basics reading journeys youthbridges-across faith science policy action


Lureen LaFountaine and John Rankin 
Does the Bible Object More to Homophobia than to Homosexuality? 

Part  IV 

A debate at South Springs Community Church Colorado Springs, Colorado August 3, 1996  

Moderator Doug Schmidt  

Pastor Jeff Short  
  

Lureen LaFountaine is an ordained minister in the Denver Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church USA.  

John Rankin is President of the Theological Education Institute. Address: TEI, 100 Allyn St., Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: (860) 246-0099 

 
 
 

USHER: OK, we have a little wireless microphone here. We want to put this on tape. So Doug, you select the question and I'll go give them the microphone. Just hold it up to your mouth. 

QUESTIONER: Lureen, recently the Presbyterian Church-USA General Assembly voted on this particular issue and came out with an understanding of it which I believe suggested that if a person is lesbian or homosexual, that they were not to practice it. How do you view that ruling? 

LUREEN: A couple things. What the Presbyterian Church did, they did not make a policy. What they decided to do, this recent General Assembly which was recently held in Albuquerque, decided that they would send to the 171 presbyteries that make up our denomination, an amendment that would say (basically taking the United Methodist language) fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness. And any sin that is found in the Book of Confessions, which is an historic document for the Presbyterian Church- USA, that people need to repent from. This action will be sent out and at this next 209th General Assembly we will receive the report. 

What is problematic with that is, the Book of Confessions names a number of things as sin. Usury and credit as sin. Talking ... [end of tape 1 side 1] ... upon, but I think it's important for you all to know, that General Assembly, an hour and a half after they took the decision around ordination, they passed an overture that affirms same-sex marriage, civil rights. What they said was that they wanted to have our Stated Clerk file amicus briefs, friend of the court briefs, on behalf of same- sex civil rights, marriage rights. It shows kind of the schizophrenic nature of the denomination at this point. 

But I have to say that fidelity and chastity, fidelity in marriage? Give us marriage rights. I believe that not only will it enhance this society and enhance and build up the family to have same-sex couples, civil marriage rights, that it will really, that image, the trinity, the three persons in terms of God, and the two persons involved. Give us marriage rights. I believe in that, and the denomination has called for it. Again the media did not pick up on. I will continue to be ordained until someone files a case, if they choose to do so. I have been told by a couple of colleagues in Denver Presbytery that they are not going to, even though they don't think I should be ordained. The Presbytery continues to affirm my ordination, and they continue to validate my work at Equality Colorado. So I look forward to being in a life-long, monogamous marriage with a woman. I hope that comes to be, and until it comes to be I will be in relationship then. 

JOHN: If I can follow through on that. I'm an amalgam. I'm ordained with the Vineyard, I have standing with United Church of Christ, but my church membership is PC-USA. It just so happens that's the church I worship in. And I was involved behind the scenes with John Pohling who ran for the moderator for the PC-USA in Albuquerque, helping them think this language out aloud. And I would agree with Lureen that the PC-USA is currently schizophrenic in this regard. I also believe that most of the schizophrenia is the difference between the leadership, or certain members of the leadership at the national level, Louisville on outward, in contrast with those in the pews. 

I think that so very much of the homosexual rights agenda, and abortion rights agenda, and many things which ultimately target marriage and fidelity within, are the result of those who in some fashion want to justify their lifestyle and get the church to ordain it. At the PC-USA General Assembly they did for the first time after twenty years of studying this issue actually come out and say no, that you should be faithful within marriage (heterosexual, faithful, monogamous) or chaste without. But I think Lureen is correct about the element of schizophrenia. 

I think Lureen has also raised a very interesting issue when she said she is a lesbian regardless of her practices or her acts, which is an ontological statement, a statement of being. She says that that's who she is. And I think ultimately that's what the question is about, whether debating within the Presbyterian Church or other denominations. Who are we? What is it to be made in God's image? Can someone be made in God's image according to the order of creation and be homosexual by identity. Or a fornicator by identity. And I believe in both cases the answer is no. 

