignment. Reaching out to and journeying with the “last, lost and
least” was not new to me. I used to be a prison ofcer and even
started a prison ministry in my former church. What men see as
the trash of society, God sees as treasure, as everyone is made in
His image. The Father is always waiting for the prodigals to come
home. The problem has always been the elder brother in the house,
who nd it difcult to accept the younger brother.
I had walked with ex-offenders, gangsters, drug addicts. They
seem strong and “have it all” on the outside. But deep inside, they
are broken. They will open up and share their pain and struggles,
and even cry before you, if you make it safe enough for them to do
so. Are LGBTs similarly broken inside? Do they need healing and
restoration too? This is a totally new ministry for me. Whilst I am
comfortable to meet with the rejects of society, I do not have any
experience in walking with someone who has same-sex attraction.
But I know I can learn. I can read. I can watch videos. I can ask
those with the experience. I can seek God for guidance. And that
was exactly what I did.
From my study and research, I discovered that I was about
to meet some of the most broken and lonely people in our society.
191
Homosexuality is a highly complex issue. A person who struggles
with or experiences same-sex attractions or gender identity
dysphoria do so because of a myriad of contributory factors—
familial, social environmental, abuse and childhood trauma,
individual temperament and personality, and other psychological
or emotional issues. One thing is clear, there is no gay gene, and
both nurture and nature play a role. If this is so, then how a person
feels is not a choice. This means that a person does not choose to be
gay or choose to be attracted to a person of the same sex. What a
person chooses is whether to act or not to act on those desires.
Other than reading and learning what homosexuality is all
about, I also sought the Lord for wisdom and guidance. During one
Sunday worship service, I asked God, “I have never walked with
someone with such a background before. Please show me what I
need to do.” And then I heard a soft still voice “Be Jesus to him”.
And that was what I did…making time for the one, listening without
judgement, empathy when he shared his loneliness and struggles,
offering grace whenever I found that about the porn addiction and
one-night-stands, and praying for him constantly that he might be
protected from any sexually transmitted diseases.
I was a father-gure to him, to meet a crucial need that his own
father could not give him when he was growing up. I represented
Father God to him, to help to correct his misconceptions that God
is a distant and uncaring Father, due to his own relationship with
his own father. I helped him see that he has talents and highlighted
these back to him. I helped him nd his calling and destiny and that
his past can be redeemed for His greater purpose. Most importantly,
I helped him to know and embrace his core identity as a precious
son of God, and to grow in this identity, so that slowly but surely,
the former “I am gay” identity is being replaced with “I am a beloved
child of God”.
I did not adopt a “I have done the homework and I know it
all” attitude. We learned together. When I read about something
that I thought might be helpful for him, or I needed his inputs on,
I’d share it with him and genuinely desiring to hear his thoughts.
When he told me about his one-night-stands, I did not say, “The
Bible says this or that”, or “You are sinning”. Instead I said, “You
know you might get HIV right? And I don’t want to see you fall
sick and suffer.” When he told me one day that, “Jason, I think I
might have HIV because I feel unwell.” I did not say, “I told you so.”
Instead, I said, “Why don’t you go for a check-up? I’d go with you.”
192 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
I learned that earning the right to speak into the life of another
requires patience and genuine concern for the person. Until he
knows how much you care, he doesn’t really care about how much
you know, be it science, facts, evidence, or whatever the Bible has to
say about homosexuality.
In walking with this young man, I found out very soon that
God was using him to teach me. Yes, I learned much more from him
than from any book I can read or video that I can watch. One day,
lled with emotion and holding back tears in his eyes, he said, “You
all like to say ‘love the sinner hate the sin’. But where’s the love?” I
had to apologise to him. Indeed, the Church has not loved enough.
We need to love better.
I also learned that as a mentor, it is not my job to change him
or anyone who struggles with same-sex attraction. Ultimately, only
God can change and transform lives. Since I am not the saviour,
I am to point him to the One who saves. I may be a father-gure
to him, but more importantly, my task is to guide him to seek his
Father in heaven, for that is the only way for him and others to
know their true identity as children of God and to grow in sonship.
I must also be careful and not misrepresent Father God and
Jesus the Son to him. If his encounter with me caused him to walk
away feeling rejected, that is likely to mean that I have acted
like the “elder brother” in the prodigal son parable to him. In the
presence of such an “elder brother”, we feel unloved, unaccepted,
and unwelcomed. But in the presence the Father (and Jesus), there
can only be unconditional love and acceptance.
God has also used this young man (and others whom I had
mentored over the past seven years) to show me that the LGBT
community are highly talented and gifted, and the evil one is
holding many of them captive through his lies and deception so
that these may never be discovered and redeemed for the kingdom
purposes of God. When the Church begins to see them with new
lens, walk with them and help them to discover their identity as
sons and daughters of Abba, and calling to live out God’s destiny for
their lives, the Church will then release a hitherto hidden army of
God that can impact not just the Church but also our larger society.
There was a time when the Church was not ready to receive
and walk with ex-offenders and former drug inmates. But that has
changed over the years. I recall asking a senior pastor of a major
denominational church if his church was able to accept ex-offenders
who had become Christians in the prisons, since his church sent in
193
a number of Christian volunteers to conduct chapel services and
Bible study groups in the prisons. His reply to me was, “That is
a good idea, but I am not sure if my church is ready.” His words
pierced my heart and I believe it also hurt God deeply. The words
that came to my mind then were—If the Church is not ready to
set prisoners free, then who is ready? I am glad that since then, a
number of churches have become welcoming places for former gang
members, former drug addicts. Quite a few churches have thriving
prison ministries, where former prison inmates have found a safe
community to grow and serve the Lord. We now need churches to be
open to receive and be safe places for the sexually broken and those
who struggle with same-sex attractions to “come out” to seek help
and support.
In fact, the Church should not just be a safe place for those
who struggle with same-sex attraction to seek help, but must also
be a safe place where heterosexuals can share their sexual and
relational struggles. We are all sexually broken, and it is in Christ
and in His community that we can nd healing and restoration,
and for our brokenness to be redeemed so that God can use it to be
a blessing to others.
Becoming an LGBT-friendly Church
Just as we can categorise the LGBT community into different groups,
we can also categorise churches broadly into three groups—“LGBT
afrming”, “LGBT friendly”, and “LGBT unfriendly” churches.
An “LGBT afrming” church is FCC or Free Community
Church. FCC follows revisionist theology, and supports practicing
gay relationships, as they believe that God made them this way,
and various passages in the Bible that touch on homosexuality have
been reinterpreted to support this permissive worldview.
An “LGBT friendly” church is one that accepts the person but
does not approve of the homosexual acts and practices. It is also
one that teaches its members not just what the Bible says about
homosexuality, but also equips its leaders and members on how to
walk with someone who struggles with SSA.
An “LGBT unfriendly” church is one that speaks truth
without love. They say “love the sinner hate the sin”, but they
made little attempt at loving the sinners. The church comes across
as judgemental and hypocritical. Many strugglers who found
themselves in “LGBT unfriendly” churches have left the church,
and some are now attending FCC, or left church completely.
194 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
It is important to note that homosexual sin is not the worst sin.
A church should not just be “friendly” towards those who struggle
with homosexual brokenness but any form of brokenness. We are
all broken, one way or another. If not, Jesus would not have said “let
him who is without sin cast the rst stone”. Therefore, an “LGBT
friendly” church should also be a “heterosexual friendly” church,
in that it is also a safe place for heterosexuals to come out about
their sexual sins and brokenness. Below is a diagram on the need
for both “truth and compassion” before we can have a “healing” or
“LGBT friendly” church, a safe place for all with sexual brokenness
(including heterosexual sexual brokenness) to receive help and
restoration.
Other Helpful Tips for Pastors and Christians
To move the church towards being a safe place for anyone who is
broken to share his struggles and to seek help, it has been shown
that when leaders take the lead, and are open about their own
journey of moving from brokenness to wholeness, members feel safe
to come forward to share and to seek help for their own brokenness,
be it heterosexual or homosexual struggles.
Another best practice is to have a regular pulpit series on
Marriage and Family. But instead of just focusing on the usual
marriage and parenting topics, there must also be messages or
teachings on difcult topics such as singleness, adultery, abortion,
and LGBT matters. We should not just highlight homosexual acts
195
as the only deviation from God’s Design for Marriage and Family,
but also other forms of heterosexual deviations.
For more helpful tips on how to walk with someone with
unwanted same-sex attractions, please access this free downloadable
resource—http://wholelife.sg/hotbutton.
196 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Ten
Rev Dr Edmund Fong
SHARING THE GOSPEL
RELATIONSHIPS
Writing on the topic of sharing the gospel with those in same-sex
relationships two or three decades earlier would have been a
fairly straightforward task. The fundamental premises underlying
the argument were readily accepted then—individuals in same-sex
relationships were living contrary to the gospel; they needed to hear
and receive the gospel (if they had not already done so), repent,
and either change their sexual orientation or commit to a life of
celibacy.1 Writing on this topic today, however, is a whole different
matter altogether. There is a burgeoning and sizeable segment of
Evangelical Christians who are afrming of faithful, monogamous,
same-sex sexual relationships. For this group to be told that those
in same-sex relationships need to repent and respond to the gospel
would be a message condescending and insulting to its very core. In
fact, as one of their proponents, William Stacy Johnson, puts it, it
is the non-afrming faction who needs to “repent” and “respond” to
the gospel. He states:
[T]his is really the issue we as a church face: What is
the gospel? And what does it demand of us? My claim
throughout…is that the church’s traditional stand on
“homosexuality” is wrong and hurtful, and does not accord
with the best light of the gospel itself. As long as the
church remains in the grip of its traditional anti-gay, anti-
afrming message, it is at risk of losing its soul.2
197
To Johnson, the church nding a way forward on this issue is not
just for the sake of “[preserving] an institutional unity but for the
sake of the gospel itself.”3 After all, “the gospel literally means good
news. So where is the good news in the church’s traditional disdain
for gay and lesbian relationships?”4 Johnson has literally turned
the tables on the traditional non-afrming position in this issue of
responding to the gospel.
The above means that any writing on this topic must be handled
with careful sensitivity to the present and growing sensibilities of
afrmation or, at the very least, sympathy when it comes to same-
sex relationships within the general Christian population. This is
why it is important to rst review key arguments that have led
to this segment of the Christian population being convinced that
a monogamous, faithful, same-sex sexual relationship genuinely
falls under the orbit of the gospel. To them, it is not only what the
gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ allows, but such a relationship
actually testies and witnesses to the gospel. Following that, I will
defend the traditional view, and show why those in the traditional
position do not share in the same theological optimism. For clarity
purposes, the label “traditional” here carries the view that all forms
of same-sex sexual behaviour are prohibited according to Scripture
and Christian theology.5 The gist of the argument in the second
section is that the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be read as
nullifying creational order; instead, it vindicates creational order,
and central to our discussion, the creational ordinance of marriage.
And since marriage is the only context where sexual behaviour and
activity between two sexually differentiated individuals can take
place in order to serve the three goals of marriage as traditionally
understood, any reading of the gospel which suggests a tweaking
(at best) or a nullication (at worst) of the creational ordinance
of marriage to allow for same-sex sexual behaviour cannot be
supported. Moving on, I argue why the gospel is precisely good news
for all when it comes to our sexual desires, be they homosexual or
heterosexual in kind.
Some readers may nd it strange that I should proceed in
the manner outlined above, and might even feel that I have not
kept to the topic assigned to me. My reason for proceeding as such
arises from my larger conviction that we need to explore some of
the deeper underlying assumptions before we can even begin to talk
about sharing the gospel with those in same-sex relationships: is it
a given that those in same-sex sexual relationships agree that they
198 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
need to hear and response to the gospel in the rst place? What
exactly is the gospel for those in same-sex sexual relationships? I
see my task as a theologian to address some of these underlying
assumptions, and this explains for the theological direction the
essay takes, rather than the practical ministerial approach that
might be expected.
The gospel for those in same-sex relationships
As mentioned earlier, those maintaining an afrming position when
it comes to same-sex sexual relationships do not see themselves in
need of a hearing and response to the gospel. In fact, many would
nd such a suggestion an affront. I begin therefore by exploring
how those maintaining an afrming position read Scripture and
interpret theologically to arrive at the conclusion that faithful,
monogamous, same-sex sexual relationships is a justiable action
and way of living that arises as part of a genuine faithful response
to the gospel of the Lord Jesus. The focus will lie in the theological
aspect, for I believe that is the pivoting point of the arguments.
Biblically, those in the afrming camp have to account
for the famous biblical passages that clearly prohibit same-sex
sexual activity. The passages that come to mind immediately are
Genesis 18:16-19:29, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:24-27, 1
Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10, and Jude 7. Most maintaining an
afrming position would read and argue that the passages serve
not as blanket prohibitions against all forms of same-sex sexual
activity, but—read within their social and historical contexts—
as denouncements and indictments against the more exploitative
forms of sexual activity prevalent in Ancient Near Eastern and
Greco-Roman culture back then. I invite those seeking ner
biblical exegesis to turn to the wide range of literature available
on this subject matter.6 Sufce it would be to quote theologian
Megan DeFranza that the same-sex sexual activities prohibited
and denounced—“the common abuse of enslaved persons by their
masters and mistresses, the slave trade which captured and at times
mutilated male children in order to create more exotic living sex toys
for those with the means to pay, the misuse of women destitute or
enslaved as prostitutes”—7would not apply to “faithful gay, lesbian,
and bisexual Christians seeking to solemnise their relationships
with the vows of Christian marriage.”8 Most advocates adopting
an afrming position in relation to same-sex sexual relationships
would agree with DeFranza’s reading.9
199
I say “most” because there is a minority within the afrming
camp who would not agree with the above-mentioned exegetical
moves, but nevertheless maintain an afrming position. William
Loader, highly regarded as the foremost scholar on sexuality in
ancient Judaism and Christianity, is one such example. He explores
the same Bible passages and concludes that all forms of same-sex
sexual activities are prohibited by the Scriptures. In fact, Loader
argues the stronger case that the apostle Paul would have viewed
same-sex desires and attitudes as themselves sinful and perverse, a
position that even some traditionalists refrain from taking. According
to Loader, “[i]f we are serious about letting Scripture speak for
itself and reading it in context, then we will avoid all such attempts
from left and right to explain it away, however compassionately
motivated our misreadings may be.”10 On what basis, then, does
Loader still count himself among the les of the afrming camp? It
is because, in his opinion, “Paul’s understanding about the nature
of human sexuality was limited” and, hence, “we cannot simply
apply his judgements to the situations where people are genuinely
gay.”11 To Loader, Paul and the Jews’ rst-century understanding
of human sexuality are lacking and need to be supplemented with
our twenty-rst century understanding. These new understandings
complete the picture—or Scriptural trajectory—and they inform
our moral ethics today on the issue of same-sex relationships, even
as the entire trajectory is one that is “driven by the same focus on
love that informed Jesus’ stance.”12
I cite the curious case of William Loader above because he proves
an intriguing point, and that is, one’s nal position on the issue of
same-sex relationships is not determined by biblical exegesis alone.
Biblical exegesis reinforces one’s position, but the linchpin actually
lies in one’s theological considerations. In this case, the theological
consideration centers on one’s theology of marriage, which will be
the main topic concerning us in the rest of this essay.13
Theologically, those arguing for the afrmation and blessing
of a faithful, monogamous same-sex sexual relationship have
capitalised on one of the following three approaches, all to do with
the marriage institution. They have either obsoleted the marriage
institution in its entirety and replaced it with something else to
locate same-sex sexual relationships; revised, developed and
expanded the understanding of marriage to render it open to same-
sex couples, or they have created a “third space” that sits alongside
marriage and celibacy which is at the same time ethically open to
200 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
sexual activity between a faithful monogamous same-sex couple.
I will not deal with arguments that belong to the rst approach
of rendering the marriage institution obsolete, because I view
such strategies a minority among those who espouse a position
of afrmation. The majority still afrms a faithful, monogamous,
same-sex sexual relationship within the institution of marriage
(and that is why the strategy of LGBTQI lobby groups in different
countries is focused on recognising same-sex marriages rather than
abolishing the marriage institution altogether).14 Instead, I outline
the other two approaches and their arguments in the paragraphs
that follow.
I begin with the approach of revising, developing and expanding
the marriage institution to include same-sex unions. Within this
broad approach are those who would argue that the biblical model
of marriage can no longer serve as the pattern to ground the vision
of Christian marriage which many contemporary evangelicals use
to undergird their theology of marriage. DeFranza argues that the
biblical pattern of marriage is based on a patriarchal setup—where
an inferior person is united to one far more superior and to whom
one owns obedience—leading her to conclude that contemporary
Christian marriages are not the “biblical marriages” of the Old
or New Testament. Given that the biblical pattern of patriarchal
marriage has been revised—consciously or not—to t the theology
of marriage espoused by contemporary evangelicals, Defranza
argues that the same can be done “yet again” to accommodate
same-sex marriages.15 After all, “if God’s purpose for marriage could
be fullled in a gay marriage as well as a straight one, it made
absolutely no sense to tell gay people that God’s will for them could
be fullled only in a heterosexual context or in celibacy.”16
Not everyone follows DeFranza though. There are others who
continue to afrm the three traditional goods of marriage that
arise from the biblical pattern, expounded by Saint Augustine
and accepted almost universally by the Christian church down the
ages. The three goods being: offspring (procreation), delity, and
sacrament (permanence).17 However, this same group will often
reprioritise, revise and reinterpret the categories to justify same-sex
marriages. Adrian Thatcher and Eugene Rogers are two examples
of those who fall within this group.18 Three key commonalities are
detected in their approaches. Because their commonalities are
crucial to the development of my own counter-argument, they will
be outlined in some detail.
201
First, Thatcher and Rogers both discount the importance of
sexual differentiation as a requirement for Christian marriage.
Thatcher achieves this by grounding marriage in a version of social
Trinitarian theology rather than the doctrine of creation. That is to
say, for Thatcher, it is primarily the divine love shared between the
Trinitarian persons, rather than God’s covenantal love for humanity,
that forms the basis for human love within a marriage. Once this
fundamental premise is established, it is not difcult to see how the
rest of his argument follows through: because divine love between
the Trinitarian persons is not dened by sexual differentiation, the
expression of human love within the marriage likewise need not be
limited to sexually differentiated relationships.19 As one writer puts
it, “the Trinity supplants creation in Thatcher’s account.”20 Rogers,
like Thatcher, appeals to the doctrine of the Trinity as the basis for
human love, but at variance from Thatcher, he draws in the doctrine
of creation as the means by which this Trinitarian love is applied to
humans. Whereas intra-triune divine love has no spatial or temporal
limits, human love requires both space and time, and human bodies
and human sexuality is what enables human beings to express
this love in space and time.21 Rogers however understands human
bodies through the category of sexual orientation, rather than
with reference to real male or female bodies.22 On Rogers’ account,
God’s creation of humans as male and female has no bearing on the
specic bodily vocation (of either marriage or celibacy) to which one
is called by God. In this way, by speaking only of sexualised bodies
rather than real bodily differences, Rogers bypasses the problem
that sexual differentiation poses for the inclusion of same-sex
couples within the church’s traditional understanding of marriage.
In summary, Thatcher appeals to Trinitarian love as the basis for
human love, and Rogers to sexualised bodies rather than male and
female bodies, but both achieve the same effect of undermining the
importance of sexual differentiation for a theology of marriage.23
The second commonality observed is the downplaying of the
importance of one of the goods of marriage—procreation—while
maintaining the other two: delity and permanence. Thatcher,
while keeping procreation as reserved only for marriage, argues
that the link between sex and procreation is a patriarchal construct;
that procreation is not a necessary good of marriage, and that
sexual intimacy between a married couple has a rich sacramental
meaning pointing to Christ’s eucharistic act that goes beyond
procreation.24 Rogers’ argument differs in details but agrees in
202 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
overall direction with Thatcher. His overall drift is that marriage
and sex primarily serve sanctifying rather than procreative ends,
namely, the transformation and sanctication of human eros.
Children, while contributing to the task of sanctication, are not
necessary to its proper outcome.25 Common to both Thatcher and
Rogers is their turning to an allegorical reading of the command to
be “fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28, ESV) to the exclusion of
physical procreation.26
At this point, we note that the rst two commonalities
exhibited by the approaches of Thatcher and Rogers center on
downplaying sexual differentiation as a requirement for marriage
and procreation as a good of marriage. This is unsurprising, given
that sexual differentiation and procreation remain, one could say,
the two crucial barriers to the church’s afrmation of same-sex
marriages.
The third commonality shared by Thatcher and Rogers has
to do with upholding bodily sexual desire as a positive theological
category, and even as the chief mechanism by which one experiences
relationship and communion with the divine. Thatcher reasons that
human love, like divine love in which it is based upon, is meant to be
shared, and the chief way that love is shared is through sexuality.27
Applied to marriage, this leads to martial love and love-making
having an internal goal—for the good of the couple—and an external
goal—functioning as sacramental acts that facilitate “human
participation in divine love.”28 Based on this, Thatcher argues that
the opportunity to share love and in this way participate in the
divine love is something good that should not be withheld from same-
sex couples.29 Rogers’ argument supporting the goodness of bodily
sexual desire is more complex, but fundamental to his argument is
the notion that eros is a positive theological category. Rogers argues
that Christ assumed bodily desire or eros in the incarnation, with
eros being “a subset of the love of the Son for human beings and the
love for which the Father loves the Son, the love in which the Holy
Spirit delights.”30 Humans learn of God’s love for them precisely
through their bodies and their bodily desires. God achieves this end
in one of two ways. Either God uses one’s bodily desire to cause one
to understand God’s love directly through “the mediation of a whole
community of human others as [one’s] affectional commitment”
(leading to the vocation of celibate monasticism); or God could
teach one indirectly of God’s love by directing one’s bodily desire
toward another human being (leading to the vocation of marriage).31
203
Common to both vocations is the transformation of eros into agape
through a process of sanctication and ascesis. Rogers’ point is: if the
ascetic disciplining of bodily desires can take place in both vocational
ofces of celibacy and marriage, and vocation is something that is
God-given, it is not right therefore to predetermine the vocation of
gay and lesbian individuals by enforcing celibacy upon them simply
because of their sexual orientation. Forced celibacy strips away the
opportunity for sanctication of gay and lesbian persons’ bodily
desires. The substance of Thatcher’s and Rogers’ argument is that
since bodily sexual desire is the chief manner in which God uses to
draw us human beings into communion with him, the expression
(Thatcher) and the sanctication (Rogers) of bodily sexual desires is
a positive and good thing which same-sex couples should therefore
not be forcibly deprived of.
I move on to the third approach: that of creating a third vocation
that sits alongside marriage and celibacy which is at the same time
ethically open to sexual activity between a faithful monogamous
same-sex couple. Here, we focus on the arguments of Robert Song.32
To begin with, Song afrms much or even the entirety of the
traditional understanding of marriage. He agrees to the three goods
of marriage and even the requirement of sexual differentiation
within marriage, which Song adds is needed because of marriage’s
orientation to procreation.33 Song’s unique contribution surfaces,
however, when he asserts that the advent of Christ is a major game
changer to how one thinks about sexuality and marriage.34
Song teases out three implications of the advent of Christ for
a theology of marriage. First, because Christ has accomplished
the task of dominion, it is no longer necessary for humanity to
accomplish dominion through procreation, leading to a devaluing
of the place of procreation.35 Second, the advent of Christ brings the
vocation of celibacy to the foreground.36 Third, the advent of Christ
raises the question, as Song puts it, “whether this ‘time between
the times’ in which we live, between Christ’s resurrection and his
return in glory, […] admits of another calling,” and whether this
calling could be sexually expressed?37 Song answers this question
with an afrmative “yes,” calling this third vocation “covenant
partnership,” which he denes as a non-procreative (but sexually)
committed relationship that functions as an eschatological witness.38
Unlike marriage, which is grounded in creation and therefore
directed towards procreation, covenant partnership is grounded
in the eschaton where there will be neither death nor the need
204 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
for procreation. Because procreation does not feature in covenant
partnerships the way they do in marriages, according to Song, the
only ground necessitating sexual differentiation is removed and
covenant partnerships can hence be open to both heterosexual and
same-sex couples. As Song states: “Baptism and the new identity in
Christ take us beyond the creation categories of male and female in
a way that renders them no longer of dening importance.”39
Together, the arguments of Thatcher, Rogers and Song amount
to the larger conviction of the validity and legitimacy of same-sex
sexual relationships, be it within the institution of marriage or in
some other separate vocational space. If sexual differentiation is no
longer a necessary component of marriage and procreation no longer
a necessary good of marriage, if bodily sexual desire (including
same-sex desire) is a positive theological thing and in fact the thing
that God uses to draw us as embodied human beings to participate
in the sharing of his divine love, then surely a faithful, monogamous
same-sex couple should not be forcibly deprived of these goods and
spiritual benets. Such enforced restrictions stand in the way of
same-sex individuals fully receiving these benets of divine-human
communion and that would not be in line with the gospel of Jesus
Christ, which ultimately focuses on reconciliation between God and
the human being. Seen in this light, we can perhaps understand
better Johnson’s comment at the beginning of the essay that it is
the traditionalists who are obstructing the gospel and therefore the
ones who need to repent and respond to the gospel.
The gospel for those in same-sex relationships (and
heterosexual relationships)
I wish to, at this point, argue the case that traditionalists maintain
our position of prohibiting all forms of same-sex sexual behaviour
precisely because of our deepest convictions of what the gospel
message consists in. More specically: the gospel of our Lord
Jesus Christ that tells of his coming, his life of obedience, his
crucixion and death on the cross, his resurrection, ascension and
his impending return must constrain and direct how we live and
act as Christians, that is to say, our Christian ethics. Even more
specically: our Christian ethics depends upon the resurrection of
Jesus Christ, because it is the resurrection event that tells us of
God’s vindication of his creation and our created life. Vindication
of creation and created life in turn afrms the importance of man’s
205
life on earth to God, inasmuch as God has given that life, order, and
established conformity to the order given it. Stated another way,
the resurrection restores creation and inaugurates the kingdom of
God. Christian ethics which begins from the resurrection therefore
brings together “creation ethics” and “kingdom ethics” in such a
manner that sometimes emphasises the newness and at other times
afrms the primitiveness of the order, yet never overthrowing or
denying one aspect in the name of the other. From the resurrection,
the Christian looks forward to an eschatological participation in the
vindicated created order via the Holy Spirit. This participation is
an expression of the Christian freedom which we have subjectively
come to possess as moral agents by virtue of our being-in-Christ
and being under his authority. The Spirit enables us to respond
freely and lovingly as we make moral choices and responses to the
ordered reality of the world; an order which confronts the genuine
freedom that man has come to possess for the rst time in Christ.
The informed reader should perceive my reliance on the work of
theological ethicist Oliver O’Donovan for the above account of the
gospel and Christian ethics.40
In other words, the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is crucial
and inseparable to an account of Christian ethics and morality,
which has under its umbrella the issue of same-sex relationships. If
creational order is vindicated, then, pertinently, the institution of
marriage is vindicated and continues to be upheld as a creational
ordinance. The understanding that marriage is the only context
where sexual behaviour and activity between two sexually
differentiated individuals (a man and a woman) takes place to serve
the three goals of marriage of procreation, delity and permanence,
constrains and consolidates the traditionalist position. Therefore,
contra Johnson, I argue that it is precisely because traditionalists
have heard and responded to the gospel that we take the stand that
we do on this matter.
Specically, that marriage as scripturally presented and
traditionally afrmed to consist in, as Wesley Hill puts it, “a bond
of male and female, ordered to procreation, sealed in faithful union,
and signifying Christ’s love for the church,”41 means that arguments
that seek to render redundant the need for sexual differentiation in
marriage or procreation as a marital good cannot stand (the rst
two commonalities in the approaches of Thatcher and Rogers).
In the paragraphs to follow, I defend sexual differentiation and
procreation as two indispensable components of marriage.
206 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
On my account, there are three reasons why sexual
differentiation cannot be argued away. First, sexual differentiation
is a clear, explicit stipulation and an essential component of the
marriage ordinance, afrmed in the Genesis account (Gen 1:27-28
and 2:24) and reafrmed by Jesus when he was questioned about
divorce (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9). In fact, Jesus’ answer
fuses together the two creational accounts in Genesis:
Have you not read that he who created them from the
beginning made them male and female [referring to
Genesis 1:27],5 and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his
father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the
two shall become one esh [referring to Genesis 2:24]”?6
So they are no longer two but one esh. What therefore
God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew
19:4-6, ESV)
Jesus afrms and in fact emphasises the aspect of sexual
differentiation within both contexts of procreation in Genesis 1:27-
28 and the bond of faithful union in Genesis 2:24, even as procreation
and faithful union fall under the larger ambit of the ordinance of
marriage.42 The fact that sexual differentiation is mentioned as a
direct and explicit stipulation concerning the ordinance of marriage
means that one cannot play fast and loose with this key requirement
without changing marriage into something that is no longer what
it is. Call it another name if you will, but once the requirement
of sexual differentiation is dropped, one can no longer speak of
having a marriage, at least dened theologically and according to
the Scriptures.43
Second, sexual differentiation, while tied inextricably to
the marital good of procreation, is also linked to the other two
goods of delity and permanence, such that it is required even if
procreation as a martial good falls out of the picture (which, as I
argue below, does not). If marriage in its delity and permanence
is meant to serve as a sacramentum (a visible, permanent symbol
signifying the love of God in Christ for the church)—a symbol that
nds its culmination in the New Testament passage of Ephesians
5:32 “This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to
Christ and the church” (ESV)—sexual differentiation, I argue, is an
indispensable constitution of the symbol itself that seeks to capture
analogously something of the reality that is being signied.44 In
this case, the reality would be that of the covenantal love of God
207
for the created and creaturely other: humanity. If commitment to
the two goods of delity and permanence in a marriage reects
God’s eternal faithfulness to his covenant with us, then the God-
creature distinction within that covenantal relationship is captured
felicitously in an analogous manner by the sexual differentiation
present within human marriage.45
Third, in the eschaton, even when the institution of marriage
ceases (cf. Matthew 22:30), sexual differentiation in terms of male
and female remains, and that means that sexual differentiation has
a crucial role to play in marriage while not being circumscribed by
it. Here, there is something to be said for theologian Karl Barth’s
proposal that what it means for humanity to be created imago Dei
is to be created as sexually differentiated beings, male and female.46
Starting with his fundamental notion that Jesus Christ as the Word
of God discloses all that humanity is, Barth argues the case that
God creates in his image in order that his partner in the covenant
may be a creature who is a being-in-relation. Ontologically, that
the human being is a being-in-relation is expressed in God creating
humanity male and female, to correspond to the fact that God
himself exists in relationship and not in isolation. This means that,
according to Barth, our sexual differentiation as male and female
is worked into and becomes a permanent and necessary feature of
our human identity. On Barth’s terms, some encounter between
the sexes is necessary in order for humans to be beings-in-relation.
So essential is sexual differentiation to our human ontology and
identity that Barth asserts it remains in the eschaton: “[Man] has
lived [as male and female] in no other way in time, and he can live
in no other way in eternity. This is something which he cannot
lose. For by it there stands or falls his creatureliness.”47 From this
basic theological premise that the male-female differentiation and
relationship is what makes humanity ontologically determined to
be cohumanity ows Barth’s consideration of marriage. Barth sees
marriage as the center of sexually differentiated relations. The
marriage covenant is the locus where encounter and relationship
between the sexes nds its climax and nale, even as the marriage
covenant emulates God’s covenant with his creatures. More could
be spoken of Barth’s fascinating proposal, but I believe enough has
been said to establish the point argumentum a fortiori: if sexual
differentiation is the crux for what it means for human beings to
be essentially beings-in-relations, then sexual differentiation must
remain a non-negotiable aspect of the marriage relationship, even
208 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
as marriage itself emulates and signies the anti-typal covenantal
relationship between the divine and human being.48
Turning to the second defense of the place of procreation as a
marital good, I acknowledge at the outset that this is a difcult and
complicated issue in which those afrming of same-sex relationships
have charged the traditionalist position as losing ground. After all,
procreation does seem minimised in the New Testament as compared
to the Old Testament. Before the dawn of resurrection hope, the
way to perpetuate one’s life and name was through one’s offspring
that came via marriage. But with immortality made available
through resurrection life, procreation is no longer necessary as a
means to perpetuate human life. For those afrming of same-sex
sexual relationships, this new ethical and existential situation
brought about by the ushering in of the kingdom of God opens
doors to envisage the possibility of non-procreative heterosexual
or homosexual marriages.49 The complexity is further compounded
by what seems to be the contemporary church’s endorsement of
non-procreative heterosexual marriages, often to the exclusion of
or at least the reticence in promoting procreation as a crucial and
indispensable outcome of marriage.50
The traditionalist position might have lost ground on the
argument of seeing procreation as a vital good of marriage, but I
believe it is not to the point of being beyond recovery. I concede that
the way we see the link between procreation and marriage undergoes
signicant change in light of the coming of God’s kingdom, but
the change does not involve tearing asunder procreation from the
traditional view of marriage. As what Hill states, it is not procreation
but marriage that is decentered. The dawning of God’s kingdom, the
interruption of resurrection life, has pushed singleness and celibacy
to the foreground such that singleness is now an equally (or more!)
honorable calling than marriage. Crucially, though, the denition
of marriage remains.51 O’Donovan describes this new state of affairs
well:
[T]he coexistence of [marriage and singleness] within the
Christian church did not mean a loss of integrity to either.
Each had to function as what it was, according to its own
proper structure. The married must live in the ways of
marriage, the single in the ways of singleness. Neither
would accommodate in itself or evoke in the other an
evolutionary mutation. Marriage that was not marriage
209
could not witness to the goodness of the created order,
singleness that was not singleness could tell us nothing of
the fullment for which that order was destined.52
In other words, “[w]hat is now available, in Christ, is the option
of not marrying. This is different from [the] claim that what is
now available is the option of marrying in a different way (i.e.,
non-procreatively),” as Hill states.53 Notwithstanding the above, I
agree with Stephen Holmes that the contemporary church needs to
“recover a Christian understanding of human sexuality as primarily
oriented towards procreation, not towards pleasure, and to restate
an ethic that takes this orientation seriously.”54
Besides retaining the place of procreation within marriage,
O’Donovan and Hill’s arguments also provide a reply to the “third
space” or third vocation proposal of Robert Song. As theologically
innovative as Song’s category of “covenant partnership” is, and
as theologically deft a move Song makes in grounding covenant
partnerships in the eschaton where there is no longer the need for
procreation rather than in creation, Song’s proposal presents itself
as an argument that is either from silence (at best),55 or dependent
on teasing apart the canonical voices on marriage and sexuality (at
worst).56 The inauguration of the new age evidently foregrounds
the vocation of celibacy and recalibrates the vocation of marriage,
but it is not even remotely clear that a third eschatological space
and vocation is opened up. To claim as such is to proceed as if the
eschaton has already arrived in its fullness. Furthermore, Hill
views that Song’s proposal has assumed unsuspectingly modern
premises concerning the constitution of our human identities. The
assumption is: there is a class of persons whose sexual desires are
permanently directed to members of the same sex and who, as a
result, see themselves as called to express that sexual desire by
forming traditional marriage-like relationships of delity and
sexual expression with one another. Hill questions if such a proposal
has unwittingly capitulated to the cultural and societal mores of
going with “gay identity” and treating couples who perform same-
sex acts as motivated by love. If so, Song’s proposal risks losing a
crucial aspect of life under the gospel, that is, allowing the gospel
to interrogate our experienced, socially constructed identities and
to reveal those identities as requiring transformation rather than
afrmation.57
210 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
So far, I have showed how the gospel of Jesus Christ, far
from nullifying or negating creational order, actually achieves the
opposite effect of validating and afrming creational order. This
means that the marriage ordinance—grounded in creation itself—is
vindicated and upheld. Specically, this means that the three goods
of marriage traditionally understood and the key requirement of
sexual differentiation for marriage all should be retained. At the
very least, I hope to have proven the basic point that traditionalists
hold to the position that we do because of our hearing and response
to the gospel.
But there is more to be said about the gospel, and here, the
argument moves beyond its defensive engagement thus far. The
gospel of the Lord Jesus not only vindicates creational order, but
it is also in the hearing and responding to the Christ of the gospel
that we can come to participate rightly in that creational order.
O’Donovan highlights correctly that even though the objective
reality of creational order exerts a moral authority over every single
human being, human nature is “awed not only in its instances
but in its mould, so that to be human itself means that we nd
this order of things a problem and are rebelliously disposed towards
it.”58 Put simply: the cataclysmic event of the Fall has skewed our
natural participation in the natural order of creation.
Applied to the area of our sexual desires, it means that all
our sexual desires, be they homosexual or heterosexual desires,
are fallen, disordered, and may I even say, sinful. “Fallen,” in that
from the very start of our existence, we never experience our sexual
desires in their prelapsarian state; “disordered,” in that our sexual
desires are inordinate and misdirected—love turns to lust, self-
sacrice easily slides into a hedonistic seeking of self-pleasure—and
for same-sex desires, they are disordered in the additional sense
of being contrary to the design and order of creation; and nally
“sinful,” because our very inordinate and misdirected desires spring
from a corrupt and polluted human nature, which in itself is sinful
before the presence of the holy God.59 Note again: all our sexual
desires, homosexual or heterosexual, carry the burden of being fallen,
disordered, and sinful.60 Recognising this means acknowledging the
point that all of us as human persons share in this fundamental
brokenness; it is not the case as if homosexuals are “more fallen”
because of the direction their same-sex desires take them. It is to
see and confess that all our sexual desires, once again, homosexual
or heterosexual, need redemption and transformation. It is precisely
211
this insight that questions proposals that give undue weight to the
concept of sexuality as the means by which unity of self is achieved,
even as the unied self is brought into unity with God. The very
fact that we do not from the outset experience our sexuality and
sexual desires in a pristine environment casts doubts whether unity
of the self through sexuality is ever possible in this life, or even if
sexuality is meant to carry that salvic burden in the rst place.61
If that is what all our sexual desires the other side of the
Garden of Eden need, that is what Christ of the gospel offers—
salvation, redemption, transformation. Through the Pentecostal
gift of the Holy Spirit which Christ in his ascension gifts to all who
encounter him in their response to the gospel, humanity is given
the freedom to respond as a moral agent, where as an “I,” the agent
yields himself or herself to God’s order and freely takes his or her
place within it.62 Christian freedom, given by the Holy Spirit, allows
man to make moral responses creatively.63 Yet, O’Donovan is also
quick to caution that the freedom and creativity granted by the Holy
Spirit for our moral participation is not one that is isolated from the
authority imbued within the natural created order which the moral
agent is confronted with, such that it is simply left to the moral
agent to make what he or she will of the created order. To quote
O’Donovan: “In refusing to admit that human freedom is ordered
by generic rules, ‘normless’ ethics has, in effect, refused to address
man’s freedom to the ordered reality of the world which confronts
it, preferring to assume that the universe is still waste and void,
awaiting the cry of the human voice, ‘Let there be…’—and of course
we can have no idea what to follow!”64 The upshot of O’Donovan’s
argument is that “the Spirit forms and brings to expression the
appropriate pattern of free response to objective reality.”65
The above means that in and through the gospel, we can
now participate rightly in the moral order that is found within
creational order, even as that creational order has been vindicated
by the resurrection of Jesus Christ and is now heading toward its
consummation in the eschaton. Brought to bear on our distinct
issue, the moral participation consists not so much in an afrmation
as it does in a transformation of our sexual desires—once again,
both heterosexual and homosexual—through the two vocational
ofces of marriage or celibacy. Both vocations are seen as schools
in which, by God’s grace, our desires are reordered to make us more
Christlike. So Holmes asserts that marriage, rather than envisaged
as being there for the fullment of our sexual desires, is more
212 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
properly conceived as a discipline to master our sexual desires and
reorder them so that we may grow in Christlikeness.66 As Holmes
reminds us, this has always been how the ancient church tradition
conceived of marriage: an ascetic discipline similar to the other
vocation of celibacy.67 In this sense, I agree with Rogers’ statement
that marriage, like celibacy, should be understood as “an ascetic
discipline, ...a school for virtue, where God prepares the couple for
life with himself by binding them for life to each other. Marriage,
in this view, is for sanctication, a means by which God can bring a
couple to himself by turning their limits to their good.”68 That which
I nd disquieting, however, is what Rogers continues to say: “And
no conservative I know has seriously argued that same-sex couples
need sanctication any less than opposite-sex couples do,” implying
that traditionalists should not enforce celibacy upon all same-sex
couples indiscriminately, especially when the path of sanctication
or ascesis of their bodily sexual desires for some could take them
through the vocational ofce of marriage. Yet, in proposing that
God could use the ascetic school of marriage to sanctify the sexual
desires of same-sex couples, Rogers has already contravened the
very principle that God and his Spirit grants us human beings
creativity and freedom for moral participation, but not in a self-
determined capricious fashion, but one complying to the order
that he established at creation, vindicated at the resurrection
and continues to uphold even as that moral order heads toward
its consummation in the eschaton. Rogers’ conclusion shows the
overemphasis and undue place that he gives to bodily sexual desires
as the conduit by which humanity experiences communion with God
and participation in the divine love.
In summary, this is the positive edge—the good news—
that the gospel of Jesus Christ brings in relation to the issue of
sexuality. It is a message that pronounces the truth that you and
I as human beings can now participate rightly in the creational
order, which extends over our sexualities and sexual desires. As we
do so, we uncover the rather surprising discovery that our sexual
desires, just like our other natural desires, are not in pressing
need of being fullled; they are in pressing need of being reordered
and transformed so that we grow in Christlikeness. And these are
the two vocational ofces or schools that God in his wisdom has
ordained for us within his created order to accomplish that task
of sanctication: (sexually-differentiated) marriages and celibacy.
The good news resounds: in Christ, our desires—again, homosexual
213
or heterosexual—once fallen, disordered and sinful, can now be
reordered and transformed.
