I'm going to comment on a post by Arminian theologian Randal Rauser (who is sometimes featured at the Society of Evangelical Arminians):
For some time now, evangelicals have argued that homosexual orientation can be changed through reparative therapy. That idea is no longer sustainable. For some time failure and scandal have plagued various evangelical reparative organizations, including the most visible of all, Exodus International. Now Justin Lee, author of Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays vs. Christians Debate, has joined the chorus calling for evangelicals to abandon this approach to homosexuality with his bluntly titled article: “Dear Evangelicals, Let’s Stop Burying Our Heads in the Sand on ‘Ex-Gay’ Ministries“.
i) I don't have an informed opinion on reparative therapy. But by the same token, what makes Rauser an expert on the subject? He's not a trained psychologist who specializes in homosexuality. He presumes to speak with absolute confidence on behalf of any and all homosexuals, despite the testimony of some to the contrary.
ii) What is the success rate for any psychological therapy? Why assume homosexuals can't range along a continuum?
The biblical texts prohibiting same sex acts are well known. What is disputed, however, is whether those texts apply to homosexual persons as we now understand them. It is fair to say that in the ancient world there is no conception of homosexuality as an orientation parallel to heterosexuality. Given that we now know there is such an orientation and that it cannot be changed, the question becomes inescapable: do the texts of condemnation apply to these persons as well? Some Christian ethicists believe they do while others believe they do not.Some Christians believe homosexuality is God-given and good (see for example, Mel White and his organization SoulForce) while other Christians believe homosexual orientation is part of the fall but that homosexuals can still participate in covenantal Christian unions (see for example, Lewis Smedes). This is a good reminder that within the realm of acceptance there are different kinds of acceptance.
Here he's recycling the standard propaganda, as if such claims haven't been debunked by scholars like Robert Gagnon. This kind of revisionist exegesis has been around since John Boswell, the late Yale historian, who, not coincidentally, died of AIDS at 47.
Now, for reasons of job security, Rauser has to be a bit cagey about tipping his own hand. So he simply presents this as one of two possible "options."
The idea that homosexuals can't change is usually based on the recidivism rates. But by the same token, we should conclude that convicts can't change.
ReplyDeleteProblem is, opponents of reparative therapy don't conclude that drug and alcohol rehab is futile despite recidivism rates.
DeleteIn reference to this statement,"It is fair to say that in the ancient world there is no conception of homosexuality as an orientation parallel to heterosexuality," here is a post by Preston Sprinkle with some relevant citations from ancient literature. I have not reviewed the citations beyond Sprinkle's post, but they seem to entirely refute the charge raised by Rauser. Any further suggestions on this topic or orientation in antiquity?
ReplyDeletehttp://facultyblog.eternitybiblecollege.com/2014/04/review-of-matthew-vines-god-and-the-gay-christian-part-2/?utm_content=buffereaa8f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
I haven't checked out your link, so I don't know if this is mentioned or not, but Plato's Symposium has a dialogue partner who gives an explanation of sexuality which makes homosexuality (and it is mentioned specifically) just as natural as heterosexuality.
DeleteMatthew A.,
DeleteThat is a helpful link. In the light of that evidence, I wonder why Randal feels comfortable asserting the pop culture assumption that the ancients were ignorant of "sexual orientation."
Remington B,
DeleteYour comment is helpful. Do you have a link which verfies or expands on what you're saying?
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/symposium.html
DeleteSee Aristophanes' portion of the dialogue.
"Now, since their natural form had been cut in two, each one longed for its own other half, and so they would throw their arms about each other, weaving themselves together, wanting to grow together. ... Then, however, Zeus took pity on them, and came up with another plan: he moved their genitals around to the front! ... The purpose of this was so that, when a man embraced a woman, he would cast his seed and they would have children; but when male embraced male, they would at least have the satisfaction of intercourse, after which they could stop embracing, return to their jobs, and look after their other needs in life. This, then, is the source of our desire to love each other. Love is born into every human being; it calls back the halves of our original nature together; it tries to make one out of two and heal the wound of human nature. Each of us, then, is a “matching half” of a human whole, because each was sliced like a flatfish, two out of one, and each of us is always seeking the half that matches him. That’s why a man who is split from the double sort (which used to be called “androgynous”) runs after women. ... Women who are split from a woman, however, pay no attention at all to men; they are oriented more towards women, and lesbians come from this class. People who are split from a male are male-oriented. While they are boys, because they are chips off the male block, they love men and enjoy lying with men and being embraced by men; those are the best of boys and lads, because they are the most manly in their nature."
Delete(trans. by A. Nehamas and P. Woodruff)
Remington B,
DeleteThis is helpful. Thanks.
As I read it, I am reminded of Eccl 1:9. Randal, who ought to be a better student of history, has bought into the pop culture narrative and the chronological snobbery that goes with it.
I've been reading Gagnon's book ("The Bible and Homosexual Practice") and it's quite good so far, although I'm surprised to see that Gagnon seems to deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Maybe he's just adopting that stance for the sake of argument, guess I'll have to read more to find out.
ReplyDeleteGiven that Gagnon teaches/taught at Pittsburgh-Xenia Theological Seminary, affiliated with the PCUSA, it is a safe conclusion that he has at minimum conceded Pentateuchal authorship to the modernist mindset.
DeleteIt may be that he agrees with that position; or at least reserves judgment. But in any case, it is also clear that tactically, an argument over Mosaic authorship is a distraction; and Gagnon treats the text as a canonical artifact (ala B.Childs). Regardless of whether the final-form of the text is situated in the 7th or 8th cent. B.C., or in the 14th, these are the texts that speak univocally of the official faith of Israel & Judah--the faith of the first century, A.D., and that of Christ and his disciples, not excluding Paul.
Gagnon, as a practitioner of historical and exegetical--as opposed to agenda--theology, is being faithful express the accurate and consistent (and unambiguous) teaching of the Christian canon on the subject of sex. His unassailable position as a scholar and professor in a "liberal" institution (even if he personally can be identified with "conservatives" such as there are in a generally progressive church-body) gives him the freedom to confront the postmodern eisegesis that tries to force approbation of sexual immorality from the very words that condemn it.
Gagnon, wherever he falls on the modern theological spectrum, is having none of that wishful thinking.
I find it ironic that Rauser, who believes so strongly in the free will ability of a sinner to decide to believe in Christ, thinks that a homosexual cannot decide to not be gay...
ReplyDeleteI think we should tell Rauser that it's not that the gay person has to choose not to be gay; he just has to stop resisting being straight.
DeleteOne argument that should be applied is that it's not relevant whether someone can be trained not to derive pleasure from acts of sodomy. We'd be satisfied with the person not committing them, and, even better, desiring to restrain himself from committing them. Nobody says that burglary is legitimate because criminology has failed to find ways to keep people from wanting other people's stuff, or even because criminology has failed to find ways to rehabilitate burglars. Sodomy is no different. (And, of course, pedophilia is no different. Maybe some people are born pedophiles in desire, but we expect them to restrain themselves.)
ReplyDeleteSomeone here claims to have become gay through a stroke: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/how-a-rugby-player-woke-up-gay-after-suffering-from-stroke/story-fni0fiyv-1227519795481
ReplyDeleteLogically then, it seems feasible that some treatment might make someone straight. One might speculate that such a therapy would be less invasive than sex change therapy.