LUREEN: If I could respond to that. It was interesting, Roberta Hessness who chaired that committee, she did say that homosexuality is not sinful. This is the first time in our denomination where it was on record saying that homosexuality is not sinful. What they focused on was the acts, the behavior. So there has been a move. And 43% of the delegates there voted against this overture. For those of you who don't know, the delegates represent the congregations. A couple of years ago, we defeated a prohibition on same-sex holy unions. The presbyteries in this country defeated that prohibition, saying that clergy could do same-sex holy unions. So I think in the pews we are seeing a change, because what's happening is gay-lesbian-bisexual people like myself are coming out and saying this is who we are. And people are saying, but, you're Lureen. We know you. You've been here. You've served communion with us. You've preached in our churches. You've taught. You're lesbian. I don't understand that, but you're a fine Christian woman. What's happening is we're personing the issue. So the schizophrenia in the denomination is ... things are changing because we are personing the issue and people are seeing us as faithful Christians. 

JOHN: I need to follow through briefly, too, and say that I think with Roberta Hessness and many evangelicals, they are people who are very consciously not homophobic, people who very consciously will respect and honor you and your dignity as a person. And hopefully I will do exactly the same thing. But by the same token, when they are separating acts from being I think they are making a wrong decision at that point because they are saying you can be lesbian without acting on it, or it's not a sin, then I think they are going against scripture. And I think that is part of the schizophrenia that's in there. But I think part of it is due to the fact that those who are saying no to homosexuality are not saying no because of dehumanizing those who call themselves gay or lesbian. There are those who do. But I think the majority are not those who do. And so in a sense they are almost erring on the side of charity. By the same token, when 57% voted in favor of this overture, it was only 47% last time they tried, and so from another angle of interpretation, that when you put marriage on the table, people are saying yes, on the other issues there is more confusion. You're right, there's schizophrenia, there's confusion. It goes back to the presbyteries. We'll see what happens. 

MODERATOR: All right, this gentleman in front. 

QUESTIONER: Lureen, I'd like to ask a question. I have two close friends, both Christian men, both married, both have several children. Then each of them left their wife and children for a man. Apart from the homosexuality, I questioned them, is this adultery? They left their wives that they had committed to, they had children, and in each case they are permanently living with somebody else. Actually, they've had a couple of men since then, but they think they're monogamous. 

LUREEN: I think the pressure, and having struggled with the pressure myself, the pressure in this society is to get married. I remember all through college, when are you going to get married? And I served churches. And so the pressure for gay-lesbian-bisexual people is to get married, especially in the last couple of decades. And what's happening oftentimes is people are finally coming out, like Mel White, Janie Spar, a good colleague of mine, are coming out when they are married and saying, we do not connect, this is not who I am, and having divorced. I think it is unfortunate that people feel the pressure to have to conform. I don't know. I mean, I want to be honest. I don't know. 

JOHN: I think that that's a very fine question. In fact, at this recent forum at Yale Divinity School, which was wonderful because of the dialogue that ensued between the evangelicals and those from the GLSBC (the Gay- Lesbian-Straight-Bisexual Coalition), was, a friend of mine, a student there who helped sponsor the event, was talking to a self-proclaimed bisexual. And he said, isn't bisexuality by definition adultery? And this was a woman who was a lesbian. It was a man talking to a woman. The woman who was a lesbian was going to get married to a man. And whose fiancee was going to agree that she could continue with her lesbian relationship. And so you have to ask yourselves at this point. He said to her, is this adultery? And she had no answer at that point. And thank you Lureen for being honest at this point. 

LUREEN: Well I do have an answer. 

JOHN: OK, but honest for the moment. What I mean is honest in saying you don't know something. I respect that. But I think this shows the power of the question. Because here we have Jesus saying no to adultery. 

