from Issues Facing Christians Today by John R W Stott (Marshalls, Basingstoke, 1984),
Because of the explosive nature of this topic, let me begin by describing the proper
context for our thinking about it and by affirming a number of truths about my readers
and myself which I am taking for granted as I write.
The Context for Discussion
First, we are all human beings. That is to say, there is no such phenomenon as 'a
homosexual'. There are only people, human persons, made in the image and likeness
of God, yet fallen, with all the glory and the tragedy which that paradox implies,
including sexual potential and sexual problems. However strongly we may disapprove
of homosexual practices, we have no liberty to dehumanize those who engage in them.
Secondly, we are all sexual beings. Our sexuality, according to both Scripture and
experience, is basic to our humanness. Angels may be sexless; we humans are not.
When God made humankind, he made us male and female. So to talk about sex is to touch
a point close to the centre of our personality. Our very identity is being discussed,
and perhaps either endorsed or threatened. So the subject demands an unusual degree
Moreover, not only are we all sexual beings, but we all have a particular sexual
orientation. The American zoologist Alfred C. Kinsey's famous investigation into
human sexuality led him to place every human being somewhere on a spectrum from 0
(an exclusively heterosexual bias, attracted only to the opposite sex) to 6 (an exclusively
homosexual bias, attracted only to the same sex, whether homosexual males or 'lesbians',
as homosexual females are usually called). In between these poles Dr Kinsey plotted
varying degrees of bisexuality, referring to people whose sexual orientation is either
dual or indeterminate or fluctuating. His researches led him to conclude that 4%
of men (at least of white American men) are exclusively homosexual throughout their
lives, that 10% are for up to three years, and that as many as 37% have some kind
of homosexual experience between adolescence and old age. The percentage of homosexual
women he found to be lower, although it rises to 4 between the ages of 20 and 35.1
The numbers are high enough to warrant Dr D. J. West's comment that 'homosexuality
is an extremely common condition.'2
Thirdly, we are all sinners, indeed (among other things) sexual sinners. The doctrine
of total depravity asserts that every part of our human being has been tainted and
twisted by sin, and that this includes our sexuality. Dr Merville Vincent, of the
Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, was surely correct when he wrote
in 1972: 'In God's view I suspect we are all sexual deviants. I doubt if there is
anyone who has not had a lustful thought that deviated from God's perfect ideal of
sexuality.'3 Nobody (with the sole exception of Jesus of Nazareth) has been sexually
sinless. There is no question, therefore, of coming to this study with a horrid 'holier-than-thou'
attitude of moral superiority. Being all of us sinners, we stand under the judgment
of God and we are in urgent need of the grace of God. Besides, sexual sins are not
the only sins, nor even necessarily the most sinful; pride and hypocrisy are surely
Fourthly, in addition to being human, sexual and sinful creatures, I take it that
we are all Christians. At least the readers I have mind in this chapter are not people
who reject the lordship of Jess Christ, but rather those who earnestly desire to
submit to it, believe that he exercises it through Scripture, want to understand
what light Scripture throws on this topic, and have a predisposition to seek God's
grace to follow his will when it is known. Without this kind of commitment, it would
be more difficult for us to find common ground. To be sure, God's standards for non-Christians
are the same, but they are less ready to accept them.
Having delineated the context for our discussion, I am ready ask the question: are
homosexual partnerships a Christian option? I phrase my question advisedly. It introduces
us to three necessary distinctions.
First, at least since the Wolfenden Report of 1957 and the resultant Sexual Offences
Act of 1967, we have learned to distinguish between sins and crimes. Adultery has
always (according God's law) been a sin, but in most countries it is not an offence
punishable by the state. Rape, by contrast, is both a sin and a crime. What the Sexual
Offences Act of 1967 did was to declare that a homosexual act performed between consenting
adults over 21 private should no longer be a criminal offence. 'The Act did not in
fact "legalize" such behaviour,' wrote Professor Sir Norman Anderson, 'for it is
still regarded by the law as immoral, and devoid of any legal recognition; all the
Act did was to remove the criminal sanction from such acts when performed in private
between two consenting adults.'4
Secondly, we have grown accustomed to distinguish between homosexual orientation
or 'inversion' (for which people are not responsible) and homosexual physical practices
(for which they are). The importance of this distinction goes beyond the attribution
of responsibility to the attribution of guilt. We may not blame people for what they
are, though we may for what they do. And in every discussion about homosexuality
we must be rigorous in differentiating between this 'being' and 'doing', that is,
between a person's identity and activity, sexual preference and sexual practice,
constitution and conduct.
But now we have to come to terms with a third distinction, namely between homosexual
practices which are casual (and probably anonymous) acts of self-gratification and
those which (it is claimed) are just as expressive of authentic human love as is
heterosexual intercourse in marriage. No responsible homosexual person (whether Christian
or not) is advocating promiscuous 'one night stands', let alone violence or the corruption
of young people and children. What some are arguing, however, especially in the so-called
Gay Christian Movement, is that a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual partnership
are 'two equally valid alternatives',5 being equally tender, mature and faithful.
The question before us, then, does not relate to homosexual practices of a casual
nature, but asks whether homosexual partnerships - lifelong and loving - are a Christian
option. Our concern is to subject prevailing attitudes (whether total revulsion or
equally uncritical endorsement) to biblical scrutiny. Is our sexual 'preference'
purely a matter of personal 'taste'? Or has God revealed his will regarding a norm?
In particular, can the Bible be shown to sanction homosexual partnerships, or at
least not to condemn them? What, in fact, does the Bible condemn?
The Biblical Prohibitions
The late Derrick Sherwin Bailey was the first Christian theologian to re-evaluate
the traditional understanding of the biblical prohibitions. His famous book, of which
all subsequent writers on his topic have had to take careful account, namely Homosexuality
and the Western Christian Tradition, was published in 1955. Although many have not
been able to accept his attempted reconstruction, in particular his re-interpretation
of the sin of Sodom, there are other writers, less cautious in scholarly standards
than he, who regard his argument as merely preliminary and build on his foundations
a much more permissive position. It is essential to consider this debate.
There are four main biblical passages which refer (or appear to refer) to the homosexual
question negatively: (1) the story of Sodom (Gen. 19.1-13), with which it is natural
to associate the very similar story of Gibeah (Judges 19); (2) the Levitical texts
(Lev. 18.22 and 20.13) which explicitly prohibit 'lying with a man as one lies with
a woman'; (3) the apostle Paul's portrayal of decadent pagan society in his day (Romans
1.18-32); and (4) two Pauline lists of sinners, each of which includes a reference
to homosexual practices of some kind (1 Cor. 6.9-10 and 1 Tim. 1.8-11).
