Home » News & Views »

Three Questions for the Uniting Church - but still no answers

Question 1
How can we ignore the words of Jesus Christ about God's purpose for men and women?

As followers of Jesus, we have to take his words seriously. As written in the earliest gospel, Mark, and also in Matthew, Jesus said "In the beginning, at the creation, God made them male and female. That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and the two become one flesh. It follows that they are no longer two individuals: they are one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, man must not separate." (Mark 10, 6-9, also Matt 19, 4-6 REB) It is very likely that this genuinely was Jesus' teaching. It was typical for him to answer a question by quoting scripture and it was typical for him in reply to consider the basic issues, rather than just answer "yes" or "no". In essence, one man, one woman, one flesh - do not separate those God has joined.

While I don't think we should be bound by some of the stories of the Old Testament, I think it strange that the sin of the men of Sodom has been said to be "a sin against hospitality" when the derived word "sodomy" means "copulation between male persons".

Question 2
Are we really being compassionate or are we being naïve?

Church members want to follow Jesus Christ in his love and compassion for those who are social outcasts e.g. lepers, widows, tax collectors and prostitutes.
Some see a parallel in homosexuals, particularly as some have contracted AIDS, an infectious disease about which there has been great hysteria. While we want to reach out and show the love of Jesus Christ to all people, this doesn't mean we should condone all they do.
We show compassion for alcoholics, drug addicts and those addicted to gambling, but we try to help them towards recovery, rather than affirming them in their abnormal behaviours. Why the difference with homosexuals?

I believe this is in a mistaken belief that it is "normal" behaviour.
I have followed the debate in the Uniting Church from the 1980s when a booklet on "Homosexuality" was published followed by another with peoples' "Responses". The argument appeared to be "homosexuals are born that way; it is like left handedness or having red hair; it is genetic in origin, so the individual has no choice. Therefore it cannot be wrong or sinful". There have been further scientific studies since this booklet was published and I believe this premise is incorrect.
"The consensus scientific view is that our sexual identity and orientation is learned and that although a very few papers try to suggest degrees of influence of biological and genetic structure, in no case is it accepted, even by their authors, that these factors determine sexual behaviour". (Whitehead N.E., "Science and Sexuality" (1995) Anglican Commission on Homosexuality).
A homosexual orientation may be attributed to:
(i) A prenatal susceptibility in some people.
(ii) The social environment.
(iii) Personal choice and affirmation.
We can look at scientific considerations:
Jesus said "In the beginning, at the creation, God made them male and female". Whether due to God's creation or evolution or nature, if you look at the anatomy of the female vagina, it is lined with squamous epithelium, which is tough, like skin. The rectum is lined with columnar epithelium - part of the bowel, more fragile and designed for interchange of food and fluid and eliminating waste. The rapid spread of AIDS in the male homosexual population is evidence of the less adequate barrier of the rectal epithelium, the frequency of anal intercourse and of promiscuous behaviour.

In July 2003, an International Genetics Congress was held in Melbourne. Two of the scientists pointed out that a US geneticist, Dean Hamer, had talked incorrectly of finding a gene for homosexuality. One, Dr Collins described this as "unfortunate", the other, Dr Brenner was even more dismissive and said that Hamer "should be shot" ("The Age" 12/7/03).

Professor Rod Devenish of Monash University's Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, has written "Much has been made of the prospects of identifying genes involved in behavioural traits such as criminality, alcoholism, homosexuality and schizophrenia...Gene codes for proteins have defined and limited functions. By contrast, behaviours are complex. A direct causal relationship between a single gene and a single behaviour is highly unlikely despite the evidence supporting a genetic contribution to behavioural traits. This contribution is probably best considered as a susceptibility to develop a certain behaviour. There is no certainty. Thus carrying a gene or genes does not represent a determined defect in character or behaviour. Nor is it a statement that ‘it is in my genes and there is nothing I can do about it'. (Genes shouldn't be blamed for the way we behave. Auburn Report. October 1998).