Now I know Mel White, I've done a radio dialogue with him and communicated with him quite a bit though he doesn't like to communicate with me for various reasons, and it's not because I don't treat him respectfully. Mel White said to me, at one point he volunteered this on the radio, he said, if the God of the Bible doesn't accept his homosexuality as a gift, then he would rather have his lover than have the God of the Bible. And this is where he was putting his experience in sex over God at this point. 

[Transcriber's Note: The transcript of the White-Rankin radio dialogue shows that Mel made no such remark. John admits to the error and says he conflated disparate accounts. However, he is convinced that Mel did make the remark, on TV or in print, but he can not locate the source.] 

And I think this is the difficulty we're running into, because adultery says you don't break a contract which is more than a contract, it's a covenant. For Mel White to talk about being married, I believe it was close to twenty years, one biological child and one adopted child, and then leaving for his sense of identity, we then have to ask ourselves the next question about covenant, even apart from an understanding that you may think some people are born gay, or whatnot. Broken covenant, how could it be other than an act of adultery? 

LUREEN: I want to respond on a couple of things. Bisexuality gets a bad rap. And I don't understand bisexuality as much as I would like to understand bisexuality. But the bisexual folks that I know are not saying they want a man and woman both. That is the radical right's agenda to try to dehumanize, to say these bisexuals want both a male and a female, non- monogamous. What I say as a Christian pastor is, I want people to be in monogamous relationships. That's what I want. Because I think there's some value there, not only value, but in terms of really living out that covenant. I understand covenant from a Christian perspective. I want people to be in relationship, to be able to celebrate that. I believe in monogamy. I believe in life-long partners. 

I also have seen situations where people need to get divorced, and that's probably the best thing that can happen for that relationship, so that both people can treat each other with respect. Sometimes divorce needs to happen. And one of the reasons is that we as pastors have not done a good job of doing marital counseling. When I do same-sex holy unions I meet with the couple. If I have somebody call me and say I want you to do our holy union and it's next Friday I say, I'm sorry. I have to meet with you at least the same time that I meet with heterosexual couples, which is hopefully at least six times. And to be able to counsel people in those relationships. 

The second thing is, as a Christian, most important for me is to be honest before God. I think what Mel was saying, because I've heard Mel speak, and I know Mel and I've worked with Mel White. I mean it's easy, we can toss around all these famous names. I know him. The interpretation of this scripture, that's what he's talking about. I have a colleague in Denver that said, Lureen, I'm going to go after you, I'm going to go after your ordination. And I had this dream. I was scared to death, I was just coming out of the closet thinking, oh no, he's going to have me defrocked, there's going to be this ugly trial. And in my dream God said to me, Lureen, who are you to be obedient to, this man or God? And I think that's the most important thing as a Christian gay or lesbian person, that I am obedient to God first. And I speak as that. And hopefully I am honest in all my responses, to be able to say, I don't know about your friends. Hopefully they have divorced their spouses. 

How do we understand divorce? I come from a tradition where they say divorce was scripturally abhorrent, but because of the brokenness we recognize divorce, that it is recognized, that we do not prohibit divorced people from getting ordained. How do we err on the side of love? And I think that's the bottom line in terms of relationships. 

JOHN: And I think we have to, real briefly, ask ourselves what is love, when Jesus says love is obeying my commands. And he was very strict when it came to divorce, and for I think some very good reasons. And so when you say, hopefully they should have divorced their wives, you know, I find that really oxymoronic from a person who calls herself a Christian minister. Because you're hoping in favor of homosexuality among someone who's been in heterosexual marriage for quite a while. 

And one other comment here. Monogamy. There was a study done about three years ago on 152 men who had been united through domestic partnership legislation, San Francisco, Minneapolis, other cities. And they were asked what their definition of monogamy was. None of them regarded it as being sexually faithful. They believed in both directions in these domestic partnerships the freedom to have other sexual relationships. That is far more the case with men than with women, abundantly so. I think, too, that the case where you can find among male or female homosexuals real monogamy is exceedingly rare. 

LUREEN: I know you want to ask a question. I just need to respond to that. 

