The Assembly Secretary has requested me to reflect on "the theological, biblical and pastoral aspects involved in the Church recognising a relationship between two persons of the same sex making a commitment to each other in love and fidelity."
I confirmed with him that the resolution, though ambiguous, has a homosexual/lesbian relationship in mind and that such a service was in fact conducted between two lesbians by a Minister of the Word within the Sydney Presbytery after consultation with the Elders' Council. He furnished me with a copy of the order of service used on that occasion. I requested and received this with the understanding that I am to comment on the principle rather than on this particular service.
To assist my own "prayer, study and reflection", I sought written comment from eleven Ministers of the Word and a small number of mature lay persons in six states. I have further read several studies of homosexuality, published in the past ten years and representing both clinical, pastoral and personal viewpoints. The key questions for the Uniting Church are
(1) Do the Biblical witnesses present a clear statement of the mind of the Lord on the issue of homosexual/lesbian 1 practice?
(2) What is our present understanding of the origins of the homosexual condition in homosexuals and lesbians?
(3) Is it possible for the homosexual orientation to be permanently changed?
(4) What other lifestyle options are available to a person of homosexual orientation?
(5) What implications are there for the Uniting Church in "recognising a relationship between two persons of the same sex making a commitment to each other in love and fidelity"?
The Biblical Witnesses
The Uniting Church affirms that it is "the prophetic and apostolic testimony" contained in the Old and New Testaments "by which [the Church's] faith and obedience are nourished and regulated" and that her message is "controlled by the Biblical witnesses"2. Our Basis thus commits us to the primary affirmation of what these witnesses clearly teach.
Do the Biblical witnesses present a clear statement of the mind of the Lord on the issue of homosexual practice?
Our understanding of gender identity and of marriage itself begins with the Creation narratives. We are told, "God created human beings, making them to be like himself. He created them male and female..."3
The feminist movement in the Church has taken hold of such passages as evidence of femininity in the Godhead. As a result we have all tended to miss that this passage is not primarily teaching about the nature of God but about human nature.4 In our proper insistence on the equal worth and status of male and female, we have failed to note the complementary distinctiveness of male and female,5 so that male and female together express this imago Dei.
Genesis 2 speaks of the loneliness of the Man. The graphic picture of the creation of Woman from a rib has tended to raise a condescending smile. We have failed to grasp that the Man is now incomplete without the Woman and she is incomplete without the Man.6 "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united with his wife, and they become one."7 The union referred to here is more than physical {sexual), even though physical union has the potential to produce independent beings who partake genetically of both mother and father. There is also a blending of minds, wills and spirits. It is a reaching for a completeness which is only possible to male and female together. The cure of Man's loneliness8 is not to be found in a "suitable companion"9 but in the creation from Man of man and woman.
It is significant that these words are quoted in the New Testament by both Jesus and Paul.10 Quite clearly they regarded them as central to a true understanding of marriage.
It is this conviction about human differentiation and conjunction that underlies Biblical teaching about sexual relationships. The Levitical code proscribes a number of sexual practices that were evidently acceptable in Egyptian society from which the Israelites had come or in the land of Canaan to which they were going – but were not permitted among the Lord's people.11 A number of these dealt with kinship and incest. The directive on homosexual acts is clear – "No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that."12 The penalty is likewise clear – "If a man has sexual relations with another man, they have done a disgusting thing, and both shall be put to death. They are responsible for their own death."13
We tend to recoil from such a penalty. Yet it was set down because homosexual acts14 strike at the heart of our humanity – just as murder, incest and adultery do. We should rather recoil from such a sin! It was also set down because, without severe discouragement, homosexual acts will tend to spread through a society – with a poisoning and destructive effect.
Such had been the case in Lot's city, Sodom.15 The Biblical witnesses attribute the destruction of Sodom to an "act of God" in the strictest sense!
We are, of course, living in the age of grace. It is because of divine grace poured out for sinners in the Son of God that the death penalty is no longer appropriate. Jesus himself has given us the lead here. The woman caught in adultery is not stoned to death – none of her accusers is without sin. But finally she is released from her guilt by the only one present with the moral right to condemn her. Notice his words, "Go, but do not sin again."16 The sinless one, the Son of God, does not deny the reality and seriousness of sin – and he alone brings release from the guilt of sin and the beginning of a new life.