(1) The Stories of Sodom and Gibeah
The Genesis narrative makes it clear that 'the men of Sodom were wicked and were
sinning greatly against the Lord' (13.13), and that 'the outcry against Sodom and
Gomorrah' was 'so great and their sin so grievous' that God determined to investigate
it (18.20, 21), and in the end 'overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including
all those living in the cities' (19.25) by an act of judgment which was entirely
consistent with the justice of 'the Judge of all the earth' (18.25). There is no
controversy about this background to the biblical story. The question is: what was
the sin of the people of Sodom (and Gomorrah) which merited their obliteration?
The traditional Christian view has been that they were guilty of homosexual practices,
which they attempted (unsuccessfully) to inflict on the two angels whom Lot was entertaining
in his home. Hence the word 'sodomy'. But Sherwin Bailey challenged this interpretation
on two main grounds. First, it is a gratuitous assumption (he argued) that the demand
of the men of Sodom 'Bring them out to us, so that we may know them' meant 'so that
we can have sex with them' (NIV). For the Hebrew word for 'know' (yada') occurs 943
times in the Old Testament, of which only ten occurrences refer to physical intercourse,
and even then only to heterosexual intercourse. It would therefore be better to translate
the phrase 'so that we may get acquainted with them'. We can then understand the
men's violence as due to their anger that Lot had exceeded his rights as a resident
alien, for he had welcomed two strangers into his home 'whose intentions might be
hostile and whose credentials . . . had not been examined'.6 In this case the sin
of Sodom was to invade the privacy of Lot's home and flout the ancient rules of hospitality.
Lot begged them to desist because, he said, the two men 'have come under the protection
of my roof' (verse 8).
Bailey's second argument was that the rest of the Old Testament nowhere suggests
that the nature of Sodom's offence was homosexual. Instead, Isaiah implies that it
was hypocrisy and social injustice, Jeremiah adultery, deceit and general wickedness,
and Ezekiel arrogance, greed and indifference to the poor.7 Then Jesus himself (though
Bailey does not mention this) on three separate occasions alluded to the inhabitants
of Sodom and Gomorrah, declaring that it would be 'more bearable' for them on the
day of judgment than for those who reject his gospel.8 Yet in all these references
there is not even a whiff or rumour of homosexual malpractice! It is only when we
reach the Palestinian pseudepigraphical writings of the second century BC that Sodom's
sin is identified as unnatural sexual behaviour.9 And this finds a clear echo in
the Letter of Jude, in which it is said that 'Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding
towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion' (verse 7), and in the
works of Philo and Josephus, Jewish writers who were shocked by the homosexual practices
of Greek society.
Sherwin Bailey handled the Gibeah story in the same way, for they are closely parallel.
Another resident alien (this time an anonymous 'old man') invites two strangers (not
angels but a Levite and his concubine) into his home. Evil men surround the house
and make the same demand as the Sodomites, that the visitor be brought out 'so that
we may know him'. The owner of the house first begs them not to be so 'vile' to his
'guest', and then offers his daughter and the concubine to them instead. The sin
of the men of Gibeah, it is again suggested, was not their proposal of homosexual
intercourse but their violation of the laws of hospitality.
Although Bailey must have known that his reconstruction of both stories was at most
tentative, he yet made the exaggerated claim that 'there is not the least reason
to believe, as a matter of either historical fact or of revealed truth, that the
city of Sodom and its neighbours were destroyed because of their homosexual practices.'10
Instead, the Christian tradition about 'sodomy' was derived from late, apocryphal
But Sherwin Bailey's case is not convincing for a number of reasons: (1) The adjectives
'wicked', 'vile' and 'disgraceful' (Gen. 18.7; Judges 19.23) do not seem appropriate
to describe a breach of hospitality; (2) the offer of women instead 'does look as
if there is some sexual connotation to the episode';11 (3) although the verb yada'
is used only ten times of sexual intercourse, Bailey omits to mention that six of
these occurrences are in Genesis and one in the Sodom story itself (about Lot's daughters
who had not 'known' a man, verse 8); (4) for those of us who take the New Testament
documents seriously, Jude's unequivocal statement cannot be dismissed as merely an
error copied from Jewish pseudepigrapha. To be sure, homosexual behaviour was not
Sodom's only sin; but according to Scripture it was certainly one of them.
(2) The Leviticus Texts
Both texts in Leviticus belong to the 'Holiness Code' which is the heart of the book,
and which challenges the people of God to follow his laws and not copy the practices
either of Egypt (where they used to live) or of Canaan (to which he was bringing
them). These practices included sexual relations within the prohibited degrees, variety
of sexual deviations, child sacrifice, idolatry and social injustice of different
kinds. It is in this context that we must read the following two texts:
18.22 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.' 20.13
'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is
detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.'
'It is hardly open to doubt,' wrote Bailey, 'that both the laws in Leviticus relate
to ordinary homosexual acts between men, and not to ritual or other acts performed
in the name of religion.'12 Others, however, affirm the very point which Bailey denies.
They rightly point out that the two texts are embedded in a context preoccupied largely
with ritual cleanness, and Peter Coleman adds that the word translated 'detestable'
or 'abomination' in both verses is associated with idolatry. 'In English the word
expresses disgust or disapproval, but in the Bible its predominant meaning is concerned
with religious truth rather than morality or aesthetics.'13 Are these prohibitions
merely religious taboos, then? Are they connected with that other prohibition 'No
Israelite man or woman is to become a temple prostitute' (Deut. 23.17)? For certainly
the Canaanitish fertility cult did include ritual prostitution, and therefore provided
both male and female 'sacred prostitutes' (even if there is no clear evidence that
either engaged in homosexual intercourse). The evil kings of Israel and Judah were
constantly introducing them into the religion of Yahweh, and the righteous kings
were constantly expelling them.14 The homosexual lobby argues therefore that the
Levitical texts prohibit religious practices which have long since ceased, and have
no relevance to homosexual partnerships today.
(3) Paul's Statements in Romans 1
verse 26 'Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women
exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.' verse 27 'In the same way the men
also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.
Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty
for their perversion.'