Sharing the gospel with those in same-sex relationships
A renewed grasp of just what the gospel is for those in same-sex
relationships and those in heterosexual relationships—in other
words, for all—would lead to the setting aside of a “us-versus-
them” mentality and the embrace instead of a “we” mindset in
reaching out to those in same-sex relationships. As mentioned in
the points earlier, it is “we” in the sense that the gospel of our Lord
Jesus offers the penetrating insight that all our sexual desires,
regardless homosexual or heterosexual, are fallen, disordered and
sinful. Being so, they stand not in pressing need of being fullled,
but being reordered and transformed. Adopting the “we” mindset
prevents homophobic expressions of either seeing same-sex desires
as more fallen or individuals in same-sex sexual relationships as
more sinful. It rules out the misconception that the message sent
forth states that it is not OK for those with same-sex desires to give
natural expression to their desires the way it is OK for those with
heterosexual desires to do so; the message, rather, is that it is not OK
for all people to give natural expression to our sexuality or indeed,
to any other natural desires we might have.69 Adopting the “we”
mindset also emphasises that what the Lord Jesus offers through
God’s mercy and Christ’s sacrice—an opportunity for our entire
beings and selves to be sanctied, which would include our sexual
desires—is offered to straight people just as much as it is offered
to gay and lesbian people. Only the means or the vocational school
that God in his wisdom uses for this task of ascesis differs. For those
with same-sex desires, it is the vocation of celibacy; for those with
heterosexual desires, it is either the vocation of marriage or celibacy.
I admit immediately that putting things this way is, as Hill (who
identies himself as a gay Christian) states, “asking gay and lesbian
people to make a hard choice,” and in some way burdening them to
live with “dissatised eros.” But, if marriage is also to be seen as a
vocation for the ascetic disciplining and transforming of our sexual
desires, Hill reminds us that means even married heterosexual
Christians will likewise have to embrace “dissatised eros” and
live without sexual “fullment” in some sense.70 Furthermore, as
ascertained above, the advent of Christ brings about—in terms of
what it has to offer to those with heterosexual desires—precisely a
214 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
renewal of the vocation of celibacy in placing it on an equal (if not
more honorable) footing than marriage itself.71 Nevertheless, it is a
hard choice, and as Hill reiterates: “we gay Christians are called to
a challenging, often painful and frustrating obedience, and I trust
that God’s grace is there to sustain us and catch us when we fall.”72
Such is the cost of discipleship, which expresses itself in different
shapes and forms for the different ones of us who follow Jesus even
as we respond to the gospel.73
One nal comment as I end the essay. I foresee that in the near
future, as the church reaches out to those in same-sex relationships
with the gospel, the church will inevitably be forced to consider
some form of pastoral accommodation in this area. The latter is,
as Holmes denes it, a position where churches “believe same-
sex partnerships to be wrong [but] nonetheless nd space within
their life for people living in such partnerships out of pastoral
concern.”74 Holmes likens pastoral accommodation in this area to
be similar to the space that the church has created for divorced
people, or in certain missiological contexts, for those caught up
in polygamy. Holmes emphasises that pastoral accommodation is
not be confused with a position of afrmation for same-sex sexual
relationships. Rather, if anything, it is driven by the same basic
“loving orientation that must control all Christian theology and
practice,” which leads to “making space for imperfect patterns of
life whilst maintaining a clear witness to perfection.”75 Holmes
further notes two contexts that would require the church to think
hard about pastoral accommodation, the rst of which is pertinent
to our topic of discussion. Within an evangelistic and catechetical
context, suppose a gay couple with children profess faith as a result
of the outreach of the church. Is the breaking up of the family unit
a prerequisite for taking their profession of faith seriously? For
baptism? For membership? And at this point, Holmes highlights
as particularly relevant the experience of the African churches that
had to face up to polygamous converts in their missionary outreach.76
Like Holmes, I do not think generic answers can be offered to these
difcult pastoral situations without sounding platitudinous. And
unlike the western context that Holmes is located in, the Singapore
church is still shielded from these pressurising pastoral situations,
largely because same-sex marriages or unions are not allowed or
recognised according to the laws of our land. But it is certainly
not too early for such deliberations, and guided by the general
tenet articulated by Holmes that “any church practice that is not
215
fundamentally loving in orientation, and loving...of real fallen people
in all their locatedness, is sub-Christian. At the same time, any
church practice that is not centred on the call to (countercultural)
repentance and holiness is sub-Christian,” we call and await on
God through his Spirit to lead us into “church practices that are as
welcoming of outcasts as Jesus was during his earthly ministry and
as implacable in the face of sin as Jesus was then.”77
216 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Dr Roland Chia
BORN THIS WAY?
THE SCIENCE AND POLITICS
OF SEXUALITY
Introduction
At a youth town hall meeting in 2010, US President Barack
Obama was asked if he thought gay and lesbian people have
a choice or are born that way. According to a CNN report, the
President replied: “I don’t think it’s a choice. I think people are born
with a certain make-up.”1 Most Americans seem to agree with their
President. According to the results of a new Gallup Poll published
on 20 May 2015, the majority of Americans believe that gay and
lesbian people are “born, not made”. Over 51 percent of those who
participated in the survey maintain that same-sex orientation is
genetic, a matter of birth and not the result of upbringing or the
environment.2 Lady Gaga has been persuading her fans to embrace
this ‘new orthodoxy’ concerning homosexuality through her 2011
hit “Born This Way”, which some have touted to be the anthem
for the LGBTQI community. Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons of The
Washington Post even describes it as a “hymn for LGBT Christians.”3
We should not think that this is just the opinion of laypersons.
A number of prominent scientists and medical professionals also
believe that homosexuality is innate. They include the neurologist
Simon LaVey,4 the Director of the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric
and Behavioural Studies Kenneth S. Kendler,5 and Former Head
of the Department of Psychology at Queen’s University Vernon L.
Quinsey.6
219
In this essay, I examine some of the most important studies
that have been conducted over the past thirty years to see if they
show conclusively that same-sex attraction is determined solely by
biological factors like the genes or the brain. I evaluate the Kinsey
proposals on sexuality in general, and homosexuality in particular.
I also discuss the circumstances that led the American Psychiatric
Association to change the status of homosexuality, and examine if
this change is premised on conclusive scientic research or propelled
by political pressure from gay activists. And nally, I examine the
various reparative therapies and evaluate their effectiveness in
helping people with same-sex attraction.
THE TWIN STUDIES
We turn our attention rstly to the “twin studies” conducted by John
Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard in the late 1980s. Bailey was
an American psychologist at Northwestern University, and Pillard
was a professor of psychiatry at Boston University. The purpose
of this study is to ascertain whether in a pair of twins if one twin
has homosexual tendencies the other twin would also have similar
tendencies. Bailey and Pillard studied fty-four sets of monozygotic
twins and forty-four sets of dizygotic twins. In a paper published
in 1991 entitled “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation”,
Bailey and Pillard reported a striking concordance rate of 52%
among the identical twins, and 22% among the non-identical twins.7
This means that among the fty-four sets of identical twins, half
of the pairs were homosexuals while for the other half, one twin
is homosexual and the other is heterosexual. Since identical twins
have the same genetic make-up, Bailey and Pillard concluded that
the high concordance rate shows that homosexual orientation must
have a genetic basis. It is important to note that the study by Bailey
and Pillard has to do with statistics. They have not discovered—
or claimed to have discovered—the “gay” gene. But because their
study took place in a context in which there is already considerable
hype about genetics, both the public and the media simply took that
connection for granted.
A number of issues can be raised concerning the assumptions
and methods used in the twin study, especially in the way the
subjects were recruited. Some critics have noted that the study
rests on the assumption that the social experiences of both the
homosexual twins were similar.8 However, if this is not in fact the
case, environmental contributions to the homosexual proclivities of
220 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
the subjects must be taken into serious consideration. In addition,
the way in which the participants of the research were recruited
has also been heavily criticised. Bailey and Pillard recruited their
research subjects by placing an advertisement in a gay magazine.
As Jeffrey Satinover has rightly pointed out, “A common problem
in these kinds of studies is that concordant twins tend, in general,
to respond to research advertisements more frequently than twins
where one is a homosexual and the other a heterosexual.” “[R]eaders
of homosexual magazines’, he adds, ‘are in no way representative of
homosexuals.”9
In 1992, Michael King and Elizabeth McDonald conducted a
similar study in Britain. In their paper entitled “Homosexuals Who
Are Twins: A Study of 46 Probands”, King and McDonald reported
a much lower concordance rate for homosexuality compared to the
study by Bailey and Pillard. There is a concordance of only 25%
among identical twins in the King and McDonald study, compared to
52% in the study conducted by Bailey and Pillard. And among non-
identical twins, King and McDonald reported a 12% concordance,
compared to 22% in the Bailey and Pillard study. These ndings
have led King and McDonald to arrive at a very different conclusion.
They state that:
Discordance for sexual orientation in the monozygotic
pairs conrmed that genetic factors are insufcient
explanation for the development of sexual orientation.10
Even if we accept the results reported by Bailey and Pillard, we must
still challenge their conclusion. As we have seen, based on their
ndings Bailey and Pillard concluded that there must be a genetic
basis for homosexuality orientation. This conclusion is somewhat
puzzling because the results seem to indicate that the environment
must have played a signicant role in homosexuality. If homosexual
orientation is in fact determined by genetic factors—the result of
having a particular genetic code—why is it not the case that all
the identical twins in the study are homosexual? Since identical
twins have the same genetic make-up, why is there only a 50%
concordance rate and not 100%? As Jeffrey Satinover has rightly
pointed out, contrary to what Bailey and Pillard had suggested,
the ndings should lead to the conclusion that homosexuality
is inuenced by nongenetic factors. “This nding alone argues
for the enormous importance of nongenetic factors inuencing
homosexuality,” writes Satinover, “because…in order for something
221
to be genetically determined, as opposed to merely inuenced, the
genetic heritability would need to approach 100 percent.”11
Many critics of the twin study by Bailey and Pillard concur
with Satinover’s assessment. For example, William Byne, the
Director of the Laboratory of Neuroanatomy and Morphometrics
at Mount Sinai School of Medicine argues that “The study clearly
challenges a simple genetic hypothesis and strongly suggests that
environment contributes signicantly to sexual orientation.”12 And
in their article in Technology Review entitled, “Born Gay?” Paul
Billings and Jonathan Beckwith note that
While the authors interpreted their ndings as evidence
for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the
data in fact provide strong evidence for the inuence of
the environment.13
Far from demonstrating convincingly that homosexual orientation
can be attributed to the genes, the Bailey and Pillard study in fact
points to a more complex picture, one in which the environment and
the experiences of the individual subjects play an important, if not
critical, role.
Bailey realised that his original study was not representative.
He conducted a follow-up study with M. P. Dunne and N. G.
Martin in 2000, this time taking the sample from the Australian
Twin Registry. In this second study, Bailey reported a much lower
concordance rate: 20% for identical twins, compared to 52% in
his earlier study. In other words, the results of Bailey’s second
study corresponded more closely to the ndings reported by King
and McDonald. In 2010, an impressive and large-scale study was
conducted using the Swedish Twin Registry. The concordance rate
among identical twins reported in that study is stunningly low, at
only 9.8%.14 Clearly, the different results point to the important role
that nongenetic factors such as the environment, life experiences
and relationships play in homosexuality.
GAY GENE?
We turn next to a study conducted by Dean H. Hamer and his team of
researchers at the National Cancer Institute in the United States in
1993. Unlike the study conducted by Bailey and Pillard, which has to
do with statistics, the Hamer study sought to identify the biological
basis of homosexuality by analysing the chromosome of homosexual
222 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
men. Working with 40 pairs of homosexual brothers, Hamer and
his team discovered that 33 pairs (83%) have the same sequence
of markers in the X chromosome region known as Xq28. In a paper
published in 1993 entitled “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on
the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation”, Hamer concludes
that “One form of male homosexuality is preferentially transmitted
through the maternal side and is generally linked to chromosomal
region Xq28.”15 The press immediately publicised this “discovery”
by churning out a slew of articles with seriously misleading titles.
For example, the New York Times has a front-page article entitled,
“Report Suggests Homosexuality is Linked to Genes.”16 And the
Wall Street Journal headlined their report with “Research Points
Toward a Gay Gene.”17 Although the content of the articles was
more nuanced, their sensational titles captured the imagination
of the public, leading many to think that scientists have nally
discovered the genetic basis for homosexuality.
Hamer’s study is fraught with serious problems associated
with the methodology and sample size. One critical problem with
the study is that there was no control group from the general
population. For example, Hamer did not test the results against
a heterosexual control group. If the same sequence that appeared
in the chromosomal region Xq28 of the homosexual men is also
found in the heterosexual population, it cannot be said to be
responsible for homosexuality. Four months after Hamer published
his paper in Science, critical commentaries began to appear in the
same publication. For example, in a paper entitled “Male Sexual
Orientation and Scientic Evidence” published in the December
1993 issue of Science, Neil Risch and his co-authors state that
Hamer’s study is
...not consistent with any genetic model. ...Neither of these
differences [between homosexuality in maternal versus
paternal uncles or cousins] is statistically signicant.18
On June 25 1995, reports surfaced that Hamer had come under
investigation by the National Institute of Health’s Ofce of Research
Integrity due to allegations that he ignored or suppressed evidence
that contradicted his hypothesis. Although NIH did not publish the
results of the inquiry, Hamer was transferred to another section.19
In April 1999, George Rice and his associates tried to replicate
Hamer’s study by examining the same marker in fty-two gay sibling
pairs. They concluded, in agreement with Risch, that the marker
223
in question is statistically insignicant. In a report published in
Science in 1999, they wrote: “our data does not support the presence
of a gene of large effect inuencing sexual orientation at position
Xq28.”20 Hamer himself had made the following qualications about
his conclusions:
We did not say that Xq28 “underlies” sexuality, only that
it contributed to it in some families. Nor have we said that
Xq28 represents a “major” gene, only that its inuence is
statistically detectable in the population that we studied.21
In the same article, Hamer admits that it is problematic to ascertain
the signicance of the statistics he had obtained from his study in
relation to a trait as complex as sexual orientation. Thus, he writes,
quite honestly that:
...the question of the appropriate signicance level to apply
to a non-Mendelian [that is, polygenic, multiple factors
inuencing expression] trait such as sexual orientation is
problematic.22
Hamer was therefore never as sanguine about his ndings as the
media that exaggerated them. In a book co-authored with Peter
Copeland entitled The Science of Desire (1994) Hamer states,
again quite honestly, that “The pedigree study failed to produce
what we originally hoped to nd: simple Mendelian inheritance. In
fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was
distributed in the obvious sort of pattern Mendel observed in his
pea plants.”23 In the same book Hamer admits that the role played
by the environment in human sexual orientation cannot be ignored.
He writes:
We knew also that genes were only part of the answer.
We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual
orientation, as it does in most if not all behaviours. To most
people, the environment means nonbiological factors such
as family upbringing, life experiences, and religion...24
In 2014, J. Michael Bailey and Alan Sanders of NorthShore
University Health System conducted a study along similar lines
taken by Dean Hamer twenty years earlier on 409 pairs of brothers,
making it the largest study to date.25 They were surprised to nd the
same linkages between homosexuality and the chromosomal region
224 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Xq28 suggested earlier by Hamer. Hamer was delighted with the
result. “Twenty years is a long wait for validation’, he is reported
to have said, ‘but now it’s clear the original results were right. It’s
very nice to see it conrmed.”26 Equally pleased is the neuroscientist
Simon LeVay, whose 1991 study we shall be discussing shortly.
LeVay reportedly said that ‘This study knocks another nail into the
cofn of the “chosen lifestyle” theory of homosexuality.’27
Does this mean that scientists have nally found the genetic
determinant for homosexual orientation? Although the Sanders
study is signicantly larger than the one conducted by Hamer, the
ndings fail to conclusively identify a gene or a cluster of genes
responsible for determining homosexual behaviour. According to
Kelly Servick, behavioural geneticists have found the results of the
Sanders study unconvincing.28 The method that Sanders and his
associates used to establish genetic linkage has been superseded by
other techniques, for example, the genome-wide association (GWA).
Sanders himself acknowledged that GWA is superior to linkage
studies, but felt that he had to use the latter in order to replicate
Hamer’s study. Neil Risch, who had criticised the Hamer study,
also found the ndings of the Sanders study to be statistically
insignicant. In fact, even Sanders admitted that the linkage to
Xq28 in his study has failed to cross the threshold of signicance
as delineated by scientic practice.29 Although he believes that
the chromosomal region Xq28 may have something to do with
homosexual orientation, Sanders insisted that complex traits like
sexual orientation always depend on many factors, both genetic and
environmental.30
In many ways, these attempts to discover the genetic basis
for homosexual orientation have repeatedly conrmed what many
scientists, philosophers and theologians have held for some time.
The distinction must be made between the genotype, which is the
set of genes in our DNA that may be associated with a particular
trait, and the phenotype, which has to do with the actual expression
of that trait. The relationship between the genotype and the
phenotype is not always clear and mostly never straightforward.
That is why scientists have always cautioned against a form of
“genetic determinism” which collapses the phenotype into the
genotype, ignoring nongenetic factors. In fact, the general consensus
is that the genotype underdetermines the phenotype. John Maddox
expresses this well when he writes:
225
The link between genotype and phenotype is not always
unambiguous. A genotype may be a necessary, but not a
sufcient, condition for the phenotype...31
The complex relationships between gene expression, the environment
and behaviour are the focus of a new eld that has emerged, called
‘epigenetics’. Epigenetics looks into the way in which genes react
to their own immediate physical or cellular environment as well
as the way they respond to the external environment and life
experiences of the subject. Genes have the ability to switch on
and off as circumstances dictate. And many have found that gene
expression and behaviour are especially inuenced by early social
experiences. “Social experiences throughout life inuence gene
expression and behaviour, however, early in development these
inuences have a profound effect,” writes Frances Champagne of
Columbia University.32
This means that many important questions are still left
unanswered by the results of the Sanders study. If there is in fact a
link between Xq28 and sexual orientation (and it is still a big “if”),
to what extent does it inuence or determine sexual behaviour?
How do the other genes in the immediate environment interact with
the gene in question? And what about the external environment?
How might this have contributed to sexual preferences? Sanders
himself acknowledges the gravity of these questions. In an interview
conducted by LGBT Science—an organisation dedicated to exploring
the origins of sexual orientation—Sanders quite honestly said:
When people say there is the “gay gene” it’s an
oversimplication. We don’t think there is just one gene
involved. There are a number of genes. We also don’t
think genetics is the whole story. It is not.33
In 2019, Andrea Ganna and his team conducted the largest study
to date on the genetic basis of sexuality.34 Using a method known as
a genome-wide association study (GWAS) the team of researchers
studied the genomes of nearly 500,000 people to look for clues that
would suggest that sexual behaviour is determined by the genes. In
particular they were looking for single letter DNA changes called
single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). If people who exhibit a
particular trait—such as same-sex preference—share certain SNPs,
they theorise, it is probable that these SNPs are somehow related to
that particular trait. The study participants were divided into two
226 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
groups by the researchers: those who had sex with someone with
the same sex and those who did not. Two different analyses were
then made. The rst is to ascertain whether there is a correlation
between people who have common SNPs report similar sexual
behaviours. The researchers evaluated more than a million SNPs but
found that genetics could only explain 8-25 percent of the variation
in sexual behaviour. In the second analysis, the scientists wanted
to ascertain in particular whether certain SNPs were associated
specically with same-sex behaviour. Although they discovered ve
SNPs that were common among individuals who have engaged in
same-sex activity, the ve SNPs could only explain less than 1% of
the variation in sexual behaviour. The researchers concluded the
report of their study thus:
We established that the underlying genetic architecture
is highly complex; there is certainly no single genetic
determinant (sometimes referred to as the “gay gene” in
the media). Rather, many loci with individually small
effects, spread across the whole genome and partly
overlapping in females and males, additively contribute
to individual differences in predisposition to same-
sex sexual behaviour. All measured common variants
together explain only part of the genetic heritability at the
population level and do not allow meaningful prediction of
an individual’s sexual preference.35
Reviewing the study in Nature, Jonathan Lambert states that
the ndings of this massive study ‘shore up the results of earlier,
smaller studies and conrm the suspicions of many scientists: while
sexual preferences have a genetic component, no single gene has
a large effect on sexual behaviours.’36 It must be further stressed
that although there is a genetic link to human sexuality, genetics,
as the report clearly states may explain only up to 25 percent of
same-sex behaviour. This means that although the genes do play a
small part, they cannot be said to determine sexual preferences and
behaviour. Commenting on the study, Dean Hamer—whose project
we discussed above—said that “These are fascinating ndings, but
it’s not really a gay gene study per se.” “I’m now much less excited
about the possibility of getting good biological clues” to sexual
orientation, he adds.37
227
INTRAUTERINE DEVELOPMENTS
A number of studies have been conducted to examine if homosexuality
can be linked to prenatal intrauterine effects such as the hormonal
environment or milieu of the foetus. The hormonal environment in
which a foetus develops is made up of a balance of androgenic (male)
and estrogenic (female) hormones. Scientists are of the view that
this balance is important as it will determine if the foetus develops
typically male or female genitalia, physical characteristics and brain
structures. The masculinising or feminising inuences for each
individual foetus vary because the maternal hormonal responses
are different in each case. These inuences and their effects are
especially seen in different degrees in the brain, although it may
also affect bodily characteristics and behaviour, and, in rare cases,
the genitalia. That is why not only are there observable features of
masculinity in women and femininity in men, some women are more
masculine than the average man and some men are more feminine
than the average woman. As Satinover puts it:
...in spite of the obvious general difference between men
and women, a great many men have somewhat feminine
physical features and a great many women have somewhat
masculine features, all well within normal. Many women
are actually more masculine than many men and many
men are actually more feminine than many women; yet
all these, too, are well within normal.38
Occasionally, however, the inuences go beyond the normal range,
for example, when the genetically male foetus nds himself at the
far side of the feminine end of the spectrum. In such cases, the
genetically male baby will either develop female physical features or
the baby will develop as a hermaphrodite with different proportions
of male and female features.
The question is whether the hormonal environment of the baby
has any part to play in its sexual preference or identity. In 1983,
Günter Drner and his colleagues conducted a study to ascertain
what effects—if any—do prenatal inuences have on sexuality or
sexual identity, especially when the mother experienced stress
during pregnancy. They interviewed two hundred men about
possible stressful events that their mothers may have undergone
during their pregnancies. With the use of the Kinsey scale, these
researchers found that of the men who reported that their mothers
228 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
had experienced stressful events—ranging from moderate to
severe—during pregnancy, 65 percent were homosexual, 25 percent
were bisexual, and 10 percent were heterosexual.39 In a review of
the studies in this eld published in 1991, Drner concludes that
there is an undeniable link between prenatal abnormality in the
hormones due to maternal stress and homosexual behaviour. He
writes:
The higher the androgen levels during brain organisation,
caused by genetic and/or environmental factors, the higher
is the biological predisposition to bi- and homosexuality
or even transsexuality in females and the lower it is in
males. Adrenal androgen excess, leading to heterotypical
sexual orientation and/or gender role behaviour in
genetic females, can be caused by 21-hydroxylase
deciency, especially associated with prenatal stress.
...Testicular androgen deciency in prenatal life, giving
rise to heterotypical sexual orientation and/or gender role
behaviour in genetic males, may be induced by prenatal
and/or maternal or foetal genetic alterations.40
This view, however, did not enjoy wide consensus in the scientic
community. A number of important studies have in fact shown that
that there is no signicant correlation between prenatal stress and
sexual identity.41
In 2002, a study was conducted by Melissa Hines and her
colleagues to ascertain the relationship between prenatal stress
during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy and the
sexual orientation of the child.42 They found that the relationship
between mothers during pregnancy to male-typical behaviours
in their daughters at the age of 42 months is very slight, and to
female-typical behaviours in their sons to be virtually non-existent.
In addition, unlike in the case between male and female, no
hormonal difference has ever been detected between homosexuals
and heterosexuals no matter how careful and precise the tests.
In 1984, Heino Meyer-Bahlburg reviewed twenty-ve studies on
the relationship between hormonal levels and sexual preference
and reported that the majority of them (twenty studies) found no
signicant difference between homosexual and heterosexual men.43
This has led scientists like Byne and Parsons to conclude that
“Data pertaining to the possible neurochemical differences between
homosexual and heterosexual individuals are lacking.”44
229
Two other considerations would also show that Drner’s
conclusion is untenable. Even before the so-called sex hormones
such as testosterone and estrogen were isolated, scientists believed
that homosexuality is caused by the structure and/or secretions of
the sex glands and have sought to “cure” homosexuality in men (less
so in women) on the basis of this theory. Scientists and doctors have
attempted to change the sexual orientation of their patients through
surgery and hormonal treatments, including castration and, in some
cases, even the implantation of another man’s testicles.45 However,
these attempts have been unsuccessful. In fact, as Edward Stein
reports, “most gay men who have been treated with testosterone
to change the object of their sexual desire experienced an increase
in their sex drive without any change in its object.”46 The second
consideration has to do with the ndings of the twin studies
discussed above. If maternal inuences in utero play an important
role in the sexuality of twins—especially monozygotic twins—the
studies should show a much higher concordance rate. However, as
the special report on sexuality published by The New Atlantis has
rightly concluded, “The relatively weak concordance rates in the
twin studies suggest that prenatal hormones, like genetic factors,
do not play a strongly determinative role in sexual orientation.”47
One of the most important studies on disorders of sexual
development is that on Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH).
This is a condition where people with XX sex chromosomes have
high levels of androgen released into their blood stream. In most
cases, these individuals will be born with ambiguous genitalia.48
Some scientists are of the view that females with CAH are less
likely to be heterosexual than females without CAH because of
the presence of above-average levels of androgens. In addition,
females with more severe forms of CAH are most likely to be non-
heterosexual compared with female who have milder forms of the
condition.49 However, when the different results of the studies
are compared, the association between the presence of CAH and
homosexual orientation is more ambivalent and less conclusive.
Some CAH studies report that half of the subjects have homoerotic
and heteroerotic attractions, while others report a much lower
incidence or none at all. Edward Stein has suggested some reasons
why evidence of the correlation between CAH and homosexuality
(among females) is hitherto inconclusive. Firstly, women with CAH
are not good models for lesbians since most lesbians have female-
typical genitalia. Secondly, a prenatal hormonal theory is not
230 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
required to explain homoerotic desire in women with CAH. “Women
born with atypical genitalia”, Stein explains, “are likely to have been
treated atypically by their parents, family and friends. Further,
such women are more likely to have concerns about their gender
given the role that genitalia play in our notion of gender.” Following
Byne and Parsons,50 Stein concludes that these factors “are likely to
affect the relative percentage of CAH versus non-CAH women who
report sexual desire for people of the same sex-gender.”51
HARDWIRED?
While Hamer, Sanders and their associates focused on the genetic
determination of homosexual orientation, others have turned to
neuroscience to see if sexual orientation is hardwired in the human
brain. In 1991, Simon LeVay of the Salk Institute for Biological
Studies in San Diego conducted an important study that aims to
discover if there is a neurological basis for same-sex attraction.
LeVay, who is an openly gay man, studied the brains of two groups
of men: (1) homosexual men, and (2) men he presumed to be
heterosexual. He claimed to have discovered “subtle but signicant
differences” in the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men that
may be responsible for same-sex attraction.52
LeVay focused his study on the area of the brain called the
hypothalamus. This is the section of the brain that is responsible
for the production of the body’s essential hormones that control
the different cells and organs. The hypothalamus also governs
important psychologic functions such as thirst, hunger, sleep and
sex drive. LeVay further narrowed his focus on a cluster of cells
in the hypothalamus called the third interstitial nucleus of the
anterior hypothalamus (INAH-3). He found that this cluster of
cells is smaller in homosexual men than in heterosexual men, and
concluded that this has signicant bearing on male homosexual
orientation. As to be expected, the media hastily announced that
scientists have shown that homosexuality is hardwired in the brains
of some men on the basis of these ndings.
There were, however, some serious problems with LeVay’s
study. In the rst place, he worked with a very small sample—only
19 homosexual men and 16 allegedly heterosexual men. The claim
that the second group comprises solely heterosexual men has been
called to question. LeVay admitted later that he was not entirely
sure if all the men in the second group were heterosexual because
231
he did not investigate their sexual histories.53 In addition, six of
the “heterosexual” men died of AIDS. Given the statistical fact that
very few heterosexual men in San Francisco contracted AIDS in the
early 1990s, it is not improbable that some of the men in LeVay’s
second group were either homosexuals or bisexuals. The brains of
these men were examined post-mortem, which explains why it is
impossible to obtain their sexual histories. In their evaluation of
LeVay’s study, William Byne and Bruce Parsons concluded that
“LeVay’s study can be faulted for a number of technical aws, such
as variable method of tissue xation, inadequate sexual histories,
and small sample sizes.”54
LeVay himself recognised the limitations and inadequacies of
his study. In Queer Science, which was published in 1996, LeVay
quite honestly admitted to signicant methodological issues
associated with his study. He explains:
But it is important to stress limitations of the study. First,
the observations were made on adults who had already
been sexually active for years. To make a really compelling
case, one would have to show that these neuroanatomical
differences existed early in life, preferably at birth...55
In other words, the study is unable to answer questions about the
aetiology (the origination and development) of these neuroanatomical
differences. But there is another very serious problem with LeVay’s
samples. Most of the homosexual men whose brains LeVay studied
died of AIDS. In the same book, LeVay writes:
Another limitation arises because most of the gay men
whose brains I studied died of complications of AIDS.
Although I am condent that the small size INAH3
in these men was not an effect of the disease, there is
always a possibility that gay men who died of AIDS is not
representative of the entire population of gay men.56
LeVay says that he is condent that the “small size INAH3 in
these men are not the effect of” AIDS. This statement, however,
is unpersuasive because LeVay does not offer the reasons for his
condence. Neither has he offered any reasons why the possibility
that the abnormality is the result of AIDS should be ruled out.
Hypothetically speaking, even if LeVay has shown irrefutably
and conclusively that there is a connection between INAH3 and
232 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
homosexuality, he has not established that it is indeed responsible
for homoerotism or same-sex attraction. The distinction between
causality and correlation is an important issue in neuroscience.
Perhaps an example could illustrate this. Take psychopathology.
There have been many studies conducted on psychopaths,
especially the relationship between brain abnormality and
psychopathological behaviour. With the help of state-of-the-art
neuroimaging technology, scientists are able to establish the
link between dysfunctions of the amygdala and frontal lobe with
psychopathy.57 But although many agree that there is a correlation
between these brain abnormalities and psychopathic behaviour,
there is no agreement as to whether such behaviours are in fact
caused by the brain abnormalities. Thus, in his discussion on the
diagnostic signicance of neuroimaging, Walter Glannon maintains
that although such studies “can show correlations between normal
and abnormal brain states and mental states, it cannot provide a
causal explanation of the aetiology and pathogenesis of neurological
and psychiatric diseases.”58 Neuroplasticity suggests that it could
very well be the other way around. (Neuroplasticity postulates that
behaviour can change the structure of the brain.)59 This means that
the size of INAH3 in homosexual men could well be the result of
their sexual habits and behaviour. An instructive analogy would be
an important NIH study which shows that the part of the brain that
controls the reading nger of a Braille reader is larger than the part
that controls the non-reading nger, clearly indicating that certain
behaviours can change brain anatomy.60
LeVay was initially quite cautious with his conclusions. In an
interview with David Nimmons in March 1994, LeVay qualied his
conclusions and ndings in this way:
It is important to stress what I didn’t nd. I did not prove
that homosexuality is genetic, or nd a genetic cause for
being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way,
the most common mistake people make in interpreting my
work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.61
However, LeVay gradually became more convinced that it is the
genes that determine sexual orientation. Thus, in response to
the Sanders study discussed above, LeVay could say: “This study
knocks another nail into the cofn of the ‘chosen lifestyle’ theory
of homosexuality.” He adds, rather dogmatically: “Yes, we have a
choice in life, to be ourselves or to conform to someone else’s idea
233
of normality, but being straight, bisexual or gay, or none of these,
is a central part of who we are, thanks in part to the DNA we are
born with.” It must be pointed out, however, that such statements
are un-scientic because they ignore the many studies whose
results repeatedly and overwhelmingly demonstrate the crucial
contributions of the environment and life experiences to homosexual
behaviour. Stanton L. Jones exposes LeVay’s dogmatism when he
writes:
The problem with Simon LeVay’s argument for an
exclusively biological understanding of causation is
not only that he overestimates the power of identiable
biological aetiological variables, but that he refuses to
engage all the considerable evidence for psychosocial
contributors, and that he attributes the unexplained
remainder that his biological factors cannot explain only
to chance and various types of biological static.62
THE KINSEY STUDIES
Some of the most inuential studies that brought about the sexual
revolution in the West, especially in America, are those conducted
by Alfred C. Kinsey and his associates and published in 1948 as
Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male.63 In a FAQ on Sexuality
published on its website in November 2014, the Health Promotion
Board of Singapore based its understanding of human sexuality
substantially, although not exclusively, on Kinsey’s work.64 Alfred
C. Kinsey was an Indiana zoologist, an expert on the gall wasp.
In the middle of the twentieth century, Kinsey and his associates
turned their attention to the study of human sexuality and sexual
habits, and produced two reports65 that rocked the conservative
American society of the time and ipped American sexual mores
and morality upside down.
Here are some shocking ndings in the Kinsey Reports: 85% of
men and 45% of women had premarital sex; 50% of men and 40%
women had been unfaithful in marriage; 69% of men had been with
prostitutes; and 17% of farm boys had sex with animals. The Male
Study received raved reviews from the media: Life, Time, Newsweek
and the New Yorker carried sensational articles on the Report.
The Kinsey Reports on sexuality are seriously awed because
of the outrageously skewed samples that were used. In the Male
Study of 1948, Kinsey and his associates surveyed scores of men
234 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
to study their sexual habits, making it one of the most extensive
surveys on male sexuality conducted. The problem, however, is that
a signicant percentage of the men surveyed (about 30%) were prison
inmates, many of whom sex offenders. One of Kinsey’s collaborators,
Wardell B. Pomeroy, reported that they took histories of 1,400
imprisoned sex offenders. And out of this group, 317 were sexually
abused as children.66 In addition, 75% of Kinsey’s male subjects
volunteered to give their sexual histories. The use of volunteers in
any study on sexuality is highly problematic because the result is
seldom representative of the general population. Volunteers also
generally tend to exaggerate their sexual prowess and activities.
The volunteers in the Kinsey studies were two or four times more
sexually active than the average male, which means that the results
stood outside the mainstream. W. Allen Wallis notes that “the
entire method of collecting and presenting the statistics underlie Dr
Kinsey’s conclusions ...There are six major aspects of any statistical
research, and Kinsey fails four.”67
The statistics in the Kinsey Reports do more than simply
present the brute facts about the sexual behaviour of Americans
in the 1940s and 1950s. The Reports are unreliable because they
seriously distort the sexual habits of Americans in order to push a
specic agenda. They attempt to promote a certain philosophy and
outlook and to advance the proposition that the sexual behaviours
that were once considered deviant are in fact “biologically” normal.
They carry a message that says that human beings should not feel
inhibited or guilty for acting on their “natural” impulses, and that
whatever inhibitions or feelings of guilt that might have arisen
are due to social conventions which science is now challenging.
The assumptions that undergirded Kinsey’s approach, which are
sometimes ignored or papered over, are also highly questionable.
As Paul Robinson puts it: “[Kinsey] evaluated every form of sexual
activity in terms of its role in the sexual lives of the lower species,
and he frequently concluded that outlawed sexual practices were
entirely natural because they conformed to ‘basic mammalian
patterns’ ”.68 Thus, in the Male Report Kinsey argues that it is
society that imposes articial distinctions on normal biological
impulses and behaviour such as “right and wrong, licit and illicit,
normal and abnormal, acceptable and unacceptable in our social
organisation.”69
Kinsey also introduced a novel approach to understanding
human sexuality. Before Kinsey, people are generally thought to
235
be either heterosexual or homosexual, with heterosexuality being
the dominant orientation. Kinsey rejected this binary approach and
presented a view of human sexuality as uid or elastic. According
to Kinsey, people are rarely strictly heterosexual or homosexual.
Rather, human sexuality is on a continuum. Kinsey developed a
way of gauging sexual preferences and behaviour, which is now
famously known as the Kinsey Scale:
0 Exclusively heterosexual with no homosexual
1 Predominantly heterosexual, but more incidentally
homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally
homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4 Predominantly homosexual, but incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally
heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual70
A careful study of the Scale would show that exclusive heterosexuality
is only at 0. Anyone falling between 1-6 (which, according to Kinsey,
would be the majority of the population) would have different
degrees of homosexual inclination. In this way, the Kinsey Scale
has done much to normalise homosexuality. However, although the
Scale is widely used as a standard for evaluating sexuality, on closer
inspection it is nothing but conjecture based on skewed research
and biased use of data. Like all of Kinsey’s work, the Scale attempts
to impose his understanding of human sexuality, and is therefore
dangerously misleading.
Besides the Kinsey Scale, the assertion in the Male Report that
10% of men between the ages of 16 and 55 are homosexual is also
extremely problematic. Although these statistics originally have to
do with American society, it was soon taken to be representative
of many countries and societies. This idea that homosexuals make
up 10% of every population, however, is a myth. And it must be
exposed as such. According to the National Health Statistics
Reports published in July 2014, only 1.6% of the 43,557 American
adults surveyed are identied as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% as
bisexual. 96.6% are heterosexual.71 From 1990 to 2010 about thirty
surveys have been conducted in Europe based on representative
236 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
samples. The results show that homosexuality and bisexuality
constitute only 2-3% of the population. Neil and Briar Whitehead
have helpfully summarised the ndings of these studies as follows:
About 1% of the adult male population is exclusively homosexual,
and 0.6% of the population is exclusively lesbians. If bisexuals are
included, the gure rises to 2.9 ± 2.0% for men and 1.8 ± 1.3% for
women. This means that only around 2.4% of the total population is
homosexual, lesbian or bisexual.72 It is interesting to note that even
some gay and lesbian activists reject the 10 percent gure proposed
by Kinsey. For example, in his book City of Friends Simon LaVey
states that “Kinsey’s sampling and interviewing procedures would
not be considered scientically valid today. More recent studies have
consistently produced gures lower than 10 percent.”73 In similar
vein, Camille Paglia, who identies herself as a libertarian and a
lesbian, writes: “The 10 percent gure, servilely repeated by the
media, was pure propaganda, and it made me, as a scholar despise
gay activists for their unscrupulous disregard for the truth.”74
GAY POLITICS
I turn now, albeit very briey, to the story of how the American
Psychiatric Association (APA) changed its diagnosis of
homosexuality. In 1974, the APA removed homosexuality from the
list of pathological psychiatric conditions published in the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Illness (DSM) II. Its revised verdict
states that “homosexuality per se is one form of sexual behaviour
and, like other forms of sexual behaviour which are not themselves
psychiatric disorders, is not listed in the nomenclature of mental
disorders.”75 However just 10 years before this publication, in 1963,
the Committee on Public Health of the New Academy of Medicine
quite clearly and categorically stated that:
...homosexuality is indeed an illness. The homosexual is
an emotionally disturbed individual who has not acquired
the normal capacity to develop satisfying heterosexual
relations...76
What happened in the intervening years that led the medical
community to change its mind about homosexuality in such a radical
way? One would have thought that such a change would only be
warranted if there is conclusive scientic evidence that homosexual
orientation is innate. However, what compelled APA to change its
position on homosexuality was not science but politics.
237
In his book Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The
Politics of Diagnosis, Ronald Bayer describes how gay activists had
forced APA to overturn its position on homosexuality. Ronald Bayer
is Professor of Socio-Medical Sciences at the Columbia University’s
Mailman School of Public Health. Bayer reported that in 1970, gay
activists were determined to exert pressure on APA to revise its
classication of homosexuality by disrupting its annual meetings.77
He relates an incident where gay activists disrupted and challenged
a prominent psychoanalyst Irving Bieber while he was presenting
his paper at an APA meeting. He reports:
[Bieber’s] efforts to explain his position...were met with
derisive laughter...[One] protester...called him a m………
.r. ‘I’ve read your book, Dr Bieber, and if that book talked
about black people the way it talks about homosexuals,
you’d be drawn and quartered and you’d deserve it.’78
To cut the long story short, the gay activists managed to get
an audience with the APA’s Committee on Nomenclature and
convinced it to eventually concede that homosexuality is not a sign
of psychiatric disorder. In addition, the National Gay Task Force
sent letters to 30,000 members of the APA to garner support for
the change. Under such formidable pressure, the majority of the
members voted in favour of the new classication of homosexuality.
In his book, Ronald Bayer chillingly states that this triumph was
not the result of science but of ideology and prevailing cultural
sensibilities:
The result was not a conclusion based upon an
approximation of the scientic truth as dictated by reason,
but was instead an action demanded by the ideological
temper of the times.79
Albert Dean Byrd and Stony Olsen offer the same assessment when
they write:
Thus, the only ofcial communication, on the vote, a
supposed search for the truth, came from the activists,
who later even admitted that they rammed the change
through. The result was inevitable, and the headlines
announced that homosexuality has been cured. The
stigma of a disease was gone due to politics.80
238 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Assessing the whole incident, the American psychiatrist,
psychoanalyst, physician and author Charles W. Socarides states
that the decision
...remains a chilling reminder that if scientic principles
are not fought for, they can be lost—a disillusioning
warning that unless we make no exceptions to science,
we are subject to the snares of political factionalism
and the propagation of untruths to an unsuspecting and
uninformed public, to the rest of the medical profession
and to the behavioural sciences.81
Once homosexuality is no longer an illness, it must no longer be
treated as a taboo. And once homosexuality is no longer a taboo,
a new “taboo” emerges. The postulation that homosexuality is a
disorder that can be treated or cured is now prohibited. To make
such an assertion is to discriminate against gays and lesbians
whose sexual orientation must be seen to be innate or genetic and
not the result of psychological pathology. New neologisms were
subsequently introduced to justify clinical practices. Ego-syntonic
homosexuals are those who are at peace with their homosexuality,
while ego-dystonic homosexuals are those who struggle with their
homosexuality. According to APA, both forms of homosexuality
must not be regarded as disorders, but people who belong to the
latter group—the ego-dystonic—should undergo “treatment”.