MODERATOR: Your response and then we're going to take a question in the back. 

LUREEN: In my work with gay-lesbian-bisexual people around this country, I have seen monogamous couples. So I always wonder about these studies that say, what is monogamy, and who are these folks that they're interviewing. I have been with people that have been together twenty- five, thirty, forty years in incredibly adverse situations. So I question that whole thing of, well, this study of 153 people said they're not monogamous, or what is monogamy. 

One reason I stay in the church is because it's very interesting to me that the church condemns gay-lesbian-bisexual people and says that we're promiscuous and all this, but on the other hand when we say honor our relationships, the church says no, we're not going to. It's very schizophrenic in that respect. One of the reasons I stay is to help model with other people of faith what is good, healthy, monogamous, committed relationships that truly honor God and give glory to Jesus Christ. 

MODERATOR: You have a question in the back? 

QUESTIONER: I guess this is kind of geared towards John. I got a little confused with the acronyms and the intricacies of your argument. Two things that came through pretty clearly were that you believe that our view of God cannot be based purely upon our experiential life on this earth. And secondly that you're basing your view of God upon the Trinity, this ideal view of God toward which we should be aiming in our relationships toward God and toward others. The thing that is confusing to me about that is that as far as I understand it, the Trinity is not a concept that is spelled out as a term in the Bible. The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible. Therefor that concept ... [fade out] ... It may be biblical scholarship but it's still kind of an experiential approach to who God is ... [fade out] 

JOHN: OK, very good question. First of all let me deal with the first part of it in terms of experience. The goal of God's revelation is for us to experience his presence. So experience is dynamite. But experience is not the interpretative basis to which we judge what scripture says and what history says and what tradition says. Rather, scripture comes first and the subsequent elements. So experience must always be submitted to scripture on its own terms. 

Secondly, when I alluded to the Trinity I did not allude to that in my original presentation, but in dialogue with Lureen. What I was talking about was God the Father, God the Creator, his order in Genesis 1 through 2. Then when the question came up to male and female ... Maybe I did allude to it in the opening comments. 

LUREEN: Yeah, you did. 

JOHN: I did. What I was doing at that point, I was demonstrating the goodness of male and female. But even apart from those who won't look at a formalized trinitarian doctrine, you can make exactly the same argument. Namely, that God from the beginning is teaching community. And he's teaching the two who become one. And I also said that the full doctrine of the Trinity is not grasped literally until Jesus Christ demonstrated himself as the incarnate Son of God. And until he gives the gift of the Holy Spirit the Trinity is not revealed in terms of historical revelation at that point. But you do get all the way through the Old Testament the intimations. 

I was raised Unitarian, so I came from a completely different perspective. And in the 1830s, William Ellery Channing was saying that he was Unitarian because the scriptures had no evidence of being trinitarian. Now the Unitarian-Universalist Association one and half centuries later says, well, the scriptures are trinitarian but we don't care about what the scriptures say at this point. So they've come a long way from that. 

But the essential point of what I'm saying is if we take the order of creation on its own terms, it is male and female, give and receive. It is therefore incumbent upon those who argue for homosexuality as a gift of God to demonstrate it is in the order of creation. If it cannot be demonstrated to be found there, then, whatever your concept of God is, it is not rooted in the very beginning of scripture. It has to be some other source. If it's some other source, that's fine. But then I think ultimately it cannot claim to be biblical. 

LUREEN: Well, to respond to that. My concept of God is rooted in Jesus Christ. That's how I understand God. When Jesus was asked, what is the most important commandment?, he said love God with your heart, mind, soul, and strength, love neighbor as self. Everything hinges upon those two statements. And that's who I understand in terms of order of creation, seen through the eyes of Jesus. How did Jesus with his twelve disciples and his cadre of folks, I mean, there must have been a gay-lesbian- bisexual person in that group. I believe there was. What do we do with that? Jesus for me is the experience. Otherwise, how do we come to faith as Christians? We come to faith not just because of scripture, but we have an experience with scripture. I remember, June 9, 1979, very non-Presbyterian, to be able to say this is when I accepted Jesus into my life. I remember having an experience. The whole scripture is full of people experiencing God's grace, God's love, God's judgement. I find it problematic that we would say the experience of God ends with the last word in this book. I believe that because of the Holy Spirit we experience God in our midst, and therefore the story of God's people continues. And yet more light, more revelation. 