All are agreed that the apostle is describing idolatrous pagans in the Graeco-Roman
world of his day. They had a certain knowledge of God through the created universe
(verses 19, 20) and their own moral sense (verse 32), yet they suppressed the truth
they knew in order to practise wickedness. Instead of giving to God the honour due
to him, they turned to idols, confusing the Creator with his creatures. In judgment
upon them, 'God gave them over' to their depraved mind and their decadent practices
(verses 24, 26, 28), including 'unnatural' sex. It seems at first sight to be a definite
condemnation of homosexual behaviour. But two arguments are advanced on the other
side: (1) although Paul knew nothing of the modern distinction between 'inverts'
(who have a homosexual disposition) and 'perverts' (who, though heterosexually inclined,
indulge in homosexual practices), nevertheless it is the latter he is condemning
not the former. This must be so, because they are described as having 'abandoned'
natural relations with women, whereas no exclusively homosexual male would ever have
had them. (2) Paul is evidently portraying the reckless, shameless, profligate, promiscuous
behaviour of people whom God has judicially 'given up'; what relevance has this to
committed, loving homosexual partnerships?
(2) The Other Pauline Texts
1 Cor. 6.9, 10 'Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters nor adulterers nor
male prostitutes (malakoi) nor homosexual offenders (arsenokoitai) nor thieves nor
the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of
God.' 1 Tim. 1.9, 10 'We also know that law is made not for good men but for lawbreakers
and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill
their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts (arsenokoitais),
for slave traders and liars and perjurers - and for whatever else is contrary to
the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God. . . .'
Here are two ugly lists of sins which Paul affirms to be incompatible in the first
place with the Kingdom of God and in the second with either the law or the gospel.
It will be observed that one group of offenders are called malakoi and the other
(in both lists) arsenokoitai. What do these words mean? To begin with, it is extremely
unfortunate that in the original Revised Standard Version translation of 1 Cor. 6.9
they were combined and translated 'homosexuals'. Bailey was right to protest, since
the use of the word 'inevitably suggests that the genuine invert, even though he
be a man of irreproachable morals, is automatically branded as unrighteous and excluded
from the Kingdom of God.'15 Fortunately, the revisers heeded the protest, and the
second edition (1973), though still combining the words, rendered them 'sexual perverts'.
The point is that all ten categories listed in 1 Corinthians 6.9.10 (with the possible
exception of 'the greedy') denote people who have offended by their actions, e.g.
idolaters, adulterers and thieves.
The two Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai should not be combined, however, since
they have precise meanings. The first is literally 'soft to the touch' and metaphorically,
among the Greeks meant males (not necessarily boys) who played the passive role in
homosexual intercourse. The second means literally "male in a bed" and the Greeks
used this expression to describe the one who took the active role.'16 The Jerusalem
Bible follows James Moffatt in using the ugly words 'catamites and sodomites', while
among his conclusions Peter Coleman suggests that 'probably Paul had commercial paederasty
in mind between older men and post-pubertal boys, the most common pattern of homosexual
behaviour in the classical world'.17 If this is so, then once again it can be (and
has been) argued that the Pauline condemnations are not relevant to homosexual adults
who are both consenting and committed to one another. Not that this is the conclusion
which Peter Coleman himself draws. His summary is as follows: 'Taken together, St
Paul's writings repudiate homosexual behaviour as a vice of the Gentile in Romans,
as a bar to the Kingdom in Corinthians, and as an offence to be repudiated by the
moral law in 1 Timothy.'18
Reviewing these biblical references to homosexual behaviour which I have grouped,
we have to agree that there are only four of them. Must we then conclude that the
topic is marginal to the main thrust of the Bible? Must we further concede that they
constitute rather flimsy basis on which to take a firm stand against a homosexual
lifestyle? Are those protagonists right who claim that that biblical prohibitions
are 'highly specific'19 - against violations of hospitality (Sodom and Gibeah), against
cultic taboos (Leviticus) against shameless orgies (Romans) and against male prostitution
or the corruption of the young (1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy), and that none of these
passages alludes to, let alone condemns, a loving partnership between genuine homosexual
inverts? This is the conclusion reached, for example, by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia
Mollenkott in their book Is The Homosexual My Neighbour? They write:
'The Bible clearly condemns certain kinds of homosexual practice (. . . gang rape,
idolatry and lustful promiscuity). However, it appears to be silent in certain other
aspects of homosexuality both the "homosexual orientation" and "a commited love-relationship
analogous to heterosexual monogamy".'20
But no, plausible as it may sound, we cannot handle the biblical material in this
way. The Christian rejection of homosexual practices does not rest on 'a few isolated
and obscure proof texts' (as is sometimes said), whose traditional explanation can
be overthrown. And it is disturbing to me that those who write on this subject, and
include in their treatment a section on the biblical teaching, all seem to deal with
it in this way. For example, 'Consideration of the Christian attitude to homosexual
practices,' wrote Sherwin Bailey, 'inevitably begins with the story of the destruction
of Sodom and Gomorrah.'21 But this beginning is not at all 'inevitable'. In fact,
it is positively mistaken. For the negative prohibitions of homosexual practices
in Scripture make sense only in the light of its positive teaching in Genesis 1 and
2 about human sexuality and heterosexual marriage. Yet Sherwin Bailey's book contains
no allusion to these chapters at all. And even Peter Coleman, whose Christian Attitudes
to Homosexuality is surely the most comprehensive biblical, historical and moral
survey which has yet been published, mentions them only in a passing reference to
1 Corinthians 6 where Paul quotes Genesis 2.24. Yet without the wholesome positive
teaching of the Bible on sex and marriage, our perspective on the homosexual question
is bound to be skewed.
Sex and Marriage in the Bible
The essential place to begin our investigation, it seems to me, is the institution
of marriage in Genesis 2, although we have already looked at it in chapters 13 and
14. Since members of the Gay Christian Movement deliberately draw a parallel between
heterosexual marriages and homosexual partnerships, it is necessary to ask whether
this parallel can be justified.
We have seen that in his providence God has given us two distinct accounts of creation.
The first (Genesis 1) is general, and affirms the equality of the sexes, since both
share in the image of God and the stewardship of the earth. The second (Genesis 2)
is particular, and affirms the complementarity of the sexes, which constitutes the
basis for heterosexual marriage. In this second account of creation three fundamental
First, the human need for companionship. 'It is not good for the man to be alone'
(verse 18). True, this assertion was later qualified when the apostle Paul (surely
echoing Genesis) wrote: 'It is good for a man not to marry' (1 Cor. 7.1). That is
to say, although marriage is the good institution of God, the call to singleness
is also the good vocation of some. Nevertheless, as a general rule, 'It is not good
for the man to be alone.' For God has created us social beings. Since he is love,
and has made us in his own likeness, he has given us a capacity to love and to be
loved. He intends us to live in community, not in solitude. In particular, God continued,
'I will make a helper suitable for him.' Moreover, this 'helper' or companion, whom
God pronounced 'suitable for him', was also to be his sexual partner, with whom he
was to become 'one flesh', so that they might thereby both consummate their love
and procreate their children.