Treatment, however, does not have to do with helping them
overcome their same-sex attraction. Rather it has to do with helping
them to accept their homosexuality, and to cope with and overcome
what has been described as their ‘internalised homophobia’.
Accompanying this trend, gay activists have introduced a very
powerful narrative that attempts to reverse homosexuality
through reparative therapies have been largely unsuccessful. This
narrative is so persuasive that it has almost become mainstream
dogma, which is a classic example of circular reasoning (circulus in
probando): homosexuality is natural and therefore irreversible. It is
irreversible because it is natural.
239
But all this simply goes against the facts, which demonstrates
quite starkly that “scientic consensus” is not always based on the
evidence. Above is a table of the success rates of reparative therapies
offered by secular psychiatrists and psychologists. Let’s look at
them randomly. In the Bieber study, out of the 106 homosexuals
who were treated, 44 or 42% were successful in overcoming their
homosexual attractions. The Hatterer study, which surveyed a
higher number of homosexuals who have undergone therapy,
produced similar results: out of 143 that were treated, 67 or 47%
successfully overcame their same-sex attraction. The highest score
in the table—at 82% - is the study conducted by Freeman and Meyer,
although they worked with much fewer cases. If we look at the
composite numbers, we nd that the results are quite encouraging.
Out of 504 homosexuals who underwent therapy, 262 successfully
overcame their homosexual tendencies. This is 51.98%. The results
clearly show that it is simply not true to say that homosexuality is
irreversible.
240 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
CONCLUSION
The many studies that have been conducted over thirty years have
all failed to show convincingly, much less conclusively, that a gene
or a cluster of genes are directly responsible for homosexuality. As
Jeffrey Satinover has put it: “hard science is far from providing
an explanation of homosexuality, let alone one that reduces it to
genetic determinism.” Instead, these studies have shown that
homosexual behaviour is a multifactorial phenomenon. Biological
factors inuence same-sex attraction only in a predisposing way.
Other factors such as familial and environmental conditions and
social experiences make signicant contributions. In addition, given
the fact that reparative therapies have enjoyed some success, it is
not unreasonable to say that non-genetic factors appear to play a
critical role in homosexuality. Neil and Briar Whitehead summarise
our discussion well when they write:
Here is a very basic truth. There is nothing xed or
nal about the homosexual orientation and its natural
expression, homosexual behaviour. No one has to stay
homosexual or lesbian, in orientation or behaviour...
Homosexuality is not inborn, not genetically dictated, not
immutable.95
241
Dominic Chan
HOMOSEXUALITY,
PUBLIC POLICY AND THE LAW
Introduction
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women
who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction
toward persons of the same sex.1 The Catholic Church teaches that
homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, as they are contrary
to the natural law2 and that under no circumstances can they be
approved, but at the very same time, afrms that those who have
same-sex attractions or tendencies “must be accepted with respect,
compassion and sensitivity”, and that “[e]very sign of unjust
discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”3 How do we
practically live out the above exhortations when it comes to the
interaction between homosexuality, public policy and the law?
This essay examines the above issue by considering three main
questions. First, if homosexual acts are permitted, promoted or even
protected, what is the common good which will suffer (see Part A
below)? Second, what are the key arguments which have led to the
proliferation of LGBT “rights” worldwide (see Part B below)? Third,
what are the changes in the realm of public policy and law which are
necessary in the long run in Singapore in order to further protect
and promote the common good (see Part C below)?
As a preliminary point, it is inaccurate to equate objections
to homosexual acts as a Christian crusade against sin and the
imposition of biblical standards of conduct on unwilling and non-
243
Christian actors with same-sex attractions. First, while the Church
teaches that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can
in no case be approved of, the “culpability [of those who engage in
homosexual acts] will be judged with prudence”, and the judgement
of Scripture “does not...permit us to conclude that all those who suffer
from this anomaly are personally responsible for it”.4 In other words,
objections to homosexual acts is not a declaration or imposition of
spiritual guilt,5 nor should it shift or divert attention away from the
constant call for all Christians to personal conversion.6 Second, just
because objections to certain acts are consistent with or traceable to
biblical principles does not mean that they are irrational or that they
should be rejected outright. For example, the prohibition against
murder and theft, and the concept of the inherent and equal dignity
of all men that deserves unconditional respect,7 are consistent with
or traceable to biblical principles – yet, wholly secular persons can
also hold such views without relying on the Bible or the Church.
Similarly, in Singapore, the objection against homosexual acts can
be held by both the deeply religious8 (the adherents of the various
religions in Singapore) as well as the wholly secular.9 In any event,
“[a]ll views, whether religious and secular or a hybrid, should be
welcomed in openly debating morally controversial questions, each
assessed on its merits”, although ultimately the “persuasiveness of
any view turns on its cogency”.10 Third, it should be emphasised
that this critique of the homosexual cause is not an attack upon
those with same-sex attractions, nor is it generated by any animus
against them.11 Many of us personally know those with same-sex
attractions. They are dear and close friends, colleagues or relatives—
and this must not change. This essay is not about them and is not
meant to offend them, but rather, what society must do to protect
and promote the common good.
Part A: The Common Good–What, Why and Who
If homosexual acts are permitted, promoted or even protected, what
is the common good which will suffer? Chiey, the institution of
marriage and family, i.e. that marriage is between a man and a
woman, that such marriages are the optimal condition for children
to be born into and raised, and that such stable family units are the
basic building blocks of our society. Interestingly and importantly,
Singapore already has a public policy in favour of this common good.
In this regard, the Singapore High Court (Family Division) in UKM
244 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
v Attorney-General (“UKM v AG”)12 held that there is a public policy
in favour of parenthood within marriage. This public policy means
that “the position to be encouraged is that the family unit should
be understood as comprising a married heterosexual couple having
and raising children, and in addition, this should be regarded as
the optimal parenting conditions under which a child here may be
raised.”13
The rst piece of evidence which the Court relied on to make
this holding is the speech of Prime Minister Mr. Lee Hsien Loong
during the 2007 Parliamentary debates on whether to retain s377A14
(“2007 Debate”), where he endorsed specically the traditional
understanding of a family as a married heterosexual couple having
and raising children within their household, and that it was family
units, so understood, which together contributed to the preservation
of a stable society,15 grounding this in traditional/conservative
values. He put it in the following terms:
“Many Members have said this, but it is true and it is worth
saying again. Singapore is basically a conservative society.
The family is the basic building block of our society.
It has been so and, by policy, we have reinforced this and
we want to keep it so. And by ‘family’ in Singapore, we
mean one man one woman, marrying, having children
and bringing up children within that framework of
a stable family unit.
...So, we should strive to maintain a balance, to uphold
a stable society with traditional, heterosexual family
values, but with space for homosexuals to live their lives
and contribute to the society.”16
Since 2007, the Government has continued to promote the policy
that parenthood within marriage is the desired social norm and the
traditionally-dened family unit is the building block of society.17
Further evidence for this policy is found in various statutes and
regulations.18 Importantly, this policy is entirely consistent with the
Christian concept of marriage and family, and provides yet another
example of how both religious as well as secular persons can hold
the same values or aspect of the common good.
We pause here to examine the judicial denitions of “common
good” and “public policy”, which are closely related. Public policy
may be invoked in narrowly dened situations as part of a balancing
245
exercise in deciding whether a right claimed in Court should be
given effect.19 It refers to considerations directed not at doing justice
as between the parties to the immediate dispute between the court,
but rather, “to further interests of the community as a whole”.20 It
“focuses on what is good for the community at large”.21 “The core of
the concept of public policy, therefore, is that it involves arguments
about the public or common good.”22 By recognising that Singapore
has a public policy in favour of parenthood within marriage, the
Court has effectively recognised, at least from a judicial perspective,
that this is a common good.23 However, it is important to note that
the Christian concept of the “common good”24 differs conceptually
and practically in signicant ways as compared to the judicial or
Governmental understanding of this term.25 Despite the differences,
we arrive at the same outcome: marriage and family (as dened
above) is for the common good of Singapore.26 From here, a closely
connected component of this common good may be deduced, namely,
that every child has a right to and to be raised by both a mother and
a father27 (“Children’s Right to a Mother and a Father”).
If homosexual acts are permitted, promoted or even protected,
the common good of marriage and family28 will suffer or diminish.
In this regard, observing the trends worldwide, the LGBT
movement seeks not just the decriminalisation of male homosexual
acts in private,29 but also the normalisation of homosexual acts
(and relationships/unions) as a cultural norm in society, schools
and in the media, and from thereon, the elevation of homosexual
unions to civil unions or partnerships30 (which inevitably leads to
the deconstruction of marriage, as the UK example demonstrates31)
or worse, to the status of same-sex “marriage” which comes along
with the demand for or “right” to have children through adoption
or surrogacy (where by denition and by design, such children will
not have both a mother and a father32), as well as the silencing of
contrary views by way of hate-speech legislation or through the
unregulated “self-help” route of social media mobs and the cancel
culture.
Narrowing it down to the Singapore context, which echoes
the global LGBT movement, the Pink Dot Declarations publicly
seek the repeal of s377A,33 the registration of LGBT organisations
to promote the homosexual agenda,34 ensuring children receive
homosexuality-afrming “accurate sex education”,35 as well as the
normalisation of the LGBTQ lifestyle in mainstream media.36 They
have yet to publicly demand for same-sex marriage or the “right”
246 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
to have children through adoption or surrogacy, but it is inevitable
that they will do so eventually.37
As can be seen, there is far more at stake than merely
objecting to homosexual acts. To allow homosexual acts (and the
homosexual relationships so closely connected with such acts) to
become normative (or even promoted or protected) in society will
acclimate Singaporeans to think of marriage as nothing more
than a government-recognised pact of affection and commitment,
leading the way to same-sex marriage.38 In Part B below, we
will see how the uncritical acceptance (or assumption) of sexual
orientation immutability and the expansion of the “right” to privacy
and personal autonomy are key arguments associated with the
decriminalisation of same-sex acts and the rapid proliferation of
LGBT “rights” worldwide. We will then examine in Part C how
vulnerable Singapore is to similar sudden changes, and what needs
to be done to protect and promote the common good of marriage and
family.
Part B: The Alleged “Immutability” of Sexual Orientation
& Other Key Arguments, and Their Impact on Public Policy
& Law
Prominent supporters of the repeal of s377A rely on the argument
or give the impression that sexual orientation is immutable (i.e.
unchangeable), with some referring to scientic evidence to support
their argument.39 Several of the Pink Dot declarations also assume
or assert the immutability of sexual orientation.40 Left unchallenged,
assumed or uncritically accepted, it is extremely powerful to shape
opinions on whether homosexual acts should be decriminalised,
as well as to inuence policy, judicial or legislative decisions. The
impression given (or the assumption made) is that the immutability
of sexual orientation is a settled scientic fact. But is this really
true?
An academic research article (a systematic review of past
research) published in 2016 by Lisa M. Diamond and Clifford J.
Rosky,41 two prominent LGB academicians,42 concluded that
arguments based on the immutability of sexual orientation are
unsupported by science:
“[A]rguments based on the immutability of sexual
orientation are unscientic, given that scientic research
does not indicate that sexual orientation is uniformly
247
biologically determined at birth or that patterns of same-
sex and other-sex attractions remain xed over the life
course”.43
Three points may be highlighted from this article. First, the authors
assert that it is particularly critical to consider bisexuality, since
their existence and diversity is troubling to the rigid categorical
distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality on which
immutability debates have been premised.44 Second, on the issue
of genetic contributions to sexual orientation, they forcefully assert
that “the current scientic revolution in our understanding of the
human epigenome challenges the very notion of being ‘born gay,’
along with the notion of being ‘born’ with any complex trait.”45
Rather, “our genetic legacy is dynamic, developmental, and
environmentally embedded.”46 At best, it may be said that genes
may contribute to but do not determine, sexual orientation.47 Third,
they did not rule out that same-sex attraction sometimes change
on their own,48 and that some individuals perceive a role for choice
in their sexual orientation.49 The authors then candidly asked
this thought-provoking question, “Given the weight of evidence
challenging (or at least complicating) the immutability argument,
why does it continue to hold sway in public discourse on sexual-
minority rights”?50 With great honesty, they provide the answer:
“Some advocates clearly believe that immutability claims
are necessary to advocate effectively for sexual minorities.
For example, Sullivan (1995) argued forthrightly that to
achieve equality, sexual minorities had to insist on ‘the
involuntary nature of their condition’ (p.170).”51
“...the perception that immutability claims are
fundamentally linked to sexual-minority civil rights is so
pervasive that public gures who question immutability
arguments are reexively considered homophobic...”52
Diamond and Rosky then conclude with this “stunning admission”:53
“Yet these examples simply underscore the fact that
immutability arguments have more to do with dueling
cultural values than they have to do with science.54 Not
only has the relevant science been misrepresented by both
sides, but immutability arguments rely on unspoken legal
and moral premises whose validity must be questioned.”55
248 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
There are others who have written to conrm that the “born that
way” hypothesis is “simply...not supported by science”,56 and to
debunk the myth of sexual orientation immutability.57 Moving
forward, the malleability of “sexual orientation”58 should be
prominently acknowledged (or at the very least debated, instead
of immutability being presumed or imposed) by everyone engaging
in public discourse, political advocacy or legal challenge pertaining
to s377A and related LGBT issues.59 In this regard, studying other
countries who have gone before us, whenever sexual orientation
immutability is unthinkingly assumed or uncritically accepted,
it has become the “scientic”, political and legal foundation not
only for the decriminalisation of homosexual sex, but also led or
substantially contributed to same-sex marriage, amongst other
LGBT “rights”. Several examples come to mind.
The rst example is from Canada. In Egan v Canada (1995),60
the Supreme Court of Canada held that sexual orientation is an
analogous ground of discrimination under the equality rights
provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.61
In arriving at this decision, the appellants’ argument of sexual
orientation immutability was uncritically accepted by the Court,
without reference to any scientic studies. It did not help that the
Attorney General of Canada conceded this critical point.62
Less than 20 years later, the Court of Appeal for Ontario in
Halpern v Canada (2003)63 held that the existing common law
denition of marriage (between one man and one woman) violated
the applicants’ equality rights on the basis of sexual orientation
under s.15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and
reformulated the denition of marriage as “the voluntary union for
life of two persons to the exclusion of all others”.64 In arriving at this
decision, the Court relied on the decision of Egan v Canada, and
held that the “common law denition of marriage creates a formal
distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples on
the basis of their sexual orientation”, and sexual orientation is an
analogous ground that comes under the umbrella of protection in
s.15 of the Charter.65 In other words, the assumed immutability of
sexual orientation became the foundation for same-sex marriage
in Ontario. Subsequently, most of the courts in Canada’s other
provinces also legalised same-sex marriage in their jurisdictions
before the federal government passed the Civil Marriage Act in
2005, which legalised same-sex marriage across Canada.66
249
The second example is that of India. In the 2018 landmark
decision of Navtej Singh Johar & Ors v Union of India Ministry of
Law and Justice Secretary (“Navtej Singh”),67 the Supreme Court
of India held that s377 of the India Penal Code (“IPC”), insofar as
it penalises any consensual sexual relation between two adults,
be it homosexuals, heterosexuals or lesbians, cannot be regarded
as constitutional.68 The Court’s uncritical acceptance of sexual
orientation immutability as a settled scientic fact69 was one of the
important (if not critical) foundations of its decision. The Court cited
the views or positions of the Yogyakarta Principles,70 the American
Psychological Association (“APA”),71 the UNHCR,72 Leonard Sax,73
and Egan v Canada.74 However, not a single medical or scientic
study or article which contradict or at least challenge immutability
was cited, let alone considered, by the Indian Supreme Court in
arriving at its decision. The word “sex” in Article 15 of the Indian
Constitution (non-discrimination) was also read widely to include
“sexual orientation”.75 This is the same foundation/“logic” in Egan v
Canada which had subsequently led to the acceptance of same-sex
marriage by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Halpern.
The third and fourth examples relate to America and Taiwan.
In the landmark US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v Hodges
(2015) (“Obergefell”)76 which recognised a constitutional right to
same-sex marriage, the immutability of sexual orientation was
uncritically afrmed, though ultimately, they were not invoked
as the primary basis for the judgement itself.77 Instead, the
central thrust of the US Supreme Court’s decision is based on the
fundamental liberty or freedom to choose to marry someone of the
same sex (as derived from the Due Process Clause).78 Nevertheless,
immutability of sexual orientation certainly played a highly
signicant role in the Court’s decision to ensure that the “full
promise of liberty” must necessarily extend to same-sex marriage.
This is evident from the Court’s observation that the petitioners’
“immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only
real path to this profound commitment [in marriage]”.79 The Court
also observed that “[o]nly in more recent years have psychiatrists
and others recognised that sexual orientation is both a normal
expression of human sexuality and immutable.”80 This quote from
Obergefell was relied on by Taiwan’s Constitutional Court in 201781
as one of two authorities for the proposition that “sexual orientation
is an immutable characteristic that is resistant to change.”82 The
Court went on to rule that Taiwan’s marriage laws, which only
250 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
provided for the permanent union between a man and a woman83
without providing that two persons of the same sex may also create
an identical permanent union, was unconstitutional.84 The Court
required / ordered the authorities to amend or enact the laws as
appropriate with this ruling within two years, failing which same-
sex couples may proceed to register their marriage in any event.85
It is interesting to note that one of the two petitioners was the
Taipei City Government,86 and that the Court made its decision
despite pending legislative review of bills proposed by various
legislators for the partial amendment of the laws to allow same-sex
marriage.87 Despite a subsequent referendum in November 2018
where Taiwanese voters rejected same-sex marriage and afrmed
that marriage should only be recognised as between a man and a
woman in Taiwan’s Civil Code,88 the Constitutional Court’s ruling
was binding, and same-sex marriage legislation was eventually put
in place on 24 May 2019 and this made Taiwan the rst country in
Asia to legalise same-sex marriage.89 As can be seen, unchallenged
science on the alleged immutability of sexual orientation was yet
again a major force in advancing LBGT “rights”.
For the fth example, in June 2019, Botswana’s High
Court decriminalised same-sex acts on the basis that they were
unconstitutional.90 In doing so, it had asserted, without citing any
scientic evidence,91 that “[s]exual orientation is innate to a human
being. It is not a fashion statement or posture. It is an important
attribute of one’s personality and identity”.92
Sixth, if sexual orientation immutability is accepted or assumed
as true, it becomes the foundation or stepping stone, not just for
decriminalisation of same-sex acts, but also for anti-discrimination
legislation (prohibiting discrimination on the ground of sexual
orientation) to be enacted, or adopted as an analogous ground
protected under equality clauses. For example, in 2017, Canada
passed Bill C-16, which is an act to amend the Canadian Human
Rights Act and the Criminal Code to add gender identity and gender
expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination (which
already included “sexual orientation”).93 It is unclear how such laws
interact with the freedom of speech and religion. In the US Supreme
Court decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights
Commission (2018) (“Masterpiece Cakeshop”),94 the free exercise of
religion clashed with anti-discrimination laws in Colorado95 which
prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation in a “place of
business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering
251
services…to the public.” Jack Phillips, an expert baker and devout
Christian, told a same-sex couple in 2012 that he would not create a
cake for their wedding celebration because of his religious opposition
to same-sex marriages (which Colorado did not then recognise).
Phillips was found to have violated the anti-discrimination laws.
He was vindicated on appeal, but on rather narrow grounds of
improper bias,96 i.e. that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission
“showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the
sincere religious beliefs motivating [Phillips’ objection]”.97 The Court
did not weigh in on the balance between such anti-discrimination
laws and the free exercise of religion and free speech. In addition,
the Court indicated that his actions took place before same-sex
marriage was legalised in Obergefell.98 It is doubtful what the result
would be in future similar cases in the light of Obergefell.99 A orist
(Arlene’s Flowers) in a similar position was initially vindicated by
the US Supreme Court, and her case was sent back to Washington
to be tried again in the light of the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision.100
After the review, the Washington Supreme Court in June 2019
unanimously ruled that the Washington’s court system did not act
with religious animus when it ruled in 2017 that the orist broke
the state’s anti-discrimination law by refusing to sell owers for
a same-sex wedding, and this original ruling was reafrmed.101
The Court held that “[d]iscrimination based on same-sex marriage
constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,”102
and cited Obergefell as one of the precedents en route to making its
decision.103
In contrast, the UK Supreme Court in Lee v Ashers Baking
Company Ltd and others (“Lee v Ashers”)104 held that there was no
discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in that case,
and the objection by the appellants bakery owners to supply a
cake iced with the message “support gay marriage” (which was a
religious objection to gay marriage), was an objection to the message
and not to any particular person or persons. The Court also held
that the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion105
and to the freedom of expression106 were clearly engaged by this
case, and that they include the right not to be obliged to manifest
beliefs one does not hold. The bakery owners could not refuse to
provide their products to the respondent because he was a gay man
or because he supported gay marriage, but that was different from
obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they
profoundly disagreed.107 The UK Supreme Court also discussed the
252 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Masterpiece Cakeshop case, drawing a clear distinction between
refusing to produce a cake conveying a particular message, for any
customer who wants such a cake, and refusing to produce a cake
for the particular customer who wants it because of that customer’s
characteristics.108
In the light of international developments, it is perhaps
unsurprising that the immutability argument became the “key
plank” in the latest constitutional challenges issued by three
applicants in late 2018 against s377A in Singapore. These
challenges were consolidated and heard together by the Singapore
High Court in Ong Ming Johnston v AG.109 As pointed out by the
Court, a “key plank” of the applicants’ case was that there is now
allegedly “comprehensive scientic consensus that a person’s sexual
orientation is immutable as it is biologically determined”, and that
this renders s377A unconstitutional for being in violation of Art 9(1)
of the Constitution.110 As a starting point, the Court adopted the
approach of the Singapore Court of Appeal in Lim Meng Suang111
(the previous constitutional challenge of s377A in 2014), i.e. that
arguments based on scientic opinions on sexual orientation are
extra-legal arguments that fall outside the purview of the Court.112
In any event, the Court considered the expert evidence adduced
by both sides,113 and found that “the evidence adduced does not
demonstrate any denitive conclusion on the immutability of one’s
sexual orientation”,114 although “there is scientic consensus for the
proposition that a person’s sexual orientation was determined by
both genetic and environmental factors.”115
There are other arguments which have also played substantial
roles in the expansion of LGBT “rights” worldwide. One such key
argument is the “right to privacy” (which is closely associated
with the “liberty” to choose). To put it simply, the arguments goes:
adults have the right and liberty to choose what they want to do
in the privacy of their own homes, including engaging in same-
sex acts. The US Supreme Court accepted this argument when it
decriminalised male sodomy laws in Texas in Lawrence v Texas
in 2003.116 Twelve years later in 2015, the US Supreme Court in
Obergefell extended this very same argument to allow same-sex
marriage, holding that the freedom to choose to have sex with
someone of the same sex (termed as “intimate association”) without
criminal liability is the very same freedom which must be extended
to the freedom to choose to marry someone of the same sex.117 The
Supreme Court of India also accepted the “right of privacy”118 and
253
“liberty to choose”119 arguments in Navtej Singh. The Botswana
High Court accepted a similar “right of privacy” argument when in
June 2019 it held that Botswana’s criminal laws against same-sex
acts were unconstitutional,120 and it also relied on the unchallenged
assertion of sexual orientation immutability121 in the context of
nding that the closely associated “right to liberty” encompassed
the right to sexual autonomy i.e. the choice of a sexual intimate
partner, including someone of the same-sex.122 The foundation has
thus been laid for India and Botswana to follow the “logic” of the US
Supreme court decision in Obergefell to one day extend this “right”
to allow same-sex marriage. There are several other arguments
which deserve closer scrutiny, e.g. the “right” to marry,123 that
traditional marriage laws allegedly harm and humiliate children
of same-sex couples,124 freedom of expression,125 right to dignity,126
amongst other arguments.127
Part C: Long Term Changes to Protect and Promote the
Common Good
Where does this leave Singapore? It is evident from international
developments (as explained in Section B above) that the arguments
which lead to the repeal or invalidation of laws prohibiting same-
sex acts are the very same ones which ground or lay the foundation
for the proliferation of LGBT “rights” including anti-discrimination/
hate-speech legislation and same-sex marriage (and with it,
a demand for children through adoption and IVF/surrogacy).
Namely, the uncritical acceptance or assumption of sexual
orientation immutability which is closely connected with equality/
non-discrimination clauses (including expanding the prohibited
grounds of discrimination to include “sexual orientation”), and the
“right to privacy” which is closely connected with the “liberty to
choose”, amongst other arguments. Examined carefully, Singapore’s
constitutional, statutory and policy framework is wholly unprepared
to contain the sudden changes that will very likely come if s377A is
repealed (especially if the arguments accepted or relied on to do
this are the key ones cited above).128 This will adversely affect the
common good of marriage and family.129 Crucial steps must be taken
to protect this common good. Consider the following six points.
First, s377A has a specic purpose, and this must be clearly
understood, so as to understand the consequences of repeal.
Its purpose is to safeguard public morality generally.130 Even if
254 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
unenforced,131 it “could serve to enforce moral norms or serve
a signposting function”.132 Undoubtedly, the removal of s377A
is the crucial rst step to the advancement of LGBT “rights” in
Singapore,133 and you should never remove this “fence” until you rst
understand the harms it was rst put up to prevent.134 Insofar as
there are attempts to take it down, all of the “reasonably foreseeable”
harms must be considered (and not just an articially limited set
of harms, as in the Millian version of the harm principle).135 It is
reasonably foreseeable that unless done in a precise and calculated
manner, the grounds for permitting same-sex acts (e.g. if s377A was
removed) could also lay the ground for also promoting, protecting
and proliferating same-sex acts and corresponding LGBT “rights”.
Indeed, the question of repeal must be considered together with the
consequences of repeal, and any failure to consider and deal with
such consequences would either be tactically deliberate or recklessly
imprudent.136
Second, the judicial route to the invalidation of s377A is currently
unlikely.137 The Singapore Court of Appeal in Lim Meng Suang138
emphasised that the issue of sexual orientation immutability is a
scientic and extra-legal argument which is outside the purview
of the Court, and this argument should (if at all) be addressed by
the Legislature instead.139 The Court also held that the words “life
or personal liberty” in Article 9(1) of the Singapore Constitution
does not include the right to privacy and personal autonomy,140 and
cautioned that Singapore should approach foreign cases that have
conferred an expansive constitutional right to life and liberty (e.g.
India and US) with circumspection because they were decided in the
context of their unique social, political and legal circumstances.141
In addition, the Court held that Article 12(2) of the Singapore
Constitution (which does not have the word “sex” in it) should not be
read or expanded to include “gender”, “sex” or “sexual orientation”
as new prohibited grounds of discrimination.142 The High Court
in Ong Ming Johnston v AG reached similar conclusions.143 As it
stands, any repeal would have to be via the legislative route.
Third, is there another way to express the above underlying
moral message of s377A, by means other than the criminal law?
St. Thomas Aquinas explained that one of the effects of the law
is to make men moral.144 In this regard, the law can legislate for
morality, and in any event, the law is never morally neutral.145
However, this does not mean that the law must hold in check every
vice146 and command every act of virtue, nor does it mean that this
255
can only be done by means of the criminal law.147 On the other
hand, there are certain intrinsically evil acts, such as abortion and
euthanasia, which can never be enshrined as a right.148 What the
law should prohibit is ultimately a question of prudential judgement
which involves weighing the undesired harms of vice against the
unintended harms of restriction,149 and one of the questions which
“one must ask [is] whether the results we desire from prohibition can
be more effectively accomplished by other means”.150 For example,
even though adultery is not a crime in Singapore, Singapore’s public
policy against adultery intervened to ban the extra-marital dating
website Ashley Madison.151 Adultery may be permitted or tolerated
(in the sense of not being a criminal act), but it is not promoted or
protected (which in turn slows down any proliferation of it, and in
this way, the common good of marriage and family is protected and
promoted). It is also important to understand that deciding not to
criminalise carries different implications from decriminalisation.152
This is why insofar as s377A is repealed, it is imperative to reafrm,
at the moment of any such repeal, a public policy against the
promotion of same-sex acts and the LGBT lifestyle/agenda. This
would be aligned to PM Lee’s speech during the 2007 Debate,153
and doing so would be simply reafrming the existing public policy
on this point. It is important that such reafrmation be done by
cabinet ministers (in particular, the Prime Minister) in their ofcial
capacity.154
A closely connected public policy is the one against the
formation of same-sex family units, as recognised by the Court in
UKM v AG.155 s377A is one of the three key pieces of evidence for
this public policy, and removing s377A signicantly weakens this
public policy.156 This makes it even more critical, at or before any
repeal of s377A, that there be a public and ofcial reafrmation of
the public policy against the formation of same-sex family units (as
well as to reafrm the common good of marriage and family).157 This
is to ensure that these very important public policies remain in full
force despite any repeal of s377A. The failure to do so introduces
the distinct possibility of same-sex marriage (and adoption and
surrogacy by same-sex couples) in the near future. The above public
policy can and should further be enshrined in law even if no criminal
penalties are prescribed for them.158
Crucially, at or before any repeal of s377A, it is absolutely
imperative for the Legislature to do two things to protect the
common good of marriage and family. It must unequivocally reject
256 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
the concept of sexual orientation immutability or at least state
publicly that this is not supported by science.159 As explained above,
the uncritical acceptance or unthinking assumption of immutability
is the foundation for the proliferation of LGBT “rights” in many
countries around the world. The Legislature must also unequivocally
state that, in the Singapore context, there is no fundamental “right”
of “intimate association” or “privacy” or “autonomy” or “choice”
between homosexuals. This is to avoid it being used as an analogous
or foundational argument for same-sex marriage—as seen in the
US decisions of Lawrence v Texas followed only 12 years later by
Obergefell, which is an inevitable development that the late Justice
Antonin Scalia (dissenting) had presciently forewarned.160 There
is also a need to put in a constitutional and statutory framework
to reiterate this position. This will also better ensure that future
courts will not take an expansive interpretation of the Constitution
to include any “fundamental rights” of privacy, personal autonomy,
intimate association and choice, which were the inroads for the rapid
expansion of LGBT “rights” in the US (and soon to be, it is predicted,
India and Botswana). Indeed, these are matters involving extra-
legal policy factors and considerations which should be reserved to
the Legislature.161
Fourth, Singapore’s public policy in favour of the common
good of marriage and family is not enshrined in the Constitution,
although some of the evidence for the existence of this public
policy are found in various statutes and regulations.162 This public
policy (without being strengthened by constitutional and statutory
provisions) may not be strong enough to prevent same-sex marriage
if s377A is repealed. The weakness of public policies in and of
themselves to prevent the expansion of LGBT “rights” may be
illustrated by UKM v AG where adoption (by effectively a same-
sex male couple)163 was allowed despite the Court’s recognition that
making the adoption order would signicantly violate the public
policy against the formation of same-sex family units.164 In a similar
way, the Court in UKM v AG held that the public policy in favour of
parenthood within marriage (by denition, heterosexual marriage),
in and of itself, is not the same thing as a public policy against
other forms of parenthood, including single parenthood by a person
of homosexual orientation.165 The Women’s Charter, insofar as it
provides that marriage between two persons of the same sex is void,
is not strong enough, in and of itself, to prevent same-sex marriage,
as the example of UK illustrates.166
257
For this reason, it is absolutely imperative to constitutionally
and statutorily enshrine the denition of marriage as a voluntary
union between one man and one woman for life, and to lock this
in with an “eternity clause”.167 The examples of Hong Kong,
Hungary, Russia and Taiwan come to mind. Hungary enshrined
the traditional heterosexual denition of marriage (and family)
into their Constitution.168 In July 2020, Russian voters, by way of a
referendum, voted to amend the constitution to dene marriage as
only between a man and a woman. This was despite homosexuality
being decriminalised decades ago.169 In contrast, Taiwan’s failure
to constitutionally enshrine the denition of marriage as between
one man and one woman for life before the Taiwan Constitutional
Court’s decision in 2017 allowing same-sex marriage170 meant that
same-sex marriage is a part of Taiwan despite the majority will of the
Taiwanese people expressed in the November 2018 referendum that
marriage should remain between a man and a woman. Hong Kong
is unique in the sense that despite the decriminalisation of male
homosexual sex,171 because of the statutory enshrinement172 and
constitutional preference for heterosexual marriage,173 traditional
marriage between a man and a woman remains largely unchallenged
or intact. However, substantial inroads have already been made in
the context of immigration control and the conferment of nancial
benets on spouses in the contexts of employment and taxation,
in that the meaning of “spouse” have been extended to include a
same-sex partner married outside of Hong Kong.174 Nevertheless,
it would appear that but for such statutory enshrinement and
constitutional preference for heterosexual marriage, Hong Kong
would have developed along the same lines as America, Canada,
UK and Taiwan in terms of the rapid expansion of LGBT “rights”.
In addition, an “eternity” clause is necessary, otherwise, Singapore
may, in the future, end up like America where the US Supreme
Court in 2013 and 2015 invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act
(“DOMA”), an act which Congress passed in 1996 which dened
marriage for all federal law purposes as “only a legal union between
one man and one woman as husband and wife.”175
Fifth, the scope of the rights to freedom of thought, conscience,
religion and speech/expression (for atheists, agnostics and the
religious) needs to be meticulously studied, claried and protected
in advance (both constitutionally and statutorily), lest Singapore
goes the way of other countries in the proliferation of “hate-speech”
or “discrimination” litigation or proceedings (e.g. Canada, US and
UK).
258 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Sixth, in relation to education, media and culture, there is
a need to put in directive principles and an express duty in the
Constitution to say that the State shall promote heterosexual
marriage and family values as the Singaporean norm in schools/
education, media and culture.176
Conclusion–The City, its Walls and the Outer Fence
The common good of marriage and family is our “city”, and it is
without doubt the declared vision of the Government, as well as
the desire of the majority of Singaporeans (including free-thinkers,
agnostics and atheists).177 s377A is the “outer fence”. However, as
it stands, there are virtually no walls built around the city. If the
outer fence is removed without building up those “city walls”, the
“city” will in all likelihood be destroyed or severely damaged. The
above recommended constitutional, statutory and policy framework
are the “city walls” which protects and promotes traditional
heterosexual marriages and family values as the Singapore norm
and to shape culture along the sound paths. These are necessary to
ensure stable family units so as to uphold a stable society, for the
common good of Singapore. As alluded to above, it would appear
that the results that is desired from prohibition can be effectively
accomplished by other means other than the criminal law, but only
insofar as all of the above recommendations are adopted before or
at the same time as any repeal of s377A,178 in which case there are
grounds not to object to a repeal of s377A if it were merely aimed at
removing all potential criminal penalties against homosexuals.179
Until such time, s377A remains an ineloquent,180 but necessary,
defender of traditional heterosexual marriage and family values
and a bulwark against the highly likely subsequent proliferation of
LGBT “rights”.
As Christians, “[w]e cannot wash our hands of our Christian
duty to the common good by appealing to [the mantra of ‘freedom’
in sex and marriage] because we can observe the predictable
consequences of freedom.”181 Some subjectively believe that any
opposition to the LGBT agenda amounts to hatred, when in reality,
it is not hatred for LGBT people that drives such opposition, but
rather it is love for the common good (which is essentially a love
for neighbour) which does. It is also critical to note that few, if any,
desire jail time for adults who engage in private consensual same-
sex acts, which is why the unenforced version of s377A makes sense
to many Singaporeans,182 including this author.183
259
Given the Government’s consistent and persistent reiteration
of the vision of traditional heterosexual marriages and family values
as the bedrock of Singapore’s society, and that this is in the common
good of Singapore, it must act courageously and decisively.184
Indeed, the State must full its role as “defender of the family”,185
and “the Government cannot abdicate its responsibility to lead from
the front”.186 Taiwan provides an ominous warning about how the
time to speak up and to act may be lost, if it is not seized upon today.
In the nal analysis, both the deeply religious as well as the
wholly secular, are on common ground in relation to the common
good. Let us work together to build up the “city walls” which are
necessary to protect this “city”. There is a time for everything, and
a season for every activity.187 The time to speak up and to act is now;
silence and inaction are not an option.188
*This author is grateful to Nick Chui for his contribuons, insights and invaluable comments on the
issues in this essay. All errors remain the author’s alone.
260 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Bishop Rennis Ponniah
CHRISTIAN DISCIPLESHIP
AND SEXUALITY
The Approach
It is right that a Christian book on the hot subject of homosexuality is
framed by the wider context of Christian discipleship and sexuality.
For Christians must out-ank the attempt by hardened secularism
to cast Christians as bigoted moralists who are ‘anti’ any modern
movements that espouse different values from theirs. The Christian
position seeks to promote all that makes for true humanness. That
we believe is the good purpose of God’s laws for the world He has
created, including His revealed will concerning human sexuality.
Neither should Christians be doormats for power-hungry
people who want to dominate the public square by their activism.
What is needed from Christians is a socially responsible tenacity to
defend revealed truth, a resolve to impart it comprehensively (whole
counsel of God) to believers, a humility to develop a “language of
discourse” to engage the world, and a winsome authenticity in
practicing what we believe in a broken, sin-damaged world.
The gospel we proclaim by word and conduct is a gospel
of redemption and re-creation. Our sins are forgiven, our guilt
removed, and the chains of slavery to sin are broken by the nished
work of Jesus Christ on the cross. God redeems us from the kingdom
of darkness and translates us to the kingdom of light. But that is not
all. When we receive Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord, the process
of re-creation begins. God’s image in us, defaced and distorted by
263
sin, is being restored. The Holy Spirit comes into our lives to change
our hearts, integrate our sense of being and propel us to full God’s
divine intentions when He created the cosmos and humankind.
This transformation or re-creation is a process for all who follow
Jesus as Lord.
We all fall short of living out the truth God has revealed. That
is the nature of sin and indicative of the total fall of man. But our
inability to practice the truth fully does not exempt us from guarding
and holding forth the word of life before the world. God created a
moral universe and is passionate about it (Micah 6:8; Jeremiah
9:24). God’s justice (‘mishpat’ in Hebrew) means His righteousness,
which includes His standard of right and wrong in every realm
of human existence. It covers every area of human life: business
and work, leisure and recreation, loyalty to relationships, love and
honour in family, duty to neighbour and state, and the important
area of sexuality. Discipleship means following the example of
Jesus in honouring God and obeying His commands in the totality
of our lives.
Therefore, I propose in this essay to treat the issue of
homosexuality within the broader context of God’s design for
sexuality, and to approach the subject from a discipleship
perspective. The reection that follows seeks to address three broad
questions:
(a) How should the church as a community of disciples
respond to the sexuality issues raised by a heightened
public discourse on homosexuality?
(b) Given the present ‘spirit of the age’ (‘Zeitgeist’), how are
churches to disciple believers in the whole area of sexuality?
(c) How should the church relate to the sexually-broken as
well as address sexuality issues in the public square?
1. Doctrinal Clarity
As disciples of Jesus, we need to be clear on what we believe on such
an important ethical subject as sexuality and sexual behaviour.
The chapters in this book have sought to unpack the Scriptures to
give us clear convictions on the issue of homosexuality. Sadly, the
latitude of views among Christians about homosexuality leaves the
world confused about what the Christian position is.
264 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
The carefully arrived-at orthodox position, which I subscribe
to, is that homosexual practice is contrary to God’s divine order and
intentions, and therefore is morally wrong. Like every other sin
against God, it will need the forgiveness and transforming power of
God through the gospel.
For the Church in Singapore, I pray that the Holy Spirit will
lead us to steadfastly hold in common this orthodox view. We need
to guard the ‘deposit of truth’ entrusted to us by God (2 Timothy
1:14) and passed on to us by our forefathers in the faith. We need
to hold fast to the word of life (Philippians 2:16) and order our lives
in loving obedience to the revealed will of God in His word. In this
way, we show true love to the world that God loves and is seeking
to win to Himself.
We are convinced that God’s standards of right and wrong are
meant for humankind’s ourishing and freedom. And the power of
the Cross is able to set us free from the consequences of the Fall
and the waywardness of our own hearts to live by God’s standards.
Commonly, the healing and strength to overcome temptations
and the power of sin is experienced through a process known as
sanctication in which Christians experience the power of the Holy
Spirit. That, I believe, is to be the church’s unequivocal teaching
which then is to be compassionately and winsomely lived out by His
people.
For me, the vital question which the homosexuality issue raises
is this: Will we as disciples of Christ hold to the authority, clarity
and sufciency of Scripture in all matters of faith and practice? The
great battle of our day is on the interpretation of Scripture. There
is much debate on what is the ‘plain teaching’ of Scripture on the
matter of sexuality and sexual behaviour. The church of our day
and of future generations will need holy courage and the Spirit’s
wisdom to hold fast to the orthodox interpretation of lawful sexual
behaviour, which is wonderfully contained in Jesus’ teaching on
marriage (Matthew 19:3-12). Holding fast to the truth is an act of
love—love for God, love for the church and love for the world. In the
words of Jesus, it is the truth that sets people free (John 8:32).
To contend for the truth is to engage in spiritual warfare.
The battle for truth in the area of sexuality is a battle we cannot
shrink from—for the sake of truth and the sake of love. The Bible’s
teaching on sexuality is an essential part of our faith. For the gospel
comprises both what Christ saves us from and what Christ saves us
for, namely holiness before God. The Bible’s teaching on sexuality
265
and sexual conduct must be formulated to address the issues that
come up in church or public discourse—for example, the contention
for the moral legitimacy of same-sex unions [see Appendix A].
Sometimes, the orthodox part of the Church is under pressure
from other segments of the Church to tone down its commitment
to the orthodox biblical view on sexuality for the sake of “Christian
unity”. But I believe the overriding consideration is to be faithful
to God and His revealed Word, a decisive factor which must not be
sacriced for an ecclesiology that prizes ecclesiastical unity above
the truthfulness of the foundation for that unity. Nor do orthodox
Christians withdraw from “open statement of the truth” for fear
of opposing voices in the public square. The battle for truth is
ultimately a battle for souls, a battle red by love.
