Category — gay theology

There’s a new pecking order of  gay christians in town. As defined by the gay christian network (GCN), individuals who believe you can be gay, have unrestricted sex and the whole nine are called “Side A” gay christians. The ones who believe you should just call yourself gay but refrain from sex for an unspecified amount of time are labeled “Side B” gay christians. But after a visit from Alan Chambers, the public face of Exodus International to a GCN conference Jan 6th in Orlando, we are prompted to add one more class of gay christian and name it “Side C”.

The C is for compromised, confused, careless and carnal. One thing is ironically clear: statements about homosexuality by Alan Chambers rarely result in clarity.

Over a roughly two hour period, Chambers rattled off a stream of statements seemingly more in sync with trending progay theology than the biblical position Exodus claims to uphold for the last 30-odd years.  In response to a question about the Exodus slogan “change [from homosexuality] is possible”, Chambers said:

“The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them, have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say that they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction. I think there is a gender issue there, there are some women who have challenged me and said that my orientation or my attractions have changed completely. Those have been few and far between. The vast majority of people that I know do still experience some level of same-sex attraction.”

Reflections, Reactions and Rebranding

The aftermath of Chamber’s appearance with the self declared homosexual christian group set off a firestorm of support, sharp criticism and everything in between.

Randy Thomas, a former Exodus official: “This isn’t shocking to me because Alan has always had a heart for those that oppose the work of Exodus and the truth of Alan’s testimony (which directly and indirectly represents thousands of us in some way shape or form.) I trust Alan and know his strength of conviction is completely wrapped up in God’s redeeming grace … I wasn’t worried for him or them. I was actually quite proud of him.”

Haydn Sennitt, a Syndey based ministry leader: “However, being outnumbered on such a huge scale would have put psychological strain on him to obfuscate, weaken his position, say things which- in hindsight- he might regret.  In the first 5-6 minutes he did exactly that: his first comments were to joke about drinking martinis and smoking cigarettes at an Exodus conference and laughed at a joke by the ‘gay Christian’ conference convenor that tacitly mocked Exodus conference attendees.  I was shocked. ”

Debbie Thurman, Christian journalist and former lesbian,  “I commend Alan for his honesty and clarity. Is that [Chamber's statement] an earth-shattering statement, as some are interpreting it to be? Not for me, and not really for Alan. “I have said similar things before. The fact of the matter is that 100 percent of humanity is fallible and we will be until death parts us from our flesh,” he told me. “I cannot speak for others who say that temptation or attraction don’t equal orientation. As a layman with regard to that issue, I tend to link them all together, and that is where that 99.9 percent, non-scientific/anecdotal/experiential statement comes from,” Alan added.

Exgaywatch, a blog that primarily criticizes Chambers and Exodus: “Playing to both sides on this issue of gay Christians is not new for Exodus International. In March last year, Chambers enthusiastically affirmed the existence of gay Christians in an interview with the Oprah network’s Lisa Ling, only to water down his statements when challenged by his conservative evangelical constituents. What is new is that some gay Christians are now taking him at his word.”

Nakisha Thomas, an Orlando based ministry leader:  “I was a supporter of Exodus in the past. I had a wonderful time when I attended the national conference and encouraged my church to join their network. However – I am severing all ties with them because as the Bible has instructed – I have gone to the group privately on several occasions. I have reached out with witnesses – but I believe now is the time to warn the church of the danger of embracing an organization that will lead people into confusion and not to the light.”

Just who’s side is he on?

Imagine the president of Pepsi going  to a meeting of Coca Cola employees and saying to them that he only knew about 3 people who really liked Pepsi.   That probably would never happen in the dog-eat-dog cola wars, but Exodus’ president  expressed the same sentiment to the GCN who are admittedly hostile to the message of change, Exodus’ signature mantra.   The meeting was reported by the antichange website Exgaywatch,  and has subsequently sparked sharp debate even among homosexual activists. Chambers reportedly requested to be a guest on a panel session with the Gay Christian Network. For more about the GCN and its founder Justin Lee read here.

The panel discussion moderated by Lee also featured former Exodus leader John Smid, former Exodus leader Wendy Gritter and former Exodus leader Jeremy Marks. All of the aforementioned  now advocate prohomosexual theological positions.