Secondly, Genesis 2 reveals the divine provision to meet this human need. Having
affirmed Adam's need for a partner, the search for a suitable one began. God first
paraded the birds and beasts before him, and Adam proceeded to 'name' them, to symbolize
his taking them into his service. But (verse 20) 'for Adam no suitable helper was
found', who could live 'alongside' or 'opposite' him, who could be his complement,
his counterpart, his companion, let alone his mate. So a special creation was necessary.
The debate about how literally we are intended to understand what follows (the divine
surgery under a divine anaesthetic) must not prevent us from grasping the point.
Something happened during Adam's deep sleep. A special work of divine creation took
place. The sexes became differentiated. Out of the undifferentiated humanity of Adam,
male and female emerged. And Adam awoke from his deep sleep to behold before him
a reflection of himself, a complement to himself, indeed a very part of himself.
Next, having created the woman out of the man, God himself brought her to him, much
as today the bride's father gives the bride away. And Adam broke spontaneously into
history's first love poem:
'Now at last (in contrast to the birds and beasts) This is now bone of my bones and
flesh of my flesh; She shall be called "woman", for she was taken out of man'.
There can be no doubting the emphasis of this story. According to Genesis 1 Eve like
Adam was created in the image of God. But as to the manner of her creation, according
to Genesis 2, she was made neither out of nothing (like the universe), nor out of
'the dust of the ground' (like Adam, verse 7), but out of Adam.
The third great truth of Genesis 2 concerns the resulting institution of marriage.
Adam's love poem is recorded in verse 23. The 'therefore' or 'for this reason' of
verse 24 is the narrator's deduction:
'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother, and be united to his wife,
and they will become one flesh.'
Even the inattentive reader will be struck by the three references to 'flesh': 'this
is ... flesh of my flesh . . . they will become one flesh'. We may be certain that
this is deliberate, not accidental. It teaches that heterosexual intercourse in marriage
is more than a union; it is a kind of reunion. It is not a union of alien persons
who do not belong to one another and cannot appropriately become one flesh. On the
contrary, it is the union of two persons who originally were one, were then separated
from each other, and now in the sexual encounter of marriage come together again.
It is surely this which explains the profound mystery of heterosexual intimacy, which
poets and philosophers have celebrated in every culture. Heterosexual intercourse
is much more than a union of bodies; it is a blending of complementary personalities
through which, in the midst of prevailing alienation, the rich created oneness of
human being is experienced again. And the complementarity of male and female sexual
organs is only a symbol at the physical level of a much deeper spiritual complementarity.
In order to become one flesh, however, and experience this sacred mystery, certain
preliminaries are necessary, which are constituent parts of marriage. 'Therefore'
'a man' (the singular indicates that marriage is an exclusive union between two individuals)
'shall leave his father and mother' (a public social occasion is in view) 'and cleave
to his wife' (marriage is a loving, cleaving commitment or covenant, which is heterosexual
and permanent) 'and they will become one flesh' (for marriage must be consummated
in sexual intercourse, which is a sign and seal of the marriage covenant, and over
which no shadow of shame or embarassment had yet been cast, verse 25)
Jesus himself later endorsed this teaching. He quoted Genesis 2.24, declared that
such a lifelong union between a man and his wife was God's intention from the beginning,
and added 'what God has joined together, let man not separate' (Mk. 10.4-9).
Thus Scripture defines the marriage God instituted in terms of heterosexual monogamy.
It is the union of one man with one woman, which must be publicly acknowledged (the
leaving of parents), permanently sealed (he will 'cleave to his wife') and physically
consummated ('one flesh'). And Scripture envisages no other kind of marriage or sexual
intercourse, for God provided no alternative.
Christians should not therefore single out homosexual intercourse for special condemnation.
The fact is that every sexual relationship or act which deviates from God's revealed
intention is ipso facto displeasing to him and under his judgment. This includes
polygamy and polyandry (which infringe the 'one man - one woman' principle), clandestine
unions (since these have involved no decisive public leaving of parents), casual
encounters and temporary liaisons, adultery and many divorces (which are incompatible
with 'cleaving' and with Jesus' prohibition 'let man not separate'), and homosexual
partnerships (which violate the statement that 'a man' shall be joined to 'his wife').
In sum, the only 'one flesh' experience which God intends and Scripture contemplates
is the sexual union of a man with his wife, whom he recognises as 'flesh of his flesh'.
Contemporary Arguments Considered
Homosexual Christians are not, however, satisfied with this biblical teaching about
human sexuality and the institution of heterosexual marriage. They bring forward
a number of objections to it, in order to defend the legitimacy of homosexual partnerships.
(1) The argument about Scripture and culture. Traditionally, it has been assumed
that the Bible condemns all homosexual acts. But are the biblical writers reliable
guides in this matter? Were their horizons not bounded by their own experience and
culture? The cultural argument usually takes one of two forms.
First, the biblical authors were addressing themselves to questions relevant to their
own circumstances, and these were very different from ours. In the Sodom and Gibeah
stories they were preoccupied either with conventions of hospitality in the Ancient
Near East which are now obsolete or (if the sin was sexual at all) with the extremely
unusual phenomenon of homosexual gang rape. In the Levitical laws the concern was
with antiquated fertility rituals, while Paul was addressing himself to the particular
sexual preferences of Greek paederasts. It is all so antiquarian. The biblical authors'
imprisonment in their own cultures renders their teaching on this topic irrelevant.
The second and complementary culture problem is that the biblical writers were not
addressing themselves to our questions. Thus the problem of Scripture is not only
with its teaching but also with its silence. Paul (let alone the Old Testament authors)
knew nothing of post-Freudian psychology. They had never heard of 'the homosexual
condition'; they knew only about certain practices. The difference between 'inversion'
and 'perversion' would have been incomprehensible to them. The very notion that two
men or two women could fall in love with each other and develop a deeply loving,
stable relationship comparable to marriage simply never entered their heads. So then,
just as slaves, blacks and women have been liberated, 'gay liberation' is long overdue.