2. The Discipling Challenge
(a) The need to formulate and pass on a coherent Christian
worldview
The growing public discussion and pastoral engagement with
homosexuality issues, both in church and society, has rightly caused
many churches to relook at how discipleship is being done. Many are
recognising that the world is more effective at shaping the values of
our church members, particularly the youth, through mass and social
media than the church. This is usually followed by calls to redouble
our effort at discipleship, and yet, we do not seem to be gaining
much ground in this battle. Almost every poll indicates a continued
and even accelerated decline in orthodox views on sexuality over the
years. The 2019 IPS paper “Religion, Morality and Conservatism
in Singapore” found that among Christians surveyed, 6.2% felt
that homosexuality is not wrong at all, compared to 4.3% who felt
the same way in 2013.1 This decline in the proportion holding an
orthodox view is traceable in every surveyed category of Christians
on their views toward homosexuality, and more noticeable among
the younger respondents.
As a result of this, there has been more effort made to educate
and provide ministry to the church on a variety of issues related
to LGBTQ. Christian organisations like ‘Focus on the Family’ and
‘Truelove.is’ are to be commended for their orthodox stand, their
witness and their resourcing of the larger church. Yet, because of
the scale and speed at which the tide is changing, a more thorough-
going response by all our churches is needed. The 2016 ETHOS
266 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
study2 revealed that 43% of Christian youth and 51% of Christian
young adults feel that their church efforts to equip them on sexuality
matters were inadequate.
The unspoken assumption has been that if we were to give
Christians more information about LGBTQ and what the Bible
teaches about homosexuality, we would be able to stem the bleeding,
but this strategy has been only partially effective at best. One of the
reasons why this is the case may be that the LGBTQ issue is only
one of a constellation of symptoms of a much more fundamental
shift in society which the church has yet to address. As for our youth
ministries, our discipleship strategy has been focusing on “what
to do“ in terms of programmes while youths are struggling with
“the whys” of Christian ethics.3 Our effort in dousing the ames
has been negated by a failure to quell the source of the re. The
increasing challenge we are having in reaching the youth of today
with the Gospel and with the Gospel way of life is also evidenced
by the observation that the proportion of Christians (not including
Roman Catholics) in the 15-19-year age band of Singapore residents
has levelled off between 2010 and 20154.
Furthermore, there is a deafening silence on the part of
the church in response to the need to equip members with a
comprehensive and integrative biblical worldview that challenges
the stand and assumptions of the alternative paradigms ooding the
wider global culture. It is not sufcient that Christians simply be
told what to believe and how to behave because piecemeal teachings
do not give them the ability to contextualise and apply their faith
on their own. What is needed is the articulation of a comprehensive
and consistent Christian worldview which helps our members, both
adults and especially the youth, to contextualise their faith and
make the right choices in a world of increasing moral ux.
The world has changed phenomenally and at an accelerated
pace in the last three decades. Today, the intellectual vacuum of
answers to life’s questions is readily lled with the advent of the
internet connected world. Whereas the voice of the church or the
pastor which was once the sole authority in the life of church-going
Christians, it is now only one voice amongst many other voices
offering to explain the questions on people’s minds. It is no secret
that many of the views represented on social media lean left to
outright anti-Christian positions but much of this propagandisation
occurs outside the awareness and ‘response-radar’ of several
church pastors. A collective response, led by the senior pastor
267
of the congregation is needed. We need to review not just the
organisational form of our discipleship process in our local churches
but it’s strategic substance.
(b) The need to aim at forming the heart
We also need to review the aim of our discipleship process. Briey-
stated, we need to aim at forming the heart. This is to be accomplished
through a Spirit-empowered process involving the renewal of the
mind, the cultivation of spiritual disciplines and growth through
meaningful relational participation in the community.
Clearly, the learning of Holy Scripture has a major role to
play in all three processes of forming the disciple’s heart. But
the emphasis must move from information transfer to the heart
receiving and applying the Word of God. Holistic discipleship goes
beyond equipping the mind to forming the habits of the heart,
honing the emotions and cultivating a strong desire to pattern one’s
life in conformity to the Word of God.5
This means that the discipleship process in our churches
must be holistic and relational. The desired result is the fruit of
righteousness, so aptly captured in Paul’s prayer for the church in
Philippi:
“And it is my prayer that your love may abound more
and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that
you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and
blameless for the day of Christ, lled with the fruit of
righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the
glory and praise of God.” -Philippians 1:9-11 ESV
One of the founding fathers of the Anglican Church, Thomas
Cranmer, prioritised this need in Christian discipleship to aim for
the moral conversion of heart that is to follow from knowing the love
of God in Christ Jesus. Dr Ashley Null, a student of the English
Reformation, points out that:
According to Cranmer’s anthropology, what the heart
loves, the will chooses, and the mind justies. The mind
doesn’t direct the will. The mind is actually captive to
what the will wants, and the will itself, in turn, is captive
to what the heart wants. The trouble with human nature
is that we are born with a heart that loves ourselves over
and above everything else in this world, including God. In
268 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
short, we are born slaves to the lust for self-gratication,
i.e., concupiscence. That’s why, if left to ourselves, we will
always love those things that make us feel good about
ourselves, even as we depart more and more from God and
his ways (emphasis mine).6
The challenge before us is that the prevailing culture justies a
“feel good about ourselves” basis for moral choices. Add to that the
moral relativism of our age and the unqualied premium placed on
“tolerance” in today’s age, and it will not be hard to understand the
reason for the trend noted earlier that more and more Christians,
especially of the younger generation, do not feel that homosexuality
is wrong.
From the foregoing discussion on the need to impart a worldview
and to aim at the moral conquest of the heart if we are to disciple
our people well, we can draw out the implications:
(i) Discipleship in our churches must be relationship-based. It is
through relationships which spur us on and hold us accountable
that hearts are formed, values are passed on and the ‘rule of life’
obeyed. Encouragement and admonishment keep the heart on track
in following Christ and His teaching. It seems wise that our small
groups in churches which tend to be mixed gender, intersperse
their meetings with regular opportunities for the group to divide
by gender to foster more in-depth and accountable discipleship
relationships.
(ii) Local churches must embark on the “teaching of all ages”.7 By
this is meant that the teaching of Christian doctrine must be a life-
long process and the process must include young children as well.
Because of the intensity of the battle for truth and the trends in the
wider social milieu, we must draw out the theological truth in the
Scriptures, even for young children. For example, in the story of
Adam and Eve, the signicance of the two categories of “male” and
“female” and the nature of marital union needs to be pointed out even
to pre-primary and primary school children. A model of teaching/
learning that several Protestant churches are nding helpful in the
discipling process is the classical use of “catechesis” (which relies on
a succinct question-and-answer approach) to ground new believers.
(iii) The Christian family must be revitalised and equipped to
participate in the discipling process. The family cannot conveniently
farm this out to the church. Perhaps a true case story illustrates
269
the point. A 14-year old asked her mother why the church is “so
hard” in treating homosexuals. The mother realised the question
deserved as full an answer as she could give. So she took half a day
off work the next day so she could have an unhurried time to listen
to her daughter, to clarify the church’s posture and to share with
her through a conversation the biblical basis for why homosexual
practice is wrong.
3. Pastoral Care Within and Beyond
Some thoughts now on the church as a caring and discipling
community for those who are same sex attracted (SSA) + or who are
in a homosexual relationship.
(a) The Church as a broken, grace-lled community
The church is a community of forgiven sinners, saved by the grace of
God in Christ Jesus. Members are committed to helping each other
to live the new life of the Kingdom that Christ has inaugurated
by His nished work on the cross. This new life of the Kingdom
is a life lived under the loving and saving reign of God; it is a life
which abides by God’s divine intentions for humankind and it is
a life which needs a heart made new by the indispensable gift of
the Holy Spirit. It is a life of transformation into Christ-likeness by
the grace and power of God. This involves a process and is greatly
aided by a church that is rooted in the truth of God’s Word, active in
showing loving-kindness to one another and winsome in its pursuit
of Kingdom righteousness in a fallen world.
We are all broken by sin. The Christian disciple acknowledges
this in his or her own life. He or she also empathises with other
people’s struggle with sin and the grip of sin. But when the other
person’s struggle with sin has to do with same sex attraction or
engagement in a homosexual relationship, there could well be an
abhorrence that empties many Christians of empathy with the
person’s struggle. Several persons who have had to battle with this
area of sexual brokenness have been more open in recent years to
sharing their inability to treat their local church as a “safe place”
to seek help. By “safe place” they mean a community that will
accept them as persons, counsellors who treat the sharing of their
illicit desires or relationships with empathy and condentiality,
and fellow believers who pledge to walk with them on a journey of
experiencing Christ’s healing and transforming power.
270 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
I believe most churches can do better in making their
communities a “safe place” for sinners of all stripes, including
those tempted by or engaged in homosexuality. The liberating
and transforming gospel we proclaim warrants that every church
works towards becoming a “safe place” where every person who
comes to nd help in Jesus experiences “no condemnation” by God,
“no separation” from God’s love in the exodus from slavery to sin ,
and encouragement from the community of believers because “no
enemy or stranglehold” is too strong for God to overcome. To be
clear, the church is not a “safe place” in that it condones sin. Rather,
it is “safe place” in that it accepts the sinner as he or she is , points
him to the grace of God in Christ Jesus, and helps him to overcome
the darkness and burden of his sin to live a new life in the light and
love of God. That is the mission and ministry God has entrusted to
His people.
(b) The pressing need to respond pastorally to homosexuality
To be sure, there are other moral problems on the contemporary
social scene that warrant the church’s special attention at the
present time; such as teenage pornography, gambling and
marital indelity to name a few. But there are two reasons why
homosexuality and the pastoral needs it generates must be
addressed urgently and concertedly by churches at this time. The
rst is that same-sex attraction and same-sex relationships are
no longer taboo subjects or hidden inclinations/practices of a few;
such feelings and relationships are openly made known and talked
about in our schools and social circles. This means that SSA and
homosexuality are becoming categories of thought available to the
young, and the categories appear to be gaining a veneer of social
acceptability. The second reason for a concerted and collective
response by the churches is that the morality of homosexuality is
a hot issue in the contemporary Singapore scene. The social media
as well as LGBTQ activists and supporters are vigorously pursuing
the moral legitimacy of same-sex attraction and same-sex unions.
The church must respond not only doctrinally but pastorally for our
faith to shine forth.
(c) Growing in pastoral knowledge and skill
The tremendous needs at this present time make biblical worldview
teaching, small group discipleship and sensitive-cum-skillful
271
pastoral care of SSA persons and homosexuals vital for the life,
witness and ministry of the church.
Pastors and those coming alongside those who struggle with
homosexuality are learning to hold the balance between truth and
grace, so perfectly blended in Christ, in their ministry to lead the
vulnerable and the captive out into the freedom and light of Christ. It
is no small challenge in pastoral counselling to combine forgiveness
and acceptance in Christ with re-creation and restoration of the
divine image in the returning sinner. But the Lord is our helper and
there is much to be gained when pastors and counsellors who work
substantially in this area to learn and share together.
It is encouraging that those who are same-sex attracted but
who hold steadfastly to Christ’s teaching on marriage are speaking
up about both their faith and their experience.8 A key facet of their
strength to remain faithful to God’s word and to overcome their
emotional and sexual urges is the liberating truth that the end-
goal is not romantic or sexual fullment but to please and glorify
God with the life you have been given. This is in fact true for every
person and every disciple of Christ. And the “good news” is that
the end-goal is now made possible for every person, whatever their
struggle and involvement with sin, by Christ’s redeeming and re-
creating love. The church upholds this hope for all and seeks to be a
community where members journey with one another in the process
of transformation.
Those who battle with homosexual urges but who stay
committed to the teaching of Scripture say they are tremendously
helped when Christian families and cell groups include them in
their weekend activities and holiday plans. Like any one of us, they
have social and emotional needs and are delighted to have them
met in ordinary, everyday activities. May our churches reach out to
them unobtrusively in these ways.
It is equally important that the church also provides counselling
and care support for the parents of persons who have same sex
attraction or are in same sex relationships. As there is still a
strong social stigma in most church circles on homosexuality and
because many church communities have yet to mature in the way
they handle the wounds and struggles of fellow-members, it may be
wise in many instances for the parents (and the child concerned, if
willing) to receive Christian counselling & support from the body
of Christ outside the local church. This is in order to protect the
child and family from the risk of public glare or gossiping tongues.
272 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
We are resolved to make our churches better places for healing and
transformation, but we need to remember that we are on this side
of eternity and most churches are churches-on-the-way. I rejoice
that there is a growing pool of resources in the wider Church that
persons and families dealing with homosexual issues can turn to.
(d) Caring for homosexuals beyond the church community
The beauty of the church as God designed it is that it not only cares
for its own members but always seeks to serve the wider society as
well.
To use the Old Testament description of ancient cities with
clearly marked city gates, our church gates are to be “open but
guarded”. “Open” to one and all who seek to know the community,
to avail of its ministries or to know the God of the community.
“Guarded” in the sense of guarding the fellowship against false
doctrine and wrongly-intentioned persons who seek to disrupt
the life and faith of the church. So, in the church’s response to
homosexuals, it is important to distinguish between same-sex
attracted persons (SSA) who are seeking help, SSA persons who
are unsure about its morality, those already in a sexually active
homosexual relationship and the activists and those who have
made up their minds about the rightness of homosexuality whether
in terms of human ethics or human rights.
With the need for discernment recognised, I can now discuss the
question of the church extending its pastoral care ministry to same-
sex attracted persons or persons in same-sex sexual relationships
who are not church members and do not profess the faith but who
come into the ambit of the church’s life. For such persons, churches
will need to develop a suitable ‘language of discourse’ that does not
require the person to know or assent to Christian teaching. That
would maximise the chance for relationship-building to take place.
It needs however to be a language of discourse which nevertheless
moves the person in a God-ward direction. More importantly the
genuine love for the person and the willingness to engage the person
at where the person is in thought or deed must shine through. All
churches should be prepared to receive and to relate to those who
struggle or practise homosexuality who come to our fellowship from
outside the Christian body. Indeed, some churches will have the
calling, the resources and the gifting to even grow their ministry to
homosexuals to a more publicly available one.
273
4. Public Witness
Finally, a comment about the public witness of Christians as
disciples of Christ and the role of the church in the public square.
As disciples of Christ, we are called to bear witness to our
King and His glorious rule by our conduct in the social institutions
of our society and the corridors of everyday life. With regard to
sexuality, may the Lord give us the grace and power to shine in
the faithfulness and beauty of our marriages [dened biblically as
husband and wife in a life-long covenantal relationship]. If we are
single or at a pre-marital stage, may we bear witness to our faith
and its ethical teaching by the purity and form of our relationships.
In terms of our witness in the public square, the rise of LGBTQ
activism in 2009 and the challenges since 2013 to Section 377A
of the Penal Code (regarding homosexual acts among men), have
caused the Church to think through its stand more rigorously and
also to consider the best way of communicating its views to the
public and to the government. It is heartening to note that most
Christians agree that they need to make their views on public policy
issues known.9
The responsibility to represent the views of Protestant
Christians in the public square has largely fallen on the National
Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS). It has sought to state its
position without fear or favour. NCCS has held fast to the orthodox
biblical teaching that homosexuality is morally wrong. It has
presented this as its position and counselled that it is to a society’s
benet that its laws and social mores conform to this standard.
The NCCS position is biblically-derived and it has taken pains to
express its argument in the public square using secular language
and publicly-available categories of thought. In stating its position,
NCCS has consistently conveyed the commitment of Christians to
treat homosexuals in society with acceptance, non-discrimination
and fairness. The NCCS has sought to be a responsible social
actor on the public scene. It is non-adversarial in its posture. It
recognises that there are other constituent groups in the society
who hold differing views regarding homosexuality. Hence, in
discharging its God-given social responsibility, NCCS acts in ways
consistent with the spirit and intent of the Religious Harmony Bill
(1989). This Bill seeks to promote tolerance and goodwill, among the
different religious groups and provides legal sanctions to prevent
an escalation of inter-religious tensions in a multi-religious society
that is secularly governed.
274 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
At the same time, NCCS knows that its social responsibility
under God is ultimately to safeguard and promote the welfare of
the city (Jeremiah 29:7). In the words of Jesus, we are to be the ‘salt
and light’ (Matthew 5:13-16) of the society we are part of. It seems
needful, in my view, for NCCS to respond in the public square with
clarity, reasonableness and also with vigour whenever the situation
warrants it. The battle for truth is unrelenting and we must not
shrink from it. We do not give in to intimidation or ridicule from
other interest-groups. We must engage the battle with the energy
of God’s goodness and the skill of a wisdom that is from above. In
the language of Isaiah, we must “turn back the enemy at the gate.”
(Isaiah 28:6). The voices that seek to legitimise homosexuality as a
morally-acceptable way of life are increasingly strident and using
social media to advance their cause. From a biblical perspective,
they are allowing the forces of darkness to destroy God’s world and
God’s laws which are intended for what is truly human to ourish.
It is for these reasons that NCCS has also supported the
retention of Section 377A in our Penal Code. Whatever its technical
deciencies, 377A is still a moral ‘boundary stone’ that indicates
that there is something intrinsically wrong with same-sex acts. To
remove the boundary stone would let in a host of other issues that
will then be pressed upon by LGBTQ lobbyists for the government
of the day to ensure the “equality” of same-sex unions or marriages.
The Christian constituency in Singapore prays and guards against
such a direction which is antithetical to God’s law and purposes,
and therefore detrimental to the longer-term strength of our nation.
As Christians, we seek to conserve all that is good from the past and
all that is in line with God’s will for the well-being and enduring
strength of our nation for generations to come. In terms of our faith,
we are seeking “the righteousness that exalts a nation.” (Proverbs
14:34).
Going Forward
By the grace of God, the national leadership of the Church in
Singapore at the present time is of one mind in our position on
homosexuality and in our commitment not to despise or discriminate
homosexuals but to treat them with respect as persons. As
opportunities present themselves, we are always ready to extend
to them the transforming love of God, who is both humankind’s
Creator and Saviour.
275
However, the battle for God’s truth and God’s love to prevail
over the acceptance and practice of homosexuality is likely to be
prolonged and even more keenly contested in the years to come.
The church needs to be ready for a long-haul engagement. But the
Lord promised that the battle belongs to Him. He will aid us in
the battle. We must stay faithful to Him, both in doctrine and in
practice. We stand for the truth and we practice love because we
love Him and we love the people He has entrusted to us. May we
do so for generations to come, knowing that nally the Lord Jesus
Christ will Himself return to install a new heaven and a new earth,
where all battles are ended, and love and righteousness reign to His
praise and glory.
APPENDIX A
Statement from the Global South Primates and GAFCON
Primates Council Concerning Same-sex Unions
6th October 2016
1. We acknowledge that God is the Creator of the whole cosmos
and of humankind. Male and female, God created them in his own
image and likeness to know him, worship him and share in his glory
and love.
2. We afrm the dignity and value of every human being, as each
bears the image of our gracious God. We recognise that humankind’s
rebellion against God has tainted that image, but not eradicated it.
Yet every person is precious to God.
3. God’s message of hope is therefore addressed to every man, woman
and child around the globe, that they might be redeemed, restored
as image bearers of God through the life, death and resurrection of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and inherit eternal life.
4. As we proclaim the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to a broken and
wounded world, we acknowledge our own failures and weaknesses
in the light of God’s word, the Bible. As God’s love was declared
to us, before we loved God, so we declare God’s love to those who
neither know him nor love him. Yet our love for God is both to
believe and obey, and so our message is to call people to repentance
and love for God, that they might be forgiven and live their lives
in accordance with God’s pattern for humankind as disciples of the
Lord Jesus Christ.
276 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
5. We recognise that the brokenness of our world produces many
aspects of human behaviour which are contrary to God’s good design.
These include slander, greed, malice, hatred, jealousy, dishonesty,
selshness, envy and murder, as well as fornication, adultery and
same-sex unions. In addressing the issue of same-sex relationships,
we are not minimising the sinfulness of other forms of behaviour
that are contrary to God’s character and pattern for humankind.
Rather, we are addressing an issue that continues to be contentious
in both the Church and society and that strikes at the very heart of
biblical authority.
6. We afrm that the clear teaching of Jesus, and the Bible as
a whole, is that marriage is an estate for all people, not just for
believers. It is a holy institution, created by God for a man and a
woman to live in a covenantal relationship of exclusive and mutual
love for each other until they are parted by death. God designed
marriage for the well-being of society, for sexual intimacy between
a husband and a wife, and for procreation and the nurturing of
children (Genesis 2:18-25).
7. We contend that sexual intercourse between two persons of the
same sex is contrary to God’s design, is offensive to him and reects
a disordering of God’s purposes for complementarity in sexual
relations. Like all other morally wrong behaviour, same-sex unions
alienate us from God and are liable to incur God’s judgement. We
hold these convictions based on the clear teaching of Scripture. We
hold them not in order to demean or victimise those who experience
same-sex attractions, but in order to guard the sound doctrine of our
faith, which also informs our pastoral approach for helping those
who struggle with same-sex impulses, attractions and temptations.
8. In this respect, the Church cannot condone same-sex unions as a
form of behaviour acceptable to God. To do so would be tampering
with the foundation of our faith once for all laid down by the apostles
and the prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone
(Ephesians 2: 20-22; 1 Corinthians 3:10-11; Jude 3).
9. Any pastoral provision by a church for a same-sex couple (such
as a liturgy or a service to bless their sexual union) that obviates
the need for repentance and a commitment to pursue a change of
conduct enabled by the power of the Holy Spirit, would contravene
the orthodox and historic teaching of the Anglican Communion on
marriage and sexuality. Such pastoral provisions, while supercially
277
attractive in giving a more humane and socially acceptable face to
the church, actually hide the contravention of doctrine involved. We
must be faithful in guarding the good deposit of the gospel, in all
its gracious gifts with all its covenantal obligations as well, not for
the mere sake of orthodoxy but out of genuine love for God and our
fellow human beings.
10. Our faithfulness to God and knowledge of his love empowers
us to offer sensitive and compassionate ministry to those who are
sexually broken in the area of same-sex attractions and unions.
Our pastoral approach is to accept people for who they are, just
as God accepted us for who we were. We oppose the vilication or
demeaning of those who do not follow God’s ways. We afrm that
every person is loved by God, so we too must love as God loves. Our
role is to restore them to God’s divine patterns by inviting them to
receive the transforming love of Christ that gives them the power
to repent and walk in newness of life. We rely on the Holy Spirit’s
power to reveal to them the measureless goodness of God and the
greatness of God in setting the captive free as a new creation.
11. We recognise that discipleship involves growth and while we
long for all new believers to come to maturity in Christ, we know
that this is a process. For those who are same-sex attracted, the
path of discipleship and living in conformity with God’s Word can
be difcult. We commit ourselves afresh to care pastorally for them
as members of Christ’s body, building them up in the Word and
in the Spirit, and encouraging them to walk by faith in the paths
of repentance and obedience that lead to fullness of life (John 10:
9-10).
[Retrieved from https://www.gafcon.org/news/statement-from-the-
global-south-primates-and-gafcon-primates-council-concerning-
same-sex-unions]
278 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Endnotes
ENDNOTES
Chapter 1
1. All biblical citations are from the NRSV, unless otherwise indicated.
2. James V. Brownson, Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s
Debate on Same-Sex Relationships (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013),
179–203, followed by Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian:
The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationship (New York:
Convergent, 2014).
3. The term “perfect” in Matthew 5:48 is probably derived from the Greek
version (LXX) of Deuteronomy 18:13, “You must remain completely
loyal (perfect) to the Lord your God.” R. T. France, Matthew, Tyndale
New Testament Commentaries (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 130. The Levitical version is cited in 1 Peter
1:16.
4. Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, The New International
Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979).
5. See Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of
Pollution and Taboo (London, Boston and Henley: Ark, 1966), 41–57.
6. The food laws were also repealed in Acts 10 when God told Peter to eat
the unclean animals in a vision, which was a sign to go and preach to
the Gentiles.
7. It is the systematic theologians, beginning with Thomas Aquinas and
continuing with the Reformer John Calvin, who present the three
categories of civil, ceremonial, and moral law. They argue that only the
moral laws are still binding.
8. Numbers 35:31 allows a death penalty to be commuted to a monetary
ransom except in the case of murder.
279
9. Wenham, Leviticus, 285–286, explains that many of the offenses
punishable by “cutting off” would easily escape human detection, so
the main deterrent was a threat of divine judgement. Donald J. Wold,
Out of Order: Homosexuality in the Bible and the Ancient Near East
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 97–99, and Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus
1–16, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 457–460, contend
that “cutting off” could take many forms besides premature death, such
as blotting out the offender’s name by terminating the family line or not
permitting the offender to rejoin his ancestors in the afterlife. Robert A.
J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics
(Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 114 n. 183, connects being “cut off” to not
inheriting the kingdom of God in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10.
10. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 121–120, points out that
Paul’s opposition to same-sex intercourse in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians
6:9 reects vocabulary taken from the LXX of Leviticus 18 and 20.
11. Davian Aw, Whatever Commandment There May Be: A Christian
Response to Homosexuality (Singapore: Free Community Church,
2018), 21. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles and Friedrich Heinrich Wilhelm,
Gesenius’s Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scripture
(London: S. Bagster, 1846), DCCCLIX.
12. John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay
People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to
the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980),
100–102.
13. The reference to abomination (to’evah) in the singular in Ezekiel 18:12
will be discussed later in the section on Sodom and Gomorrah.
14. F. Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew
and English Lexicon (Boston: Houghton and Mifin, 1906), 1073.
15. H.-D. Preuss, “ֵע֖ ָבה,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament 15:
602.
16. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 120.
17. David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1988), 195–196.
18. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 109.
19. Martti Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1996), 28–34.
20. Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 159–160. “Comrade” refers to a man of
equal social status, which implies that these laws do not apply to lower
status men, like slaves or assinnus.
21. This contradicts Aw’s claim that “consensual same-sex relations were
apparently unknown within Israel and its surrounding lands” (Aw,
Whatever Commandment, 25).
22. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 46.
23. In comparison, Deuteronomy 22:23–24, describe consensual sex for
which both parties are punished, and the crime is only described as
280 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
“lies with”: If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be
married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, you shall
bring both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death.
24. Aw, Whatever Commandment, 24. Aw also raises the question about
the omission of father-daughter incest in Leviticus. This is easily
answered by reference to Leviticus 18:17, “You shall not uncover the
nakedness of a woman and of her daughter,…they are your esh; it is
depravity.” Jonathan R. Ziskind, “The Missing Daughter in Leviticus
XVIII,” Vetus Testamentum 46:1 (1996): 126, points out that “a woman
and her daughter” would include both a step-daughter and a biological
daughter.
25. This law should be understood in the ancient context as providing
support for the female victim who would not be otherwise marriageable.
This would not be relevant in today’s context.
26. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 137, lists various reasons
for the laws against incest: protecting females, preventing indelity
within an extended family, reducing intergenerational conicts, and
limiting inbreeding.
27. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 144–145.
28. The rest of the respective narratives in Genesis and Judges indicate
that such callous treatment of women led to tragic consequences, such
as incest between Lot and his daughters and a civil war instigated by
the Levite using his dead concubine’s mutilated body.
29. Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 48–49.
30. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 83-84.
31. Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel, vol. 1, Hermeneia (Philadephia: Fortress,
1979), 380.
32. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 86.
33. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 88. Jude 8 compares the
false believers who through their sexual immorality come into conict
with the angelic guardians of this world order.
34. Despite arguments to the contrary by David J. A. Clines, What Does
Eve Do to Help? And Other Readerly Questions (Shefeld: Shefeld
Academic, 1990): 24–48, and Phyllis A. Bird, “‘Male and Female He
Created Them’: Genesis 1:27b in the Context of the Priestly Account of
Creation,” Harvard Theological Review 74 (1981): 123-154.
35. The Hebrew grammar reference GKC §110c explains that an imperative
may be used to express a distinct assurance, promise, or in commands,
the fullment of which is altogether out of the power of the person
addressed. Blessings may be expressed in the imperatival form, e.g.,
Genesis 24:60, “And they blessed Rebekah and said to her, ‘You, our
sister, become (an imperative in form) thousands of myriad’” (my
translation).
36. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 58; Simon Chan and
William Wan, “Homosexuality: A Theological Perspective,” in National
Council of Churches of Singapore, A Christian Response to Homosexuality
Endnotes 281
(Singapore: Genesis Books, 2004), 78–79. Chan and Wan, 81 n. 21, also
explains that procreation is not necessarily the goal in every sexual act
but in the marital relationship as a whole. Therefore, there is no ban on
contraception.
37. Wesley Hill, “Christ, Scripture, and Spiritual Friendship,” in Two
Views on Homosexuality, the Bible and the Church, ed. Preston Sprinkle
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 129–130. Brownson, Bible, Gender,
Sexuality, 105, denies that becoming “one esh” requires a male-female
union because the biblical writers did not envisage situations beyond
their experience, such as the abolition of slavery. Brownson is wrong
on both counts: Gagnon and Nissinen have shown that consensual gay
sex was known and rejected in the ancient world, and slavery in the Old
Testament was debt-slavery, where one was released after six years
(Exodus 21:2).
38. Danna Nolan Fewell and David M. Gunn, Gender, Power, and Promise:
The Subject of the Bible’s First Story (Nashville, Abingdon, 1993), 29.
39. Brownson, Bible, Gender, Sexuality, 29.
40. Brownson, Bible, Gender, Sexuality, 30, mentions kenegdo only in the
footnote and claims it remains undeveloped, ignoring the words of the
man in calling the other being a “Woman”.
41. Brownson, Bible, Gender, Sexuality, 22–26; Gagnon, The Bible and
Homosexual Practice, 139, 61–62.
42. Brownson, Bible, Gender, Sexuality, 102–103.
43. Chan and Wan, “Homosexuality: A Theological Perspective,” 75.
44. Maggie Low, “An Egalitarian Marriage: Reading Ephesians 5:21-33
Intertextually with Genesis 2,” Asian Journal of Theology 33, no. 1
(2019): 3–19.
45. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco,
TX: Word, 1987), 30–31.
46. K. Barth, Church Dogmatics, III.1.183–187; 194–195; followed by Claus
Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion
(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 157.
47. Andreas Schüle, Theology from the Beginning: Essays on the Primeval
History and Its Canonical Context (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017),
52–57. Schüle leaves open the question whether such relationships are
normative in relation to “alternative” lifestyles.
48. Jerome T. Walsh, “Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: Who is Doing What to
Whom?” Journal of Biblical Literature 120, no. 2 (2001): 204-205.
George M. Hollenback, “Who is Doing What to Whom Revisited:
Another Look at Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13,” Journal of Biblical
Literature 136, no. 3 (2017): 527–537, agrees with Walsh by observing
that the preceding and following verses of Leviticus 18: 22 and
20:13 use different expressions in referring to the insertive agency
of the man, e.g., “give your lying down” in Leviticus 18:20, 23.
282 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
It is believed that the New Testament uses arsenokoitēs (a male lying
down) for homosexuals (1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10) based
on the Septuagint (Greek translation) of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
The Septuagint of Leviticus 20:13 follows the Hebrew literally: hos
an koimēthē meta arsenos (a male) koitēn (lying down) gynaikos (of a
woman). However, in the New Testament context, arsenokoitēs is the
insertive male, while malakos (soft) is used for the receptive partner.
Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual
Background for Contemporary Debate (Philadephia: Fortress, 1983),
106–108, observes that the rst part of the compound word (arsen)
would make it the object of the action (koitē). Thus, the word came to
describe the man who has insertive sex with a male.
49. Walsh, “Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13,” 208. Brownson, Bible, Gender,
Sexuality, 83, argues that the problem with homosexuality was due to
patriarchy because one should not treat a man like a woman. However,
Walsh’s interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 focuses on gender
and makes patriarchy irrelevant.
50. Regarding 1 Timothy 2:12–15, see Maggie Low, “Women in Ministry:
An Interview with Theological and Sociological Perspectives,” Church
and Society in Asia Today 15, no. 1 (2012): 45–58; for other texts
regarding women, see Philip Barton Payne, Man and Woman, One in
Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul's Letters (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2009).
51. William J. Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the
Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 2001).
52. It is used only once of Jacob’s life being bound with the life of his son
Benjamin (Genesis 44:31). Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice,
147.
53. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 152 n. 244.
54. Choon-Leong Seow, “A Heterotextual Perspective,” in Homosexuality
and the Christian Community, ed. Choon-Leong Seow (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1996), 22; William Loader, “Homosexuality
and the Bible,” in Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the
Church, 48, agrees that the Bible is historically against homosexuality
but, as a matter of hermeneutics, disagrees with its contemporary
application.
55. John S.H. Tay, Born Gay? Examining the Scientic Evidence for
Homosexuality (Singapore, 2010); the most recent and largest study
was conducted by Andrea Ganna, Benjamin Neale, Brendan Zietsch,
Dan Benjamin, Felix Day, John Perry, Karin Verweij, “Large-scale
GWAS Reveals Insights into the Genetic Architecture of Same-Sex
Sexual Behaviour,” Science 365 no. 6456 (Aug 30, 2019), https://science.
sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/eaat7693; doi: 10.1126/science.
aat7693.
Endnotes 283
56. Roland Chia, Homosexuality: Questions and Answers (Singapore:
Genesis Books, 2014), 56.
Chapter 2
1. Hence the title of Colby Martin, Unclobber: Rethinking our Misuse of
the Bible on Homosexuality (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2016).
2. I have used the phrases “homosexual relations” or “same-sex relations”
throughout to refer primarily to same-sex sexual activity, and sometimes
(by extension) to same-sex unions which assume such activity.
3. See Preston Sprinkle, People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality Is Not
Just an Issue (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 17.
4. Some examples: John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and
Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning
of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1980); Robin Scroggs, New Testament and
Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); Daniel A. Helminiak, What the Bible
Really Says about Homosexuality, millenium ed. (New Mexico: Alamo
Square Press, 2000); Dale B. Martin, Sex and the Single Savior: Gender
and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2006); Justin Lee, Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the
Gays-vs.-Christians Debate (Jericho Books, 2012); James V. Brownson,
Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-
Sex Relationships (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013); Matthew Vines,
God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex
Relationships (Colorado Springs: Convergent Books, 2014); Martin,
Unclobber. See also the interactions between opposing views by the
contributors in Preston Sprinkle, ed., Two Views on Homosexuality,
the Bible, and the Church, Counterpoints: Bible and Theology (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2016).
5. The nonafrming and afrming views are sometimes called the
“traditional” and “revisionist” respectively.
6. E.g., Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. It’s
worth noting that this interpretation has losing favour even by more
recent afrming scholars.
7. Scroggs, New Testament and Homosexuality.
8. E.g., Soranus, On Chronic Disorders, 4.9; Dio Chrysostom, 7.149, 151–
52.
9. Vines, God and the Gay Christian; Brownson, Bible, Gender, Sexuality;
Martin, Sex and the Single Savior.
10. Bernadette J. Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses
to Female Homoeroticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996),
59-60.
11. E.g., Gagnon, Bible and Homosexual Practice, 288-92. But some
afrming scholars have denied the link between Romans 1 and Genesis
1-2. See, for example, Martin, Sex and the Single Savior, 52-55.
284 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
12. I am indebted to Sprinkle, People to be Loved, 92, for this point, and also
his helpful formal translations.
13. It is worth nothing that every rst-century Jew would have agreed with
Paul at this point.
14. “…the pleasure enjoyed by males with males and females with females
seems to be against nature (para physin), and the boldness of those who
rst engaged in this practice seems to have arisen out of an inability to
control pleasure.” Plato, Laws, 636B-D.
15. See the studies of Richard B Hays, “Relations Natural and Unnatural:
A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1,” The Journal of
Religious Ethics (1986): 197-98; Brooten, Love Between Women, 241.
16. See Philo, Post. 180–81 (masturbation); Philo, Spec. Leg. 3.32 (sex
during menstruation); Philo, Spec. Leg. 3.36 (sex with an infertile
woman); Rufus, On Sexual Matters, 12 (sex for mere pleasure). For these
references, and the argument in this section generally, I am indebted to
Sprinkle, People to be Loved, 96-98.
17. “In Paul’s time the categorization of homosexual practices as para physin
was a commonplace feature of polemical attacks against such behavior,
particularly in the world of Hellenistic Judaism. When this idea turns
up in Romans 1 …, Paul is hardly making an original contribution to
theological thought on the subject; he speaks out of a Hellenistic-Jewish
cultural context in which homosexuality is regarded as an abomination,
and he assumes that his readers will share his negative judgment of it.”
Hays, “Relations,” 194.
18. Furthermore, Paul’s argument in Romans 1 is more of a corporate
indictment of pagan society, not an evaluation of individual human
beings based on their sexual orientation. See Hays, “Relations,” 200.
19. Sprinkle, People to be Loved, 100. Contra Brownson, Bible, Gender,
Sexuality, 160-66, who argues that it is not desire that Paul opposes,
but excessive desire. But he has read into the text what is hardly there.
20. D.T. Niles is thought to have said “Christianity is one beggar telling
another beggar where to nd bread.”
21. See Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says, 107.
22. Martin, Sex and the Single Savior, 43, though he goes on to propose
“some particular kind of economic exploitation.”
23. The word is used for “soft clothing” in Matthew 11:18. Outside of 1
Corinthians 6, Matthew 11:18, together with the parallel in Luke 7:25,
are the only other time malakos is used in the NT.
24. In his Special Laws, Philo used malakoi to describe certain “men-women”
who “desired wholly to change their condition for that of women.” This
includes, he adds, wearing heavy makeup and thick perfume, getting
their hair curled, dressing in women’s clothes, getting castrated, and
playing the passive role in sexual intercourse with other men. In fact,
this last thing Philo also calls para physin “contrary to nature.” Spec.
Laws 3.37–41; cf. Abr. 135–37. An example of how the Latin equivalent
for “soft” is used can be found in Lucan, 10.133–34, for castrated youth.
Endnotes 285
25. Martial 2.62.
26. Sprinkle, People to be Loved, 107.
27. See David F Wright, “Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning
of ἀρσενοκοῑται (1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10),” VC 38
(1984): 125-53.
28. Martin, Sex and the Single Savior, 39.
29. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality,
338-54, doesn’t mention it; Brownson, Bible, Gender, Sexuality,
271 and Lee, Torn, 185, both call the connection “speculative.”
30. Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 126 (“possibly”); Scroggs,
New Testament and Homosexuality, 83, 108 (“almost certainly”).
But both go on to propose that arsenokoites refers to pederasty.
31. b. Sanh. 54a (the focus here is on pederasty, but the passage
goes on to apply Leviticus 20:13 to sexual relations between a
man and another male “whether an adult or a minor”); see also
b. Shabb. 17b; b. Sukkah 29a; y. Ber. 9.50.13c; b. Niddah 13b.
See Sprinkle, People to be Loved, 111-12.
32. See, e.g., Refutation of All Heresies 5.26.22–23; quoted in Gagnon,
Bible and Homosexual Practice, 318; Eusebius, Preparation
for the Gospel, 6.1; Origen, Expositions on Proverbs 7.74. The
discussion is found in Sprinkle, People to be Loved, 114-15.
33. Wesley Hill, Washed and Waiting: Reections on Christian
Faithfulness and Homosexuality (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2010), 62.
34. As Hays says, “Paul’s references to homosexual conduct place
it within the realm of sin and death, to which the cross is God’s
denitive answer. The judgment of Romans 1 against homosexual
practices should never be read apart from the rest of the letter,
with its message of grace and hope through the cross of Christ.”
Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament:
Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary Introduction
to New Testament Ethics (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco,
1996), 393.
35. E.g., Sprinkle, People to be Loved, which is excellent, but it fails
to mention this. The same is true for the relevant chapter in
another very good resource: Fortson III and Grams, Unchanging
Witness. One exception is Kevin DeYoung, What Does the Bible
Really Teach about Homosexuality? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2015),
which discusses the death penalty in a footnote (!).
36. It’s worth noting that the prohibitions were ever only addressed
to God’s people, not to outsiders.
37. Paul uses the phrase “Purge the evil person from among you” (v.
13). This originally implied the death penalty in Deuteronomy
(e.g., 17:7; 19:9), but Paul uses it to refer to the church discipline
of excommunication, rather than the literal death penalty.
286 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Chapter 3
1. C. S. Lewis, “Introduction,” The Incarnation of the Word of God: Being
the Treatise of St. Athanasius, trans. by A Religious of C.S.M.V. (New
York, NY: MacMillan, 1947).
2. On the hermeneutical issues as they relate to these comparisons, see W.
J. Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of
Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove: IVP, 2001).
3. This is the gist of the argument in J. Boswell, Christianity, Social
Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the
Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1980), and in particular p. 333.
4. D. F. Wright, “Early Christian Attitudes to Homosexuality,” Studia
Patristica 18, no. 3 (1989): 329–33. See also S. D. Fortson III, and R.
G. Grams. Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on
Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition (Nashville: B&H Academic,
2016), to which we are indebted for the sampling that follows, and
which contains many more other examples.
5. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 3.1 (ANF 2:276–77).
6. Tertullian, Apology 46 (ANF 3:51).
7. Tertullian, Against the Valentinians XI (ANF 3:509). The
straightforward condemnation of male-male sex is common, see also
Methodius, Symposium 5.5; Cyprian, To Donatus 9 (ANF 5:277–78).
8. Bernadette J. Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses
to Female Homoeroticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996),
59-60.
9. Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 4 (NPNF1 11:356, 358; language
modernised).
10. “First, [marriage] was ordained for the procreation of children, to be
brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his
holy Name …” From the Form of Solemnization of Matrimony, Book of
Common Prayer.
11. Augustine, Confessions 3.8 (NPNF1 1:65, language modernised).
12. This is not to say that all Old Testament ethics is taken over without
modication. For example, it would appear that the death penalty for
male homosexual acts in Leviticus 20:13 does not continue into the
apostolic era (as an analogy, compare the case of a man having relations
with his father’s wife in Leviticus 20.11 and 1 Corinthians 5.1-5).
13. K. Harper, From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual
Morality in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2013), 12.