While some are attempting to spin the appearance as “bridge building” and “being light among darkness”, the discussion doesn’t confirm that. Chambers didn’t spread light, he compromised truth to gain some sort of emergent church-like unity. Can supporters of Exodus now expect some reciprocal appearance by a gay christian at the Exodus “Freedom” conference?

If you want to review the entire 3 hour discussion, feel free: part one, part two

Flipside

Aside from the appearance itself, Chambers statement is problematic for several reasons:

1. The monkey wrench in mature discussions about change from homosexuality is the  “sexual orientation” theory. You can not argue biblical truth by attempting to juxtapose it with cultural ideology.  Sexual orientation is a linguistical misnomer created by the gay community to frame homosexuality as an immutable trait.  But the bible speaks from a different perspective. It tells us without equivocation that there is nothing that cannot change by the power of God. Not even death is permanent under his supernatural power. What’s more the Gospel itself is HOPE for change from whatever binds us. That Chambers cannot follow the biblical script is a sign of spiritual immaturity. And spiritually immature people have no place attempting to lead such a critical ministry outreach.

2. Chamber’s comments are a betrayal of biblical truth namely: (a)change or deliverance is fundamental biblical truth,  (b)the process whereby a person is changed once they confess and follow Jesus Christ is sanctification and (c) the ultimate consummation of change which occurs when Christ returns is (glorification). There is no separate trajectory for those who struggle with same sex attractions. The stark difference between the bible and gay christian theology is the definition of the word sin. They believe homosexuality is not a sin, the bible says it is.

3. Change in “sexual orientation” is a false –not to mention unbiblical– goal. The bible doesn’t make “changing sexual orientation” the goal of the Christian because there is no such thing. If God required the homosexual has to change his “orientation” then the heterosexual would have to likewise change his. But this is foolish carnality on display.  Biblically, there is only one “orientation”. Man to woman and woman to man in covenant marriage. Anything else is sin. Thus, our goal is to reject sin and embrace original intent holiness. Chamber’s assertion that 99.9% of people he’s met have not changed their “sexual orientation” is either a brazen lie or its a stunning testament to the failure of Exodus.  Its my belief that our goal should be the same goal as every other believe: to be holy. Our goal should be God’s goal for us, since we are his children.

4. Sexual orientation has no bearing on temptation. Temptation is allowed by God and used a tool to sharpen, strengthen and test the believer’s devotion to God’s standards. Temptation is not a sin and never will be. If it were,  Jesus Christ himself would be a sinner. Unfortunately, in the unyeilding black-white world of gay theology, even the slightest glimmer of  homosexual temptation is viewed as proof that the individual is still homosexual.

As a recognized “leader”, Chamber’s serial inconsistency has deeply affected the quality of ministry to individuals seeking freedom from homosexuality through faith in Christ. Chambers is quoted on a NARTH website as saying “I am one of tens of thousands of people whom have successfully changed their sexual orientation.”. But now, almost no one has changed? Not even him? This type of schizophrenic commentary is damaging and a disgrace to the legacy of the great pioneers of the freedom movement.

Be it resolved: The Exodus board should relieve Alan Chambers of his duties until he has satisfactorily completed comprehensive bible study.

Good news to report. The gay christian group Evangelicals Concerned Western Region is calling it quits. It would have been even better news to report that the entire organization is disbanding but we can only hope that will come sooner than later.  A letter from the ECWR president posted on the group’s website did not say what led to the vote to disband, but its national organization will dissolve while its “local chapters” are to remain in tact.

“Following several months of prayerful discussion and reflection, 99% of members who returned a ballot approved the motion to dissolve ECWR and transfer our assets and experience to the Gay Christian Network (GCN). Despite the bitter-sweetness of the circumstances, we can take some solace in such a strong confirmation of this direction.”

The letter says the affected individuals will be funneled into several other gay christian groups like the Gay Christian Network and the Evangelical  Network, a oneness pentecostal flavored group based in California.

ECWR may sound like a sound religious name but its led by people with bizarre imagery of Jesus. In his testimony, ECWR  president Rick Hocker recalls that in a “worship service” “Jesus” kissed him in an attempt to get him to accept homosexuality.

“I remember that one time during a worship service, I saw Jesus approach me and I felt him kiss me on the lips. This incident freaked me out for days. Surely, that could not have been God. The kiss seemed so wrong, and yet, so intimate, so real. Looking back, I see that God was slowly coaxing me into being comfortable with my sexuality.”