There is no record of an encounter between Jesus and a homosexual. But the principle here expressed would surely have applied. Jesus called (and calls) all people to repentance and offers forgiveness and new life.17
Paul's ministry beyond the borders of Israel certainly brought him into contact with practising homosexuals. He states,18 "Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God's Kingdom. Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral19 or who worship idols or are adulterers20 or homosexual perverts21 or who steal or are greedy or are drunkards or who slander others or are thieves – none of these will possess God's Kingdom. Some of you were like that. But you have been purified from sin; you have been dedicated to God; you have been put right with God by the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
This is, of course, a fairly short list of sins. To keep all in the balanced perspective that Jesus brought, we are wise to recall Paul's revelation of his own deep struggle with sin,22 and his designation of himself in the Pastoral epistles as "the worst of sinners"23 Paul sets a strong example here. Knowing himself a "sinner saved by grace," he speaks out clearly against sin, even as he brings divine good news for all sinners.
It is important to note from the passage quoted that there were people in the Corinthian church who had ceased to practise homosexuality.24 The whole tenor of the passage suggests that they changed from the homosexual orientation as well. The list of sinners in 1 Tim.l.9-10 includes "the immoral" and "sex perverts"25 and regards such activities as "contrary to sound doctrine."
In Romans 1.18ff Paul, having spoken of the gospel as "God's power to save all who believe",26 goes on to write of divine judgment. The basic sin of the world is the rejection of God himself (vv.19-23). Consequent sins are announced with the sombre words, "God gave them over to…"27 The trail leads through false worship,28 shameful passions and corrupted minds.
The reference in vv.26-27 is clear, "Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. In the same way the men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. Men do shameful things29 with each other, and as a result they bring upon themselves the punishment they deserve for their wrongdoing."
In summary, the Biblical witnesses (both Old and New Testaments) clearly affirm the following principles.
Humanity is seen as having been created in the image of God, that image being seen in the dif-ferentiation and conjunction of male and female.
Genital sexual acts are proper and good within the loving commitment of marriage. Extramarital sexual acts (fornication and adultery) are sin.30
Homosexual acts do not and cannot lead to that unity which reflects the image of God. They are in no way motivated by that differentiation which draws people together in marriage. They are an offence against the humanness of those who participate and a specific sin against God.
Homosexual offenders will receive the benefits of God's redemptive grace as freely as other sinners. All sinners are called to repentance and faith.
God's redemptive grace brings about a new life31 in which there is release from guilt and from the practice of sin.
Paul includes homosexuals among those who had thus come to new life in Christ.
The rules about homosexual practice (in the Old Testament and in the early Church) were given in a cultural context in which it was accepted (and even seen to be commendable) among the surrounding peoples.
These principles are affirmed in the teaching of Old and New Testament writers and in the words of Jesus himself. They clearly express the mind of the Lord.
Homosexual Orientation
As noted when considering the Biblical witnesses, the practice of homosexuality goes back a very long time in history. For the sake of both our evangelism and our pastoral care of believers, we have to ask the question –
What is our present understanding of the origins of the homosexual condition in homosexuals?
I put that question to a practising Christian psychologist. In an extended conversation he explained that homosexual orientation is always a learned response. It is sometimes acquired at such an early age that the person has no memory at all of ever having other than homosexual feelings. Because of this, the homosexual pattern may be so deeply ingrained that change can be very difficult, even if desired. He described some children he had worked with who had criminal tendencies at the age of one. They couldn't be held blameworthy for those tendencies, though, as they grow older, they would be held responsible if they acted on them. The primary question for the Church, he said, is not how a person comes to be a homosexual, but whether, Biblically and theologically, the practice is to be regarded as sin.
Yet it is an important question for the Church. I have been careful to emphasise that, while the Biblical witnesses consistently condemn homosexual practice, they say little about homosexual orientation. I think it likely that the minister and Elders' Council in the present issue have been prepared to set aside the Biblical witnesses because of what they have received from other sources about the homosexual condition.