14. These are manuals that provided pastoral guidelines for ministering
private confession and the rite of penance, recommending various
penances for homosexual acts. For example, Penitential Regulation of
Pope Gregory III (ca. 731-41), which states that “any ordained person
…deled with the crime of sodomy” were to “do penance for 10 years,
Endnotes 287
according to the ancient rule.” According to Pierre Payer, all known
penitentials from the early Middle Ages have at least one canon
against same-sex acts. See P. J. Payer, Sex and the Penitentials: The
Development of a Sexual Code 550-1150 (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1984), 135-39; cited in Fortson and Grams, Unchanging Witness,
46.
15. Third Lateran Council, Canon 11 and Fourth Lateran Council, Canon
14 both deal with the enforcement of discipline against homosexual acts
among clerics.
16. Summa Theologica 2.2.154.1 and 2.2.154.11, vol. 4, 1,808.
17. Hildegard of Bingen, Scivias 2.6, in The Classics of Western Spirituality,
trans. Columba Hart and Jane Bishop (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1990),
279. Note how Hildegard mentions female homosexual acts.
18. E.g., in his remarks on the commandment “You shall not commit
adultery” in the Large Catechism (1529); found in The Book of Concord,
trans. and ed. Theodore Tappert (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1959),
393–94.
19. Ibid., 51-54.
20. Question 87, in Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation, ed.
Mark A. Noll (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1991), 155. The proof-text in
the margin is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
21. The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms in Modern
English (Summertown, TN: Summertown Company, 2005), 116. The
proof-texts for “sodomy and all unnatural desires” are Romans 1:26-27
and Leviticus 20:15-16.
22. The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Oecumenical Council of
Trent, ed. and trans. J. Waterworth (London, England: Dolaman, 1848),
42.
23. John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (New York,
NY: Villard, 1994), 295, cited and critiqued in Fortson and Grams,
Unchanging Witness, 65-66.
24. On this, see Wesley Hill, Spiritual Friendship: Finding Love in the
Church as a Celibate Gay Christian (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2015).
25. Eugene F. Rogers, Theology and Sexuality: Classic and Contemporary
Readings (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), 309.
26. Rowan Williams, “The Body's Grace,” in Theology and Sexuality: Classic
and Contemporary Readings, ed. Eugene F. Rogers (Oxford: Blackwell,
2002), 311.
27. Ibid., 312.
28. Ibid., 313.
29. Ibid., 314.
30. Ibid., 315.
31. Ibid., 317.
32. Ibid., 319.
33. Oliver O' Donovan, Church in Crisis: The Gay Controversy and the
Anglican Communion (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2008), 112.
288 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
34. Eugene F. Rogers, “Sanctication, Homosexuality and God’s Triune
Life,” in Theology and Sexuality: Classic and Contemporary Readings,
ed. Eugene F. Rogers (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), 218.
35. There are some, notes Rogers, who argue that marriage is an important
way by which humans image God because just as God creates, married
couples procreate. It is on this basis then that homosexual marriage
should be rejected. Rogers is right, I think, to criticise this argument
as awed since (i) this would mean that Jesus, as a celibate, is an
incomplete human being and (ii) it makes the act of creation a necessity
for God.
36. Rogers, “Sanctication, Homosexuality and God’s Triune Life,” 221.
37. Ibid., 225-7.
38. Ibid., 227.
39. Ibid., 231-32.
40. Ibid., 236-37.
41. Ibid., 234.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid., 230.
44. Oliver O’ Donovan, Church in Crisis; and “Homosexuality in the
Church: Can There Be a Fruitful Theological Debate,” in Theology and
Sexuality: Classic and Contemporary Readings, ed. Eugene F. Rogers
(Oxford: Blackwell, 2002).
45. O’ Donovan, “Homosexuality in the Church,” 381.
46. O’ Donovan, Church in Crisis, 105.
47. O’ Donovan, “Homosexuality in the Church,” 381.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid.
50. O’ Donovan, Church in Crisis, 103.
51. Ibid., 106-7.
52. Ibid., 108.
53. Ibid., 109.
54. Ibid., 112-3.
Chapter 4
1. Andreas J. Kstenberger, “The Bible’s Teaching on Marriage and
Family”, https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF11J34.pdf accessed 20 Jan
2021
2. R.C. Ortlund, “God’s Blueprint for Marriage at Creation”, T. Desmond
Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, eds., New Dictionary of Biblical
Theology, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000).
655.
3. Kstenberger, 5-8. I have condensed it to four from his list of six.
4. Ortlund, 656.
5. Andreas J. Kstenberger and David W. Jones, God, Marriage, and
Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation, Second Edition (Crossway,
Endnotes 289
Wheaton, Ill), 31-39. I rely substantially on this seminal work on this
subject as it faithfully canvasses the Biblical literature and cultural
responses to marriage and family.
6. Ibid, 36.
7. Ortlund, 657
8. Ortlund, 657
9. Kstenberger and Jones, God, Marriage, and Family, 223
10. Kstenberger and Jones, God, Marriage, and Family, 253
11. Ibid, 259
12. Ibid, 259
13. Andreas Kstenberger and David W. Jones, Marriage and the Family
(Wheaton: Crossways, 2010), 257.
14. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/fewer-marriages-
more-divorces-2019-singapore-singstat-12968970
15. Voddie Baucham Jr., Family Driven Faith: Doing What It Takes to
Raise Sons and Daughters Who Walk with God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway,
2007).
16. J. Mark Fox, Family-Integrated Church: Healthy Families, Healthy
Church (Longwood, FL: Xulon, 2006); Wallace, Uniting Church and
Home.
17. Webb, “What Is the Family-Integrated Church Movement? (Part 4),”
who discusses especially Richard Baxter (who was single) and John
Owen.
18. Kstenberger, ibid, pg 262.
19. Kstenberger and Jones, Marriage and the Family (Wheaton:
Crossways, 2010), 266
20. Kstenberger, “The Bible’s Teaching on Marriage and Family”, pg 14,
https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF11J34.pdf accessed 20 Jan 2021
21. Josh McDowell, https://www.josh.org/key-ndings-in-landmark-
pornography-study-released/
Chapter 5
1. A good introduction to the various view of the imago Dei is given in
Stanley J. Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian
Theology of the Imago Dei (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
2001).
2. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, III/1, The Doctrine of Creation, trans.
J.W. Edwards et al. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958), §41.2, 184.
(Hereafter, the abbreviation CD will be used.)
3. Megan K. DeFranza, Sex Difference in Christian Theology: Male,
Female, and Intersex in the Image of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2015), 3.
4. CD III/1, §41.3, 290.
5. Ibid.
6. CD III/1, §41.2, 185.
290 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
7. Ibid.
8. CD III/1, §41.3, 295.
9. Ibid., 291.
10. Christopher C. Roberts, Creation and Covenant: The Signicance of
Sexual Difference in and for the Moral Theology of Marriage (New York:
T. & T. Clark International, 2007), 142–143, 149, 237.
11. Matthew W. Mason, “Man and Woman He Created Them: Same-Sex
Desires, Gender Trouble, and Gay Marriage in the Light of John Paul
II’s Theology of the Body,” Bulletin of Ecclesial Theology 1, no. 1 (June
2014): 45 (emphasis in original).
12. Roberts, Creation and Covenant, 213: “Sexual difference [in the history
of Christian thought]… was always a matter of ontology.”
13. Stanley J. Grenz, Welcoming but Not Afrming: An Evangelical
Response to Homosexuality (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
1998), 104.
14. Thomas Hopko, Christian Faith and Same-Sex Attraction: Eastern
Orthodox Reections (Ben Lomond: Conciliar Press, 2006), 33–34.
This point is afrmed even by theologians of Christian denominations
which uphold the monastic movement, where celibate persons of the
same sex live communally in order to devote themselves to prayer and
service. Hopko, an Eastern Orthodox priest, observes that “the lives
of Christian saints, both men and women, the majority of whom were
unmarried, convincingly demonstrates” that men and women need one
another for mutual fullment and sanctity. He points out how these
saints, although celibate, often had friends of the opposite sex (Christian
Faith, 34). The prime example is Jesus and his apostles, who always
had female companions. Other examples include the Cappadocians and
Macrina (sister of Basil and Gregory of Nyssa), Francis of Assisi and
Clare, and John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila.
15. Grenz, Welcoming but Not Afrming, 104.
16. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, III/4, The Doctrine of Creation, trans.
A.T. Mackay et al. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark), §54.1, 118.
17. Grenz, Welcoming but Not Afrming, 114. Such “one-esh” union
between a man and woman was afrmed by Jesus in the parallel
accounts of Mark 10:6-9 and Matthew 19:4-6.
18. James P. Hanigan, Homosexuality: The Test Case for Christian Sexual
Ethics (New York: Paulist Press, 1988), 101–102.
19. Grenz, Welcoming but Not Afrming, 110–111.
20. Ibid., 141.
21. Ibid., 111. Hanigan makes a similar point in Homosexuality, 99–102.
22. Hanigan, Homosexuality, 99.
23. Robert Song, Covenant and Calling: Towards a Theology of Same-Sex
Relationships (London: SCM Press, 2014), 4–5.
24. Ibid., 5; Michael G. Lawler, Marriage and Sacrament: A Theology of
Christian Marriage (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1993), 58.
25. Grenz, Welcoming but Not Afrming, 108; Hanigan, Homosexuality, 99.
Endnotes 291
26. Mason, “Man and Woman He Created Them,” 40–41.
27. Alastair Roberts, “Just Cause Against Same-Sex Marriage: Why We
Cannot Hold Our Peace,” Ecclesia Reformanda 3, no.1 (2011): 69, cited
in Mason, “Man and Woman He Created Them,” 40–41.
28. Frank Swain, “Virgin births: Do we need sex to reproduce?” BBC
Future, 20 May 2014, https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140530-do-
we-need-sex-to-reproduce.
29. Lawler, Marriage and Sacrament, 41.
30. James S. Candlish, The Christian Sacraments, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 1881), 15–16.
31. See, for example, para 21 of the “Final Report of the Roman Catholic--
Lutheran--Reformed Study Commission on ‘The Theology of Marriage
and the Problem of Mixed Marriages’ 1976,” in Growth In Agreement:
Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a
World Level, ed. Harding Meyer and Lukas Vischer (New York: Paulist
Press; Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1984), 286, which afrms
“the sacramental power of marriage”.
32. The term “created for covenant” is used by Roberts, Creation and
Covenant, 80 when he describes the view of Bernard of Clairvaux on
marriage.
33. Mason, “Man and Woman He Created Them,” 48.
34. Brian Edgar, “Sexuality, the Image of God and the Doctrine of the
Trinity,” in Whose Homosexuality? Which Authority? Homosexual
Practice, Marriage, Ordination and the Church (Adelaide: ATF Press,
2006), 148.
35. Mason, “Man and Woman He Created Them,” 48.
36. Douglas Farrow, Nation of Bastards: Essays on the End of Marriage
(Toronto: BPS Books, 2007), 113.
37. Eugene F. Rogers, Sexuality and the Christian Body: Their Way into the
Triune God (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999).
38. Stephen Holmes, “Two New Books on Sexuality,” Shored Fragments
(Blog), posted 3 Dec 2014, http://steverholmes.org.uk/blog/?p=7377.
39. Review by Francis Watson, Studies in Christian Ethics 14s (2001): 105.
40. Jeffrey Stout, “How Charity Transcends the Culture Wars: Eugene
Rogers and Others on Same-Sex Marriage,” Journal of Religious Ethics
31, no. 2 (2003): 171.
41. Rogers, Sexuality and the Christian Body, 195.
42. A relatively simple introduction to this notion is found in Alister
McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 6th ed. (Oxford: Wiley
Blackwell, 2017), 285.
43. Douglas Farrow writes that Rogers goes “in a tri-theistic direction
which neither East nor West would countenance” and that the notion of
“the marriage of the Father and the Son is a perversely heterodox idea,
lacking any support in biblical or dogmatic texts”: “Beyond Nature, Shy
of Grace,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 5, no. 3 (2003):
274–276.
292 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
44. Due in part to the well-known work Eros and Agape by Swedish thinker
Anders Nygren, who contrasted these two concepts: Rogers, Sexuality
and the Christian Body, 82.
45. Ibid., 222.
46. Ibid., 225.
47. Ibid., 204.
48. Ibid., 225.
49. Ibid., 227.
50. Ibid., 241.
51. Ibid., 227-228.
52. Ibid., 232-233.
53. Ibid., 73, 84, 94.
54. Ibid., 78-79, 191.
55. Ibid., 230.
56. Ibid., 83.
57. Ibid., 84, 232-233.
58. Farrow, “Beyond Nature,” 279.
59. Eugene Rogers, “Sanctied Unions: An Argument for Gay Marriage,”
The Christian Century 121, no. 12 (June 15, 2004): 29.
60. Watson, Review, 105.
61. Farrow, “Beyond Nature,” 279. In more technical terms, Farrow accuses
Rogers of “an unrestrained communicatio idiomatum”.
62. The sources of Christian theology have traditionally been identied as
the four elements of the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral”: Scripture, tradition,
reason and experience.
63. Pelagius was a fourth-century British monk who taught that human
beings, on the basis of their inherent willpower, are able to choose
rightly and live lives pleasing to God. The term “Pelagian” has since
come to be associated with theological approaches which unduly
emphasise our human ability to do right and correspondingly downplay
our need for God’s transformative and sustaining grace. See McGrath,
Christian Theology, 18-19 for more details.
64. Farrow, “Beyond Nature,” 279-280.
65. Roberts, Creation and Covenant, 219.
66. Rogers, Sexuality and the Christian Body, 233.
67. Ibid., 142.
68. This is, admittedly, also our aim here, with regards to Rogers’ proposal.
69. Rogers, Sexuality and the Christian Body, 181.
70. Ibid., 182-186.
71. Ibid., 187-189.
72. Ibid., 225-226.
73. Ibid., 242-243, 246.
74. Ibid., 243-244.
75. Ibid., 205-206.
76. Ibid., 206.
77. Ibid., 210, 262.
Endnotes 293
78. Ibid., 260-265.
79. Watson, Review, 105 thinks that Roger’s reduction of the male-female
distinction to theological irrelevance “trivialises a fundamental mystery
of human life, about which theology should have something pertinent to
say”.
80. Gnosticism was a teaching the early church had to ght long and hard
against. It saw spiritual reality as good and material things as evil. The
term “Gnostic” has since been used to denote theological approaches
which seek to unduly minimise the signicance or goodness of various
aspects of material creation. See McGrath, Christian Theology, 13-14
for more details.
81. See, for example, Rogers, Sexuality and the Christian Body, 83: “God
does not leave my body out of God’s desire for me. That would be Gnostic.
Instead, God can use my body… to teach me that God loves me…”
82. Rogers, in his later article “The Liturgical Body,” Modern Theology
16, no. 3 (July 2000), responds to a similar charge by asking, “why is
it that the shape of the body counts as real, but the reaction of the
body counts as mere appearance? Is there not a separation of body and
soul here? The desire for a body of a particular gender—a desire that
affects gay and lesbian Christians most of all—does not marginalise
but heightens attention to bodies' ‘distinctive attributes’. Furthermore,
the desire for the body of a particular gender is itself one of the body's
distinctive attributes” (371). These statements seem to support, rather
than undermine, our observations here.
83. Song, Covenant and Calling, 25. Song concludes, “The effort to write
same-sex relationships into creation narratives which are arguably only
partly hospitable to them requires suppressing features that remain
stubbornly visible” (27). It is somewhat ironic that Rogers in Sexuality
and the Christian Body, 190 accuses Barth of “abstraction”, in the sense
that Barth seems xated on the Adam-Eve relationship to the point
of idealising it, at the expense of other relationships in the Bible and
even relationships as we experience them. Rogers’ own “abstraction”, in
choosing to focus on the more amorphous notion of eros at the expense
of concrete material reality, seems far more serious.
84. One does sense a level of discomfort on Rogers’ part with denying all
ontological signicance to the male-female distinction. At points he
seems to indicate that such distinction is especially suitable for the
symbolic functions of marriage. See, for example, Sexuality and the
Christian Body, p. 215 (“commonness and reciprocity can nd a signal
instance in male and female”), p. 225 (the relationship between a man
and woman represents the “typical form of human erotic love”), p. 238
(“it really does matter whether someone has a penis or vagina”) and
p. 242 (“the male-female version of the one esh can be especially apt
for representing the union of Christ with his bride, the Church”). It is,
however, difcult to reconcile these statements with Rogers’ larger aim
of claiming theological irrelevance for the male-female distinction.
85. Roberts, Creation and Covenant, 202.
294 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
86. Ibid., 207.
87. Marcion was a heretic in the early church who taught that the deity
of the Old Testament was an evil demiurge, a different gure from
the good and loving God of the New Testament. He attempted to drive
a sharp wedge between the two Testaments, afrming the New and
discarding the Old. The early church had to battle long and hard with
his teachings, called Marcionism.
88. I would like to take this opportunity to refer to my article on the
website of the Ethos Institute for Public Christianity entitled “Fighting
with One Hand Tied Behind our Backs”, posted 2 Nov 2020, https://
ethosinstitute.sg/ghting-with-one-hand/. It offers a self-critique of the
attitudes and practices of many of our Protestant churches in Singapore,
which subvert our attempts to uphold the traditional view of marriage
and sexual relations.
Chapter 6
1. Loren Marks, Expert Witness Report of Loren Marks: DeBoer v
Snyder, Detroit Michigan, 2014, MI#12-civ-10285, https://web.stanford.
edu/~mrosenfe/DeBoer_afdavits/defense/Marks.pdf
2. D. Paul Sullins, “Bias in Recruited Sample Research on Children with
Same-Sex Parents Using the Strength and Difculties Questionnaire
(SDQ).” Journal of Scientic Research & Reports 5 (2015): 376.
3. Mark Regnerus, “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents
Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family
Structures Study.” Social Science Research 41 (2012): 753.
4. Marie-Amélie George, “The Custody Crucible: The Development of
Scientic Authority about Gay and Lesbian Parents,” Law and History
Review 34, no. 2 (May 2016): 487–529.
5. Judith Wallerstein, Sandra Blakeslee, and Julia Lewis, The Unexpected
Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study. (NY: Hyperion, 2000)
6. D. Paul Sullins, “Invisible Victims: Delayed Onset Depression among
Adults with Same-Sex Parents.” Hindawi (2016)
7. Crowl, Ahn, and Baker, “A Meta-Analysis of Developmental Outcomes
for Children of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Parents” Journal of GLBT
Family Sciences, 4 (2008)
8. Ibid., 399
9. Fiona Tasker, “Same-Sex Parenting and Child Development: Reviewing
the Contribution of Parental Gender,” Journal of Marriage and Family
72 (2010): 36.
10. Mary Gallagher and Joshua Baker, “Do Moms and Dads Matter?
Evidence from the Social Scienceson Family Structure and the Best
Interests of the Child.” Margins Law Journal 4 (2004): 179.
11. Richard Green, Jane Mandel, Mary Hotvedt, James Gray and Laurel
Smith, “Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo
Parent Heterosexual Mothers and Their Children.” Archives of Sexual
Behavior 15 (1986).
Endnotes 295
12. Mark Regnerus,“How Different are the Adult Children of Parents
Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family
Structures Study.”
13. Elizabeth Marquardt, One Parent or Five: A Global Look at Today’s
New Intentional Families” (New York: Institute for American Values,
2011), 27.
14. Eliza Lian-Ding, “Why Children Need Moms and Dads Who Are
Married to Each Other,” Church and Society in Asia Today, Marriage
and Society, 12, no. 3 (December 2009): 143-144.
15. Mary Eberstadt, How the West Really Lost God. (West Conshohocken,
PA: Templeton Press, 2013)
16. Ibid., 20-21
17. Mignon Moore and Michael Stambolis-Ruhstorfer, “LGBT Sexuality and
Families at the Start of the 21st Century,” Annual Review of Sociology
39 (2013): 491–507.
18. Elizabeth Marquardt, Norval Glenn, and Karen Clark, My Daddy’s
Name Is Donor: A New Study of Young Adults Conceived Through
Sperm Donation, (New York: Institute for American Values, 2010), 5–6.
19. Catholic Church, Donum Vitae= The Gift of Life: Instruction on Respect
for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: [Replies
to Certain Questions of the Day]. (Washington, D.C., National Catholic
Bioethics Center, 2000).
20. Kristin Moore, Susan Jekielek, and Carol Emig, “Marriage from a Child’s
Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What
Can We Do about It?” Child Trends Research Brief (June 2002); Mary
Gallagher and Joshua Baker, “Do Moms and Dads Matter? Evidence
from the Social Sciences on Family Structure and the Best Interests
of the Child” Margins Law Journal (2004); Elizabeth Marquardt, “The
Revolution in Parenthood: The Emerging Global Clash Between Adult
Rights and Children’s Needs.” (New York: Institute for American
Values, 2006).
21. Wade Horn and Tom Sylvester, Father Facts, 4th ed. (Gaithersburg,
MD: National Fatherhood Initiative, 2002).
22. Mark Regnerus, “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents
Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family
Structures Study.”
23. Fiona Tasker and Susan Golombok, Growing Up in a Lesbian Family
(New York: Guilford, 1997).
24. Sotirios Sarantakos, Same-Sex Couples (Sydney: Harvard Press, 2000),
31.
25. Elizabeth Marquardt, One Parent or Five 25.
26. Jennifer Wainright, Stephen Russell, and Charlotte Patterson,
“Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic
Relationships of Adolescents with Same-Sex Parents,” Child
Development 75, no. 6 (2004): 1886–98; Jennifer Wainright and
Charlotte Patterson, “Delinquency, Victimization, and Substance Use
296 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
among Adolescents with Female Same-Sex Parents,” Journal of Family
Psychology 20, no. 3 (2006): 526–30; Jennifer Wainright and Charlotte
Patterson, “Peer Relations among Adolescents with Female Same-Sex
Parents.,” Developmental Psychology 44, no. 1 (2008): 117.
27. D. Paul Sullins, “The Unexpected Harm of Same-Sex Marriage: A
Critical Appraisal, Replication and Re-Analysis of Wainright and
Patterson’s Studies on Adolescents with Same-Sex Parents.” British
Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science 11, no. 2 (2015)
28. Ibid., 20
29. Ibid.
30. Robert Lopez, Jephthah’s Daughters (Los Angeles, CA: International
Children’s Rights Institute, 2015), 28.
31. Sullins, “Invisible Victims,” 5.
32. Ibid.
33. Martin Kolk and Gunnar Andersson, “Two Decades of Same-Sex
Marriage in Sweden.: A Demographic Account of Developments in
Marriage, Childbearing and Divorce” (Stockholm University, 2018).
34. Kenneth Wiik, Ane Seierstad, and Turid Noack, “Divorce in Norwegian
Same-Sex Marriages and Registered Partnerships: The Role of
Children,” Journal of Marriage and Family 76 (October 2014).
35. Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey, “Does the Gender of Parents
Matter?” Journal of Marriage and Family 72, no.1 (February 2012): 12.
36. Ibid.
37. Kolk and Andersson, 18.
38. Wiik, Seierstad, and Noack, 924.
39. Ibid.
40. D. Paul Sullins, “Emotional Problems among Children with Same-
Sex Parents: Difference by Denition,” British Journal of Education,
Society & Behavioural Science 7, no. 2 (2015).
41. Guillaume Fond, N. Franc, and Diane Purper-Ouakil, “Homosexual
Parenthood and Child Development: Present Data,” L Encéphale 38,
no. 1 (February 2012).
42. Robert Lopez, “Growing Up with Two Moms: The Untold Children’s
View.” The Public Discourse, 2012, https://www.thepublicdiscourse.
com/2012/08/6065/
43. Richard Fitzgibbons, “Growing up with Gay Parents: What Is the Big
Deal?,” The Linacre Quarterly 82, no. 4 (2016): 332–36.
44. Eberstadt, 190.
45. Michael King, Joanna Semlyen, Sharon Tai, Helen Killaspy, David
Osborn, Dmitri Popelyuk and Irwin Nazareth. “A Systematic Review
of Mental Disorder, Suicide, and Deliberate Self Harm in Lesbian, Gay
and Bisexual People,” BioMed Central Psychiatry 8, no. 70 (2008).
46. Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, Margreet ten Have, Yusuf Ransome
and Paul Schnabel. “Same-Sex Sexuality and Psychiatric Disorders in
the Second Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study
(NEMESIS-2),” LGBT Health 11, no. 4 (December 11, 2014): 292–301;
Endnotes 297
Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, Rob Bijl and Paul Schnabel, “Same-
Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders,” Archives of General
Psychiatry 58 (January 2001): 85–91.
47. Hanneke van den Akker, Joris Blaauw, Marcel Lubbers, Rozemarijn van
der Ploeg, Peer Scheepers and Ellen Verbakel. “Health and Happiness
Among Homosexual Couples in Europe,” International Psychiatry 10,
no. 2 (May 2013): 31–32.
48. J. Michael Bailey. “The Minority Stress Model Deserves Reconsideration,
Not Just Extension,” Archives of Sexual Behavior (December 2019).
49. Dean Byrd, “Homosexual Couples and Parenting: What Science Can
and Cannot Say,” Journal of Human Sexuality 3 (2011): 4–34; Mark
Regnerus, “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have
Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures
Study.”
50. David Boyle, Brief of Amicus Curiae Robert Oscar Lopez Supporting
Defs.-Appellants and Supporting Reversal (May 14,2014) in DeBoer v.
Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014)
51. Ibid.,16-19
52. Ibid., 20
53. Marquardt, Glenn, and Clark, “My Daddy’s Name Is Donor,” 48.
54. Paul VI and M. Caligari, Humanae Vitae= Encyclical Letter of His
Holiness Pope Paul VI, on the Regulation of Births (Ignatius Press,
1983).
55. Bryan Shen, The Unafrmed Core: Understanding the Factors behind
and around Homosexuality (Singapore: Armour Publishing, 2018).
56. Janelle Hallman, The Heart of Female Same-Sex Attraction. (Downers
Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008).
57. Wesley Hill, “We All Belong Together,” Spiritual Friendship, May 13,
2020, https://spiritualfriendship.org/author/wahill.
58. Lopez and Edelman, Jephthah’s Daughters. 81
Chapter 7
1. Examples include Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian: The
Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships (New York:
Convergent Books, 2015) and Justin Lee, Torn: Rescuing the Gospel
from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate (Jericho Books, 2013). Lee is the
founder and executive director of The Gay Christian Network; cf. John
J. McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual, 4th ed. (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1993).
2. These include: Wesley Hill, Washed and Waiting: Reections on
Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2016; Ed Shaw, Same-Sex Attraction and the Church: The Surprising
Plausibility of the Celibate Life (Downers Grove: IVP, 2015); Christopher
Yuan, Holy Sexuality and the Gospel: Sex, Desire, and Relationships
Shaped by God’s Grand Story (Colorado Springs: Multnomah, 2018);
298 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Sam Allbery, Is God Anti-gay? (New Malden: The Good Book Company,
2013); and Nate Collins, All but Invisible: Exploring Identity Questions
at the Intersection of Faith, Gender, and Sexuality (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2017).
3. See for instance the exhaustive study on biblical texts pertaining to
homosexuality by Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice:
Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002).
4. Aelred of Rievaulx, Spiritual Friendship, tr. Lawrence C. Braceland, SJ
(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2010).
5. The Latin title of Aelred’s book, De spiritali amicitia, is an explicit
Christianisation of Cicero’s De amicitia. Aelred replaces Cicero’s
examples of friendship from classical history and mythology with
biblical materials, and supplements Cicero’s arguments with citations
from Scripture and the Fathers.
6. Aelred, Spiritual Friendship, 55.
7. Wesley Hill, Spiritual Friendship: Finding Love in the Church as a
Celibate Gay Christian (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2015), 29.
8. Aelred of Rievaulx, The Mirror of Charity, tr. Elizabeth Connor
(Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1990). On Aelred and friendship,
see: Liz Carmichael, “Monastic Friendship and Aelred of Rievaulz:
‘Shall I say–“God is Friendship?”,’ in her Friendship: Interpreting
Christian Love (London/New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 70-
100.
9. Aelred’s ruminations on friendship between monks have convinced
Yale history professor John Boswell that Aelred was gay and that “his
erotic attraction to men was a dominant force in his life.” John Boswell,
Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago & London:
University of Chicago Press, 1980), 222. Boswell’s assertion has inspired
the LGBTQ Episcopal group, “Integrity,” to name Aelred as their
patron saint. See: Kittredge Cherry, “Aelred of Rievaulx: Gay Saint of
Friendship,” Qspirit, Jan 12, 2020, https://qspirit.net/aelred-rievaulx-
gay-saint/ (accessed 28 September 2020); and “A St. Aelred Catechism,”
Walking with Integrity, Jan 12, 2011, http://walkingwithintegrity.
blogspot.com/2011/01/st-aelred-catechism.html (accessed 28 September
2020).
10. https://spiritualfriendship.org [accessed 10 September 2020].
11. https://revoice.us. The rst Revoice conference was held in July 2018 at
Memorial Presbyterian Church in St. Louis. Note that not all who are
involved in this movement are same-sex attracted.
12. As Eve Tushnet notes, they differ for instance on whether it is important
to know the origin of one’s SSA, or the language used to describe
their orientation. Gay and Catholic: Accepting My Sexuality, Finding
Community, Living My Faith (Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press, 2014), 60-
69.
13. Blogger Joshua Gonnerman, for instance, speaks of “the gay genius for
friendship.” While not claiming that homosexuals are unique in this
Endnotes 299
regard, he nevertheless asserts: “It does seem to me that there tends to
be, on average, a greater depth to the friendships a gay person cultivates,
especially the same-sex friendships. It also seems to me that the value
of friendship tends, on average, to resonate more deeply with gay people
than with straight people.” “A Scattered ‘Reader’s Response’ from a
‘New Homophile’,” Spiritual Friendship, 20 December 2013, https://
spiritualfriendship.org/2013/12/20/a-scattered-readers-response-from-
a-new-homophile/ (accessed 25 November 2020).
14. Wesley Hill, “Is Being Gay Sanctiable? Scripture and the Great
Tradition on Same-Sex Love and Christian Friendship,” Mp3 of lecture,
66th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, San Diego,
19 November 2014, https://www.wordmp3.com/details.aspx?id=17313.
15. Eve Tushnet, “There’s a Place for Us Part II: More on Revoice & Gay
Christian Homemaking,” Patheos, 12 June 2018, https://www.patheos.
com/blogs/evetushnet/2018/06/theres-a-place-for-us-part-ii-more-on-
revoice-gay-christian-homemaking.html (accessed 10 September 2020).
16. Ron Belgau, Twitter comment, https://twitter.com/ronbelgau/
status/1004461059825065984 [accessed 10 September 2020].
17. Hill, Spiritual Friendship, 6f. Hill credits Australian theologian
Benjamin Myers for the reasons cited.
18. Ibid, 10.
19. Ibid, 42-43.
20. Ibid, 32.
21. Ibid, 33.
22. Wesley Hill, “Love, Again: On a Celibate Breakup and What Happened
After,” Comment, 10 May 2018, https://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/
love-again/ [accessed 10 September 2020).
23. Ron Belgau, “In Defense of Spiritual Friendship and Revoice,”
Public Discourse, June 24, 2018, https://www.thepublicdiscourse.
com/2018/06/21927/ [accessed 11 September 2020]; Eve Tushnet,
“There’s a Place for Us, Part II: More on Revoice and Gay Christian
Homemaking,” Patheos, June 12, 2018, https://www.patheos.com/blogs/
evetushnet/2018/06/theres-a-place-for-us-part-ii-more-on-revoice-gay-
christian-homemaking.html (accessed 11 September 2020).
24. Ibid, 43.
25. Alan Bray, The Friend (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003).
See also: Peter Atkinson’s chapters, “Sworn Friends” and “Men and
Women” in his Friendship and the Body of Christ (London: SPCK,
2004), 33-52.
26. Ibid, 41. See his earlier essay, “’Til Death Do Us Part,” Christianity
Today, September 2014, 39-44.
27. One of the missteps that the church has taken vis-à-vis homosexuality,
Ed Shaw tells us, is to equate godliness with heterosexuality. The goal
is the pursuit of godliness, not heterosexuality as some in the church,
for all their good intentions, have mistakenly assumed ought to be what
300 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
same-sex attracted Christians should seek. See Ed Shaw’s Misstep #7,
“Godliness is Heterosexuality,” in his Same-Sex Attraction, 95f.
28. See for instance: Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, Homosexuality:
The Use of Scientic Research in the Church’s Moral Debate (Downers
Grove: IVP Academic, 2000); Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse,
Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Motivated Change in
Sexual Orientation (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007); Mark A.
Yarhouse, Homosexuality and the Christian: A Guide for Parents,
Pastors, and Friends (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2010).
29. Dennis P. Hollinger develops this distinction in his The Meaning of Sex:
Christian Ethics and the Moral Life (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2009), 172f. Yarhouse makes a three-tier distinction between same-sex
attraction, homosexual orientation, and gay identity. Homosexuality
and the Christian, 41f. See also: Adam T. Barr and Ron Citlau,
Compassion Without Compromise: How the Gospel Frees Us to Love Our
Gay Friends Without Losing the Truth (Minneapolis: Bethany House
Publishers, 2014).
30. Rachel Lu, “Eros Divided: Is There Such a Thing as Healthy Homoerotic
Love?” in Janet E. Smith & Father Paul Check, eds., Living the Truth
in Love: Pastoral Approaches to Same-Sex Attraction (San Francisco:
Ignatius Press, 2015), 35.
31. Gregory Coles writes: “What if God dreamed homosexuality for me,
wove it into the fabric of my being as he knit me together, …I believe
that God could have possibly said over me, as he did over all creation,
‘It is good.’ ” Single, Gay and Christian: A Personal Journey of Faith and
Sexual Identity (Downers Grove: IVP, 2017), 6-7.
32. Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2357, https://www.vatican.va/
archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM (accessed 19 November 2020).
33. The question as to whether homosexuality is a psychological disorder or
not is beyond the scope of this essay.
34. Thomas Aquinas maintains that humans are made for union with
God, and what we do in our bodies while on earth contributes to this
project of realising God’s intended good. Whether what one does is good
or bad depends on whether it contributes to or deters us from what
is the telos or nal goal towards which all that we do point. On the
teleology of sexual relations, see Denny Burk, What is the Meaning of
Sex? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2013), 43-59.
35. See Jim Russell, “Why We Need ‘Objectively Disordered’,” The Catholic
World Report, 3 October 2017, https://www.catholicworldreport.
com/2017/10/03/why-we-need-objectively-disordered/ (accessed 30
November 2020).
36. See Denny Burk, “Is Homosexual Orientation Sinful?,” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society, 58.1 (2015): 95-115.
37. As Jim Russell notes, SSA is “primarily an emotional or affective
disorder before it ever manifests as a behavioral problem.” He goes
Endnotes 301
on to ask rhetorically, “Would it really be healthy for a man with
extramarital temptations to identify himself as a ‘chaste adulterer,’ to
join a group organized around that identity, and seek out non-physical
ways in which to act upon his desires?” Jim Russell, “The Dangers of a
‘Homosexuality of the Heart’,” The Stream, 26 September 2015, https://
stream.org/the-dangers-of-a-homosexuality-of-the-heart/ (accessed 19
November 2020).
38. Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community,
Cross, New Creation: A Contemporary Introduction to NT Ethics (New
York: HarperOne, 1996), 390.
39. Christopher Townsend, “Homosexuality: Finding the Way of Truth
and Love,” Cambridge Papers 3 no. 2 (June 1994), https://www.jubilee-
centre.org/cambridge-papers/homosexuality-nding-the-way-of-truth-
and-love-by-christopher-townsend (accessed 4 December 2020).
40. How we see ourselves has far reaching implications for the way we
wish to order our lives in the world. As such, one asks if it is prudent
to self-identify as “gay” and “lesbian” (notwithstanding the appending
of the word “celibate” before it), seeing that it risks making sexual
orientation the distinguishing mark of one’s identity. Furthermore,
words like “gay,” “LGBTQ” and “sexual minorities” are loaded and not
neutral terms. These are already widely accepted and used in society to
indicate approval if not celebration of homosexuality. That they carry
such connotations make it difcult to repurpose them, however many
qualications one may wish to make.
41. Nate Collins, All but Invisible, 303-340.
42. In this regard, see Martin Hallett, “Homosexuality: Handicap and
Gift,” in David Peterson, ed., Holiness & Sexuality: Homosexuality in a
Biblical Context (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2004), 120-145.
43. There is much controversy surrounding the notion of reparative
therapy. Sufce to say that it’s not so much science than ideology that
drives much of the animosity against the possibility of shift in same-sex
attraction. The longitudinal study by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse
suggests that the widely accepted notion that a change of orientation
is impossible needs to be nuanced. See: Stanton and Yarhouse, Ex-
Gays?, 277-325. After surveying the various studies on the possibility
of change in sexual orientation from the 1960s on to the present,
Yarhouse calls for circumspection in making claims about change in
orientation. Rather than talk about 180-degree changes from gay to
straight, Yarhouse observes that the studies show “a movement along
a continuum of attraction, with the majority of the success coming from
a decrease in same-sex attraction, which makes chastity not so much
of a burden.” While “categorical change” is less likely, it “doesn’t mean
people shouldn’t attempt change or feel discouraged about it, but it does
help us identify the more likely outcomes.” Yarhouse, Homosexuality
and the Christian, 89-90.
302 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
44. Hill, Spiritual Friendship, 52.
45. See Victor Lee Austin’s analysis of the one-sidedness of the love
relationship between David and Jonathan in his, Friendship: The Heart
of Being Human (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020), 60-64.
46. It is not unreasonable for one to wonder if the exemplars mentioned
were not in fact lovers. Nevertheless, Peter Atkinson notes that though
“sworn” or “wedded” friendships were not romantic, one cannot say that
none of these was ever sexual. “How could that be proved or disproved–
especially at periods where ‘sodomy’ was a serious (or even capital)
offence? If two ‘sworn brothers’ had sex together, they would be careful
to keep the fact secret: their lives might depend on it.” Friendship, 42.
47. Ibid, 32.
48. Revoice Conference, FAQ, https://revoice.us/about/faq/ (accessed 9
December 2020).
49. Steven Wedgeworth, “A Critical Review of Spiritual Friendship,”
Mere Orthodoxy, 12 June 2018, https://mereorthodoxy.com/critical-
review-spiritual-friendship/ (accessed 23 November 2020); “More
Thoughts on Spiritual Friendship/Gay Christianity: Unpacking Some
Basic Confusion,” The Calvinist International, 25 June 2018, https://
calvinistinternational.com/2018/06/25/more-thoughts-on-spiritual-
friendship-gay-christianity-unpacking-basic-confusion/ (accessed 23
November 2020).
50. Ron Belgau, “What Does ‘Sexual Orientation’ Orient?,” Spiritual
Friendship, 27 September 2013, https://spiritualfriendship.
org/2013/09/27/what-does-sexual-orientation-orient/ (accessed 23
November 2020).
51. Hill, Spiritual Friendship, 85f; cf. his essay, “Love, Again: On a Celibate
Breakup and What Happened After,” Comment, 10 May 2018, https://
www.cardus.ca/comment/article/love-again/ (accessed 23 November
2020).
52. Rachel Lu, “Eros Divided,” 41.
53. Hill, Spiritual Friendship, 70.
54. Ibid, 78.
55. Ibid, 79.
56. “How Should Christians Respond to Gay Friends or Family Members?,”
Biola Magazine, Winter 2016, http://magazine.biola.edu/article/16-
winter/how-should-christians-respond-to-gay-friends-or-fa/ (accessed
15 November 2020). Caleb Kaltenbach’s parents both came out as gay
and lesbian when he was young, and he was raised in the midst of
LGBT parties and pride parades. He found Christ as a young adult and
became a pastor. See his book: Messy Grace: How a Pastor with Gay
Parents Learn to Love Others Without Sacricing Conviction (Colorado
Springs: Waterbrook, 2015).
57. Yarhouse, Homosexuality and the Christian, 54.
Endnotes 303
Chapter 8
1. Susan L’Engle, “Depictions of Chastity: Virtue Made Visible,” in
Chastity: A Study in Perception, Ideals, Opposition, ed. Nancy van
Deusen (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 92.
2. Patrick Riley, Civilizing Sex: On Chastity and the Common Good
(Edinburgh, UK: T. & T. Clark, 2000), 299.
3. Riley, Civilizing Sex, 7.
4. William E. May, Sex, Marriage, and Chastity : Reections of a Catholic
Layman, Spouse, and Parent (Chicago, IL: Franciscan Herald Press,
1981), 98.
5. L’Engle, “Depictions of Chastity,” 87.
6. L’Engle, “Depictions of Chastity,” 100.
7. Albrecht Classen, The Medieval Chastity Belt: The Myth-Making
Process (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 147.
8. Eric John Dingwall, The Girdle of Chastity: A Medico-Historical Study
(Paris, France: Le Divan, 1923).
9. Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A
Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament
Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 473.
10. Jean Porter, “Chastity as a Virtue,” Scottish Journal of Theology 58, no.
03 (2005): 288.
11. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New
International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI:
W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1987), 334.
12. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 334.
13. For that reason, Origen considers the perpetual virginity of Mary to
be a prime example of this virtue. Origen of Alexandria, "Origen’s
Commentary on Matthew," in A Select Library of the Ante-Nicene
Fathers of the Christian Church Series, ed. Alexander Roberts and
James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001), 10.17.
14. Richard D. Finn, Asceticism in the Graeco-Roman World (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2009), 82. Finn analyzes that by the third
century, Christian asceticism had become adapted into a narrative
that related to the difcult making of a saint in conict with his or her
failings, and he considers Origen of Alexandria to the author of this
narrative. Finn, Asceticism in the Graeco-Roman World, 100.
15. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 327.
16. Methodius of Olympus, The Symposium: A Treatise on Chastity, trans.,
Herbert Musurillo, Ancient Christian Writers, vol. 27 (New York,
NY: Newman Press, 1958), 8.4. Aline Rousselle considers Methodius’
Symposium to be the rst work written by the church fathers that was
fully devoted to a discussion of virginity. Aline Rousselle, Porneia: On
Desire and the Body in Antiquity, trans., Felicia Pheasant (Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1988), 132.