This was not the Jesus in scripture, but a demon impersonator.  God is not the author of such confusion. Perhaps not a common occurrence among gay christians, but we’ve documented (see this for an example) beliefs and practices that are nothing less than cultic idolatry.

Gay Christian Movement Watch was the first to sound the alarm on the abominable teaching that gushes out of the mouths of those in the gay christian movement. Its religious excesses are so stunning at times its almost unbelieveable that any person in their right spiritual mind would not immediately reject it. But that is only proof of the shallow spiritual state even many professing Christians have slumped into. Any leader who affirms this heresy should be shunned as an enemy to the faith.

The rise of religious humanism serves the homosexual christian movement well. It provides the perfect umbrella for inclusion doctrines, so-called equality policies and pushing real biblical truth out of any significant discussions about homosexuality.  In his end of year review of  the locked-arm deception perpetrated by gay groups, Americans for Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH) founder Peter Labarbera pointed out how the gcm has snaked its way into Christian history.

Many give lip service to Jesus, without personal faith, out of sense of history and cultural tradition. “Cultural Christians,” we call them. But the Left has long recognized the value of using Christian idealism to advance its ungodly agendas, e.g., communism. In recent years, the self-styled “queer” lobby has latched on to this strategy – pushing the full homosexualist and gender confusion agenda in the name of “civil rights,” “social justice,” and even morality.

Yes, advocates of sexual sin (masquerading as civil rights crusaders) now embrace Jesus, too. Heck, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the world’s most powerful homosexual lobby group, has an online, pro-LGBT Bible study! (Here is one Christmas lesson from “Out in the Scriptures”; note the curious analogy to Mary and emphasis on “gay” victimization.)

Proudly ‘Gay’ Christians?

Another ominous development is the rise of a proud “gay Christian” movement — which to me makes about as much sense as the “Christian porn-users” movement or “Adulterers for Christ.” It just doesn’t work, biblically speaking (see www.RobGagnon.net). Some who take part in this movement are just spiritually confused people, but others are cunning strategists attempting to co-opt Christ and manipulate Bible-believing Christians to win the Culture War. That means sounding more religious and moral in this religious nation, a tactic I saw being honed at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force organizing conference I attended undercover earlier this year. Read more

I cant say that there is no such thing as a gay christian, if I did I would have to say there is no such thing as hell. But the sad reality of our times is that we were forewarned that these people would come.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils,  speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron, 1 Tim 4:1-2 

How much more clearer does it get? And if you had any doubt as to who these people were taking their orders from, that’s no mystery either.

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

And no marvel, for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works. 2 Cor 11:13-15

We’ve pointed out that satan’s “ministers of righteousness” are not those who simply have a misunderstanding of scripture and seek to correct it.  When someone  through religious teaching, intentionally leads others away from the truth, they are emissaries of satan and are not be accepted as brothers and sisters in Christ.

We are to treat them as the bible said treat them.

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him, that called you into the grace of Christ, for another gospel.

For this is not another; but there are some who trouble you and would pervert the Gospel of Christ.

But should we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

As we said before, so say I now again: If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which ye have received, let him be accursed! Gal 1:6-9

If you (yes its that personal) accept the damning doctrines, hypocritical lies and perverted gospel of the gay christian movement, then you have fallen into a state of deception. Your end will be as theirs will be.

ATLANTA – The spiritual damage inflicted upon the church (as if it didn’t already have enough serious problems) by the Lexi Show’s airing of the homosexual “Vision Church”  is incalculable. Its akin to the Iranians getting their hands on a US made drone last week. Something monumentally wicked has been released.  Before an audience of an estimated 32 million, on a African American-oriented, Christian-themed television network, Lexi showcased the vile, the perverted and the abominable as if it were a children’s ice cream party.

Apparently, everyone — but the church and its happy but blind members— can see that the dog and pony show which played out over two interviews[part 1], [part 2]  on the Word Network were staged performances.

Lexi brought her religious entertainment show to Atlanta and in total submission to the belial qodesh, cast them as good, normal and righteous.  The interview was jammed full of  feelings, contradiction, lies,  emotional garbling, “visions” and other sweetheart topics that carefully avoided the real issue. The church’s fundamental assertion that homosexuality is not a sin.