Suggestions that homosexuality might originate from some biological difference have been about for a long time. Leslie Weatherhead, in an early book on pastoral counselling (published in 1931!),32 described homosexuality ("inversion") as "innate" or "acquired". "Innate inversion" was seen by some to be "due to remote prenatal causes." W.L. Carrington33 speaks of some as "constitutional" homosexuals with "bodily characteristics and marked personal attitudes of the opposite sex." Another writer from around the same period says, "At one time it was thought that the condition was physical in origin and that it represented an inborn trait, or that it was due to a disturbance in the balance between male and female sex hormones in the body. This viewpoint is now being questioned. The present opinion is that the sexual predilections of a person are seemingly determined more by early childhood experiences and by emotional and social influences than by biological factors."34
These writers are quoted to illustrate the diversities of opinion in an earlier generation of research. The same diversity is in evidence today but with an additional factor – homosexual opinion has come out of hiding and is clamouring for acceptance as one of the normal expressions of sexuality. It is no longer a question for scientific objectivity and "suggestions" are leaked to the media that something may have been found in the brains of homosexuals which might possibly mean that they are biologically different.
Gary R. Collins writes, "An increasing body of research would seem to support the idea that homo-sexuality is not inherited, or the result of physiological abnormality. Studies of physical build, chromosomes, neurological or biochemical make-up and even hor-mones have failed to show differences between homo-sexuals and heterosexuals. It has been found that while some homosexuals have hormone imbalances, many do not, and a similar hormone imbalance is found in heterosexuals. This had led most researchers to conclude that there is no present evidence to support the idea that homosexuality has a physical or biological cause."35
Collins goes on to give the most commonly accepted and best documented cause of homosexuality – the psychoanalytic theory that it "comes to males raised in families where there is a weak, passive, ineffective father and a domineering mother. This mother subtly teaches her son to be passive and dedicated to her. He has no strong male example to follow and soon discovers that he is less competent than his peers in relating to girls. The son, therefore, loses confidence in his masculinity and dreads the thought of intimacy with women. Daughters in such families perceive their fathers as being unfriendly or rejecting so the girls have little opportunity to relate to really masculine men. They relate better to women."36
This explanation, Collins says, does not fit the evidence of all homosexuals. He lists a number of other distortions arising from family relationships especially parental fears and expectations projected on the child. He concludes, "In any society, a child learns what it means to be male or female. If there is no opportunity to learn healthy male or female roles then the child's behaviour and attitudes become distorted. Such children reach adulthood not knowing what to expect or how to react to the opposite sex. Sometimes, then, there is a retreat into homosexuality."37
Another cause is fear, sometimes because of rejection by or traumatic experiences with members of the opposite sex.
Whatever the causes of homosexual orientation, however, homosexual acts begin with a decision of the will. We may not be responsible for all the givens of our life, but we do have responsibility for what we do with them.
Is Change Possible?
Our understanding of the origins of the homosexual condition is pastorally very important as we minister to the Christian homosexual. As with all counselling, of course, it is essential that we listen carefully to the individual for his/her own story. If homosexuality rests in some biological difference, it would seem that change is impossible. If, however, it is a learned response, there must be a possibility of "unlearning" it. We would expect that process to be long and difficult, since the roots of homosexuality go back into the earliest infancy. Success could not be achieved if it is not wholeheartedly desired by the homosexual. So –
Is it possible for the homosexual orientation to be permanently changed?
Leanne Payne, a research fellow at Yale Divinity School, writes, "As a sexual neurosis, homosexuality is regarded as one of the most complex. As a condition for God to heal, it is (in spite of widespread belief to the contrary) remarkably simple."38 That claim is made in the Preface to a book in which she documents the case histories of homosexuals who have been helped to sexual wholeness.
At the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992, my wife was in England visiting our eldest daughter. One Sunday they went to a service in an Anglican Church that has an active caring ministry to homosexuals. In the middle of the service, a group of homosexuals stood up and began disrupting the service by shouting out their own "liturgy". They didn't want help or love or care except on their terms. They objected to the long-term counselling and assistance given to homosexuals who wanted release from their orientation. Specifically, they asked the congregation not to accept "the lies of Andrew Comiskey."