17. Tertullian of Carthage, “An Exhortation to Chastity,” in Treatises on
Marriage and Remarriage: To His Wife. An Exhortation to Chastity.
304 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Monogamy, ed. Johannes Quasten (New York, NY: Newman Press,
1951), 9.
18. Tertullian of Carthage, “Monogamy,” in Treatises on Marriage and
Remarriage: To His Wife. An Exhortation to Chastity. Monogamy, ed.
Johannes Quasten (New York, NY: Newman Press, 1951), 10.
19. Gregory of Nyssa, “On Virginity,” in The Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers Series Vol 2-05, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace (Edinburgh, UK: T.
& T. Clark, 1989), 2.
20. Stanley J. Grenz, Welcoming but Not Afrming: An Evangelical
Response to Homosexuality, 1st ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John
Knox Press, 1998), 126-127.
21. Lauren F. Winner, Real Sex: The Naked Truth About Chastity (Grand
Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2005), 134.
22. Ambrose of Milan, On Virginity, trans., Daniel Callam (Toronto:
Peregrina Publishers, 1980), IV.15.
23. Beth Felker Jones, Marks of His Wounds: Gender Politics and Bodily
Resurrection (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 31-32.
24. Augustine of Hippo, “The City of God,” in The Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers Series Vol 1-02, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
2001), I.26.
25. Kathleen Coyne Kelly, Performing Virginity and Testing Chastity in the
Middle Ages, Routledge Research in Medieval Studies Vol 2 (New York,
NY: Routledge, 2000), 5.
26. Porter, “Chastity as a Virtue,” 299.
27. I. A. Muirhead, “The Bride of Christ,” Scottish Journal of Theology 5,
no. 02 (1952): 179.
28. Benedict J. Groeschel, The Courage to Be Chaste (New York, NY: Paulist
Press, 1985), 13-14.
29. Groeschel, The Courage to Be Chaste, 39.
30. Christine J. Gardner, Making Chastity Sexy: The Rhetoric of Evangelical
Abstinence Campaigns (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,
2011), 141.
31. Marcia L. Colish, “Ambrose of Milan on Chastity,” in Chastity: A Study
in Perception, Ideals, Opposition, ed. Nancy van Deusen (Leiden: Brill,
2008), 46.
32. Stanley J. Grenz, Sexual Ethics: An Evangelical Perspective (Louisville,
KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 243.
33. May, Sex, Marriage, and Chastity, 51.
34. Jones, Marks of His Wounds, 106-107. She also noted how both
Augustine and Calvin articulated theology of persons as psychosomatic
unities that gives value to the human body and allows for a proper
relation to God through human souls and sexuality. Jones, Marks of
His Wounds, 81.
35. Porter, “Chastity as a Virtue,” 286.
36. Josef Pieper, The Four Cardinal Virtues (Notre Dame, IN: University of
Notre Dame Press, 1966), 162.
Endnotes 305
37. Susannah Coolidge, “Chastity in a World of Three Billion Souls,”
Anglican Theological Review 37, no. 1 (1955): 46.
38. Pieper, The Four Cardinal Virtues, 159-160.
39. Pieper, The Four Cardinal Virtues, 164.
40. Here, Pieper follows Aquinas in asserting that complete asensuality, or
an unfeelingly aversion to all sexual pleasure, could actually be a form
of moral defect. Pieper, The Four Cardinal Virtues, 154.
41. Pieper, The Four Cardinal Virtues, 170.
42. Gordon MacDonald, Rebuilding Your Broken World, Expanded ed.
(Nashville, TN: Oliver Nelson, 1990).
Chapter 10
1. Karen R. Keen in the rst chapter of her book, Scripture, Ethics and
the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2018), 8–21, provides a chronology of the church’s response to the Gay
and Lesbian community. The development passes through the following
phases according to Keen’s headings: “Gay people should stay in the
closet” (before 1960s) to “Gay people are perverts and criminals” to
“Gay people are hapless victims who need healing” to “Gay people are
admirable saints called to a celibate life”. Two or three decades earlier
would coincide with the third and fourth phases.
2. William Stacy Johnson, A Time to Embrace: Same-Sex Relationships in
Religion, Law and Politics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 244.
3. Johnson, Time, 244 (emphasis original).
4. Johnson, Time, 246.
5. Following Preston M. Sprinkle, “Introduction,” in Two Views on
Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church, ed. Preston M. Sprinkle
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 15, I view the term “non-afrming”
as being unnecessarily negative in connotation, and like Sprinkle, I
prefer to go with the term “traditional”.
6. Two resources to begin our exegetical explorations would be (written
from a traditionalist position) Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual
Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001) and (from
an afrming position) James V. Brownson, Bible, Gender, Sexuality:
Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013).
7. Megan K. DeFranza, “Response to William Loader,” in Two Views, 54.
8. DeFranza, “Journeying from the Bible to Christian Ethics in Search of
Common Ground,” in Two Views, 86.
9. For example, Keen, Scripture, 25, afrms the same point another way:
“[T]o say that that the biblical authors object to prostitution or pederasty
is not to say that the authors object to monogamous, covenanted
relationships. That would be comparing apples and oranges.” This
argument is often adopted by representatives from the revisionist
position in theological commissions established by denominational
306 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
ecclesiastical bodies around the world to look into the same-sex
issue. See for example, chapter 6.11 “Reections on specic passages
of Scripture” from the 2013 Theological Commission on Same-Sex
Relationships and the Ministry undertaken by the Church of Scotland,
taken from https://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_
le/0004/39253/2013_Theological_Forum.pdf (accessed September 24,
2020). Churches which adopt an afrming position also often follow
this reading and interpretation. One of the most proactive churches
in Singapore maintaining an afrming position, the Free Community
Church, explains clearly its interpretation of these verses on its FAQ
website; see questions 8–11 from https://www.freecomchurch.org/
resources/faith-and-lgbtq-faq/ (accessed September 24, 2020).
10. William Loader, “Homosexuality and the Bible,” in Two Views, 17–48
(the quotation is from p. 42).
11. Loader, “Homosexuality,” 45.
12. Loader, “Homosexuality,” 46. Keen, Scripture, 58–70, advocates a
similar approach. Old Testament Laws and even creational ordinances
all need to undergo discernment and deliberation to be properly
interpreted and applied, and an important principle to consider in the
deliberative process is that of attention to need. Applied to same-sex
relationships, Keen contends that “we might consider how the needs of
gay and lesbian people nuance application of the biblical prohibition,
particularly concerning the expectation of lifelong celibacy” (p.69).
13. Stephen R. Holmes, “Listening to the Past and Reecting on the
Present,” in Two Views, 166–93, posits that if the famous prohibition
passages were not in Scripture, “the church would still face the same
struggle with same-sex marriage, because our understanding of
marriage is built on procreation and otherness” (p. 175). Or as Keen,
Scripture, 31, states: “The crux of the current debate [on the morality of
same-sex relationships] is gender and anatomical complementarity.”
14. An example of one who adopts this rst approach is Elizabeth Stuart,
Just Good Friends: Towards a Lesbian and Gay Theology of Relationships
(New York: Mowbray, 1995). Stuart obsoletes the marriage institution
and in its place, proposes the relational category of friendship. Since
Stuart has sexual relationship as a key component of her notion of
friendship, and having done away with the marriage institution, Stuart
is free to extend sexual activity to two individuals of the same sex.
15. DeFranza, “Journeying,” 90.
16. Mark Achtemeier, The Bible’s Yes to Same-Sex Marriage: An
Evangelical’s Change of Heart (Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
2014), 58, quoted in DeFranza, “Journeying,” 96.
17. For a succinct exposition of Augustine’s treatment of marriage and
these three goods, see Steven Schafer, Marriage, Sex and Procreation:
Contemporary Revisions to Augustine’s Theology of Marriage (Eugene:
Pickwick, 2019), kindle loc. 936–2517.
Endnotes 307
18. See Adrian Thatcher, Liberating Sex: A Christian Sexual Theology
(London: SPCK, 1993) and Eugene Rogers, Jr., Sexuality and the
Christian Body: Their Way into the Triune God (Oxford: Blackwell,
1999).
19. Thatcher, Liberating Sex, 27, goes so far as to suggest that “sharing
in [the] divine love [between the Trinitarian persons] is the basis for
thinking about and having sex.”
20. Schafer, Marriage, kindle loc. 4934.
21. Rogers, Jr., Sexuality, 200. It is in this manner that Rogers states the
claim that marriage can represent the Trinity in space and time.
22. Rogers, Jr., Sexuality, 201, states: “A sexual orientation is in part a
special appreciation for the particular delights of spatial nitudes, or
bodily forms.”
23. Schafer, Marriage, kindle loc. 4982.
24. Thatcher, Liberating Sex, 101, 113.
25. Rogers, Jr., Sexuality, 205–7.
26. Thatcher, Liberating Sex, 87, 145, states that non-procreative “fruitful
possibilities” exist in the relationship of a couple as they grow toward
each other and that the “fruitfulness and creativity of marriages is
neither dened by, nor exhausted by, having children.” Rogers, Jr.,
Sexuality, 206, implies that the fruitfulness of a marriage reaches its
fullest capacity when we recognise that “[t]he chief end of sex is not to
make children of human beings, but to make children of God.”
27. Thatcher, Liberating Sex, 104, 138.
28. Thatcher, Liberating Sex, 89, 92.
29. Thatcher, Liberating Sex, 48.
30. Rogers, Jr., Sexuality, 222.
31. Rogers, Jr., Sexuality, 83.
32. Robert Song, Covenant and Calling: Towards a Theology of Same-Sex
Relationships (London: SCM Press, 2014).
33. Song, Covenant, 1–7, 24–27, 48–49.
34. Song, Covenant, x. Song states it in a rather cheeky manner as “Sex BC
is not the same as sex AD.”
35. Song, Covenant, 20–21, states: “Instead of reinforcing expectations
about the continuity of generations into the indenite future, children
have become a sign that God has not yet given up on the world….
[C]hildren are no longer essential for our identity, we may afrm that
the birth of every single child has become yet more evidently what they
always were, namely a sign of the divine gratuity.”
36. Song, Covenant, 18.
37. Song, Covenant, x–xi.
38. Song, Covenant, 28.
39. Song, Covenant, 49.
40. Oliver O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for
Evangelical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 11–27. I
am convinced that O’Donovan provides us an invaluable theological-
308 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
ethical framework needed to navigate the challenges and questions
raised to the traditional understanding of the theology of marriage
by those who wish to afrm same-sex sexual relationships. This view,
however, remains a personal conviction and applying his theological-
ethical framework to the issue of same-sex relationships is not
something that O’Donovan has done explicitly. The closest we get to
is Oliver O’Donovan, Church in Crisis: The Gay Controversy and the
Anglican Communion (Eugene: Cascade, 2008), a work directed more
at generating genuine dialogue between the stakeholders in the two
positions than specifying O’Donovan’s specic position in relation to
this matter. See his Chapter 6, however, where he retraces elements of
his theological-ethical framework rst mentioned in Resurrection and
Moral Order.
41. Wesley Hill, “Christ, Scripture and Spiritual Friendship,” in Two Views,
124–47 (specically p. 131).
42. Hill, “Christ,” 129.
43. I believe that Robert Song recognises this point, and that is the reason
why he advocates a “third space” rather than modify marriage to
accommodate same-sex sexual relationships. On a related note, some
who afrm same-sex relationships argue for the hermeneutics of biblical
passages concerning same-sex relationships to travel the same trajectory
as passages concerning the issue of women leadership and women’s
ordination. In both cases, there is a prohibition and a reference back to
creational order (1 Timothy 2:12-13 in the case of women leadership),
yet for some Christians, they have supported women’s ordination on the
grounds of the changing culture and context (of women) that we nd
ourselves in. Those who afrm same-sex relationships advocate that an
identical hermeneutical move be made to allow for same-sex marriages
on similar grounds of changing culture and context (of marriage).
There is a aw to this hermeneutical argument, and that is, sexual
differentiation is spelt out clearly and explicitly within the creational
ordinance of marriage in a way that the prohibition for women to teach
or exercise authority over men is not in the specication of creational
order. The absence of an explicit prohibition in the case of the latter
means that it is possible to read the Apostle Paul’s prohibition as an
application of the creational order that is situational-bound and not
universal, but peculiar to the Ephesian church (1 Timothy 2:12-13). But
one is not permitted to do the same and argue that the requirement of
sexual differentiation is an application of the marriage ordinance that
is no longer applicable today due to changing marriage mores, because
the requirement for sexual differentiation is explicitly worked into
the specication of the marriage ordinance itself. Put another way, no
matter how we apply the marriage ordinance today, we cannot do away
with sexual differentiation, because that specication is intrinsic to the
denition of the marriage ordinance itself.
Endnotes 309
44. My argument here rests on the distinction between a sign and a symbol.
As stated by Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 1028, “there is no inherent connection
between a sign and what it represents,” while a symbol “is a graphic
picture of the truth it conveys.”
45. Keen, Scripture, 44-45, argues that in relation to Ephesians 5:25-
32, there is nothing in the passage that requires or even suggests an
emphasis on otherness. According to Keen, the emphasis is on similarity,
not difference: “Christ and the church are metaphorically imaged as one
person, not differentiated beings” (p.45, emphasis original). I suggest
that Keen is reading Ephesians 5 on its own, rather than within the
entire canonical context as the culmination of marriage as a metaphor
for God’s covenantal love for his people (in the OT, Yahweh and Israel;
in the NT, Christ and the church). Bearing in mind Ephesians 5 as
the culmination of this metaphor and the expression of the fullness of
marriage as a symbol retains the aspect of otherness and differentiation.
46. I am guided in the discussion that follows by Chapter 6 of Christopher
Roberts, Creation and Covenant: The Signicance of Sexual Difference
in the Moral Theology of Marriage (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 139–
69, where he discusses Barth’s considerations.
47. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, III/2, The Doctrine of Creation, trans.
H. Knight et al. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1960), 296, quoted in Roberts,
Creation, 147.
48. I acknowledge that a genuine challenge to Barth’s proposal would be
the question of intersex individuals: where and how do they t within
Barth’s theological scheme of humanity created as male and female in
the image of God? See Megan DeFranza, Sex Difference in Christian
Theology: Male, Female, and Intersex in the Image of God (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015) where she explores this question in greater
detail.
49. See DeFranza, “Response to Wesley Hill,” in Two Views, 154, and Keen,
Scripture, 38–39.
50. R. Albert Mohler Jr., “What Does the Culture Say?” in The Gospel
& Same Sex Marriage, eds. Russell Moore and Andrew T. Walker
(Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2016), 85–101, highlights four leading
factors or precursors to the same-sex revolution: i) birth control and
contraception; ii) divorce; iii) advanced reproductive technologies, and
iv) cohabitation: sex outside marriage (pp. 88–96). It could be said
that all four factors save divorce served to accelerate the separation of
procreation from marriage.
51. Hill, “Rejoinder,” in Two Views, 164.
52. O’Donovan, Resurrection, 70.
53. Hill, “Rejoinder,” in Two Views, 164–65.
54. Holmes, “Listening,” 167–68.
55. Holmes, “Listening,” 189.
56. Hill, “Christ,” 141.
310 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
57. Hill, “Christ,” 142–43.
58. O’Donovan, Resurrection, 17.
59. Here, I take my denition of our desires being “sinful” from John Calvin,
Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1559 edition, ed. J. T. McNeill, trans.
Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960),
3.3.10–12. Calvin admits that he differs from some of his forebearers,
e.g. Augustine, in terming the presence of inordinate desires as “sin”
itself.
60. Holmes, “Listening,” 170, states it the following way: “[A]t the heart
of a Christian sexual ethic, and a Christian theology of marriage, is
a confession that the erotic desires of every fallen human person are
misdirected, warped, and broken. This is true indifferently of straight,
gay, lesbian, bisexual—and indeed asexual—desires.”
61. Schafer, Marriage, kindle loc. 3575–3616. Schafer expresses this
concern in view of Rogers’ proposal. Nevertheless, his concerns are valid
for all proposals that rely heavily on the concept of sexuality and sexual
desires as the means to experience the salvation of God or communion
with God.
62. O’Donovan, Resurrection, 22–23.
63. O’Donovan, Resurrection, 24.
64. O’Donovan, Resurrection, 25.
65. O’Donovan, Resurrection, 25 (emphasis original).
66. Holmes, “Listening,” 183–84.
67. Holmes, “Response to William Loader,” in Two Views, 63.
68. Eugene F. Rogers Jr., “Same-Sex Complementarity: A Theology
of Marriage,” Christian Century (May 11, 2011), http://www.
christiancentury.org/article/2011–04/same-sex-complementarity,
quoted in DeFranza, “Journeying,” 95.
69. Holmes, “Response to William Loader,” in Two Views, 63.
70. Hill, “Rejoinder,” in Two Views, 165.
71. Holmes, “Response to Wesley Hill,” in Two Views, 161, states that, in
this sense, “a renewal of the vocation of celibacy for straight people is a
necessary part of a good response to questions of sexuality.”
72. Hill, “Rejoinder,” in Two Views, 165.
73. Hill himself has championed for what he calls “spiritual friendship” to
be more prevalent in our churches. Spiritual friendship is a practice of
celibacy for those with same-sex desires. It recognises the prohibition
of same-sex sexual activity but sees the desire that could lead to strong
bonds of delity and love between members of the same sex as a good
thing in itself. In spiritual friendship, this pursuit of deeper and more
permanent bonds with friends of the same (and opposite) sex while
maintaining sexual abstinence is the state of affairs sought after. A
church embracing spiritual friendship is seeking to ask the question
about what particular role a celibate gay or lesbian believer can play
in the church, and as Hill states, to ask this question is to “ask how the
special temptation or weakness or fallenness that same-sex attraction
Endnotes 311
is may come to be understood as the site or occasion or circumstance
in which a vocation to love is discovered” (Hill, “Christ,” 147). Among
the practical actions that could be taken to foster spiritual friendship,
Hill mentions godparenting and promoting communal living among
a church’s members. Hill recognises that spiritual friendship is not a
panacea to the pain of celibacy, and that fostering community among
those with same-sex desires brings its own set of problems, but he
states, “the problems of community are vastly superior to the problems
of isolation. I want to see our ‘traditionalist’ churches spending more
energy caring for their gay members who are bonded and vowed to
specic households and therein facing profound challenges rather than
shepherding those members through the avoidable and far more tragic
heartache of unattachment” (Hill, “Response to Stephen R. Holmes,” in
Two Views, 211–12).
74. Holmes, “Listening,” 190.
75. Holmes, “Listening,” 191.
76. Holmes, “Listening,” 192. The second context would be within that of
pastoral and discipling work. Should there be limits on areas of service
that are open to converts who join the church whilst still in sexually
active relationships (same-sex or opposite-sex) that are not marriage?
What space is there for gay and lesbian church members who come out
later in life to be honest and open within the fellowship concerning their
sexuality? What support structures are there for these individuals and
their spouses if they are married? Similarly, what support structures
are there for young people who come out, or who remain closeted, even
as they continue to be part of the church fellowship? Holmes states:
“Not every answer to these questions will require us to alter our ethical
convictions, but each of them invites us to consider whether we should
in particular cases.”
77. Holmes, “Rejoinder,” in Two Views, 215.
Chapter 11
1. “Obama: Homosexuality is not a choice”, http://edition.cnn.com/2010/
POLITICS/10/14/obama.homosexuality/ (accessed 27 May 2016).
2. Jeffrey M. Jones, “Majority in US Now Says Gays and Lesbians Born,
not Made”, http://www.gallup.com/poll/183332/majority-say-gays-
lesbians-born-not-made.aspx, accessed 27 May 2016.
3. Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, “The provocative faith of Lady
Gaga”, The Washington Post, Feb 5, 2017. (https://web.archive.org/
web/20170206165201/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-
faith/wp/2017/02/05/the-gospel-according-to-lady-gaga/ (accessed 19
January 2020).
4. Andy Coghlan, “Largest Study of Gay Brothers Homes in on ‘Gay
Genes’”, New Scientist, 17 November 2014, https://www.newscientist.
com/article/dn26572-largest-study-of-gay-brothers-homes-in-on-gay-
genes/ (accessed 27 May 2016).
312 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
5. K.S. Kendler, L.M. Thornton, S.E. Gilman, R.C. Kessler, “Sexual
Orientation in a U.S. National Sample of Twin and Nontwin Sibling
Pairs”, The American Journal of Psychiatry, 157 no. 11, November
2000, 1843-1846.
6. Vernon L. Qiunsey, “The Aetiology of Anomalous Sexual Preferences in
Men”, Annuals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Volume 989, June
2003, 105-117.
7. J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual
Orientation”, Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (1991): 1089-
96.
8. William Byrne and Bruce Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The
Biological Theories Reappraised”, Archives of General Psychiatry 50
(1993), 228, 235.
9. Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 86.
10. M. King and E. McDonald, “Homosexuals Who Are Twins: A Study of 46
Probands”, British Journal of Psychiatry 160 (1992), 407-9.
11. Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, 85.
12. William Byrne, “The Biological Evidence Challenged”, Scientic
America (May 1994), 54.
13. P. Billings and J. Beckwith, “Born Gay?”, Technology Review, July
1993, 60.
14. N. Långstrm, Q. Rahman, E. Carlstr & P. Lichtensetin, “Genetic and
Environmental Effects on Same-Sex Sexual Behaviour: A Population
Study of Twins in Sweden”, Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 50 (2010),
75-80.
15. Dean Hamer et el, “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X
Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation”, Science 261 (1993): 321-
327.
16. Natalie Angier, “Report Suggests Homosexuality Is Linked to
Genes”, New York Times 16 July 1993, http://www.nytimes.
com/1993/07/16/us/report-suggests-homosexuality-is-linked-to-genes.
html?pagewanted=all (accessed 19 May 2016).
17. “Research Points Towards a Gay Gene”, Wall Street Journal, 16 July
1993.
18. N. Risch, E. Squires-Wheeler, B. J. Keats, “Male Sexual Orientation
and Genetic Evidence”, Science 262 (1993): 2063-5.
19. Concern Women for America, ‘Born or Bred? Science Does not Support
the Claim that Homosexuality is Genetic’, http://www.cwfa.org/born-or-
bredscience-does-not-support-the-claim-that-homosexuality-is-genetic/
(accessed 20 March 2016).
20. G. Rice, C. Anderson, N, Risch, G. Ebers, “Male Homosexuality: Absence
of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28”, Science, 284 (1999): 665-
7.
21. D. H. Hamer et al., “Response to N. Risch et al.,” Science 262 (1993):
2065.
Endnotes 313
22. Ibid.
23. D. H. Hamer and P. Copeland, The Science of Desire (Simon and
Schuster, 1994), 104.
24. Ibid., 85.
25. A. R. Sanders, E.R. Martin, G.W. Beecham, S. Gou, K. Dawood, G.
Rieger, J.A. Badner, E. S. Gershon, R.S. Krishnappa, A.B. Kolundzija, J.
Duan, P.V. Gejman and J.M. Baily, “Genome-wide Scan Demonstrates
Signicant Linkage For Male Sexual Orientation”, Psychological
Medicine, 45(7), May 2015: 1379-1388.
26. Andy Coghlan, “Largest Study of Gay Brothers Homes in on ‘Gay
Genes’ ”, New Scientist, 17 November 2014, https://www.newscientist.
com/article/dn26572-largest-study-of-gay-brothers-homes-in-on-gay-
genes/ (accessed 25 May 2016).
27. Ibid.
28. Kelly Servick, “Study of Gay Brothers May Conrm X Chromosome
Link to Homosexuality”, Science, November 17, 2014, http://www.
sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/study-gay-brothers-may-confirm-x-
chromosome-link-homosexuality (accessed 25 May 2016).
29. Ibid.
30. Andy Coghlan, ‘Largest Study of Gay Brothers Homes in on “Gay
Genes”’, New Scientist, 17 November 2014. https://www.newscientist.
com/article/dn26572-largest-study-of-gay-brothers-homes-in-on-gay-
genes/ (accessed 25 May 2016).
31. John Maddox, ‘Has Nature Overwhelmed Nurture?’ Nature, 366
(November 11, 1993), 107.
32. F. A. Champagne & J. P. Curley, “How Social Experiences Inuence the
Brain”, Current Opinions in Neurobiology 2005 December 15(6), 704.
33. LGBT Science, http://www.lgbtscience.org/alan-sanders/, (accessed 26
May 2016).
34. Andrea Ganna, et al., “Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the
genetic architecture of same-sex behaviour”, Science, 30 Aug 2019,
Volume 365, Issue 6456, eaat7693. (https://science.sciencemag.org/
content/365/6456/eaat7693 - (accessed 19 January 2020).
35. Ibid., italics mine.
36. Jonathan Lambert, “No ‘gay gene’: Massive study homes in on genetic
basis of human sexuality’, Nature, 29 August 2019. https://www.nature.
com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6 (accessed 19 January 2020).
37. Jocelyn Kaiser, ‘Genetics may explain up to 25% of same-sex behaviour,
giant analysis reveals’, Science, Aug 29, 2019. https://www.sciencemag.
org/news/2019/08/genetics-may-explain-25-same-sex-behavior-giant-
analysis-reveals (accessed 19 January 2020).
38. Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, 98.
39. Günter Drner et al., “Stressful Events in Prenatal Life of Bi- and
Homosexual Men”, Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology 81, n. 1
(1983): 83-87.
314 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
40. Günter Drner et al., “Gene- and Environmental-Dependent
Neuroendocrine Etiogenesis of Homosexuality and Transsexualism”,
Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology 98, no. 2 (1991), 141.50.
41. See Lee Ellis et al., “Sexual orientation of human offspring may be
altered by severe maternal stress during pregnancy”, Journal of Sex
Research 25, no. 2 (1988): 152-157; J. Michael Bailey, Lee Willerman
and Carlton Parks, “A test of the maternal stress theory of human male
homosexuality”, Archives of Sexual Behaviour 20, no. 3 (1991): 277-293;
Lee Ellis and Shirley Cole-Harding, “The effects of prenatal stress, and
of prenatal alcohol and nicotine exposure on human sexual orientation”,
Physiology & Behaviour 74, no. 1 (2001): 213-226.
42. Melissa Hines et al., “Prenatal stress and gender role behaviour in girls
and boys: A longitudinal, population study”, Hormones and Behaviour
42, no. 2 (2002):126-134.
43. Heino Meyer-Bahlburg, “Psychoendocrine Research on Sexual
Orientation: Current Status and Future Options”, in Progress in Brain
Research, edited by G.J. Devries, J.P.C. DeBruin, H.M.B. Uylings and
M.A. Corner (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1984).
44. W. Byne and B. Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic
Theories Reappraised”, Archives of General Psychiatry 50, no. 3, (1993):
230.
45. Timothy Murphy, “Redirecting Sexual Orientation: Techniques and
Justications”, Journal of Sex Research, no. 29, 1992: 501-523.
46. Edward Stein, The Mismeasurement of Desire: The Science, Theory and
Ethics of Sexual Orientation (Oxford: OUP, 1999), 130.
47. Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh, “Sexuality and Gender:
Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences”, The
New Atlantis, no. 50, 2016, 38.
48. Suzanne Kessler, Lessons from the Intersexed (New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press, 1998).
49. Kenneth J. Zucker, “Children with gender disorder: Is there a best
practice?”, Neuropsychiatrie de l’Enfrance et de l’Adolescence 56, no. 6
(2008): 363.
50. Byne and Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation”.
51. Stein, The Mismeasurement of Desire, 133.
52. Simon LeVay, “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between
Heterosexual and Homosexual Men”, Science 253 (1991):1034-7.
53. Robert H. Knight, “Born or Bred? Science Does not Claim that
Homosexuality is Genetic”, Concerned Women for America, May 2005,
http://www.cwfa.org/born-or-bredscience-does-not-support-the-claim-
that-homosexuality-is-genetic/ (assessed 27 May 2016).
54. William Byne and Bruce Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation:
The Biologic Theories Reappraised”, 235, http://borngay.procon.org/
sourceles/Byne_Study.pdf, accessed 27 May 2016.
55. Simon LeVay, Queer Science (Mass.: MIT, 1996), 143.
Endnotes 315
56. Ibid., 144.
57. B.J.R. Blair, K.S. Peschardt, S. Buddhani, D.G.V. Mitchell and D.S.
Pine, “The Development of Psychopathy”, Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry 47 (3/4) 2006, 262-275.
58. Walter Glannon, Bioethics and the Brain (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2007), 47.
59. See Bryan Kolb, Robbin Bibb, and Terry Robinson, “Brain Plasticity
and Behaviour”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12 (1)
2003, 1-5. http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~rakison/plasticity%20and%20
the%20brain.pdf (accessed on 27 May 2016); Russell D. Fernald, “How
Does Behaviour Change the Brain? Multiple Methods to Answer Old
Questions”, Integrative and Comparative Biology, 43(6) 2003, 771-779;
B. Kolb and I.Q. Whislaw, “Brain Plasticity and Behaviour”, Annual
Review of Psychology 49, 1993, 43-64.
60. A. Pascuel-Leone and F. Torres, “Plasticity of the Sensorimotor Cortex
Representation of the Reading Finger in Braille Readers”, Brain, Feb
1993: 39-52.
61. LeVay, cited in David Nimmon, “Sex and the Brain”, Discover 15(3): 64-
71.
62. Stanton L. Jones, “Sexual Orientation and Reason: On the Implications
of False Beliefs About Homosexuality”, www.christianethics.org
(accessed 27 May 2016).
63. A.C. Kinsey, W.B. Pomeroy, C.E. Martin, Sexual Behaviour in the
Human Male (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1948).
64. FAQs on Sexuality, Health Promotion Board, http://www.hpb.gov.sg/
HOPPortal/gamesandtools-article/HPB055647 (accessed 28 May 2016).
65. The second report is A.C. Kinsey, W.B. Pomeroy, C.E Martin, P.H.
Gebhard, Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female (Philadelphia: W.B.
Saunders Company, 1953).
66. W. B. Pomeroy, Dr Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research (New York:
Harper and Row, 1972), 208.
67. W. Allen Wallis, New York Times, December 11, 1949, quoted in Sue
Ellin Browder, “Kinsey’s Secret: The Phony Science of the Sexual
Revolution”, https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.
cfm?recnum=6036 (accessed 28 May 2016).
68. P. Robinson, The Modernization of Sex (New York: Harper & Row,
1976), 56.
69. Kinsey et al, Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male, 678.
70. Ibid., 638.
71. B. W. Ward, J. M. Dahlhamer, A.M. Galinsky, S.S. Joestl, ‘Sexual
Orientation and Health Among U.S. Adults: National Health Interview
Survey, 2013’, National Health Statics Reports, 77, July 15, 2014.
72. Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead, My Genes Made Me Do It:
Homosexuality and the Scientic Evidence (Whitehead Associates, 3rd
Edition, 2013), 44-45.
316 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
73. S. Lavey and E. Nonas, City of Friends: A Portrait of the Gay and
Lesbian Community in America (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995), 102.
74. C. Paglia, Vamps and Tramps: New Essays (New York: Penguin, 1994),
74.
75. ‘ “Homosexuality and Sexual Orientation Disturbance”. Proposed
Change in DSM II, 6th Printing, page 44’, APA Document Reference No.
730008. http://www.torahdec.org/Downloads/DSM-II_Homosexuality_
Revision.pdf (accessed 6 April 2014).
76. Cited in C. W. Socarides, ‘Sexual Politics and Scientic Logic: The Issue
of Homosexuality’, The Journal of Psychohistory 10 (3) 1992: 308.
77. Ronald Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of
Diagnosis (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1987), 102.
78. Ibid., 102-3.
79. Ibid., 3-4.
80. Dean Byrd and Stony Olsen, ‘Homosexuality: Innate or Immutable?’
Regent University Law Review 14:513 2002:542.
81. C. W. Socarides, ‘Sexual Politics and Scientic Logic: The Issue of
Homosexuality’, Journal of Psychohistory 10(3) 1992: 316-7.
82. Bieber et al., Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male
Homosexuals (New York: Basic Books, 1962).
83. L. Birk, “The Myth of Classical Homosexuality: Views of a Behavioural
Psychotherapist”, in J. Marmor (ed). Homosexual Behaviour: A Modern
Reappraisal (New York: Basic Books, 1980).
84. A. Ellis, “The Effectiveness of Psychotherapy with Individuals Who
Have Severe Homosexual Problems”, Journal of Consulting Psychology
20 (3), 1995: 191-195.
85. W. Freeman and R.C. Meyer, “A Behavioural Alteration of Sexual
Preferences in the Human Male”, Behaviour Therapy, 6, 1975:206-
12.
86. S.B. Hadden, M.D., “Treatment of Male Homosexuals in Groups”,
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 17(1), 1966: 13-22.
87. J.A. Hadeld, “The Cure of Homosexuality”, British Medical Journal
(1958), 1323-1326.
88. L. J. Hatterer, Changing Homosexuality in the Male: Treatment of Men
Troubled by Homosexuality (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970).
89. W.H. Masters and V.E. Johnson. Homosexuality in Perspective (Boston:
Brown and Company, 1979).
90. P. Mayerson and H.I. Lief, “Psychotherapy of Homosexuals: A Follow-
up Study of Nineteen Cases” in J. Marmor (ed), Sexual Inversion: The
Multiple Roots of Homosexuality (New York: Basic Books, 1965), 302-4.
91. E. E. Mintz, “Overt Male Homosexuals in Combined Group Individual”,
Journal of Consulting Psychology 30(3), 1966:193-198.
92. R.R. Monrow and M.L. Enlow, “The Therapeutic Motivation in Male
Homosexuality”, American Journal of Psychotherapy 14, 1960:474-490.
93. M. Ross and F. Mendelsohn, “Homosexuality in College”, AMA Archives
of Neurological Psychiatry 80, 1958: 253-263.
Endnotes 317
94. C.W. Socarides, Homosexuality (New York: Jason Aronson, 1978)
95. Neil and Briar Whitehead, My Genes Make Me Do It!, 9.
Chapter 12
1. Catechism of the Catholic Church (“CCC”), 2357, https://www.vatican.
va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm.
2. “They close the sexual act to the gift of life” and they “do not proceed
from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.” See CCC, 2357.
3. CCC, 2357-2358.
4. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Persona Humana
–Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics”
(December 29, 1975), Part VIII, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/
congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-
humana_en.html.
5. See also Robert Reilly, Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing
Homosexual Behavior is Changing Everything (San Francisco: Ignatius
Press, 2nd ed., 2015), Kindle, Location 81, “Only an omniscient God
can nally judge the true condition of a man’s soul, but this in no way
means that we cannot come to an understanding of the moral nature of
an act, that we cannot know that some acts are great evils.”
6. This includes conversion from sin in general, including but not limited
to all types of sexual sin, whether homosexual or heterosexual in nature.
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23,
NIV). It should be noted, however, that there are no organised and
sustained global and local movement for the promotion and protection of
sexual acts which heterosexuals may commit, e.g. adultery, bestiality,
incest, paedophilia, or fornication, etc. The absence of a need to respond
to a non-existent analogous campaign for the promotion and protection
of heterosexual sexual sins gives the unfortunate and false impression
that there is a Christian obsession with homosexual sins. See also
Reilly, chap. 1, where Reilly explains how the homosexual campaign
attempts not only to achieve tolerance of homosexual acts (so that one
can do such acts in private), but also its rationalisation by demanding,
through systemic changes in law and policy, for everyone in society to
endorse and approve it in public.
7. See Jürgen Habermas & Joseph Ratzinger, The Dialectics of
Secularization: On Reason and Religion (San Francisco: Ignatius
Press, 2005): 44-45 (on how philosophy assimilated Christian ideas,
including the translation of the concept of “man in the image of God”
into that of the identical dignity of all men that deserves unconditional
respect, which made the substance of biblical concepts accessible to
a general public that also includes those who have other faiths and
those who have none). Habermas is the leading agnostic philosopher in
continental Europe on the role of religion in the public, while Ratzinger
went on to become Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. See generally also,
318 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/
UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf.
8. The phrase, both the “deeply religious” as well as the “wholly secular”,
is inspired by the founders of Them Before Us, which is made up of
ordinary adults who are committed to putting the needs of children
at the forefront of the battle surrounding the very foundation of our
society-marriage and family. See https://thembeforeus.com/, accessed
October 31, 2019.
9. It is beyond the scope of this article to explain the natural law or
philosophical arguments for the objection against homosexual acts.
For further reading, see e.g.: (1) Patrick Lee & Robert P. George,
“What Sex Can Be: Self-Alienation, Illusion, or One-Flesh Union,” The
American Journal of Jurisprudence 42, No. 1 (1997): 135-157, https://
doi.org/10.1093/ajj/42.1.135. The authors argue that sexual acts are
morally right only within marriage, and that understanding this will
enable one to see why nonmarital sexual acts, including homosexual
acts, are intrinsically incapable of actualizing true marital union,
and why the law ought not to treat such acts as equivalent in human
signicance to marital acts. The authors go on to argue that nonmarital
sexual acts are always and in principle contrary to an intrinsic personal
good, and as such harm the character of those freely choosing to engage
in them; (2) Reilly, chaps. 1-5 (for arguments based on Aristotle’s laws
of Nature, arguments from justice, and lessons from biology, etc). None
of the above authors rely on religious arguments.
10. Thio Li-Ann, “Secularism, the Singapore Way,” The Straits Times,
October 30, 2007. Professor Thio explains in this article how Singapore
is a “democratic secular state” with a system known as “accommodative
secularism”, distinguishing it from “militant secularism” which
involves anti-religious or “anti-theistic” attitudes (which should be
rejected), and she elaborates on how in Singapore, while religion is to be
separated from politics, no law dictates that it be separate from public
policy debates; see also Thio Li-Ann, “Singapore’s Political Arena: No
‘Bright Line’ between Religion and Politics,” The Straits Times, May
27, 2009, which is an edited excerpt from a speech by NMP Thio Li-
Ann in Parliament where she explained the concept of “accommodative
secularism”, and argued that religion is separated from politics but
religion is not separated from public life and culture. Indeed, “[e]veryone
has values, whether shaped by religious or secular ideologies; all may
participate in public discourse to forge an ethical social consensus”,
and “[r]eligious values do have a role in public debate”; in a similar
vein, see Peter J. Colosi, “Ratzinger, Habermas, and Pera on Public
Reason and Religion,” Logos 19, No. 3 (Summer 2016): 148-169, https://
doi.org/10.1353/log.2016.0023, at 148-149 (citing Jürgen Habermas,
“The liberal state has an interest of its own in unleashing religious
voices in the public sphere, for it cannot know whether secular society
would not otherwise cut itself off from key resources for the creation of
Endnotes 319
meaning and identity”), and at 154-155 (again citing Habermas, “The
force of religious traditions to articulate moral intuitions with regard
to social forms of a dignied human life makes religious presentations
on relevant political issues a serious candidate for possible truth
contents”). In fact, Habermas holds that the demand to “translate”
religious arguments into proper political reasons represents an unfair
“asymmetrical burden” required of religious citizens but not of secular
citizens (see ibid.).
11. The same point was emphasised by Reilly, at Location 67.
12. [2019] 3 SLR 874.
13. UKM v AG at [191]. Emphasis in italics added.
14. s377A of the Penal Code (Cap. 224) (titled “Outrages on decency”)
provides that “Any male person who, in public or private, commits,
or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the
commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with
another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to 2 years.” See https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/
PC1871#pr377A-.
15. UKM v AG at [187].
16. Emphasis in italics and bold added. Singapore Parliamentary
Debates, Ofcial Report (October 23, 2007), No. 11, Session 1, Vol.
83, Sitting No. 15 at cols 2397-2400, https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/
report?sittingdate=23-10-2007.
17. UKM v AG at [188], where the Court went on to cite two examples
in 2016 and 2017 during Parliamentary debates where this policy
was reafrmed. After UKM v AG was published, the then Minister for
Social and Family Development, Mr. Desmond Lee, also reafrmed
this policy on three occasions in 2018 and 2019. See Rahimah Rashith,
“Minister Desmond Lee addresses concerns over ruling in gay man’s
adoption case”, The Straits Times, December 20, 2018, https://www.
straitstimes.com/singapore/minister-addresses-concerns-over-ruling-
in-gay-mans-adoption-case); Singapore Parliamentary Debates,
Ofcial Report (January 14, 2019), No. 13, Session 2, Vol. 94, Sitting
No. 87, answers to Questions 19-21, https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/
sprs3topic?reportid=oral-answer-1859; Singapore Parliamentary
Debates, Ofcial Report (October 7, 2019), No. 13, Session 2, Vol. 94,
Sitting No. 112, 53 (“Update on Commercial For-Prot Surrogacy
and Deterrent Measures in Place”), https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/
sprs3topic?reportid=written-answer-5287.
18. See UKM v AG at [189]-[190] for these statutes and regulations.
19. “Public policy”, as understood in UKM v AG, operates more as a shield
rather than a sword, and it operates only where court proceedings are
brought. Where the Court nds that an alleged policy exists, then the
Court must go on to consider whether it would be violated should the
Court give effect to the right claimed in Court. Once it is established
that the public policy would be violated, then the concern not to violate
320 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
it enters a balancing exercise as a competing element to be weighed
against any value that would be promoted by giving effect to the claimed
right, and to decide whether to give effect to that claimed right. See
UKM v AG at [147] and [162] (summary of the analytical framework,
including the specic conditions which must be met before public policy
considerations may be invoked in court proceedings).
20. UKM v AG at [106], citing Ross Grantham & Darryn Jensen, “The
Proper Role of Policy in Private Law Adjudication” (2018) U Toronto LJ
187 at 191.
21. UKM v AG at [108].
22. UKM v AG at [107]. Emphasis in italics added.
23. Since the core of the concept of public policy involves arguments about
the public or common good.
24. According to its primary and broadly accepted sense, the common good
indicates “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as
groups or as individuals, to reach their fullment more fully and more
easily”. See Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (April
2, 2004), 164, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontical_councils/
justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-
soc_en.html; CCC, 1906, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/
catechism/p3s1c2a2.htm. See also Scott Hahn, The First Society: The
Sacrament of Matrimony and the Restoration of the Social Order
(Steubenville: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2018) at 78-79, where Hahn
explains that the common good includes both the good of the community
as a whole and the good of each member, it is greater than the private
good of any individual, it is not diminished by anyone’s participation in
it, and that it is important to get the theoretical parts of this concept
right because the idea of the common good “has been weaponized by
many dangerous ideologies”.