At one point, the church’s founder Oliver Clyde Allen, uses juvenile logic to refute that his church is a gay church.

“I dont even think that notion makes sense. Because if a church is gonna be identified by its majority population, then there’s a lot of gay churches. If there are churches that are gonna be identified by the orientation or the gender that’s predominate in the space, you know what that means, then we gotta call it a woman’s church. Then most of the churches we grew up in are female churches [laughter] because the majority of the church is female.”

The problem is that Allen’s logic unwittingly works against him. If the church with a majority female church is a “woman’s church”, then a church with a majority of self-identified homosexuals and with 100% homosexual leadership, is a homosexual church. Its part of the tactic of the gay church to disconnect from who they are. See here where they learned the tactic from. Strangely, they trumpet everywhere else how “out and proud” they are to be gay, but when it comes to the church, suddenly it doesn’t “make sense” to be identified as gay. By disassociating themselves with their chosen sexual identifier when in the religious context, they are able to throw the net of seduction much wider.

We’ve warned before that the homosexual church is the antithesis of God’s true church.  Its a prefabricated babylon  of which God warns his people to “come out of her lest you share in her plagues”. Rev 18:4

Not lost on this interview is the fact that for some time now Lexi has catered to the false teachers (Carlton Pearson) and bizarre beliefs (Tonex, satanist) for ratings under of the nebulous claim of journalistic obligation to “hear everybody’s voices”.

We were the first to tell you that Lexi is no journalist and has no credentials to prove she is. Her bio states this: “…during her undergraduate studies at Bowling Green State University, majoring in Interpersonal Communications and having a minor in Theatre…” Unless she left out her journalistic credentials, the claim that she is a journalist is a farce.

Moreover, since when did the bible instruct us to put demonic voices on display so we could all “hear them”. Jesus cast out demons, forbidding to even speak to him. The Apostle Paul instructed Elder Titus  on how to deal with these religious types. “There are many men who will not listen or will not obey the truth. Their teaching is foolish and they lead people to believe a lie. Some Jews believe their lies. ¹¹ This must be stopped. It turns whole families from the truth.” Titus 1:10-11 NLV

As a closet inclusionist, Lexi follows the same ideological trajectory as the secular homosexual media. They claim that the voices opposing homosexuality are irrelevant and thus should not be heard.

The video doesn’t deal with the real reason the gay church is in existence.  That’s why the Allen’s homosexual “husband” wanted to “protect” him. Their indefensible doctrine is nothing but regurgitated vomit that has been sprayed with expensive smelling perfume.

Pastor Harvey Burnett at Dunamis Word blog, took the time to expose the multiple lies used by the homosexual religious community aka Vision Church  to seduce and capture broken people looking for love. Read it here.

GCM Watch calls on the Word Network to reject, dismantle and ban The Lexi Show. It has become nothing but an affront to the mission of the Lord’s church and an inexcusable platform to air damnable heresies and doctrines of devils.

Read more about how and why the Word Network was started.

Its possible you’ve heard of  the “Red Letter Christian”  theological conglomeration. Its a strange religious concoction which attempts to make the so-called red letter passages of scripture (the quote-unquote words of Jesus) more important than other passages in the bible. Not that the bible itself places this kind of emphasis on the quoted words of Jesus, but its a progressive postmodernism gimmick used by liberal religious leaders to counter what they see is too much emphasis on things like sin, sexual immorality, holiness, repentance and hell.  Additionally, RLC have a political axe to grind with the social conservative movement which is opposed to homosexual rights and abortion. Thus, they attempt to leverage the socio-political playing field by narrowing what scriptures are applicable to the aforementioned issues.

For the record ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim 3:16). Nothing in the bible tells us or even implies that some scripture is more important that other parts —even the words of Jesus. That’s because the scripture is one, complete and harmonious system of doctrine and God-inspired logos. Scripture does not contradict scripture and one part doesn’t cancel out other parts without proper exegetical integrity in interpretation. But the Red Letter Christians have found a way around that.

Framers of the Red Letter movement include Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners magazine; Richard Rohr, a well-known Catholic writer; Brian McLaren, an Emergent Church leader; and Tony Campolo, a popular speaker and author of Red Letter Christians: a Citizen’s Guide to Faith and Politics.