If the only biblical teaching on this topic were to be found in the prohibition texts,
it might be difficult to answer these objections. But once those texts are seen in
relation to the divine institution of marriage, we are in possession of a principle
of divine revelation which is universally applicable. It was applicable to the cultural
situations of both the Ancient Near East and the first-century Graeco-Roman world,
and it is equally applicable to modern sexual questions of which the ancients were
quite ignorant. The reason for the biblical prohibitions is the same reason why modern
loving homosexual partnerships must also be condemned, namely that they are incompatible
with God's created order. And since that order (heterosexual monogamy) was established
by creation, not culture, its validity is both permanent and universal. There can
be no 'liberation' from God's created norms; true liberation is found only in accepting
(2) The argument about creation and nature. I have sometimes read or heard this kind
of statement: 'I'm gay because God made me that way. So gay must be good. I intend
to accept, and indeed celebrate, what I am by creation.' Or again, 'You may say that
homosexual practice is against nature and normality; but it's not against my nature,
nor is it in the slightest degree abnormal for me'. Norman Pittenger was quite outspoken
in his use of this argument a couple of decades ago. A homosexual person, he wrote,
is 'not an "abnormal" person with "unnatural" desires and habits'. On the contrary,
'a heterosexually oriented person acts "naturally" when he acts heterosexually, while
a homosexually oriented person acts equally "naturally" when he acts in accordance
with his basic, inbuilt homosexual desire and drive'.22
Others argue that homosexual behaviour is 'natural' (a) because in many primitive
societies it is fairly acceptable, (b) because in some advanced civilizations (ancient
Greece, for example) it was even idealized, and (c) because it is quite widespread
in animals. Dr D. J. West, who reports this, goes on to quote Dr F. A. Beach, an
expert on animal sexuality, who because of animal homosexual behaviour says that
to describe human homosexual behaviour as "unnatural" is to 'depart from strict accuracy'.23
But these arguments express an extremely subjective view of what is 'natural' and
'normal'. We should not accept Norman Pittenger's statement that there are 'no eternal
standards of normality or naturalness'.24 Nor can we agree that animal behaviour
sets standards for human behaviour! For God has established a norm for sex and marriage
by creation. This was already recognised in the Old Testament era. Thus, sexual relations
with an animal were forbidden, because 'that is a perversion' (Lev. 18.23), in other
words a violation or confusion of nature, which indicates an 'embryonic sense of
natural law'.25 The same verdict is passed on Sodom by the second century BC Testament
of Naphtali: 'As the sun and the stars do not change their order, so the tribe of
Naphtali are to obey God rather than the disorderliness of idolatry. Recognizing
in all created things the Lord who made them, they are not to become as Sodom which
changed the order of nature. ...'26
The same concept was clearly in Paul's mind in Romans 1. When he wrote of women who
had 'exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones'; and of men who had 'abandoned
natural relations', he meant by 'nature' (phusis) the natural order of things which
God has established (as in 2.14, 27 and 11.24). What Paul was condemning, therefore,
was not the perverted behaviour of heterosexual people who were acting against their
nature, but any human behaviour which is against 'Nature', that is, against God's
created order. As C. K. Barrett puts it: 'In the obscene pleasures to which he (sc.
Paul) refers is to be seen precisely that perversion of the created order which may
be expected when men put the creation in place of the Creator'.27
(3) The argument about quality of relationships. The Gay Christian Movement borrows
from Scripture the truth that love is the greatest thing in the world (which it is)
and from the 'new morality' or 'situation ethics' of the 1960s the notion that love
is an adequate criterion by which to judge every relationship (which it is not).
Yet this view is gaining ground today. The Friends' Report Towards a Quaker View
of Sex (1963), for example, included the statements 'one should no more deplore "homosexuality"
than lefthandedness'28 and 'surely it is the nature and quality of a relationship
that matters'.29 Similarly in 1979, the Methodist Church's 'Division of Social Responsibility',
in its report A Christian Understanding of Human Sexuality, argued that 'homosexual
activities' are 'not intrinsically wrong', since 'the quality of any homosexual relationship
is ... to be assessed by the same basic criteria which have been applied to heterosexual
relationships. For homosexual men and women, permanent relationships characterized
by love can be an appropriate and Christian way of expressing their sexuality'.30
The same year (1979) an Anglican working party issued the report Homosexual Relationships:
a contribution to discussion. It was more cautious, judicious and ambivalent than
the Quaker and Methodist reports. Its authors did not feel able to repudiate centuries
of Christian tradition, yet they 'did not think it possible to deny' that in some
circumstances individuals may 'justifiably choose' a homosexual relationship in their
search for companionship and sexual love 'similar' to those found in marriage.31
In his Time for Consent, Norman Pittenger lists six characteristics of a truly loving
relationship. They are (1) commitment (the free self-giving of each to the other),
(2) mutuality in giving and receiving (a sharing in which each finds his or her self
in the other), (3) tenderness (no coercion or cruelty), (4) faithfulness (the intention
of a lifelong relationship), (5) hopefulness (each serving the other's maturity),
and (6) desire for union.32
If then a homosexual relationship, whether between two men or two women, is characterized
by these qualities of love, surely (the argument runs) it must be affirmed as good
and not rejected as evil? It rescues people from loneliness, selfishness and promiscuity.
It can be just as rich and responsible, as liberating and fulfilling, as a heterosexual
But the biblical Christian cannot accept the basic premise on which this case rests,
namely that love is the only absolute, that besides it all moral law has been abolished,
and that whatever seems to be compatible with love is ipso facto good, irrespective
of all other considerations. This cannot be so. For love needs law to guide it. In
emphasizing love for God and neighbour as the two great commandments, Jesus and his
apostles did not discard all other commandments. On the contrary, Jesus said 'if
you love me you will keep my commandments', and Paul wrote 'love is the fulfilling
(not the abrogating) of the law'.33
So then the loving quality of a relationship is an essential, though by itself insufficient,
criterion to authenticate it. For example, if love were the only test of authenticity,
there would be nothing against polygamy, for a polygamist could certainly enjoy a
relationship with several wives which reflects all Dr Pittenger's six characteristics.
Here, however, is a better illustration, drawn from my own pastoral experience. On
several different occasions a married man has told me that he has fallen in love
with another woman. When I have gently remonstrated with him, he has responded in
words like these: 'Yes, I agree, I already have a wife and family. But this new relationship
is the real thing. We were made for each other. Our love for each other has a quality
and depth we have never known before. It must be right'. But no, I have had to say,
it is not right. No man is justified in breaking his marriage covenant with his wife
on the ground of the quality of his love for another woman. Quality of love is not
the only yardstick by which to measure what is good or right.