Andrew Comiskey was for many years an active homosexual. Now married with four children, he is a pastor and counsellor at the Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Santa Monica, California. In describing homosexuality and the path to freedom and change, he is sharing his own experience, but the ministry that has emerged offers the grace of God and hope for all homosexuals.39
Comiskey believes that homosexuals can change, "But they cannot achieve the transition alone. A purely self-motivated effort will fail because of the deep and powerful roots of sexual identity. Change occurs only, however, slowly, as they submit the struggle to their Creator and Redeemer, as well as to trusted others who stand with them in the process of becoming whole."40 Comiskey challenges all of us to recognise our broken sexuality. He says, "I'm not villainising homosexuals and glorifying heterosexuals. The latter can be more messed up than the former, only oblivious to the mess because of the supposed normalcy of their orientation."41
There is no space here to delve into these books more deeply. They do attest that such change is possible. They also challenge the limitations we place on the redemptive grace of God and the active power of the Holy Spirit in the believer.
Another Lifestyle
Payne and Comiskey believe in and work towards bringing persons to sexual wholeness – which means heterosexual orientation. That includes the ability to have healthy same-sex friendships. Comiskey observes, "Love for our own sex has become marred with erotic intent. Jesus wants to free us from the sin, so that we can experience the fulfilment of Christ-centred friendships with our own sex: 'Through His grace, we can learn how to love one another on a non-erotic basis, a major step towards wholeness and maturity. Weaning ourselves away from the homo-erotic permits our very real need for same-sex intimacy to be met."42 But re-orientation does not imply that people must now prove themselves by getting married, nor does it bestow the right to sex outside marriage. We do not accept the widely-held assumption that sex is every person's need and right.
What other lifestyle options are available to a person of homosexual orientation?
The question might also be asked on behalf of the unmarried in the light of what I have said about marriage earlier when considering the Biblical wit-nesses. I stated there that "the Man is now incomplete without the Woman and she is incomplete without the Man... It is a reaching for a completeness which is only possible to male and female together."
Does this mean that to be single and celibate (avoiding all genital sexual acts) is to remain forever incomplete? In a sense I believe that is true to the experience of many single people – they feel a deep loneliness.
The Biblical witnesses not only give a high view of marriage. They also offer a high view of celibate singleness.
When Jesus gave his teaching on the permanency of marriage, his disciples thought it might be "better not to marry." Jesus replied, "This teaching does not apply to everyone, but only to those to whom God has given it. For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some, because they were born that way; others, because men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so."43
I believe that "for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven" does not merely imply the "religious" life in the sense used by the Catholic Church. Those whom God calls to the single and celibate lifestyle will find a fulfilment that is different from marriage.
In reflecting on marriage, Paul also affirms the option of celibacy,44 which he sees as possible through "a special gift from God".45 Because of the needs of the Lord's service, he sees advantages in celibacy for those who have that gift.46
Comiskey comments, "We are all called to celibacy for a season. God will use that time to strengthen our gender identity and confidence as well as our spiritual life. he may also need to heal and remove obstacles from the past which prevent us from seeking relationships with the opposite sex. In that time, His intent for us will be clarified. Keep in mind that resignation to celibacy is different from the gift of celibacy. We must be open to either and not allow our past wounding and sin to close the door on the prospect of heterosexual relationships leading to marriage."47
The Uniting Church
The Uniting Church does not reflect on these matters in a vacuum. An earlier study of Homosexuality and the Church (1985) led to a strong reaction in which over 90% of respondents dissociated themselves from a more permissive approach to homosexuality. The strength of that reaction was not affirmed in Responses, and the most recent publication, Sexuality – Making Decisions as Christians, further conceals the weight of this opinion with "Some Uniting Church members regard the statements about sexuality in the Old and New Testaments as applying directly to us now…" but "other Uniting Church members, with equal faith and respect for the Bible, understand these passages of the Bible differently…"48
Since the earlier study the Church has felt great difficulty deciding whether it was appropriate to accept a confessed practising homosexual as a candidate for the Ministry of the Word. Now we are faced – after the event – with a question about the appropriateness of "marrying" two lesbians. Ministers of the Word in every state are having difficulty containing the frustration of their members! People are saying, "Why are the Councils of the Church listening neither to God nor to us?" Their expectation has been that the mind of Christ would be clearer further up the Church's struct-ure, but it seems that, in this matter, the mind of Christ is clearest with our grass-roots membership! Our mem-bers are poised, with readiness and eagerness, to go "Forward Together" in evangelistic outreach. But their enthusiasm is dampened by the comments they are already receiving "out there" from people who do not necessarily accept Christian moral values but are appalled by our lack of integrity! So –
What implications are there for the Uniting Church in "recognising a relationship between two persons of the same sex making a commitment to each other in love and fidelity"?