The group chose the name for a couple of reasons: first, to stress that its political philosophy is based on Jesus’ teachings—a “What Would Jesus Do?” approach to governmental policy. Second, to appear apolitical—the appellation “Red Letter Christians” avoids the political connotations of labels such as “liberal” and “progressive,” and it facilitates the group’s claim that it transcends politics.

Red Letter Christians resent what they see as the religious right’s fixation on abortion and homosexual rights. Since Jesus did not deal with those two issues, they say, we should not make them more urgent than other issues. Instead, Red Letter Christians focus on political policies affecting poverty, global warming, racial discrimination, the role of the military, capital punishment, foreign aid, and public education. [source]

Having a faulty premise to begin with can only lead one into further error and that’s exactly how lead framer Tony Campolo has devolved. In his quest to make things right politically for homosexuals, he realized there was a fundamental problem. Not only were so-called religious right against homosexuality but there existed a much more formidable enemy. Campolo had to chop up, dissect, diminish, disconnect and reorder the truth of scripture so that his political assertions would have some sort of theological support system. So he created the red letter lie manual.

We’ve reported on Campolo before. Like most gay affirming religious figures, the cover of youth is very convenient for them to seed their lies about sexuality. Campolo is nearing completion of his master’s degree in red letter deception. In an interview on his Red Letter Blog he immediately drops the youth issue as justification for his own errors.

“What’s happened overall in the last few years is that a younger generation is emerging with different values. Consider the homosexual issue. Recent studies indicate that older people tend to be opposed to gay marriage and younger people, while still conservative on the issue, do not consider it a defining issue for Christians.  While conservative in their thinking, they put in an emphasis alongside of their concerns about the environment, their opposition to war, their concerns about human trafficking and, most of all, their concerns about poverty.  I’m in the middle, closer to the younger.”

With a nonchalant shrug, Campolo goes on to say that he doesn’t “approve” of homosexuality.  Does the bible really care that Tony Campolo approves of homosexuality or not? Hardly, especially when he circumvents the truth by insisting that talking about homosexuality isn’t something contemporary should be concerned about. After all, people are hungry, wearing second hand clothes and cant get the latest version of the Ipad.  So what’s the big deal about homosexuality? What’s interesting is that false teachers almost always downplay serious issues like homosexuality, but then spend a majority of their time talking about it. They want YOU to be quiet so they can dominate the discussion with their lies.

Campolo is being disingenuous when he says he doesn’t approve of homosexuality. His attendance as a speaker at a gay christian conference is sufficient evidence to that regard. How could a person disapprove of something, but then voluntarily attend an event put on by people who engage in what you allegedly disapprove of?  According to the gay christian network (see adherents)  Campolo “does not support attempts to “convert” gays into straights; rather, he advises gay people to pursue celibacy.”  Thats a political way of saying that homosexuals can’t change. That’s not biblical (reference 2 Cor 5:17) , but of course its a convenient caveat for the red letterers.

The red letter movement is closely associated with the emergent church movement. Both groups have cultivated a facade of being caring, tolerant and concerned but the reality is that they are part and parcel of those who teach doctrines of devils. False teachers come in all colors. Even red. For more information about Campolo’s emergent church heresy, check out Apprising Ministries writeup here.

Dr. Kerby Anderson, national director of Probe Ministries [source article] explains why:

At this point in our discussion, we need to consider the claim made by some homosexuals that, “God made me gay.” Is this true? Is there a biological basis to homosexuality? For the remainder of this essay, we will consider the evidence usually cited. Simon LeVay (a neuroscientist at the Salk Institute) has argued that homosexuals and heterosexuals have notable differences in the structure of their brains. In 1991, he studied 41 cadavers and found that a specific portion of the hypothalamus (the area that governs sexual activity) was consistently smaller in homosexuals than in heterosexuals. He therefore argued that there is a distinct physiological component to sexual orientation. There are numerous problems with the study. First, there was considerable range in the size of the hypothalamic region. In a few homosexual men, this region was the same size as that of the heterosexuals, and in a few heterosexuals this region was a small as that of a homosexual.