Australian studies of monozygotic (identical) twins i.e. sharing the same genetic make up have shown only about 20% (male 18%, female 23%) concordance (i.e. the proportion where the brother or sister was also homosexual). You would expect it closer to 100% if it were genetic in origin. e.g. it is 84% for eczema (Prof Nick Martin, QIMR, Brisbane).

Recent work has highlighted the "plasticity" of the nervous system i.e. changes in the brain and nervous system due to pain, amputation, activity etc at the periphery. That means behaviour and experiences can cause changes to the brain as well as the brain initiating our behaviour.

Dr Francis Collins and other experts at the Genetics Congress stressed the importance of the environment in determining behaviour. Dr Collins said "We are much more than our DNA. We are also creatures with free will, with a spiritual nature, and with a knowledge of right and wrong that distinguishes us from all other creatures ("The Age" 9/7/03).

Many homosexuals simply say "I choose to be gay". Steve Dow, a journalist and homosexual, took issue with Justice Michael Kirby and wrote "Kirby makes some, but little allowance for environmental factors in our make up. Sorry Mike, but I buy the lifestyle. I choose to live in inner suburban Prahran, visit the night clubs, have breakfast with my friends in the local cafes, go the gym...My point is that I am exercising choice and I do not have to justify that choice ("The Age" 8/5/2000)".

In recent times there has been a great increase in TV programmes, movies, newspaper and magazine publications which create an environment encouraging homosexual affirmation and life style. On TV alone, gay characters and story lines dominate in "The Bill", "Six Feet Under", "Will and Grace", "The Secret Life of Us", "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", "Queer as Folk" and "The L Word". (Green Guide 27/11/03). Dissenters are ridiculed and labelled "homophobic", although the term means someone who has an irrational fear of homosexuality rather than someone who believes it is wrong and unnatural. This provides an environment which is conducive to some people believing they are homosexual.

Many young people at school or university develop strong same sex friendships and may have a "crush" on a teacher or friend. "It is widely recognized that many teenagers feel attraction to members of the same sex as part of the process of their own sexual formation. This has been going on for centuries and has nothing to do with gay or lesbian sexual orientation, since the vast majority of teenagers end up happily heterosexual" ( Dr R.E. Watts, University of British Columbia 1/1/2000 "The Age"). Today's environment may lead to confusion, wondering whether they are homosexual, mental anguish and even suicide may ensue, when in a different climate they may have matured into normal heterosexuals. Note the report of the study "Young gay men greater risk of suicide". 23/30 had contemplated suicide and 17 had attempted it ("The Age" 7/10/96).

It seems strange that society disapproves of a man who leaves his wife for another woman (or woman for another man). Yet it is OK to leave for a person of the same sex ("because they have just discovered who they are"). Why is the second "real" and the first relationship wasn't? Thus you can change from a heterosexual to a homosexual, but you can't change back from a homosexual to a heterosexual - oh well, if you do you are "bisexual"! If you are attracted to both sexes why not just be heterosexual - you only need one partner? What about old fashioned temptation and falling into it?

The Uniting Church has a responsibility to provide a healthy environment for young people. For the Church to sponsor "Camp" camps, where homosexual speakers ask, "Do you want to be gay"? would seem highly irresponsible. (Note Matt 18:6 - "If anyone causes the downfall of one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for him to have a millstone hung round his neck and drowned in the depths of the sea"). In November, 2007 I was told that this was still occuring.

Some people regard homosexuality as acceptable because "I know a homosexual and he/she is a "lovely person". I do also, but that doesn't make their behaviour right.

The study "Sexual Behaviour in Britain" (1994) surveyed nearly 20,000 randomly selected Britons and found that only 6.1% of men and 3.4% of women had had any homosexual experience at any stage. However 90.3% of the 6.1% of men had also had a female sexual partner and 95.8% of the 3.4% of women had also had a male partner, so that only 0.6% of men and 0.14% of women were exclusively homosexual. Barely 1% of men and 0.25% of women described their sexual experience as either mostly or exclusively homosexual. It concluded that for many, homosexual experience was youthful and transitory and unlikely to lead to a permanent behaviour pattern (Wellings K et al, Sexual behaviour in Britain, Penguin London 1994).