25. In relation to the Christian Catholic version of the “common good”: (1)
seeking what is good for the community “does not mean just seeking
what suits the majority”. See Caritas Singapore’s website, explaining the
concept of the common good, https://www.caritas-singapore.org/catholic-
social-teaching/cst-common-good/#.X2868GgzY2y; (2) it does not depend
on consensus (let alone complete consensus) and it does not change with
the times (although, perhaps analogous to doctrine, it can develop over
time but without resulting in any inconsistency). In contrast, UKM v AG
at [108] explained that “what is or is not for the public or common good
is often incapable of complete consensus and changes with the times”;
(3) it is not determined by economic expediency or national progress.
In contrast, Singapore’s communitarian version of the “common good”
sometimes prioritises elements of economic rationalism and national
progress and it does not exclude the possibility of a majoritarian “good”
being conated with a “common” good. In this regard, see: (a) Nick Chui
Yongtai, “The Myth of Liberal and Communitarian Neutrality: Church
and State in America and Singapore,” Church & Society in Asia Today
Endnotes 321
13, No. 2 (August 2010): 95-108, https://www.academia.edu/43799047/
The_Myth_of_Liberal_and_Communitarian_Neutrality_Church_and_
State_in_America_and_Singapore (on Singapore’s brand of “Asian”
or “communitarian democracy”, in particular, see 103-104 on how the
decision on whether to open a casino in Singapore was ultimately justied
in terms of economic rationality and national progress); (b) Nick Chui
Yongtai, “On Being Catholic and Singaporean in the Third Millenium:
Identity and Mission with Reference to Ecclesia in Asia” (Masters diss.,
John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family, Melbourne, 2011) at
82-91 (explaining how economic realism and progress was at the heart
of various Government policies e.g. the “Stop at Two” campaign in the
1970s/80s and the subsequent U-Turn on this policy, the endorsement
of contraception, and the legalisation of abortion); (c) Graham Allison,
“The Lee Kuan Yew Conundrum,” The Atlantic, March 30, 2015,
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/lee-kuan-
yew-conundrum-democracy-singapore/388955/ (for Lee Kuan Yew, “the
ultimate test of the value of a political system is whether it helps that
society establish conditions that improve the standard of living for the
majority of its people”). Emphasis in italics added.
26. It is beyond the scope of this article to defend, on religious and/or
natural law grounds, traditional marriage and family as a common
good. For more on this topic, see e.g.: (1) Hahn, where he argues that
the restoration of the Sacrament of Matrimony to its proper place would
lead to the restoration of the social order. See chap. 7 (the good of the
family and the common good of society cannot be separated, and since
the former is essential to the latter, then so is the health of our marriage
culture, and if marriage is essential to the common good, then so is a
virtuous and ordered sexuality), and chap. 8 (sex, which is oriented/
ordered towards procreation, uniquely pertains to the common good,
and that getting sex wrong, as a matter of philosophy and policy, is
both a symptom and a cause of social breakdown. The common good
demands a civil authority that takes this seriously). See also 113,
115 (the marks of natural marriage include permanence, exclusivity
and openness to life, which are accessible to natural reason; but this
is contrasted with sacramental marriage, and Hahn argues that only
sacramental marriage can form a solid foundation for social order);
(2) Patrick G. D. Riley, Civilizing Sex: On Chastity and the Common
Good (Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2002), 30-43 (arguing that the family,
specically founded on heterosexual marriage where the child is its
primary purpose and hence its common good, is in turn for the common
good of the larger civil society); (3) Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith (“CDF”), “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal
Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons” (June 3, 2003),
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/
rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html, at [9]
322 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
(“Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are
therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them
institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do
not need specic attention from the legal standpoint since they do not
exercise this function for the common good”); (4) Reilly, at Locations
271-278, 508-515.
27. Since the family unit is understood as comprising a married heterosexual
couple having and raising children, and that this should be regarded
as the optimal parenting conditions under which a child here may be
raised.
28. For the rest of this essay, whenever the phrase “common good of
marriage and family” is used, it refers to the traditional understanding
of a family as a married heterosexual couple having and raising children
within their household, that this should be regarded as the optimal
parenting conditions under which a child here may be raised, and that
it was family units, so understood, which together contributed to the
preservation of a stable society.
29. Which, in and of itself, insofar as it is merely aimed at removing potential
criminal penalties against homosexuals, may not be objectionable
(assuming that, as proposed below, a comprehensive constitutional,
statutory and public policy framework is rst set up to protect the
common good of marriage and family). However, as this essay explains,
so much more is at stake.
30. The Catholic Church teaches that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the
legal recognition of homosexual unions, and that Catholic politicians/
law-makers have a moral duty to express their opposition clearly
and publicly, and to vote against any proposed law in favour of the
recognition of homosexual unions. Indeed, to vote in favour of “a law so
harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.” Emphasis in italics
added. See CDF, “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal
Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons”. See ibid. for
the full arguments from the order of right reason, the biological and
anthropological order, the social order, and the legal order.
31. See “Incompatible with equality? The Supreme Court rules in favour
of civil partnerships for all,” Kingsley Napley’s Public Law Blog, July
9, 2018, https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/public-law-
blog; Clive Coleman, “Civil partnerships: First mixed-sex unions take
place,” BBC News, December 31, 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-
50953410; Olivia Petter & Sabrina Barr, “Civil partnerships: What
are they and how are they different from marriage?”, Independent,
December 31, 2019, https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/
love-sex/civil-partnerships-mixed-same-sex-couples-marriage-
benets-a9229406.html. Civil partnerships were introduced by UK’s
Civil Partnership Act 2004 to offer same-sex couples an alternative to
marriage (and these partnerships offered many of the same benets as
Endnotes 323
a conventional marriage). In 2014, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples)
Act 2013 was enacted and marriage was extended to same sex couples.
Only 4 years later, an opposite sex couple won their legal bid at the
UK Supreme Court in 2018 for the right to have a civil partnership
instead of a marriage. See R (Steinfeld and Keidan) v Secretary of State
for International Development [2018] UKSC 32, where the appellants
were an opposite sex couple in a long-term relationship, who also had
children together. They had a strong conscientious objection to marriage
on the basis of its historical patriarchal connotations. By end 2019, the
UK government changed the law, opening such a union to the majority
of the UK’s 3.3 million co-habiting heterosexual couples, and those who
become civil partners would have greater rights and protections within
their relationships, without having to get married.
32. In breach of Children’s Right to a Mother and a Father; see also Reilly,
at Locations 942-950, “What is owed to children by right or Nature
[i.e. obligations parents owed to their biological children] becomes
optional by convention. This is a staggering loss for them. Same-sex
‘families with children are broken by denition because in no instance
will both parents be present. Such ‘families’ are made to be broken, or
rather broken to be made, by design… They are deliberately denied
the possibility of being with both parents.” Emphasis in italics original;
see also CDF, “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal
Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons” which put the
objection in even stronger terms, at [7], “As experience has shown, the
absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles
in the normal development of children who would be placed in the
care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of
either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by
persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to
these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be
used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full
human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction
to the principle, recognised also in the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker
and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in
every case.” Emphasis in italics added.
33. Pink Dot’s “10 Declarations for Equality”, Declaration 8, accessed
October 31, 2020, https://pinkdot.sg/2018/07/10-declarations-for-
equality/.
34. Pink Dot’s “10 Declarations for Equality”, Declaration 3, “We are
ready for LGBT organisations to be able to register themselves under
the Societies Act–so that we can have proper legal entities to support
members of the LGBTQ community–too many of our community groups
have suffered because they are not recognised for the great work that
they are doing.”
324 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
35. Pink Dot’s “10 Declarations for Equality”, Declaration 5, “We are
ready for schools to support all our children equally–with accurate sex
education, and to equip teachers to handle bullying in schools–we want
our children to be brought up in healthy, afrming school environments,
regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.” See also the
second part of Declaration 6, “we need to adopt international guidelines
on providing sexual health information, prevention and treatment for
LGBTQ persons, especially LGBT youth.”
36. Pink Dot’s “10 Declarations for Equality”, Declaration 4, “We are ready
to see more positive portrayals of LGBTQ people in our mainstream
media without censorship–because we are sick and tired of being seen
as tragic characters or vilied as perverts–we need to [sic] the positive
role models among us to be seen by the public, to alter misconceptions
about the LGBTQ community, to inspire those who have realised that
they are different and have no one they can turn to.”
37. This is evident from the fact that the decision by the Singapore High
Court in UKM v AG, where a gay man (who was co-parenting with his
gay partner) procured a child through overseas commercial surrogacy
and was allowed by the Court to adopt his child, despite the fact that
doing so would signicantly violate Singapore’s public policy against
the formation of same-sex family units (as expressly recognised by the
Court), was widely seen and celebrated by the local LGBTQ community
as a seminal victory for the advancement of LGBT “rights”.
38. See Hahn, 18-19, where he explains that by the time the US Supreme
Court legally redened marriage in America, the vast majority of
Americans already considered marriage as nothing more than a
government-recognised pact of affection and commitment. Opposition
to same-sex marriage evaporated quickly once the concept gained
momentum because the popular understanding of marriage left no
principled ground on which to oppose the innovation; The introduction
of civil unions or partnerships, which should be categorically rejected,
is another wide gate and broad road that unavoidably leads to the
deconstruction of the meaning of marriage, and paving the way to
same-sex marriage. See footnote 31 above for the UK example on this
point.
39. For example, see Professor Tommy Koh, “Section 377A, Science,
Religion and the Law,” The Straits Times, September 24, 2018, https://
cil.nus.edu.sg/publication/section-377a-science-religion-and-the-law/;
see also V.K. Rajah, “Section 377A: An Impotent Anachronism,” The
Straits Times, September 30, 2018, https://www.straitstimes.com/
opinion/section-377a-an-impotent-anachronism.
40. See Declaration 1 on standing by friends and family members who
are LGBTQ “so that none of them will ever feel the need to hide who
they are.” See also Part of Declaration 8, “we need to repeal 377A, a[n]
outdated law that criminalises gay men for something so innate to
them”. Emphasis in italics added.
Endnotes 325
41. Lisa M. Diamond & Clifford J. Rosky, “Scrutinizing Immutability:
Research on Sexual Orientation and U.S. Legal Advocacy for Sexual
Minorities”, The Journal of Sex Research 53, No. 4-5 (2016): 363-391,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1139665.
42. Diamond is a psychologist while Rosky is a professor of law, both at
the University of Utah. Their article is a fascinating example of where
science and law intersect, to produce a highly nuanced view on LGBT
issues.
43. Diamond & Rosky, 364. Emphasis in italics added.
44. Diamond & Rosky, 364.
45. Diamond & Rosky, 366. Emphasis in italics original. The authors
highlight the distinction between “conventional behavioral genetic
methods”, which focus on the heritability of sexual orientation (i.e. the
degree to which same-sex sexuality runs in families) and the existence
of specic genetic markers associated with same-sex sexuality, versus
newer research which focuses on the epigenome (i.e. epigenetics),
which is “the complex constellation of chemical compounds which
are not part of the DNA sequence itself but which attach to it and
alter gene expression at different stages of the life cycle in response
to environmental inuences.” It is in the light of epigenetics that the
authors make the quoted assertion.
46. Diamond & Rosky, 366.
47. Diamond & Rosky, 366-367 (where the authors reviewed studies
based on conventional behavioural genetic methods, which focused on
the heritability of sexual orientation, i.e. the degree to which same-
sex sexuality runs in families, and the existence of specic genetic
markers associated with same-sex sexuality, and opining that while
both these lines of research have found signicant evidence for genetic
contributions to same-sex sexuality, “neither suggests that sexual
orientation is genetically determined”). On the related issue of whether
prenatal hormonal exposure in the womb may shape sexual orientation,
after reviewing various studies, the authors conclude that the overall
body of evidence is mixed, “again suggesting that prenatal hormones
potentially contribute to same-sex sexuality in some individuals but do
not determine it” (at 368). Emphasis in italics added.
48. Diamond & Rosky, 371. On whether sexual orientation can change,
after assessing several studies, Diamond and Rosky conclude that, “In
summary, the data on change are relatively clear: Although therapeutic
attempts to change sexual orientation are not successful, patterns of
self-reported same-sex and other-sex attraction sometimes change on
their own, and the overall social climate of visibility and acceptance
regarding same-sex sexuality may be one of the factors inuencing such
change.” Emphasis in italics added. The assertion that therapeutic
attempts to change sexual orientation are not successful is heavily
criticised by Rosik at 13-16. See Rosik, Christopher H., “The Quiet
Death of Sexual Orientation Immutability: How Science Loses When
326 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Political Advocacy Wins”, Journal of Human Sexuality (2016) 7:4–23,
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8c9a/6d8a446809ff62d58062cacfd8dc8
a47a0bd.pdf.
49. Diamond & Rosky, 372. On whether sexual orientation can be chosen,
after reviewing the scientic evidence, Diamond and Rosky opine that
“the most accurate summary of the science is that some individuals
perceive a role for choice in their sexual orientation and that we do not
know what this means” (emphasis in italics by the authors). They go on to
conclude that the simplistic notion of “choice” wielded in public debates
over sexual orientation “does not do justice to the complex, variable,
and multidimensional nature of sexual desire as it is manifested in the
mind, brain, and body”.
50. Diamond & Rosky, 372.
51. Diamond & Rosky, 372. Emphasis in italics added. See also Lisa
Diamond’s lecture on 17 October 2013 at https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=m2rTHDOuUBw (see the 39 min to 44 min mark), where she
expressed her relief that the US Supreme Court did not eventually
utilise her research (which argued that sexual orientation is uid, and
thus cannot be used for homosexuals to be granted special status) in the
ruling, despite her research being cited. She candidly described this as
the dodging of a bullet.
52. Diamond & Rosky, 372. May this not be the case for the Singapore
debate. Diamond & Rosky continues, “Scientists themselves (including
the rst author) have sometimes contributed to misconceptions about
the immutability of sexual orientation by failing to challenge and
unpack these misconceptions in the media, often to avoid having their
statements misused by antigay activists ...” (ibid.). Similarly, scientists
in Singapore should contribute to the debate objectively and fairly.
53. Diamond & Rosky, 373. Emphasis in italics added. The quoted
conclusion of Diamond and Rosky has been described by Rosik as a
“stunning admission for LGB academicians of Diamond and Rosky’s
stature” (see Rosik, 9). Rosik also opines that the research of Diamond
and Rosky “may prove to be the turning point in scientic and academic
discourse regarding this crucial subject” (at 6), and that it is a “seminal
effort that should end any notion of sexual orientation as inherently
immutable” as well as to allow a “peek into the oft-denied reality of
science being compromised to suit the dictates of political advocacy” (at
13).
54. As John D’Emilio, co-author of the book which Justice Kennedy referred
to in his majority judgement in Lawrence v Texas (2003), puts it: “…
‘born gay’ is an idea with a large constituency, LGBT and otherwise. It’s
an idea designed to allay the ingrained fears of a homophobic society
and the internalised fears of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. What’s most
amazing to me about the “born gay” phenomenon is that the scientic
evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with
such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to
Endnotes 327
make it attractive and credible.” Emphasis in italics added. See https://
isreview.org/issue/65/lgbt-liberation-build-broad-movement, accessed
October 31, 2020.
55. The authors even go so far as to say that “the time has nally come
for U.S. advocates, lawyers, and scientists to abandon the immutability
argument once and for all” (because there are alternative strategies in
securing victories for LGB litigants). See Diamond & Rosky, 375.
56. See e.g. Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh, “Sexuality and Gender:
Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences”,
The New Atlantis (2016) 50:1-144, https://www.thenewatlantis.com/
docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender.pdf (a systematic review
of past research). On the issue of sexual orientation, the authors
conclude at 114 that “[s]ome of the most widely held views about sexual
orientation, such as the ‘born that way’ hypothesis, simply are not
supported by science” and that “[t]he strongest statement that science
offers to explain sexual orientation is that some biological factors
appear, to an unknown extent, to predispose some individuals to a non-
heterosexual orientation”. Emphasis in italics added.
57. Peter Sprigg, “Evidence Shows Sexual Orientation Can Change:
Debunking the Myth of ‘Immutability’” (March 2019), Family Research
Council, Issue Analysis IS19C01, https://downloads.frc.org/EF/
EF19C38.pdf. See also Lynn D. Wardle, “The Biological Causes and
Consequences of Homosexual Behavioral and Their Relevance for
Family Law Policies,” 56 DePaul L. Rev. 997 (2007), https://via.library.
depaul.edu/law-review/vol56/iss3/11.
58. “Sexual orientation” is highly nebulous by denition and can mean a
variety of different things. See Diamond & Rosky, 365, “it is important
to note that sexual orientation is not easy to dene or measure”… it is
“a multifaceted phenomenon, incorporating sexual attractions, sexual
arousal, sexual fantasy, sexual behaviour, and sexual identity”, and “we
want to emphasize that none of the studies reviewed here can claim
to have denitely assessed the core construct of sexual orientation,
given its inherently multidimensional nature”; Mayer & McHugh,
14, “some central concepts–including “sexual orientation” itself – are
often ambiguous, making reliable measurements difcult both within
individual studies and when comparing results across studies”. See also
ibid., 16, “One of the central difculties in examining and researching
sexual orientation is that the underlying concepts of “sexual desire,”
“sexual attraction,” and “sexual arousal” can be ambiguous, and it is
even less clear what it means that a person identies as having a sexual
orientation grounded in some pattern of desires, attractions, or states of
arousal.”
59. See Rosik, 16, “One intriguing premise of Diamond and Rosky’s work
appears to be that cultural acceptance and civil protections for LGB
people has now advanced to the point where researchers and activists
can nally begin telling the truth about sexual orientation immutability.
328 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Their observations that many advocates continue to use immutability
arguments in public discourse about LGB rights—not to mention the
general silence on this matter in the public pronouncements of the
scientic community—implies a signicant element of disingenuousness
in this movement. While the science on sexual orientation immutability
may have been nebulous a generation ago, this is no longer the
case, and there is no reason other than political calculation why
the malleability of sexual orientation should not be prominently
acknowledged by professional associations and gay activists in their
public pronouncements and legal briefs.” Emphasis in italics added.
60. See https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1265/index.do.
61. Section 15(1) of the Charter provides that “Every individual is equal
before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection
and equal benet of the law without discrimination and, in particular,
without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour,
religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.” Notice that the word
“sexual orientation” is not explicitly found in this provision, which is
why the Court had to rule that it was an “analogous” ground deserving
of protection.
62. La Forest J. held at 528 as follows: “…it must rst be determined that
s.15’s protection of equality without discrimination extends to sexual
orientation as a ground analogous to those specically mentioned in
the section…the respondent Attorney General of Canada conceded
this point. While I ordinarily have reservations about concessions of
constitutional issues, I have no difculty accepting the appellants'
contention that whether or not sexual orientation is based on biological
or physiological factors, which may be a matter of some controversy,
it is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or
changeable only at unacceptable personal costs, and so falls within the
ambit of s.15 protection as being analogous to the enumerated grounds.”
Emphasis in italics added.
63. See https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2003/2003canlii26403/2003c
anlii26403.pdf.
64. At [155]-[156].
65. See [71]-[76]. Emphasis in italics added.
66. See https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-31.5/page-1.html.
67. Dated 6 September 2018, https://main.sci.gov.in/
supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Judgement_06-Sep-2018.pdf.
68. See Navtej Singh, 164-165 (judgement of Chief Justice Dipak Misra
(together with A.M. Khanwilkar J.), ruling that s377 of the India Penal
Code violates Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 19(1)(a) (freedom
of expression) of the Indian Constitution. R.F. Nariman J. held (at [95]
of his decision), and Indu Malhotra J. (at [21] of his decision), that
Article 15 (non-discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste,
sex, or place of birth) and Article 21 (no person shall be deprived of
his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established
Endnotes 329
by law) were also violated, as well as Articles 14 and 19(1)(a). See
https://www.india.gov.in/sites/upload_les/npi/les/coi_part_full.pdf
for the Indian Constitution. This was the decision which sparked off
the debate in Singapore (from September 2018 onwards), fanned by
Professor Tommy Koh’s public invitation, “I would encourage our gay
community to bring a class action to challenge the constitutionality of
Section 377A”. See Alfred Chua, “Veteran diplomat Tommy Koh calls
on S’pore’s gay community to mount challenge against S377A,” Today,
September 7, 2018, https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/veteran-
diplomat-tommy-koh-calls-spores-gay-community-mount-challenge-
against-s377a.
69. See Misra CJ’s judgement, “[Homosexuality] is just as much ingrained,
inherent and innate as heterosexuality… It is as natural a phenomenon
as other natural biological phenomena. What the science of sexuality
has led to is that an individual has the tendency to feel sexually
attracted towards the same sex, for the decision is one that is controlled
by neurological and biological factors. That is why it is his/her natural
orientation which is innate and constitutes the core of his/her being
and identity” (at [143]). See also [144]), [253(vii)] (“Sexual orientation
is one of the many biological phenomena which is natural and inherent
in an individual and is controlled by neurological and biological factors.
The science of sexuality has theorised that an individual exerts little or
no control over who he/she gets attracted to.”). See also Indu Malhotra
J.’s judgement at [13.1] (“Sexual orientation is an innate attribute of
one’s identity, and cannot be altered. Sexual orientation is not a matter
of choice. It manifests in early adolescence. Homosexuality is a natural
variant of human sexuality.”), [14.3], [15.2]), [16.1], [16.2] and [19]
(“Sexual orientation is immutable, since it is an innate feature of one’s
identity, and cannot be changed at will.”). Emphasis in italics added.
70. See Navtej Singh, [141] (per Misra CJ). See https://yogyakartaprinciples.
org/introduction/, accessed October 31, 2020. However, these are
statements of law, not science.
71. See Navtej Singh, [142] and [145] (per Misra CJ). It has been pointed
out that the APA’s decision in 1973 to remove “homosexuality” from the
list of mental disorder was highly politicised (with political pressure
exerted by gay lobbyists within the APA), and it was not based on hard
scientic evidence for the genetic or neurological basis for homosexual
orientation. See Thio Li Ann, “Section 377A: A contemporary, important
law,” The Straits Times, October 7, 2018, https://www.straitstimes.com/
opinion/section-377a-a-contemporary-important-law. Having regard to
its history, as a matter of prudence, one should not uncritically accept
the APA’s word as the nal or authoritative scientic word on the issue
of sexual orientation immutability.
72. See Navtej Singh, [144] (per Misra CJ), “Whether one’s sexual
orientation is determined by genetic, hormonal, developmental, social
and/or cultural inuences (or a combination thereof), most people
330 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation”,
citing the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ Guidelines
on International Protection No. 9: Claims to Refugee Status based
on Sexual Orientation and/or Gender Identity within the context of
Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol relating
to the Status of Refugees (October 23, 2012). See http://www.unhcr.
org/509136ca9.pdf. Again, these are statements of law (the Yogyakarta
Principles were referenced at [7]), and are not statements of science.
73. See Navtej Singh, [146] (per Misra CJ), citing Leonard Sax’s often-
quoted phrase from his 2005 book, Why Gender Matters: What Parents
and Teachers Need to Know about the Emerging Science of Sex
Differences, came up with the often-quoted phrase, “[b]iologically, the
difference between a gay man and a straight man is something like the
difference between a left-handed person and a right-handed person…
Some children are destined at birth to be left-handed, and some boys
are destined at birth to grow up to be gay”. Mayer & McHugh, 14,
heavily criticised Leonard Sax’s quote as an example of a book which
exaggerate, or at least oversimplify, complex scientic ndings on sexual
orientation, and cautioned that “[p]opular understandings of scientic
ndings often presume deterministic causality when the ndings do not
warrant that presumption.”
74. See Navtej Singh, [147] (per Misra CJ). As observed above, the Supreme
Court of Canada uncritically accepted sexual orientation immutability
without referring to any medical or scientic studies, and also because
the Attorney General of Canada conceded the point.
75. See e.g. Navtej Singh, [15] (per Indu Malhotra J.).
76. See https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf.
77. See Diamond & Rosky, 379. The authors also described the US Supreme
Court’s references to immutability as “casual, [and] scientically
inaccurate”.
78. See Diamond & Rosky, 379 for a good summary of how the decision
in Obergefell built upon the reasoning in Lawrence v Texas, namely,
the fundamental liberty or freedom to choose same-sex relations and
relationships.
79. Obergefell, 4. Emphasis in italics added. This is part of the majority
decision delivered by Justice Kennedy.
80. Ibid., 8. Emphasis in italics added.
81. Constitutional Court–Judicial Yuan, Interpretation No. 748: Same-Sex
Marriage Case (dated May 24, 2017) (“Interpretation No. 748”), https://
cons.judicial.gov.tw/jcc/en-us/jep03/show?expno=748.
82. Interpretation No. 748, [15], note 1. This assertion was not challenged
by the respondents, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior
and the Household Registration Ofce at Wan-Hua District of Taipei
City (see ibid., [4]-[6]), and no contrary studies were cited or considered.
To be precise, note 1 comes at the end of the follow up sentence (after
the assertion that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic
Endnotes 331
that is resistant to change) in the main text, “The contributing factors
to sexual orientation may include physical and psychological causes,
life experience, and the social environment.” In note 1, the Court also
cited a 2016 statement made by the World Psychiatric Association
(“WPA”) that sexual orientation is “innate and determined by biological,
psychological, developmental, and social factors.” The Court also cited
(at notes 2 and 3) various statements/opinions from the WPA, the World
Health Organization, the Pan American Health Organization (the WHO
Regional Ofce in the Americas), the APA, the Taiwanese Society of
Psychiatry (“TSP”), and the Taiwanese Society of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, all essentially opining or asserting that homosexuality is
not a disease.
83. Nothing in Taiwan’s then marriage laws expressly mandates that
the two parties of a marriage be one male and one female, although
this requirement may be inferred as a matter of interpretation (see
Interpretation No. 748, [8], [12] & [15]).
84. Interpretation No. 748, [13]-[16]. The decision was grounded on the
freedom of marriage (under Article 22 of the Constitution of Taiwan)
and the right to equality (under Article 7 of the Constitution of
Taiwan, where the word “sex”, one of the ve express classications of
impermissible discrimination, was casually extended to include “sexual
orientation” without any analysis or authority).
85. Interpretation No. 748, [17].
86. Interpretation No. 748, [1]-[2].
87. Interpretation No. 748, [9]-[10].
88. “Taiwan votes down same-sex marriage as China welcomes midterm
results,” The Guardian, November 25, 2018, https://www.theguardian.
com/world/2018/nov/24/anti-gay-marriage-groups-win-taiwan-
referendum-battle; “Anti-gay marriage groups win Taiwan referendum
battle,” The Straits Times, November 25, 2018, https://www.straitstimes.
com/asia/east-asia/anti-gay-marriage-groups-win-taiwan-referendum-
battle. As reported in these articles, it should also be noted that one of
the approved referendum initiatives asked that schools avoid teaching
LGBT “education”. Of the 55% of eligible voters who participated in
the referendum, 67% voted against same-sex marriage: see “Inclusive
Marriage for Taiwan: An Issue of Dignity and Equality,” Human
Rights Watch, March 24, 2019, https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/24/
inclusive-marriage-taiwan-issue-dignity-and-equality.
89. Julia Hollingsworth, “Taiwan legalizes same-sex marriage in historic
rst for Asia,” CNN, May 17, 2019, https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/17/
asia/taiwan-same-sex-marriage-intl/index.html.
90. See Letsweletse Motshidiemang v Attorney General (and Lesbians,
Gays and Bisexuals of Botswana (Legabibo) as Amicus Curiae),
MAHGB-000591-16 (June 11, 2019) (“Letsweletse”): https://africanlii.
org/sites/default/les/legabibo.pdf.
332 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
91. The amicus curiae did, however, le a report by an expert (a medical
sociologist) which reported on the violence, discrimination and negative
social or structural stigma experienced by LGTBI people living in
Botswana. The Attorney General did not le any expert evidence to
counter and rebut this report. See ibid., [33]-[36].
92. Ibid., [142]. This fell under the section of the Court’s grounds of decision
on the right to liberty ([138]-[144]), i.e. the asserted right to choose a
sexual or intimate partner, otherwise referenced as sexual autonomy.
The Court held that the right to liberty encompassed the right to sexual
autonomy.
93. See https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-16/. For the text of the
amendments, see https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/
bill/C-16/royal-assent.
94. 584 U.S. ___ (2018), see https://www.supremecourt.gov/
opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf.
95. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”).
96. Joshua Matz, “Fury and despair over the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling
are misplaced,” The Guardian, June 6, 2018, https://www.theguardian.
com/commentisfree/2018/jun/06/fury-despair-masterpiece-cakeshop-
ruling-misplaced.
97. Masterpiece Cakeshop, 2 (headnote (b)). Justice Kennedy urged that
with respect to the outcome of cases like this in other circumstances,
“these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue
disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay
persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open
market” (see Justice Kennedy’s grounds of decision, 18).
98. Masterpiece Cakeshop, 11 of Justice Kennedy’s grounds of decision.
99. See the decision of Justice Thomas Phillips (at 13-14) in Masterpiece
Cakeshop where he recalled his warning in Obergefell that that decision
would inevitably come into conict with religious liberty, and that
the Masterpiece Cakeshop case “proves that the conict has already
emerged”, and opined that the freedom of speech “could be essential
to preventing Obergefell from being used to ‘stamp out every vestige of
dissent’ and ‘vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new
orthodoxy’.” Nevertheless, it may well be that the next time the baker
turns away a same-sex couple, he may lose his case. In this regard,
Jack Phillips was subsequently back in Court several more times over
his refusal to create a cake for a Colorado lawyer celebrating a gender
transition (initially, against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission
which subsequently dropped the case, and subsequently, he faces
a new personal claim brought by the Colorado lawyer). See Brandon
Showalter, “Jack Phillips back in court for refusing to bake lawyer’s
transgender ‘birthday cake’,” The Christian Post, April 9, 2020, https://
www.christianpost.com/news/jack-phillips-back-in-court-for-refusing-
to-bake-lawyers-transgender-birthday-cake.html.
Endnotes 333
100. See also the case of Klein v Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries,
whereby the US Supreme Court, on June 17, 2019, vacated the judgement
of the Oregon Supreme Court (which declined to hear an appeal against
the lower court’s decision upholding a ne imposed against the Kleins
for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding) and remanded the
case for further consideration in the light of the Masterpiece Cakeshop
decision. See the Supreme Court of the United States blog at https://
www.scotusblog.com/case-les/cases/klein-v-oregon-bureau-of-labor-
and-industries/.
101. David Gutman, “Washington Supreme Court rules once more against
Richland orist who refused owers for same-sex wedding,” The Seattle
Times, June 6, 2019, https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/
politics/washington-supreme-court-rules-once-more-against-richland-
orist-who-refused-owers-for-gay-wedding/.
102. State of Washington v Arlene’s Flowers, Inc and ors, No. 91615-2 (June 6,
2019), 74, https://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedles/
Another/News/Washington%20State%20SC%20916152.pdf.
103. Ibid., 34.
104. [2018] UKSC 49 (October 10, 2018). See https://www.supremecourt.uk/
cases/docs/uksc-2017-0020-judgment.pdf (for a copy of this decision)
and https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0020-press-
summary.pdf (for a press summary of this decision).
105. Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights (“ECHR”).
106. Article 10 of the ECHR.
107. Lee v Ashers, [28], [35], [49], [52] and [55].
108. Ibid., [59]-[62]. One can “debate which side of the line particular factual
scenarios fall” (for e.g. whether making a cake for a gay wedding, even
if the cake had no particular message, was expressive in itself and
required strict scrutiny–see the decisions of Justices Thomas and Alito
in Masterpiece Cakeshop), but on the facts of Lee v Ashers, there can be
no doubt. The bakery would have refused to supply this particular cake
to anyone, whatever their personal characteristics, and so therefore
there was no discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation (see
ibid., [62]). The respondent has since referred the case to the European
Court of Human Rights, see “Ashers ‘gay cake’ row referred to European
Court,” BBC News, August 15, 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-
northern-ireland-49350891.
109. Ong Ming Johnston v Attorney-General and other matters [2020] SGHC
63 (“Ong Ming Johnston v AG”).
110. See Ong Ming Johnston v AG, [4(a)], [19(e)] and [266]-[268], especially
[266]. Article 9(1) of the Constitution provides that “No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law…”.
111. Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General and another appeal
and another matter [2015] 1 SLR 26 (“Lim Meng Suang”).
112. Ong Ming Johnston v AG, [271]-[272]; see also [279].
334 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
113. Ong Ming Johnston v AG, [268]-[271], [273]-[280].
114. Ong Ming Johnston v AG, [273]. The Court held at [278] that the “only
reasonable conclusion is that there remains considerable uncertainty to
this day as to whether a person’s sexual orientation can be said to be
immutable.” The Court also found at [279] that “it is evident that there
is no denitive conclusion or consensus among the expert witnesses.”
115. Ong Ming Johnston v AG, [277]. Emphasis in italics original. The Court
continued at [277], with reference to the parties’ expert witnesses’
afdavits, that “[t]here remains much debate and contention over the
degree of signicance of genetics or non-social environmental factors
(such as the concentration of sex hormones like testosterone in the
intrauterine environment) in determining homosexuality.”
116. 539 U.S. 558 (2003), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/
us/539/558/case.pdf. See e.g. Justice Kennedy’s decision (as part of the
majority) (at 567), “[i]t sufces for us to acknowledge that adults may
choose to enter upon this relationship in the connes of their homes and
their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons…
The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons
the right to make this choice.” Emphasis in italics added. The Court
held that the liberty protected by the Constitution (under the Due
Process Clause) allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter
upon relationships in the connes of their homes and their own private
lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. For the avoidance of
doubt, the Texan statute in question, which prohibited deviate sexual
intercourse with someone of the same sex, on its face applied to both
homosexual men and homosexual women (see 563, 599-600).
117. See Justice Kennedy’s grounds of decision (for the majority), 14, “As
this Court held in Lawrence, same-sex couples have the same right as
opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association. Lawrence invalidated
laws that made same-sex intimacy a criminal act… But while Lawrence
conrmed a dimension of freedom that allows individuals to engage in
intimate association without criminal liability, it does not follow that
freedom stops there. Outlaw to outcast may be a step forward, but it
does not achieve the full promise of liberty.” Emphasis in italics added.
118. In relation to the words “life or personal liberty” in Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution, a previous case (Puttaswamy) had declared that
Article 21 included a fundamental right of privacy (see Navtej Singh,
per Misra CJ at [160], [228]). The Court in Navtej Singh held that
“sexual orientation is an essential and innate facet of privacy [and this
includes] the right of every individual including that of the LGBT to
express their choices in terms of sexual inclination without the fear of
persecution or criminal prosecution” (ibid., [229]).
119. Navtej Singh, [230], [240] (per Misra CJ).
120. See Letsweletse, [107]-[127]. The Botswana High Court also cited Navtej
Singh and Lawrence v Texas with approval for the “right to privacy”
argument (see [122]-[123], [125]).
Endnotes 335
121. See Letsweletse, [142], as cited above.
122. See Letsweletse, [138]-[142], and which cited Navtej Singh and Lawrence
v Texas with approval (at [140] and [143] respectively).
123. Interpretation No. 748, [13], reading Article 22 of Taiwan’s Constitution,
being the freedom to marriage, to include the right to same-sex
marriage. It is respectfully submitted that the nding is devoid of
any authority or analysis whatsoever. The Court simply declared that
same-sex marriage will not adversely affect heterosexual marriage,
that same-sex marriage (once legally recognised) will constitute the
bedrock of a stable society, together with heterosexual marriage, and
that the need, capability, willingness, and longing, in both physical
and psychological senses, for creating such permanent unions of
intimate and exclusive nature are equally essential to homosexuals and
heterosexuals, given the importance of the freedom of marriage to the
sound development of personality and safeguarding of human dignity.
As such, the then provisions of the Marriage Chapter which do not allow
same-sex marriage was “obviously a gross legislative aw”. In short, the
Court started with the end in mind, and made sweeping statements
(effectively equating the nature and benets of traditional marriage to
same-sex marriage) en route to arriving at what it had already assumed
and pre-decided. This is a paradigm example of circular reasoning.
124. See e.g. Obergefell.
125. See e.g. Navtej Singh.
126. See e.g. Letsweletse, [145]-[153].
127. See e.g. Diamond & Rosky, 375-379.
128. As elaborated in this author’s open letter dated 14 October 2018
(“Open Letter on s377A”) (at [65]-[82]) to the Prime Minister
et al on s377A, https://qlc.lutheran.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/
sites/7/2019/11/20181014-Open-Letter-to-PM-on-s377A.pdf, accessed
October 31, 2020.
129. As elaborated in Section A above.
130. Associated language of the purpose of s377A, and the means through
which the purpose is achieved, include: (1) to enforce a stricter standard
of societal morality; (2) through enabling enforcement and prosecution
of all forms of gross indecency between males, covering penetrative and
non-penetrative homosexual activity whether in public or in private
and with or without consent; (3) reect societal morality; (4) through
the criminalising of male homosexual conduct; (5) by showing societal
moral disapproval of male homosexual acts. See Ong Ming Johnston v
AG, [41], [140], [146(d)], [181], [189], [191], [294], [298]. See also Lim
Meng Suang, [138]-[143].
131. With respect to private, consensual homosexual acts between adults,
there is in Singapore a dual, clear and public commitment by both the
Government and the AG of non-active enforcement and non-prosecution
respectively, save where there are reports of minors being exploited and
abused. This position is unique to Singapore and sets us apart from any
336 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
other country which has gone before us in terms of decriminalisation.
See Ong Ming Johnston v AG, [285] and [288] for the references/sources
pertaining to the aforesaid dual commitments.
132. See Tan Seow Hon, “Signposting as a principle in lawmaking,” The
Straits Times, September 27, 2018, https://www.straitstimes.com/
opinion/signposting-as-a-principle-in-lawmaking.
133. Thio Li Ann, “Section 377A: A contemporary, important law,” where
she points out that “…It is pivotal to [the gay activist] cause to repeal
377A as a rst step to advance a broader agenda to normalise same-
sex relationships, which demonstrates that 377A is not merely symbolic
but substantive. Homosexual activists have pointed out societies cannot
promote criminal activity and thus 377A inhibits the promotion of their
ideological agenda and demands that society conform to their vision
of sexuality. 377A stands in the way of demands to positively portray,
even celebrate same-sex relationship through vehicles such as free-
to-air media programming and in school curricula, to fuel agitation to
legalise same-sex marriage and child adoption by same-sex couples.”
134. See Yvonne C.L. Lee, “Don’t Ever Take a Fence Down Until You Know
The Reason it was Put Up–Singapore Communitarianism and the
Case for Conserving 377A”, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies [2008]
347-394 at 370-371, where she explains that in “jurisdictions where
the homosexualism agenda has taken root, the de-criminalisation of
consensual homosexual sex was the essential rst legal step paving
the way for a series of changes to civil law”. She also cautions at 372
that as “homosexual activists consider the need to change criminal law
as the pivotal rst step to changing civil law, the decision [in 2007] to
retain 377A by the Singapore Parliament is a key barrier to the attempt
[by] mainstream homosexuality to usher in the full thrust of the
homosexualism agenda and to reform both law and social mindsets”.
Emphasis in italics added.
135. Budziszewski, J., Commentary on Thomas Aquinas’s Treatise on Law
(Cambridge University Press, 2014), Location 18199, Kindle.
136. See Thio Li Ann, “Section 377A: A contemporary, important law,”
where she points out that “[t]he consequences of repeal are intertwined
with the call for repeal and demand strict scrutiny, rather than being
tactically ignored, minimised or misrepresented. The consequences
of repeal are not something which should be addressed ‘after’ repeal,
but in conjunction with the question of retention/repeal, to which they
are inextricably linked.” Emphasis in italics added. See also Tan Seow
Hon, “[I]t would be unrealistic and imprudent to address the question
of repeal of Section 377A alone without attending to the question of
whether one is prepared for further developments.”
137. This assumes that the doctrine of the separation of powers between the
judiciary and the Legislature (which recognises that issues involving
extra-legal policy factors/considerations are for the Legislature, and not
the Court, to resolve, and that the Court should not descend into the
Endnotes 337
political arena or to usurp the legislative function–see e.g. Lim Meng
Suang, [7], [77], [81]-[82], [85]) will continue to be upheld by future
generations of judges.
138. See footnote 112 above.
139. Lim Meng Suang, [53], [176].
140. Lim Meng Suang, [44]-[49]. Article 9(1) of the Constitution provides
that “[n]o person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in
accordance with law.” See Lim Meng Suang, [42].
141. Lim Meng Suang, [48].
142. Lim Meng Suang, [182]-[188]. Article 12(2) of the Constitution provides
that, except as expressly authorised by the Constitution, there shall
be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore “on the ground only
of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law…”. See Lim Meng
Suang, [55].
143. See Ong Ming Johnston v AG at inter alia [260]-[280]. See also Ong
Ming Johnston v AG, [238]-[265], where the argument that s377A
breached Article 14 of the Constitution (which protects the right to
freedom of speech and expression) was rejected, specically, the Court
held that Article 14(1) does not afford a constitutional right to engage in
male homosexual acts as a form of “expression”. At the time of writing
this article, an appeal against the decision in Ong Ming Johnston v AG
is pending before the Singapore Court of Appeal.
144. See: (1) Summa Theologiae (“ST”) I-II, q. 92, a. 1, see https://www.
newadvent.org/summa/2092.htm#article1, where Aquinas asserts that
one of the effects of law is to make men good, read together with the
explanation in Commentary on Thomas Aquinas’s Treatise on Law,
Location 16522-16550 where it is explained that the statement that law
makes men good “should be taken in the sense that it tends to make
men good”. See also ST I-II, q. 96, a. 2, ad. 2, https://www.newadvent.
org/summa/2096.htm#article2, “The purpose of human law is to lead
men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually”; (2) see generally, Robert P.
George, Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality (Oxford
University Press, 1995); (3) Riley, 43 (“Laws instruct citizens in virtue”,
citing ST I-II, q. 92, a.1 and also ST I-II, q. 92, a. 2, ad. 4).
145. See: (1) ST I-II, q. 92, a. 2, ad. 4, https://www.newadvent.org/
summa/2092.htm#article2, “Accordingly, law, even by punishing, leads
men on to being good”; Commentary on Thomas Aquinas’s Treatise on
Law where it is explained, in response to the hypothetical objection
that the law should not enforce morality, “… [b]ut what else does
law enforce, if not some kind of morality? Its whole point is to induce
citizens to perform certain kinds of acts and avoid others. Rather than
complaining that it does so, we ought to make sure that it is inducing
them to perform good acts rather than bad ones, and to avoid bad acts
rather than good ones” (Location 16530), and that “…to be a law is
already to be other than neutral” (Location 16550); (2) Hahn, 89, “If it
is in the nature of the civil authority to pursue the common good, and if
338 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
it is in the nature of sex that it uniquely pertains to the common good,
then it is entirely within the purview of the state to regulate sex. More
than that: any government that takes the common good seriously will
take an interest in sexual behaviour-and not just grave violations such
as assault.” Emphasis in italics added; (3) The dissenting judgement of
Justice Antonin Scalia (joined by Rehnquist, C.J. and Thomas, J.) in
Lawrence v Texas, 599 (asserting that the State has a legitimate state
interest to make laws which seeks to further the belief of its citizens
that certain forms of sexual behaviour are immoral and acceptable, i.e.
morals legislation, and that the same interest is furthered by criminal
laws against inter alia bigamy, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity).
See also 598 where Scalia J. noted that States continue to prosecute all
sorts of crimes by adults “in matters pertaining to sex”, e.g. prostitution,
adult incest, obscenity and child pornography; (4) see generally, Robert
P. George, Making Men Moral (in defence of morals legislation).
146. See Commentary on Thomas Aquinas’s Treatise on Law, Location
10746, where the word “repressing” (original Latin term, “cohibere”)
of vices is rendered/paraphrased as “keeping them in check”. See also
ibid., Location 10752, where it is explained that the term “vice” is used
by Aquinas in its broad, classical sense, which includes all habits that
pervert or oppose virtue.
147. See: (1) ST I-II, q. 96, a. 2 (on whether it belongs to the human law
to repress all vices), https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2096.
htm#article2, where Aquinas argues that human laws do not forbid
all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the most grievous
vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain, and chiey
those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which
human society could not be maintained (e.g. murder, theft and the like).
One consideration raised by St. Aquinas (ST I-II, q. 96, a. 2, ad. 2) is
whether “imperfect men”, being unable to bear such precepts (i.e. to
abstain from all evil), would despise the precepts, and from contempt,
break out into “greater” or “worse” evils; (2) Commentary on Thomas
Aquinas’s Treatise on Law, Location 18163-18254 (commentary on the
principles by which one decides which vices ought to be repressed by
law), and Location 10709 (“The tradition does maintain that the law
should aim at virtue. But it does not therefore conclude that legislators
should declare all vices illegal, and neither does St. Thomas”); (3)
Hahn, 89, explaining that while it is “entirely within the purview of the
state to regulate sex”, this does not mean that every sexual sin listed
in the Catechism of the Catholic Church should be punished with jail
time. “Different circumstances demand different approaches, and very
often criminalisation creates more problems than it solves.” The key
understanding, though, is this: “a state might choose not to criminalise
sexual sin not because there is some value in the sin or in the freedom
to commit it (there is never a right to sin), but because enforcement
of a criminal statute would lead to greater evils.” Hahn continues to
Endnotes 339
explain that the “common good demands not that every bad thing be
forbidden, but that the law facilitate virtue. This should be the primary
consideration of any law or regulation: will this make it easier or harder
for people to be good?”
148. Abortion and euthanasia are intrinsically evil acts which are against
the fundamental right to life, and cannot be enshrined by human
law as a right (even if the majority of the members of society claim or
agree to such a “right”, and regardless of any counterargument that
prohibition and punishment would lead to an alleged increase of illegal
and medically unsafe practices). Laws which authorise and promote
abortion and euthanasia are radically opposed not only to the good of
the individual but also to the common good, and as such, ceases to be
a true, morally binding civil law, and are intrinsically unjust laws in
relation to which there is a duty of conscientious objection. See Pope
St. John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (On the Value and Inviolability
of Human Life) (March 25, 1995) at [68]-[73], http://www.vatican.va/
content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_
evangelium-vitae.html. See also Commentary on Thomas Aquinas’s
Treatise on Law, Location 18205-18219 (arguing that abortion is clearly
a vice which must be prohibited, and that Aquinas’s recommendation
to weigh competing harms “provides no ammunition whatsoever to the
proponents of permitting the murder of children in the womb”). This is
contrasted with the principle that not all immoral acts must necessarily
be criminalised–which is subject to the principle of prudential
judgement, as elaborated on below.
149. See: (1) Commentary on Thomas Aquinas’s Treatise on Law, Location
18163-18254. In summary, this involves properly weighing the
undesired harms of vice against the unintended harms of restriction.
All of the reasonably foreseeable harms that vices impose on others
must be considered, not just an articially limited set of them, as in
the Millian (i.e. John Stuart Mills) version of the harm principle. At the
same time, all of the ways in which limitations on vice can backre must
be considered, rather than being ignored. “Myriads of considerations
crowd into the balancing pans.” See also ibid., Location 18273-18313
(on the problem of toleration, which requires sound moral judgement,
and is grounded in natural law); (2) Hahn, 89 (as cited at footnote 148
above), and at 86, “This doesn’t mean that the public authority-the
state-should punish every sin and vice; pursuit of the common good
requires prudence. St. Thomas Aquinas famously argued that the
common good might require that certain vices be permitted because
trying to stamp them out would do more harm than good. But it does
mean that so-called private moral decisions are not, properly speaking,
outside the purview of public authority”; (3) see generally, Robert P.
George, Making Men Moral (on the principle of prudential judgement).
150. Commentary on Thomas Aquinas’s Treatise on Law, Location 18248-
18254. Emphasis in italics added.
340 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
151. See e.g. Walter Sim, “MDA bans extra-marital dating website Ashley
Madison,” The Straits Times, November 3, 2013, https://www.
straitstimes.com/singapore/mda-bans-extra-marital-dating-website-
ashley-madison, where the spokesman for the Media Development
of Singapore explained the ban, “The Ashley Madison website…
aggressively promotes and facilitates extramarital affairs and has
declared that it will specically target Singaporeans. It is against
the public interest to allow Ashley Madison to promote its website in
agrant disregard of our family values and public morality. We will
therefore not allow Ashley Madison to operate in Singapore…”.
152. Deciding not to criminalise may not affect the view that the act in
question is not moral, whereas decriminalisation might give the
inadvertent or unintended impression that the act is or has become
moral (when in fact it has not).
153. See PM Lee’s speech during the 2007 Debate (see footnote 16 above, cols
2400-2407), “Homosexuals work in all sectors, all over the economy, in
the public sector and in the civil service as well. They are free to lead
their lives, free to pursue their social activities. But there are restraints
and we do not approve of them actively promoting their lifestyles to others,
or setting the tone for mainstream society. They live their lives. That is
their personal life, it is their space. But the tone of the overall society,
I think, remains conventional, it remains straight, and we want it to
remain so… I think we have also been right to adapt, to accommodate
homosexuals in our society, but not to allow or encourage activists to
champion gay rights as they do in the West.” Emphasis in italics added.
154. UKM v AG, [138], [141]-[142], explaining that the third source from
which public policy may be derived consists of statements made by
Cabinet ministers, with the most persuasive being statements made
by the Prime Minister (who is rst among equals, and is politically pre-
eminent), and that such ministerial statements are authoritative only
if they are made by such minister(s) in their ofcial capacity and while
purporting to speak on the Government’s behalf. Such statements must
also be “clearly expressed in order to be persuasive”, and the policy
should also be expressed consistently, as far as possible, across multiple
authoritative sources (UKM v AG, [144]-[145]).
155. See UKM v AG, [202]-[210].
156. See UKM v AG at [206]. The other two pieces of evidence are: (1) PM
Lee’s speech during the 2007 Debate; (2) Section 12(1) of the Women’s
Charter (Cap. 353), which provides that a marriage solemnised between
two persons who, at the date of marriage, are not respectively male and
female, is void. See UKM v AG, [204]-[206].
157. The contents of any such reafrmation should be similar to the contents
of PM Lee’s speech during the 2007 Debate (as cited in Section A above).
158. By way of analogy, Section 3 of the Advance Medical Directive Act
(Cap. 4A) (“AMDA”) allows for a person to make an advance medical
directive not to be subjected to extraordinary life-sustaining treatment
Endnotes 341
in the event of his suffering from a terminal illness. However, section
17 of the AMDA expressly claries that nothing in the AMDA shall
authorise an act that causes or accelerates death as distinct from an
act that permits the dying process to take its natural course, and that
“[f]or the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that nothing in [the
AMDA] shall condone, authorise or approve abetment of suicide, mercy
killing or euthanasia.” Emphasis in italics added. No criminal penalties
are expressly provided in the AMDA itself for such acts. That being said,
abetment of suicide or attempted suicide is a criminal act pursuant to
Sections 305-306 of the Penal Code (Cap. 224), and these provisions
have been interpreted to prohibit mercy killing and euthanasia (see
the Singapore Medical Association lecture delivered by the Honourable
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon titled “Euthanasia: A Matter of Life
or Death?”, SMA News 45, No. 3 (March 2013): 7-20, https://www.sma.
org.sg/UploadedImg/files/Publications%20-%20SMA%20News/4503/
SMA%20Lecture%203.pdf), at 18 (referring to the previous similarly
worded Section 306 of the Penal Code and other provisions, and opining
that “[p]hysicians who assist their patients in committing suicide will be
committing a crime”). It is submitted that there is nothing preventing
a suitably worded statutory enshrinement of the public policy against
the formation of same-sex family units, even if there are no express
criminal penalties anywhere (assuming s377A is repealed).
159. Or at the very least, to openly acknowledge that there are conicting
scientic views on this, and that it is not possible to conclude that sexual
orientation is immutable. It is worth reiterating that the Singapore
Court of Appeal in Lim Meng Suang emphasised that this issue is for
the Legislature to address.
160. See Lawrence v Texas, 604-605, for Justice Scalia’s scathing response
to the majority’s assurance that the decision had nothing to do with
same-sex marriage: “…the Court says that the present case ‘does not
involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any
relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.’ Ante, at 17. Do not
believe it. More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is
the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court's
opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to ‘personal
decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family
relationships, child rearing, and education,’ and then declares that
‘[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these
purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.’ Ante, at 13 (emphasis added).
Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has
permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual
unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral
disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’
for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court
coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), ‘[w]hen sexuality nds
overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct
342 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,’ ante,
at 6; what justication could there possibly be for denying the benets
of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘[t]he liberty protected by
the Constitution,’ ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation,
since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case ‘does
not involve’ the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the
belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of
this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us,
this is so.” Emphasis in italics added.
161. Justice Scalia’s view on this issue is apposite, “One of the benets
of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the
courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their
logical conclusion. The people may feel that their disapprobation of
homosexual conduct is strong enough to disallow homosexual marriage,
but not strong enough to criminalise private homosexual acts-and may
legislate accordingly.” See Lawrence v Texas, 604.
162. See UKM v AG, [189]-[190] for these statutes and regulations.
163. Although between the pair, only the biological father (who contributed
his sperm for the surrogacy procedure overseas) of the child was the
applicant in UKM v AG.
164. This is because the principle (applicable in adoption applications) that
the welfare of the child is to be the “rst and paramount consideration”
was enshrined in Section 3 of the Guardianship Act (Cap. 122, 1985 Rev
Ed), whereas the public policy was not stated in that same statute, and
therefore, the “statutory imperative” which is “intrinsically weighty”
having emanated from the Legislature, tipped the balance in favour of
granting the adoption order, and with “not insignicant difculty, the
Court so granted. See UKM v AG, [207], [245]-[248].
165. Unless of course there is a policy which relates specically to
homosexuals, see UKM v AG, [192] (read with [202]-[207]).
166. The prescription of void marriages between persons of the same sex (in
the Women’s Charter), being the negative prohibition of homosexual
marriages rather than the positive description of marriages as being
heterosexual by denition, will do little to prevent same-sex marriages
in the future. See for example UK, which had similar provisions
like the Women’s Charter on homosexual marriages being void, but
eventually went on to legislatively provide for civil partnerships (for
same-sex couples) followed by same-sex marriage many decades after
the decriminalisation of buggery. See footnote 31 above.
167. See e.g. Article 79(3) of the German Constitution (the German Basic
Law of 1949) for an example of an “eternity clause”, https://www.
btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf. This article renders any
amendments to inter alia the principles laid down in various key
Articles in the German Constitution (on basic rights) as “inadmissible”.
168. Article L.1 of the Constitution of Hungary provides that “Hungary
shall protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a
Endnotes 343
woman established by voluntary decision, and the family as the basis
of the nation’s survival.” Emphasis in italics added. Article L continues,
“2. Hungary shall encourage the commitment to have children. 3. The
protection of families shall be regulated by a cardinal Act.” See https://
www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Hungary_2011.pdf.
169. Dmitri Lovetsky, “Russian constitution change ends hope for
gay marriage,” NBC News, July 13, 2020, https://www.nbcnews.
com/feature/nbc-out/russian-constitution-change-ends-hopes-gay-
marriage-n1233639.
170. As explained above in Section B, this decision (Interpretation No.
748) was grounded on unchallenged assertions of sexual orientation
immutability and circular reasoning pertaining to the alleged right of
same-sex couples to marriage.
171. In Hong Kong, male homosexual sex was decriminalised in 1991
(insofar as it is private, adult, non-commercial and consensual).
The age of consent was then 21 for male homosexual sex, and 16 for
heterosexuals. A lawsuit was initiated to reduce the age of consent
for male homosexual sex to 16. This was successfully obtained and
upheld by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in Leung TC William Roy
v Secretary for Justice (CACV317/2005) (September 20, 2006), https://
legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_body.jsp?DIS=54227&AH=&QS
=&FN=&currpage. The Court held that the buggery law (Section 118C
of the Crimes Ordinance) infringed the rights to privacy and equality
contained in Articles 1 and 22 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (see [46]-
[49] of Leung TC William Roy). This was so even though these clauses
do not explicitly contain the words “sexual orientation” as a ground of
protection against discrimination (although the word “sex” is there).
See https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap383 for the Hong Kong Bill
of Rights.
172. In Hong Kong, it is statutorily provided in Section 40 of the Marriage
Ordinance (Cap. 181), https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap181?xpid=
ID_1438402808402_002, that a valid marriage is a “voluntary union for
life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. Accordingly,
marriage in Hong Kong is “therefore heterosexual and monogamous”,
and “[b]y denition, it is not a status open to couples of the same sex”,
as held at [25] of QT v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCFA 28, http://
www.hklii.hk/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfa/2018/28.html. Due to
this provision, it was noted by the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal
that the appeal in QT v Director of Immigration “does not involve any
claim that same-sex couples have a right to marry under Hong Kong
law” (at [25]).
173. Article 37 of the Basic Law, https://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/
basiclawtext/chapter_3.html, states that “the freedom of marriage of
Hong Kong residents and their right to raise a family freely shall be
protected by law”. This protection, though it does not explicitly dene
marriage as between one man and one woman, has been understood to
344 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
be limited to marriage between monogamous heterosexual couples, and
that Article 37 expresses a “constitutional preference” for heterosexual
marriage: see [7]-[10] of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal decision in
Leung Chun Kwong v Secretary for the Civil Service [2018] HKCA 318
(“Leung Chun Kwong HKCA”), http://www.hklii.hk/cgi-bin/sinodisp/
eng/hk/cases/hkca/2018/318.html. As such, the applicant in Leung
Chun Kwong did not challenge the notion that in Hong Kong, “marriage
means heterosexual marriage”, and accordingly, for the purposes of the
appeal, it was proceeded on the basis that in Hong Kong, “heterosexual
marriage is worthy of full protection under the law” (see [2]). Leung
Chun Kwong was reversed on appeal in [2019] HKCFA 19; FACV 8/2018
(“Leung Chun Kwong HKCFA”), https://www.hklii.hk/cgi-bin/sinodisp/
eng/hk/cases/hkcfa/2019/19.html, but the Court afrmed that marriage
in Hong Kong was heterosexual and monogamous, and proceeded with
the appeal on the basis that the appeal did not concern the question of
whether same-sex couples have a right to marry under Hong Kong law.
The Court in fact acknowledged that the traditional family institution
in Hong Kong constituted by marriage, being the voluntary union for
life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, should be
protected. See Leung Chun Kwong HKCFA at inter alia [27] and [61].
174. Despite the statutory enshrinement and constitutional preference for
heterosexual marriage, same-sex couples in Hong Kong (but married
outside of Hong Kong) have alleged discrimination against them with
respect to the meaning of civil servant “spousal” benets in the context
of employment (Leung Chun Kwong HKCFA, specically, the appellant
sought the right to enjoy the same civil servant spousal benets as
those of his heterosexual colleagues and to elect for tax assessment
on joint salaries) and in the context of immigration, an application for
a dependant visa for a “spouse” to stay in Hong Kong (QT v Director
of Immigration). The appellants in these cases were married in
New Zealand and in UK (under UK’s Civil Partnership Act 2004, as
civil partners but with analogous rights as conventional marriage)
respectively. At the risk of oversimplifying, the broad overarching
question in both cases was whether “spouse” should be limited to those
in a heterosexual marriage. Both cases held “No”, and found that there
was discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The effect of these
cases is that same-sex married couples (married outside Hong Kong)
may now be entitled to other benets or policies that have previously
been enjoyed by married heterosexual couples only. Further inroads
will likely be made in the future arising from these landmark decisions.
175. The US Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S.
___ (2013) invalidated DOMA to the extent it barred the Federal
Government (under Section 3 of the DOMA) from treating same-sex
marriages as valid even when they were lawful in the State where they
were licensed. See Obergefell, 9 of the majority decision (delivered by
Justice Kennedy). This was followed by the ruling in Obergefell which
Endnotes 345
required all states to perform and recognise same-sex marriages, which
effectively leaves Section 2 of the DOMA (which provided that no state
is required to recognise the same-sex marriages performed in another
state) unenforceable.
176. In addition, sex education in schools should be made transparent, so
that parents can check on exactly what is being taught.
177. From the Christian perspective, this common good remains as such
even if the majority of Singaporeans cease to think so.
178. This happens to be consistent with the position taken by the Archbishop
of the Catholic Church of Singapore in his “Pastoral Letter on S377A
to Catholics” (September 18, 2018), https://www.catholic.sg/pastoral-
letter-archbishop-s377a/ (“Archbishop Goh’s Pastoral Letter on s377A”).
As Archbishop William Goh writes: “Indeed, I would not object to a repeal
of S377A if it were merely aimed at removing all potential criminal
penalties against homosexuals. However, until and unless Parliament
puts in place a formulation that more perfectly encapsulates the spirit of
the law, guaranteeing the protection of the rights of the majority who
favour the traditional family, and that no further demands be made
to legalise same-sex unions, adoption of babies by same sex couples,
surrogacy, or to criminalise those who do not support the homosexual
lifestyle, I am of the view that S377A should not be repealed under the
present circumstances. This is because, by accepting homosexual acts
as a social norm, the dreadful consequences for the stability of our
families, the well-being of our children, and the risks to the common
good will be long-term and irreversible.” [Emphasis in italics added].
There is much to commend in relation to this highly nuanced and well-
balanced stance.
179. Ibid. See also Wardle, 1032-1033, arguing that refusing to extend
preferred status and benets to individuals engaged in homosexual
relations is a mechanism to discourage problematic relationships that
produce biological consequences that are contrary to the public interest,
and that this “nonpreferential treatment is gentler and more moderate
than criminal proscription or punishment.”
180. See Open Letter on s377A, [7]-[19], where some key arguments against
s377A were considered.
181. Hahn, 90. He also asserts that the libertarian approach (i.e. for the
state, as far as possible, to maintain a hands-off/neutral approach to
sex and marriage and to allow individuals to dene and live out these
concepts as they will) is inadequate because it cannot account for the
common good, and “[w]e are forbidden to be indifferent to the fate of our
neighbo[u]r.”
182. See footnote 132 above for the references to and the denition of the
unenforced version of s377A.
183. There remains the theoretical possibility of adults being investigated
and prosecuted for private, consensual, homosexual acts. However,
the dual commitment by the Government and the Attorney-General of
346 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
non-active enforcement and non-prosecution respectively (save where
minors are exploited and abused), renders this possibility virtually
non-existent. Personally, this author has no desire for anyone to be
jailed for such private, consensual acts between adults. The current
compromise position is an uneasy one. To mitigate the harshness of
the current sentencing regime, it is recommended that, regardless of
whether s377A is repealed, the penal sanctions in s377A be reduced to
a ne, with no imprisonment. A similar recommendation was made by
this author back in 2004, i.e. that the old s377 be retained in its entirety
without attempting to amend it to exempt heterosexuals for consensual
heterosexual oral sex, but that the punishment be reduced to a ne with
no imprisonment where there is consent between mature adults and
the act is done in privacy. “This stance would mitigate the harshness
of the current sentencing regime while at the same time maintaining
the moral message that the criminal law should continue to send.” See
Dominic Chan, “Oral Sex–a Case of Criminality or Morality,” Singapore
Law Gazette (September 2004). http://v1.lawgazette.com.sg/2004-9/
Sep04-feature2.htm.
184. See Riley, 42-43, “Among the weightiest duties of the state and its
magistrates is to establish and enforce laws protecting and fostering
the family”, and Riley uses the term “family” as meaning families
grounded on heterosexual marriage. He goes on to point out that the
legislative or judicial broadening of the denition of the “family” to
include homosexual unions is to distort the meaning of “family” and,
joined together with inter alia no-fault divorce laws, “hardly foster the
family as an institution [and they] might be seen as attempts to abolish
the family.”
185. Riley, 43, “The struggle to restore the state to its proper role as defender
of the family must be counted among the pivotal political dramas of our
time.” Emphasis in italics added.
186. Lee Hsien Loong’s speech titled “Building a Civic Society” delivered
at the Harvard Club of Singapore’s 35th Anniversary Dinner, January
6, 2004. Mr. Lee Hsien Loong was then still the Deputy Prime
Minister. He also expressed the following ideals in this speech, “…
Civic participation must not degenerate into government by opinion
polls. The Government will seek inputs actively, but it cannot only do
things which are popular… After all the consultation and participation,
ultimately it is the Government's duty to do what it considers right
for the country, even if this should be unpopular. The Government
cannot seek to be popular all the time and on every policy.” Emphasis
in italics added; see also Darius Lee, “Good governance should uphold
the common good,” Today, July 24, 2015, https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/
newspapers/Digitised/Article/today20150724-1.2.34.1 (“the government
should neither follow the majority’s opinion blindly nor allow itself
to be captured by narrow sectarian interests”); see also Hahn, 91, “A
government that pretends to remain neutral with regard to competing
Endnotes 347
views of sex instead endorses the prevailing norms.” See also ibid., 90,
“the civil authority is an essential means–though certainly not the only
means–by which we pursue the common good of everyone in society,
even if in an attenuated way.” Emphasis in italics original.
187. Ecclesiastes 3:1 (NIV).
188. See also: (1) Archbishop Goh’s Pastoral Letter on s377A, “Consequently,
Catholics, as individuals and responsible citizens, have an important
role to play in voicing their views to the government. We have a duty
to speak out and be engaged in the public and social sphere to bring
about the common good, which is the sum total of social conditions that
promote the ourishing of individuals, family and society. We cannot
be silent on issues that affect the lives of all in society and the well-
being in society, today and in the future. Silence is often misinterpreted
as consent.” Emphasis in italics added; (2) Wardle, 1033, “When social
institutions as basic and important as marriage and the family are
involved, and when lives as vulnerable and as important to the future
of society as those of children are at stake, we cannot take the easy road
of ignoring inconvenient or uncomfortable truths, even if that would
be the popular thing to do. We owe it to our families, our children, and
our future to insist that lawmakers and judges carefully and honestly
consider the biological consequences of homosexual relations in setting
family law policies and in deciding family law cases.” Emphasis in
italics added.
Chapter 13
1. Mathew Mathews, Leonard Lim, Shanthini Selvarajan (2019) “Religion,
Morality and Conservatism in Singapore” IPS Working Papers, pp.26-
29
2. “Executive Summary of the ETHOS Taskforce Study on Christians’
Attitudes towards LGBT” (2016), p.6
3. The 2015 OneHope survey on ‘Connecting with the Next Generation’
indicated that a signicant proportion of youths felt that there was an
over-emphasis on activities, events and programmes that were at the
same time increasingly irrelevant to them. See Calvin Chong (2016)
“Youth Ministry Realities in Singapore: Insights and Wisdom from the
Ground”.
4. Extrapolated from Department of Statistics (2015) General Household
Survey 2015.
5. “Mathétés” (or disciple) means more than a mere pupil or learner. It
is an adherent who accepts the instruction given to him and makes it
his rule of conduct.” [see the Complete Word Study Dictionary: New
Testament (2000)]
6. Null, Ashley. “Dr. Ashley Null on Thomas Cranmer” http://acl.asn.au/
resources/dr-ashley-null-on-thomas-cranmer/ accessed on 24 Aug 2020.
7. I am indebted to the late Dr. J. I. Packer for passing this phrase on to
348 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
me in a personal discussion on the state of the Church while I was on
sabbatical at Regent College in 2016.
8. A very helpful book by a person committed to the teaching of Scripture
and to purity before God, yet having to deal long-term with same sex
attraction is Wesley Hill’s (2010) Washed and Waiting. (Hill, Wesley.
Washed and Waiting: Reections on Christian Faithfulness and
Homosexuality. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2010.)
9. Terence Chong, Hui Yew Foong (2013). “Different Under God: A Survey
of Church-going Protestants in Singapore”. p.87.
Endnotes 349
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sources
Ambrose of Milan. On Virginity. Translated by Daniel Callam.
Toronto: Peregrina Publishers, 1980.
Augustine of Hippo. "The City of God." In The Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers Series Vol 1-02, edited by Philip Schaff,
1-512. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001.
Bailey, J. Michael. “The Minority Stress Model Deserves
Reconsideration, Not Just Extension.” Archives of Sexual
Behavior (December 2019): 1-7.
Biblarz, Timothy, and Judith Stacey. “Does the Gender of Parents
Matter?” Journal of Marriage and Family 72, no. 1 (2010):
3–22.
Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality:
Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the
Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Boyle, David. 14-1406 Brief of Amicus Curiae Robert Oscar Lopez
Supporting Defs.-Appellants and Supporting Reversal (May
14, 2014) in DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014)
Brooten, Bernadette J. Love Between Women: Early Christian
Responses to Female Homoeroticism. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1996.
Brownson, James V. Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the
Church's Debate on Same-Sex Relationships. Eerdmans, 2013.
Byrd, Dean. “Homosexual Couples and Parenting: What Science
Can and Cannot Say.” Journal of Human Sexuality 3 (2011):
4–34.
Catholic Church. 2000. Donum Vitae=The Gift of Life: Instruction
on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin: And the Dignity
of Procreation: [Replies to Certain Questions of the Day].
Washington, D.C., National Catholic Bioethics Center.
351
Classen, Albrecht. The Medieval Chastity Belt: The Myth-Making
Process. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Colish, Marcia L. “Ambrose of Milan on Chastity.” In Chastity:
A Study in Perception, Ideals, Opposition, edited by Nancy
van Deusen, 37-60. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Coolidge, Susannah. “Chastity in a World of Three Billion Souls.”
Anglican Theological Review 37, no. 1 (1955): 41-49.
Crowl, Alicia, Soyeon Ahn, and Jean Baker.
“A Meta-Analysis of Developmental Outcomes for Children
of Same-Sex and Heterosexual Parents.” Journal of GLBT
Family Sciences 4 no.3 (2008): 385–407.
DeYoung, Kevin. What Does the Bible Really Teach about
Homosexuality? Wheaton: Crossway, 2015.
Dingwall, Eric John. The Girdle of Chastity: A Medico-Historical
Study. Paris, France: Le Divan, 1923.
Eberstadt, Mary. How the West Really Lost God.
West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press., 2013
Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians
The New International Commentary on the New Testament.
Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1987.
Finn, Richard D. Asceticism in the Graeco-Roman World.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Fitzgibbons, Richard. “Growing up with Gay Parents: What Is the
Big Deal?” The Linacre Quarterly 82 no. 4 (2016): 332–36.
Fond, Guillaume, N. Franc, and Diane Purper-Ouakil.
“Homosexual Parenthood and Child Development: Present
Data.” L Encéphale 38 no.1 (2012): 10–15.
Fortson III, S. Donald and Rollin G. Grams. Unchanging
Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on
Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition. Nashville: B&H
Academic, 2016.
Gagnon, Robert A. J. The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts
and Hermeneutics. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001.
Gallagher, Mary, and Joshua K. Baker. “Do Moms and Dads
Matter? Evidence from the Social Sciences on Family
Structure and the Best Interests of The Child.” Margins Law
Journal 4 (2004):161–80.
Gardner, Christine J. Making Chastity Sexy: The Rhetoric of
Evangelical Abstinence Campaigns. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press, 2011.
352 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
George, Marie-Amélie. “The Custody Crucible: The Development
of Scientic Authority about Gay and Lesbian Parents.”
Law and History Review 34 no.2 (2016): 487–529.
Green, Richard, Jane B. Mandel, Mary E. Hotvedt, James Gray,
and Laurel Smith. “Lesbian Mothers and Their Children:
A Comparison with Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and
Their Children.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 15 (1986): 180.
Gregory of Nyssa. “On Virginity.” In The Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers Series Vol 2-05, edited by P. Schaff and H.
Wace, 1-31. Edinburgh, UK: T. & T. Clark, 1989.
Grenz, Stanley J. Sexual Ethics: An Evangelical Perspective.
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997.
________. Welcoming but Not Afrming: An Evangelical Response
to Homosexuality. 1st ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John
Knox Press, 1998.
Groeschel, Benedict J. The Courage to Be Chaste. New York,
NY: Paulist Press, 1985.
Hallman, Janelle. The Heart of Female Same-Sex Attraction.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008.
Harper, Kyle. From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation
of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2013.
Hays, Richard B. “Relations Natural and Unnatural:
A Response to John Boswell's Exegesis of Romans 1.”
The Journal of Religious Ethics (1986): 184-215.
Hays, Richard B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament:
Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary
Introduction to New Testament Ethics. San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1996.
Helminiak, Daniel A. What the Bible Really Says about
Homosexuality. Millenium ed. New Mexico: Alamo Square
Press, 2000.
Hildegard of Bingen. “Scivias.” In The Classics of Western
Spirituality, trans. Columba Hart and Jane Bishop.
Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1990.
Hill, Wesley. Spiritual Friendship: Finding Love in the Church as
a Celibate Gay Christian. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2015.
Hill, Wesley. Washed and Waiting: Reections on Christian
Faithfulness and Homosexuality. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2010.
353
Hill, Wesley. “We All Belong Together.” Spiritual Friendship
(blog). May 13, 2020, http://spiritualfriendship.org/author/
wahill.
Horn, Wade, and Tom Sylvester. Father Facts. 4th ed.
Gaithersburg, MD: National Fatherhood Initiative, 2002.
Jones, Beth Felker. Marks of His Wounds : Gender Politics and
Bodily Resurrection. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Kelly, Kathleen Coyne. Performing Virginity and Testing Chastity
in the Middle Ages Routledge Research in Medieval Studies
Vol 2. New York, NY: Routledge, 2000.
King, Michael, Joanna Semlyen, Sharon S. Tai, Helen
Killaspy, David. Osborn, Dmitri Popelyuk, and Irwin
Nazareth. “A Systematic Review of Mental Disorder,
Suicide, and Deliberate Self Harm in Lesbian, Gay and
Bisexual People.” BioMed Central Psychiatry 8 no.70 (2008).
Kolk, Martin, and Gunnar Andersson. “Two Decades of Same-Sex
Marriage in Sweden: A Demographic Account of
Developments in Marriage, Childbearing and Divorce.”
Stockholm University, 2018.
Lee, Justin. Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.
-Christians Debate. Jericho Books, 2012.
L’Engle, Susan. “Depictions of Chastity: Virtue Made Visible.”
In Chastity: A Study in Perception, Ideals, Opposition, edited
by Nancy van Deusen, 87-126. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Lewis, C.S. “Introduction.” In The Incarnation of the Word of
God: Being the Treatise of St. Athanasius, trans. by A
Religious of C.S.M.V. New York, NY: MacMillan, 1947.
Lian-Ding, Eliza. “Why Children Need Moms and Dads Who
Are Married to Each Other.” Church and Society in Asia
Today, Marriage and Society, 12 no.3 (2009): 141–150.
Lopez, Robert O. “Growing Up with Two Moms: The Untold
Children's View.” The Public Discourse,
The Witherspoon Institute. August 6, 2012,
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065/.
Lopez, Robert O., and Rivka Edelman. Jephthah’s Daughters. Los
Angeles, CA: International Children’s Rights Institute, 2015.
MacDonald, Gordon. Rebuilding Your Broken World. Expanded ed.
Nashville, TN: Oliver Nelson, 1990.
Marks, Loren. Expert Witness Report of Loren Marks: DeBoer
v. Snyder, Detroit Michigan, 2014, MI#12-civ-10285,
https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/DeBoerafdavits/
defense/Marks.pdf
354 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Marquardt, Elizabeth. The Revolution in Parenthood:
The Emerging Global Clash Between Adult Rights and
Children’s Needs. Institute for American Values, 2006.
———. One Parent or Five: A Global Look at Today’s New
Intentional Families.” Institute for American Values, 2011.
Marquardt, Elizabeth, Norval D. Glenn, and Karen Clark.
My Daddy’s Name Is Donor: A New Study of Young Adults
Conceived Through Sperm Donation. Institute for American
Values, 2010.
Martin, Colby. Unclobber: Rethinking our Misuse of the Bible on
Homosexuality. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2016.
Martin, Dale B. Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality
in Biblical Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2006.
May, William E. Sex, Marriage, and Chastity : Reections of a
Catholic Layman, Spouse, and Parent. Chicago,
IL: Franciscan Herald Press, 1981.
Methodius of Olympus. The Symposium: A Treatise on Chastity.
Translated by Herbert Musurillo. Vol. 27 Ancient Christian
Writers. New York, NY: Newman Press, 1958.
Moore, Kristin, Susan M. Jekielek, and Carol Emig. “Marriage
from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure
Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?” Child
Trends Research Brief, June 2002. www.childtrends.org
Moore, Mignon., and Michael Stambolis-Ruhstorfer. “LGBT
Sexuality and Families at the Start of the 21st Century.”
Annual Review of Sociology 39 (2013): 491–507.
Muirhead, I. A. “The Bride of Christ.” Scottish Journal of Theology
5, no. 02 (1952): 175-187.
Noll, Mark A., ed. Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.
O’Donovan, Oliver. “Homosexuality in the Church: Can There Be
a Fruitful Theological Debate.” In Theology and Sexuality:
Classic and Contemporary Readings, ed. Eugene F. Rogers.
Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.
________. Church in Crisis: The Gay Controversy and the Anglican
Communion. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2008.
Origen of Alexandria. “Origen’s Commentary on Matthew.” In A
Select Library of the Ante-Nicene Fathers of the
Christian Church Series, edited by Alexander Roberts
and James Donaldson, 9, 409-512. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2001.
355
Paul VI, and M. Caligari. Humanae Vitae=Encyclical Letter of His
Holiness Pope Paul VI, on the Regulation of Births. Ignatius
Press, 1983.
Payer, Pierre J. Sex and the Penitentials: The Development of a
Sexual Code 550-1150. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1984.
Pieper, Josef. The Four Cardinal Virtues. Notre Dame, IN:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1966.
Porter, Jean. “Chastity as a Virtue.” Scottish Journal of Theology
58, no. 03 (2005): 285-301.
Regnerus, Mark. “How Different Are the Adult Children of
Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings
from the New Family Structures Study.” Social Science
Research 41(2012): 752–70.
Riley, Patrick. Civilizing Sex: On Chastity and the Common Good.
Edinburgh, UK: T. & T. Clark, 2000.
Rogers, Eugene F. “Sanctication, Homosexuality and God’s
Triune Life.” In Theology and Sexuality: Classic and
Contemporary Readings, ed. Eugene F. Rogers. Oxford:
Blackwell, 2002.
Rousselle, Aline. Porneia: On Desire and the Body in Antiquity.
Translated by Felicia Pheasant. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988.
Sandfort, Theo, Ron de Graaf, Margreet ten Have, Yusuf
Ransome, and Paul. Schnabel. “Same-Sex Sexuality
and Psychiatric Disorders in the Second Netherlands Mental
Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS-2).” LGBT
Health 11 no. 4 (2014): 292–301.
Sandfort, Theo, Ron de Graaf, Rob Bijl, and Paul Schnabel. “Same-
Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders.” Archives of
General Psychiatry 58 (January 2001): 85–91.
Sarantakos, Sotirios. Same-Sex Couples. Sydney: Harvard Press,
2000.
Scroggs, Robin. New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual
Background for Contemporary Debate. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1983.
Shen, Bryan. The Unafrmed Core: Understanding the
Factors behind and around Homosexuality. Singapore:
Armour Publishing, 2018
Sprinkle, Preston. People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality Is Not
Just an Issue. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015.
356 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Sprinkle, Preston. ed. Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible,
and the Church, Counterpoints: Bible and Theology. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2016.
Staver, Mathew. Same-Sex Marriage. Nashville, TN: Broadman &
Holman Publishers, 2004.
Sullins, Paul. “Bias in Recruited Sample Research on
Children with Same-Sex Parents Using the Strength
and Difculties Questionnaire (SDQ).” Journal of Scientic
Research and Reports 5 no.4 (2015): 375–87.
———. “Emotional Problems among Children with
Same-Sex Parents: Difference by Denition.” British Journal
of Education, Society & Behavioural Science 7 no. 2 (2015):
99–120.
———. “The Unexpected Harm of Same-Sex Marriage: A
Critical Appraisal, Replication and Re-Analysis of
Wainright and Patterson’s Studies on Adolescents with
Same-Sex Parents.” British Journal of Education, Society &
Behavioural Science 11 no.2 (2015): 1–2.
———. “Invisible Victims: Delayed Onset Depression among
Adults with Same-Sex Parents.” Hindawi, Depression
Research and Treatment, (2016).
https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/2410392
Tasker, Fiona. “Same-Sex Parenting and Child Development:
Reviewing the Contribution of Parental Gender.” Journal of
Marriage and Family 72 no.1 (2010): 35–40.
Tasker, Fiona and Susan Golombok. Growing Up in a Lesbian
Family. New York: Guilford, 1997.
Tertullian of Carthage. “An Exhortation to Chastity.” In Treatises
on Marriage and Remarriage: To His Wife. An Exhortation to
Chastity. Monogamy, edited by Johannes Quasten, Vol 13,
37-64. New York, NY: Newman Press, 1951.
________. “Monogamy.” In Treatises on Marriage and Remarriage:
To His Wife. An Exhortation to Chastity. Monogamy, edited
by Johannes Quasten, Vol 13, 65-109. New York, NY:
Newman Press, 1951.
The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James
Donaldson. 1885–1887. 10 vols. Repr. Peabody: Hendrickson,
1994.
The Book of Concord. Translated and edited by Theodore Tappert.
Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1959.
357
The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Oecumenical Council
of Trent. Edited and translated by J. Waterworth. London,
England: Dolaman, 1848.
The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1. Edited by Philip
Schaff. 1886–1889. 14 vols. Repr. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994.
The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms in Modern
English. Summertown, TN: Summertown Company, 2005.
Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A
Commentary on the Greek Text The New International
Greek Testament Commentary Series. Grand Rapids, MI:
W.B. Eerdmans, 2000.
van den Akker, Hanneke, Joris. Blaauw, Marcel Lubbers,
Rozemarijn van der Ploeg, Peer Scheepers, and Ellen
Verbakel. “Health and Happiness Among Homosexual
Couples in Europe.” International Psychiatry 10 no. 2 (2013):
31–32.
Vines, Matthew. God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case
in Support of Same-Sex Relationships. Reprint ed. Colorado
Springs: Convergent Books, 2014.
Wainright, Jennifer, and Charlotte Patterson. “Peer
Relations among Adolescents with Female Same-Sex
Parents.” Developmental Psychology 44 no. 1(2008): 117.
Wainright, Jennifer, and Charlotte Patterson. “Delinquency,
Victimization, and Substance Use among Adolescents with
Female Same-Sex Parents.” Journal of Family Psychology 20
no. 3 (2006): 526–30.
Wainright, Jennifer, Stephen Russell, and Charlotte
Patterson. “Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes,
and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents with Same-Sex
Parents.” Child Development 75 no.6 (2004): 1886–98.
Wallerstein, Judith, Sandra Blakeslee, and Julia Lewis.
The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark
Study. New York: Hyperion, 2000.
Webb, William J. Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the
Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. Downers Grove: IVP, 2001.
Wiik, Kenneth, Ane Seierstad, and Turid Noack. “Divorce in
Norwegian Same-Sex Marriages and Registered
Partnerships: The Role of Children.” Journal of Marriage
and Family 76 no.5 (2014): 919–29.
Williams, Rowan. “The Body's Grace.” In Theology and Sexuality:
Classic and Contemporary Readings, ed. Eugene F. Rogers.
Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.
358 HOMOSEXUALITY, THE BIBLE AND THE CHURCH
Winner, Lauren F. Real Sex: The Naked Truth About Chastity.
Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2005.
Wright, David F. “Early Christian Attitudes to Homosexuality,”
Studia Patristica 18, no. 3 (1989): 329–33.
Wright, David F. “Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning
of ἀρσενοκοῑται (1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1: 10).”
Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984): 125-53.
359