Second is the chicken and egg problem. When there is a difference in brain structure, is the difference the result of sexual orientation or is it the cause of sexual orientation? Researchers, for example, have found that when people who become blind begin to learn Braille, the area of the brain controlling the reading finger actual grows larger. Third, Simon LeVay later had to admit that he didn’t know the sexual orientation of some of the cadavers in the study. He acknowledged that he wasn’t sure if the heterosexual males in the study were actually heterosexual. Since some of those he identified as “heterosexual” died of AIDS, critics raised doubts about the accuracy of his study.

In December 1991, Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard published a study of homosexuality in twins. They surveyed homosexual men about their brothers and found statistics they believed proved that sexual orientation is biological. Of the homosexuals who had identical twin brothers, 52 percent of those twins were also homosexual, 22 percent of those who had fraternal twins said that their twin was gay, and only 11 percent of those who had an adopted sibling said their adopted brothers were also homosexual. They attributed the differences in those percentages to the differences in genetic material shared.

Though this study has also been touted as proving a genetic basis to homosexuality, there are significant problems. First, the theory is not new. It was first proposed in 1952. Since that time, three other separate research studies come to very different conclusions. Therefore, the conclusions of the Bailey-Pillard study should be considered in the light of other contrary studies. Second, most published reports did not mention that only 9 percent of the non- twin brothers of homosexuals were homosexuals. Fraternal twins share no more genetic material than non-twin brothers, yet homosexuals are more than twice as likely to share their sexual orientation with a fraternal twin than with a non-twin brother. Whatever the reason, the answer cannot be genetic.

Third, why aren’t nearly all identical twin brothers of homosexuals also homosexual? In other words, if biology is determinative, why are nearly half the identical twins not homosexual? Dr. Bailey admitted that there “must be something in the environment to yield the discordant twins.” And that is precisely the point; there is something (perhaps everything) in the environment to explain sexual orientation. These are two studies usually cited as evidence of a biological basis for homosexuality. Next we will consider a third study often cited to prove the claim that “God made me gay.”

Now let’s look at another study often cited as proof of this claim. This study is often called the “gay gene” study. In 1993, a team of researchers led by Dr. Dean Hamer announced “preliminary” findings from research into the connection between homosexuality and genetic inheritance. In a sample of 76 homosexual males, the researchers found a statistically higher incidence of homosexuality in their male relatives (brothers, uncles) on their mother’s side of the family. This suggested a possible inherited link through the X chromosome. A follow-up study of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers found that 33 shared a variation in a small section of the X chromosome. Although this study was promoted by the press as evidence of the discovery of a gay gene, some of the same concerns raised with the previous two studies apply here. First, the findings involve a limited sample size and are therefore sketchy. Even the researchers acknowledged that these were “preliminary” findings. In addition to the sample size being small, there was no control testing done for heterosexual brothers. Another major issue raised by critics of the study concerned the lack of sufficient research done on the social histories of the families involved.

Second, similarity does not prove cause. Just because 33 pairs of homosexual brothers share a genetic variation doesn’t mean that variation causes homosexuality. And what about the other 7 pairs that did not show the variation but were homosexuals?

Finally, research bias may again be an issue. Dr. Hamer and at least one of his other team members are homosexual. It appears that this was deliberately kept from the press and was only revealed later. Dr. Hamer it turns out is not merely an objective observer. He has presented himself as an expert witness on homosexuality, and he has stated that he hopes his research would give comfort to men feeling guilty about their homosexuality.

By the way, this was a problem in every one of the studies we have mentioned in our discussion. For example, Dr. Simon LeVay said that he was driven to study the potential physiological roots of homosexuality after his homosexual lover died of AIDS. He even admitted that if he failed to find a genetic cause for homosexuality that he might walk away from science altogether. Later he did just that by moving to West Hollywood to open up a small, unaccredited “study center” focusing on homosexuality.

Each of these three studies looking for a biological cause for homosexuality has its flaws. Does that mean that there is no physiological component to homosexuality? Not at all. Actually, it is probably too early to say conclusively. Scientists may indeed discover a clear biological predisposition to sexual orientation. But a predisposition is not the same as a determination. Some people may inherit a predisposition for anger, depression, or alcoholism, yet we do not condone these behaviors. And even if violence, depression, or alcoholism were proven to be inborn (determined by genetic material), would we accept them as normal and refuse to treat them? Of course not. The Bible has clear statements about such things as anger and alcoholism. Likewise, the Bible has clear statements about homosexuality.