Similarly, I do not deny the claim that homosexual relationships can be loving (although
a priori I do not see how they can attain the same richness as the heterosexual mutuality
God has ordained.) But their love-quality is not sufficient to justify them. Indeed,
I have to add that they are incompatible with true love because they are incompatible
with God's law. Love is concerned for the highest welfare of the beloved. And our
highest human welfare is found in obedience to God's law and purpose, not in revolt
Some leaders of the Gay Christian Movement appear to be following the logic of their
own position, for they are saying that even monogamy could be abandoned in the interests
of 'love'. Malcolm Macourt, for example, has written that the Gay Liberationist's
vision is of 'a wide variety of life patterns', each of which is 'held in equal esteem
in society'. Among them he lists the following alternatives: monogamy and multiple-partnerships;
partnerships for life and partnerships for a period of mutual growth; same-sex partners
and opposite-sex partners; living in community and living in small family units.34
There seem to be no limits to what some people seek to justify in the name of love.
(4) The argument about acceptance and the gospel. 'Surely,' some people are saying,
'it is the duty of heterosexual Christians to accept homosexual Christians. Paul
told us to accept - indeed welcome - one another. If God has welcomed somebody, who
are we to pass judgment on him (Rom. 14. 1ff)?' Norman Pittenger goes further and
declares that those who reject homosexual people 'have utterly failed to understand
the Christian gospel'. We do not receive the grace of God because we are good and
confess our sins, he continues; it is the other way round. 'It's always God's grace
which comes first, ... his forgiveness awakens our repentance'.35 He even quotes
the hymn 'Just as I am, without one plea', and adds: 'the whole point of the Christian
gospel is that God loves and accepts us just as we are'.36
This is a very confused statement of the gospel, however. God does indeed accept
us 'just as we are', and we do not have to make ourselves good first, indeed we cannot.
But his 'acceptance' means that he fully and freely forgives all who repent and believe,
not that he condones our continuance in sin. Again, it is true that we must accept
one another, but only as fellow-penitents and fellow-pilgrims, not as fellow-sinners
who are resolved to persist in our sinning. No acceptance, either by God or by the
church, is promised to us if we harden our hearts against God's Word and will. Only
Faith, Hope and Love
If homosexual practice must be regarded, in the light of the whole biblical revelation,
not as a variant within the wide range of accepted normality, but as a deviation
from God's norm; and if we should therefore call homosexually oriented people to
abstain from homosexual practices and partnerships, what advice and help can we give
to encourage them to respond to this call? I would like to take Paul's triad of faith,
hope and love, and apply it to homosexually oriented people.
(1) The Christian call to faith. Faith is the human response to divine revelation;
it is believing God's Word. First, faith accepts God's standards. The only alternative
to heterosexual marriage is sexual abstinence. I think I know the implications of
this. Nothing has helped me to understand the pain of homosexual celibacy more than
Alex Davidson's moving book The Returns of Love. He writes of 'this incessant tension
between law and lust', 'this monster that lurks in the depths', this 'burning torment'.37
The secular world says: 'Sex is essential to human fulfilment. To expect homosexual
people to abstain from homosexual practice is to condemn them to frustration and
to drive them to neurosis, despair and even suicide. It's outrageous to ask anybody
to deny himself what to him is a normal and natural mode of sexual expression. It's
"inhuman and inhumane".38 Indeed, it's positively cruel'.
But no, the teaching of the Word of God is different. Sexual experience is not essential
to human fulfilment. To be sure, it is a good gift of God. But it is not given to
all, and it is not indispensable to humanness. People were saying in Paul's day that
it was. Their slogan was 'Food for the stomach and the stomach for food; sex for
the body and the body for sex' (1 Cor. 6.13). But this is a lie of the devil. Jesus
Christ was single, yet perfect in his humanity. Besides, God's commands are good
and not grievous. The yoke of Christ brings rest not turmoil; conflict comes only
to those who resist it.
So ultimately it is a crisis of faith: whom shall we believe? God or the world? Shall
we submit to the lordship of Jesus, or succumb to the pressures of prevailing culture?
The true 'orientation' of Christians is not what we are by constitution (hormones),
but what we are by choice (heart, mind and will).
Secondly, faith accepts God's grace. Abstinence is not only good, if God calls us
to celibacy; it is also possible. Many deny it, however. 'You know the imperious
strength of our sex drive,' they say. 'To ask us to control ourselves is just not
on'. It is 'so near to an impossibility,' writes Norman Pittenger, 'that it's hardly
worth talking about'.39
Really? What then are we to make of Paul's statement following his warning to the
Corinthians that male prostitutes and homosexual offenders will not inherit God's
Kingdom? 'And that is what some of you were,' he cries. 'But you were washed, you
were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the
Spirit of our God' (1 Cor. 6.11). And what shall we say to the millions of heterosexual
people who are single? To be sure, all unmarried people experience the pain of struggle
and loneliness. But how can we call ourselves Christians and declare that chastity
is impossible? It is made harder by the sexual obsession of contemporary society.
And we make it harder for ourselves if we listen to the world's plausible arguments,
or lapse into self-pity, or feed our imagination with pornographic material and so
inhabit a fantasy world in which Christ is not Lord, or ignore his command about
plucking out our eyes and cutting off our hands and feet, that is, being ruthless
with the avenues of temptation. But, whatever our 'thorn in the flesh' may be, Christ
comes to us as he came to Paul and says: 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my
power is made perfect in weakness' (2 Cor. 12.9). To deny this is to portray Christians
as the helpless victims of the world, the flesh and the devil, and to contradict
the gospel of God's grace.
(2) The Christian call to hope. I have said nothing so far about 'healing' for homosexual
people, understood not now as self-mastery but as the reversal of their sexual bias.
Our expectation of this possibility will depend largely on our understanding of the
aetiology of the homosexual condition, and no final agreement on this has yet been
reached. 'Research into the causes of homosexuality,' writes D. J. West, 'has left
a lot of mysteries unsolved'.40 In his view, however, 'children are not born with
the sex instinct specifically directed to one sex or the other. Exclusive preference
for the opposite sex is an acquired trait...'41
Most agree that, lacking heterosexual outlets, and under cultural pressures, a large
percentage of people would (or at least could) behave homosexually. Indeed, although
there may be a genetic factor or component, the condition is more 'learned' than
'inherited'. Some attribute it to traumatic childhood experiences, such as the withdrawal
of the mother's love, inhibiting sexual growth.42 So, if it is learned, can it not
The possibility of change by the grace and power of God depends also on the strength
of the person's resolve, which itself depends on other factors. Those whose sexuality
is indeterminate may well change under strong influence and with strong motivation.
But many researchers conclude that constitutional homosexuality is irreversible.