Such recognition is contrary to the clear mind of the Lord as expressed in the Biblical witnesses. We cannot approve such a service under our Basis of Union and such approval would make us cease to be a Christian Church in the truest sense. We cannot bless a relationship which God so clearly does not bless.
A Minister of the Word who conducts such a service should at least receive a strong reprimand, possibly even removal from office. Such a matter should be dealt with by the Synod Committee of Discipline under Regulation 7.8.2 (iv) and the provisions which follow.49
Such recognition, far from "celebrating God's grace in Jesus Christ transforming the lives of two women and recognising their commitment to each other in love" (as some members of Assembly Standing Committee thought), represents a denial of the grace of God in Jesus Christ to make such people whole.
Such recognition represents a withdrawal of the commitment to declare the redeeming grace of God in Christ to all sinners, to call all sinners to repentance and faith and to seek, through the enabling of the Holy Spirit, to bring all believers to wholeness of life in Christ.
Such recognition might otherwise make it more difficult for members to accept homosexuals as our brothers and sisters in Christ since they are declared free to practise that sin which is consequent on their brokenness, whereas the rest of us are called to holiness of life.
Such recognition would begin/accelerate a process which will divide and diminish our Church dramatically.

End Notes:
1 From this point I will normally include both male homosexuals and lesbians under the general term "homosexuals".
2 Basis of Union, para.5. The resource paper, Sexuality – Making decisions as Christians, published by Uniting Church Press in 1991, disappointed many Elders' Councils by its reluctance to do just that in the matter of human sexuality. This evident reluctance has stirred widespread disquiet in the Church over the decision by Assembly that there should be a six-year study of human sexuality. It is true that our culture has undergone a revolution in relation to sexual mores. The question being widely asked is why there is a push within the Church to accommodate our teaching to these changes. This respondent believes that we are called to both faith and obedience, and that both of these qualities need to be nourished, regulated and controlled by the Biblical witnesses. We cannot set aside the clear witness of Scripture and be described in any sense as having "equal faith and respect for the Bible" (Sexuality, p.5). Such a statement makes a mockery of the Basis of Union and of the Bible itself.
3 Gen.l.27. Unless otherwise noted, quotations are taken from the Good News Bible.
4 Of course there are "female" images used to describe God's character. Probably the best known is the occasion when Jesus himself said, "Jerusalem!... How many times have I wanted to put my arms around all your people, just as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not let me!" (Mt.23.37)
5 We cheat our children of the "mothering" and "fathering" they really need and simply "parent" them. I have always believed in (and discuss with couples preparing for marriage) the sharing of roles in the home and in the care of children. There is currently, however, a serious over-reaction to earlier rigid role traditions. "Neuter parenting" may lead to confusion of gender identity in the growing child. Parents need to be strongly "male" and "female" in the best and truest sense of those words.
6 The often quoted comment of Matthew Henry – "not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved" – is a fine sentiment, but can miss this central point. Another issue is also raised – what does this high view of marriage say about singleness? This is considered in the section "Another Lifestyle".
7 Gen.2.24.
8 The term "Man" does not imply gender distinction at this point.
9 vv.l8ff. It has been customary to think of the woman as a "helpmeet" for man. But that misses the point. God, with his customary sense of humour, didn't solve the Man's loneliness with the creation of a companion at all. Rather, he took part of him away. He was now incomplete and would seek completeness – and society – with a wife.
10 Mt.l9.5 (Mk 10.7-8); 1 Cor.6.16; Eph.5.31. It is of interest that the Gospel references are in the context of a discussion on divorce. In both parallel passages, we hear Jesus say, "So they are no longer two, but one. Man must not separate, then, what God has joined together" (Mt.19.6; Mk 10.8b,9). Sadly, we do all that we can to lessen the hardness and directness of this clear saying of Jesus. The 1 Corinthians passage warns against union with a prostitute.
11 Lev.l8 states the prohibitions. Lev.20 spells out the penalties for disobedience. It is significant that these prohibitions and penalties are given against a background of cultures that not only accepted but (insofar as it was part of their worship) commended such practices.
12 18.22.
13 20.13.
14 The Biblical witnesses consistently state the sinfulness of homosexual acts, but do not directly address the homosexual condition. Note that I am using the term "homosexual acts" here to refer to all homosexual genital acts including mutual masturbation, oral sex and anal intercourse (sodomy).