Edward Stein in "The Mismeasure of Desire" states "One of the central claims of this book is that we do not have strong evidence to support the commonly held belief that sexual orientations are natural human kinds (Oxford University Press 1999: 346).

Dr Peter May writes "Some sexual behaviours are deeply habit forming. For some, use of pornography may come to dominate their lives. Promiscuity, sado-masochism and the use of prostitutes can all become addictive behaviours. Then there is that powerfully addictive and disturbing preference for sexual intimacy with children. Are these sexual obsessions different in kind from so called "orientations"?
The language of preference, of learned behaviour patterns and addiction makes more sense of the known realities of sexual behaviour than talk about orientation ("Is sexual orientation a myth?" Triple Helix, Autumn 04).

Recently we were told that Sir Elton John was straight in the ‘60s, bisexual in the ‘70s, straight again in the ‘80s when he married a woman, gay in the ‘90s and married a man in 2005! (The Age 22/12/05).

Dennis Altman has written "The greatest single victory of the gay movement has been to shift the debate from behaviour to identity, thus enforcing opponents into a position where they can be seen as attacking the civil rights of homosexual citizens, rather than attacking specific and (as they see it) antisocial behaviour. (The Homosexualisation of America P9).

Thus I ask is the Uniting church being naïve in its response to homosexuals?

Question 3
Why are we not recognizing the opinions of the vast majority of Uniting Church members?

At the time of Union, Presbyterian congregations had to have a 2/3 majority in favour, to change from the status quo and enter into union.
In the Uniting Church:
• Well over 80% of responses to the Interim Report on Sexuality (1996) disagreed with its approval of homosexual behaviour.
• In the National Church Life Survey (2001) only 18% of Uniting Church attenders believed that practising homosexuals should be appointed to leadership positions in the Church on the same basis as heterosexuals.
• In the Reforming Alliance Survey (2003) more than 88% opposed ordination of homosexuals.
It would seem inadvisable for the Assembly to proceed in the face of such overwhelming opposition.
It is not possible to have a church which both does not accept homosexual ministers and does accept homosexual ministers.
In regard to other religions or denominations - homosexuality is considered wrong, sinful or unnatural by Jews, Muslims, Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Lutherans, Baptists, New Zealand Presbyterians, Australian Aborigines and many others.

At the recent 12th Assembly of the Uniting Church in Sydney, July 2009, a new preamble to the Constitution was adopted. As reported in "Crosslight" (August 2009) "While adopting the preamble was largely symbolic, national administrator of Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress (UAICC) Rev. Shayne Blackman said, it had far reaching consequences for the life of the church and its covenant relationship with Congress." What would be the effect of this in relation to the UAICC statement to the 11th Assembly? (enclosed, relevant paragraphs marked)

In Conclusion

We need to be inclusive in our love and concern but should discriminate between right and wrong, between good and evil. We love our children, but that doesn't mean we approve of all their behaviour. Jesus saved the adulterous woman from a barbaric death but said "Go sin no more".

It has been said that one should not attempt to cure or reform a homosexual. I imagine this applies to the old fashioned treatment of aversion therapy i.e. showing same sex images accompanied by an unpleasant stimulus and other sex images with a pleasurable stimulus. This was ineffective. In contrast members of the Exodus Fellowship have shown that Jesus can rescue them from a homosexual lifestyle to become well adjusted heterosexuals, in some cases marrying and having children. They do not believe homosexuals are "born that way" but are "labelled" as a result of homosexual activity.

Peter, Zaccheus, the thief on the cross and many others who encountered Christ were challenged to ask for forgiveness, change their lives, and be reformed, renewed or "reborn". We should welcome homosexuals into our church and confront them with the claims of the risen Christ, as we all confess and need to be changed by Him.

Ministers of the word should be role models for the young people in the Church. So for reason of scientific truth, for the sake of confused and disturbed young people, for people living in homosexual relationships, I believe the Uniting Church should show the love of Jesus Christ to all people, welcome them to our churches, but they should not take up a leadership role, while continuing to live as a homosexual.

Nell Muirden, MBBS, DTM&H, FAChPM (elder) 4/4/08, updated 25/8/09