'No known method of treatment or punishment,' writes D. J. West, 'offers hope of
making any substantial reduction in the vast army of adults practising homosexuality';
it would be 'more realistic to find room for them in society'. He pleads for 'tolerance',
though not for 'encouragement', of homosexual behaviour.43 Other psychologists go
further and declare that homosexuality is no longer to be regarded as a pathological
condition; it is therefore to be accepted not cured. In 1973 the trustees of the
American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the category of mental
Are not these views, however, the despairing opinions of the secular mind? Christians
know that the homosexual condition, being a deviation from God's norm, is not a sign
of created order but of fallen disorder. How, then, can we acquiesce in it or declare
it incurable? We cannot. The only question is when and how we are to expect the divine
deliverance and restoration to take place. The fact is that, though Christian claims
of homosexual 'healings' are made, either through regeneration or through a subsequent
work of the Holy Spirit, it is not easy to substantiate them. Martin Hallett, who
before his conversion was active in the gay scene, has subsequently founded the 'True
Freedom Trust', an interdenominational teaching and counselling ministry on homosexuality
and related problems.44 They have published a pamphlet entitled Testimonies. In it
homosexual Christian men and women bear witness to what Christ has done for them.
They have found a new identity in him, and a new sense of personal fulfilment as
children of God. They have been delivered from guilt, shame and fear by God's forgiving
acceptance, and set free from thraldom to their former homosexual activity by the
indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. But they have not been delivered from their
homosexual orientation, and therefore some inner pain continues alongside their new
joy and peace. Here are two examples: 'My prayers were not answered in the way I
had hoped for, but the Lord greatly blessed me in giving me two Christian friends
who lovingly accepted me for what I was'. 'After I was prayed over with the laying
on of hands a spirit of perversion left me. I praise God for the deliverance I found
that afternoon. ... I can testify to over three years of freedom from homosexual
activity. But I have not changed into a heterosexual in that time'.
Is there really, then, no hope of a substantial change of orientation? Dr Elizabeth
Moberly believes there is. She has been led by her researches to the view that 'a
homosexual orientation does not depend on a genetic pre-disposition, hormonal imbalance,
or abnormal learning processes, but on difficulties in the parent-child relationships,
especially in the earlier years of life'. The 'underlying principle,' she continues,
is 'that the homosexual - whether man or woman - has suffered from some deficit in
the relationship with the parent of the same sex; and that there is a corresponding
drive to make good this deficit through the medium of same-sex or "homosexual" relationships'.45
The deficit and the drive go together. The reparative drive for same-sex love is
not itself pathological, but 'quite the opposite - it is the attempt to resolve and
heal the pathology'. 'The homosexual condition does not involve abnormal needs, but
normal needs that have, abnormally, been left unmet in the ordinary process of growth'.
Homosexuality 'is essentially a state of incomplete development' or of unmet needs.46
So the proper solution is 'the meeting of same-sex needs without sexual activity',
for to eroticize growth deficits is to confuse emotional needs with physiological
desires.47 How, then, can these needs be met? The needs are legitimate, but what
are the legitimate means of meeting them? Dr Moberly's answer is that 'substitute
relationships for parental care are in God's redemptive plan, just as parental relationships
are in his creative plan'.48 What is needed is deep, loving, lasting, same-sex but
non-sexual relationships, especially in the church. 'Love,' she concludes, 'both
in prayer and in relationships, is the basic therapy... Love is the basic problem,
the great need, and the only true solution. If we are willing to seek and to mediate
the healing and redeeming love of Christ, then healing for the homosexual will become
a great and glorious reality'.49
Even then, however, complete healing of body, mind and spirit will not take place
in this life. Some degree of deficit or disorder remains in each of us. But not for
ever! For the Christian's horizons are not bounded by this world. Jesus is coming
again; our bodies are going to be redeemed; sin, pain and death are going to be abolished;
and both we and the universe are going to be transformed. Then we shall be finally
liberated from everything which defiles or distorts our personality. And this Christian
assurance helps us to bear whatever our present pain may be. For pain there is, in
the midst of peace. 'We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the
pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves,
who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our
adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies' (Rom. 8.22f). Thus our groans express
the birthpangs of the new age. We are convinced that 'our present sufferings are
not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us' (Rom. 8.18). This
confident hope sustains us.
Alex Davidson derives comfort in the midst of his homosexuality from his Christian
hope. 'Isn't it one of the most wretched things about this condition,' he writes,
'that when you look ahead, the same impossible road seems to continue indefinitely?
You're driven to rebellion when you think of there being no point in it and to despair
when you think of there being no limit to it. That's why I find a comfort, when I
feel desperate, or rebellious, or both, to remind myself of God's promise that one
day it will be finished...'50
(3) The Christian call to love. At present we are living 'in between times', between
the grace which we grasp by faith and the glory which we anticipate in hope. Between
them lies love.
Yet love is just what the church has generally failed to show to homosexual people.
Jim Cotter complains bitterly about being treated as 'objects of scorn and insult,
of fear, prejudice and oppression'.51 Norman Pittenger describes the 'vituperative'
correspondence he has received, in which homosexuals are dismissed even by professing
Christians as 'filthy creatures', 'disgusting perverts', 'damnable sinners' and the
like.52 Pierre Berton, a social commentator, writes that 'a very good case can be
made out that the homosexual is the modern equivalent of the leper'.53 Rictor Norton
is yet more shrill: 'The church's record regarding homosexuals is an atrocity from
beginning to end: it is not for us to seek forgiveness, but for the church to make
The attitude of personal hostility towards homosexuals is nowadays termed 'homophobia'.55
It is a mixture of irrational fear, hatred and even revulsion. It overlooks the fact
that the great majority of homosexual people are not responsible for their condition
(though they are, of course, for their conduct). Since they are not deliberate perverts,
they deserve our understanding and compassion (though many find this patronizing),
not our rejection. No wonder Richard Lovelace calls for 'a double repentance', namely
'that gay Christians renounce the active lifestyle' and that 'straight Christians
renounce homophobia'.56 Dr David Atkinson is right to add: 'We are not at liberty
to urge the Christian homosexual to celibacy and to a spreading of his relationships,
unless support for the former and opportunities for the latter are available in genuine
love'.57 I rather think that the very existence of the Gay Christian Movement, not
to mention the so-called 'Evangelical Fellowship' within it, is a vote of censure
on the church.