15 Gen.l9.1-11. It has been argued recently that the sin of Sodom was failure in hospitality. Some have justified the Sodomites on the grounds that they were extending hospitality – they wanted to "know them" (v.9c) in a simple sense. However, the context makes their sexual intentions quite clear and GNB correctly translates, "The men of Sodom wanted to have sex with them." Their response to Lot's offer of his two daughters made this perfectly clear.
16 Jn 8.l-11. This misplaced fragment is undoubtedly authentic. Jesus is not here suggesting that sexual sin is not damning. However, the Levitical rules come down strongly on the adulterous man also – society (then and now) has too often left the woman with the blame and shame. We need to have a due appreciation of justice if we are to grasp the meaning and scope of divine grace!
17 Note Mt.4.17 and Lk.24.45-49.
18 l Cor.6.9-11.
19 pornoi – a term used in general for people who engage in sexual intercourse outside marriage and specifically for a male prostitute (the feminine form occurs in v.15). Note Paul's use of the term in ch.5 (vv.10,11,12) and of porneia in 5.1.
20 moikoi – the term for persons who commit (heterosexual) adultery.
21 The GNB brings two words together here since they represent the two partners in the act of sodomy. malakoi are the "soft ones" or catamites. arsenokoitai are the sodomites. They are the passive and active partners respectively in male homosexual relations.
22 Especially as recorded in Rom.7.14-25.
23 1 Timothy 1.13-15.
24 Sexual immorality in general seems to have been a big problem in Corinth. Note 1 Cor.6.12-20.
25 pornois and arsenokoitais.
26 Paul was no "fire and brimstone" preacher, but his declaration of the good news was always in the awareness of the realities of human sin and its consequences here and hereafter.
27 paredoken – vv.24, 26,28. The same expression is used in Acts 7.42. Compare the statement by C.S. Lewis in The Problem of Pain (London: Collins, 1940, pp.115-6) the lost "enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self enslaved"
28 V.24 speaks of "the filthy things their hearts desire" and how they "do shameful things with each other" – to atimazesthai ta somata auton en autois, lit. "the dishonouring of their bodies among themselves." Paul then immediately links this with idolatrous worship which frequently involved prostitution, male and female.
29 ten aschemosunen – "shamefulness, shameful act." (Cf. Eph.5.12 where Paul describes it as aischron (shameful) to talk openly about the things people do in secret.) It is quite clear that Paul is referring to homosexual acts.
30 I have not dealt with the Biblical material in detail on this point, but it is unquestionably clear, both in the Old Testament, and in the specific teaching of Jesus himself.
31 Jesus spoke of a "new birth" (Jn 3.lff), Paul of a "new being" (2 Cor.5.17). Whatever the origins of the "homosexual orientation" – or of any other sinful tendency within our broken humanity – the possibility of hope, healing and new life are made available. I look to the question of orientation later, but at this point note the availability of divine redemptive grace in overcoming sinful practice and the urge to commit sin. In the New Testament I do not see limits placed on what grace may do in a person's life. Too often in recent times we have used the term "grace" to denote an acceptance of sin rather than a transformation of the sinner.
32 Leslie Weatherhead, The Mastery of Sex through Psychology and Religion (London: S.C.M., 1931), pp.l5lff.
33 Psychology, Religion and Human Need (London: Epworth, 1957, pp.230-233.
34 Hannah & Abraham Stone, A Marriage Manual (Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1954), p.188.
35 Christian Counselling: a Comprehensive Guide (Waco: Word, 1980), p.319.
36 ibid. Reference is made to careful research in I. Bieber Homosexuality (New York: Basic Books, 1962).
37 ibid., p.320.
38 The Broken Image: Restoring Personal Wholeness through Healing Prayer (Westchester: Crossway, 1981), p.11.
39 Pursuing Sexual Wholeness (Eastbourne: Monarch, 1990) and Pursuing Sexual Wholeness: Guidebook (Lake Mary: Creation House, 1988) are resources that tell his story and provide a resource for Christians who struggle with homosexuality and for those who minister to them.
40 Pursuing Sexual Wholeness, p.13.
41 ibid., p.14.
42 Guidebook, p.127.
43 Mt.19.10-12.