At the heart of the homosexual condition is a deep loneliness, the natural human
hunger for mutual love, a search for identity, and a longing for completeness. If
homosexual people cannot find these things in the local 'church family', we have
no business to go on using that expression. The alternative is not between the warm
physical relationship of homosexual intercourse and the pain of isolation in the
cold. There is a third option, namely a Christian environment of love, understanding,
acceptance and support. I do not think there is any need to encourage homosexual
people to disclose their sexual orientation to everybody; this is neither necessary
nor helpful. But they do need at least one confidante to whom they can unburden themselves,
who will not despise or reject them, but will support them with friendship and prayer;
probably some professional, private and confidential pastoral counsel; possibly in
addition the support of a professionally supervised therapy group; and many warm
and affectionate friendships with people of both sexes. Same-sex friendships are
to be encouraged, like those in the Bible between Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan,
and Paul and Timothy. There is no hint that any of these was homosexual in the erotic
sense, yet they were evidently affectionate and (at least in the case of David and
Jonathan) even demonstrative.58 Of course sensible safeguards will be important.
But in African and Asian cultures it is common to see two men walking down the street
hand in hand, without embarrassment. It is sad that our western culture inhibits
the development of rich same-sex friendships by engendering the fear of being ridiculed
or rejected as a 'queer'.
These relationships, both same-sex and opposite-sex, need to be developed within
the family of God which, though universal, has its local manifestations. He intends
each local church to be a warm, accepting and supportive community. By 'accepting'
I do not mean 'acquiescing', any more than in rejecting 'homophobia' I am rejecting
a proper Christian disapproval of homosexual behaviour. No, true love is not incompatible
with the maintenance of moral standards. There is, therefore, a place for church
discipline in the case of members who refuse to repent and wilfully persist in homosexual
relationships. But it must be exercised in a spirit of humility and gentleness (Gal.
6.1f); we must be careful not to discriminate between men and women, or between homosexual
and heterosexual offences; and necessary discipline in the case of a public scandal
is not to be confused with a witch-hunt.
Perplexing and painful as the homosexual Christian's dilemma is, Jesus Christ offers
him or her (indeed, all of us) faith, hope and love - the faith to accept his standards
and his grace to maintain them, the hope to look beyond present suffering to future
glory, and the love to care for and support one another. 'But the greatest of these
is love' (1 Cor. 13.13).
1 See A. C. Kinsey's Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behaviour
in the Human Female (1953). His research methods and findings have been criticized,
however, the former for being selective and the latter in consequence for showing
a misleadingly high percentage of abnormality.
2 Donald J. West, Homosexuality (1955; 2nd ed. Pelican, 1960; 3rd ed. Duckworth,
1968), p. 12.
3 From an article entitled 'God, Sex and You' in Eternity magazine, August 1972.
4 J. N. D. Anderson, Morality, Law and Grace (Tyndale Press, 1972), p. 73.
5 Malcolm Macourt ed., Towards a Theology of Gay Liberation (SCM Press, 1977), p.
3. The quotation comes from Mr Macourt's own Introduction to the book.
6 Derrick Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (Longmans,
Green, 1955), p. 4.
7 Isa. 1.10ff; Jer. 23.14; Ezek. 16.49ff. Cf. the references to pride in Ecclus.
16.8 and to inhospitableness in Wisd. 19.8.
8 Matt. 10.15; 11.24; Lk. 10.12.
9 Sherwin Bailey gives references in the Book of Jubilees and the Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs (op. cit. pp. 11-20). There is an even fuller evaluation of the
writings of the Inter-testamental period in Peter Coleman's Christian Attitudes to
Homosexuality (SPCK, 1980), pp. 58-85.
10 Sherwin Bailey, op. cit. p. 27.
11 So James D. Martin in Towards a Theology of Gay Liberation, ed. Malcolm Macourt
(SCM, 1977), p. 53.
12 Sherwin Bailey, op. cit. p. 30.
13 Peter Coleman op. cit. p. 49.
14 See, for example, 1 Kings 14.22ff; 15.12; 22.46 and 2 Kings 23.7.
15 Sherwin Bailey, op. cit. p. 39.
16 Peter Coleman, op. cit. pp. 95-6.
17 Peter Coleman, op. cit. p. 277.
18 Peter Coleman, op. cit. p. 101.
19 Rictor Norton in Towards a Theology of Gay Liberation, q.v., p. 58.
20 Letha Scanzoni and Virginia R. Mollenkott, Is The Homosexual My Neighbour? (Harper
& Row, and SCM, 1978), p. 111.
21 Sherwin Bailey, op. cit. p.l.
22 Norman Pittenger, Time for Consent (3rd ed. SCM, 1976), pp. 7 and 73.
23 Donald J. West, op. cit. pp. 17-32.
24 Norman Pittenger, op. cit. p. 7.
25 So Peter Coleman, op. cit. p. 50.
26 Chapter 3.3-5, quoted by Peter Coleman, op. cit. p. 71.
27 C. K. Barrett, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (A. & C. Black, 1962),
28 p. 21.
29 p. 36.
30 Chapter 9.
31 Chapter 5.
32 Norman Pittenger, op. cit. pp. 31-33.
33 John 14.15; Rom. 13.8-10.
34 Malcolm Macourt, op. cit. p. 25.
35 Norman Pittenger, op. cit. p. 2.
36 ibid. p. 94,
37 Alex Davidson, The Returns of Love (IVP, 1970) pp. 12, 16, 49.
38 Norman Pittenger in Towards a Theology of Gay Liberation, q.v., p. 87.
39 Time for Consent, q.v., p. 7.
40 Donald J. West, op. cit. p. 261.
41 ibid. p. 15.
42 Professor R. J. Berry provides a useful summary of current opinion on aetiology
in his contribution to the 1982 London Lectures Free To Be Different (Marshall, Morgan
& Scott, 1984), pp. 108-116.
43 D. J. West, op. cit. pp. 266 and 273.
44 The address of the True Freedom Trust is PO Box 3, Upton, Wirrall, Merseyside
45 Elizabeth R. Moberly, Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic (James Clarke, 1983),
46 ibid. p. 28.
47 ibid. pp. 18-20.
48 ibid. pp. 35-6.
49 ibid. p. 52.
50 Alex Davidson, op. cit. p. 51.
51 Towards a Theology of Gay Liberation, q.v., p. 63.
52 Time For Consent, q.v., p. 2.
53 Quoted from The Comfortable Pew (1965) by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mollenkott.
54 Towards a Theology of Gay Liberation, q.v., p. 45.
55 The word seems to have been used first by George Weinberg in Society and the Healthy
Homosexual (Doubleday, 1973).
56 Richard F. Lovelace, Homosexuality and the Church (Revell, 1978) p. 129 and cf.
57 David J. Atkinson, Homosexuals in the Christian Fellowship (Latimer House, 1979),
p. 118. Dr Roger Moss concentrates on pastoral questions in his Christians and Homosexuality