USHER: Let's limit our responses to two minutes each and only one between each other. 

MODERATOR: This young lady. 

QUESTIONER: In reference to your dissent of Romans 1, I believe, where Paul wrote. On one hand you say that he did not know anything about the lifestyle, and yet you do claim that it is set up in the Old Testament with Naomi and Ruth, David and Jonathan, and then even just now when you said that it was clear in the people that Jesus spoke with, you were sure that there were lesbians and gays in that group. So, do you believe that he did not have a knowledge of that lifestyle, or that he did? 

LUREEN: What I'm saying is, the presuppositions of how he understood homoerotic acts, behaviors. I think Paul's understanding was not that of gay- lesbian-bisexuals in committed, loving relationships. He understood homoerotic acts from the practice of pedastry. I always say it wrong. 

JOHN: Pederasty. 

LUREEN: Pederasty. Older man and boys, that relationship with cultic prostitution. I think that informed his understanding. There wasn't a held understanding in terms of ... And it's not a lifestyle. I hear that word, and the radical right in this state has used this word lifestyle. We could talk about lifestyles. We all have different lifestyles. But orientation is who we are. It's not about lifestyle. The reason I lifted up Ruth and Naomi and Jonathan and David, they weren't labeled as gay-lesbian-bisexual people. But they seemed to indicate from my perspective and my reading of the scholarship that they were possibly gay or lesbian, or bisexual in Jonathan's case. I'm just saying that's part of their story in this book. Does that help answer the question? I want to be clear. Can you help me? 

QUESTIONER: [unintelligible] 

LUREEN: Well I think what he was talking about was cultic prostitution in that Romans 1 passage. Because of the culture in which it existed. What was happening in the Greco-Roman world was that there was cultic prostitution happening, male and female, experiencing sexual behavior among themselves. Now it's always interesting what people say, well what about this passage? And I respond to that passage in terms of what is natural for me is not to be with a heterosexual man. What is natural for me is to be with a woman. That is natural. And so what was happening in that particular case was that people were involved in cultic prostitution, going against their nature, how Paul understood their nature, that heterosexuality was the only way that a person could be orientation-wise. There really wasn't that scientific piece. And that's actually coming to light in the last several years. 

JOHN: I would respond very quickly that I think, Lureen, I listen to you continually saying, from your experience. What's not natural for you. Paul's whole argument in Romans 1 was the order of creation and the clear eternal nature of God being evident to all people. And one way in which he said that people had rejected the clear nature of God from the order of creation was an exchange of heterosexual for homosexual relationships. 

I think, too, the question is very well put because if Paul indeed knew nothing but cultic prostitution, as you say in this context, and the context is much larger, and if Ruth and Naomi, Jonathan and David indeed were part of that, then he is ignorant of the biblical tradition which you are appealing to. And you are appealing to it I believe by putting your experience upon tradition, and that's why Paul wasn't aware of it. 

Final thought here, is that in 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul lists a number of behaviors that are not acceptable for inheriting the Kingdom of God, including one word which the NIV translates as homosexual offender. It's from the Greek word "arsenokoitai," which is the first time every coined, and Paul is the one who coins it. And there has been much debate over what this word means. And the bottom line is it comes from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of Leviticus 18 and 20. Leviticus 18 says a man shall not lie with a man as he does with a woman. There is no talking about different natures here, those born homosexual, those born heterosexual. There is no talking about it being cultic or what not. It's saying that simply a man shall not have sex with a man as he does with a woman. And so when Paul refers to that he actually is using the first word in history for homosexuality. He is saying at that point that an "arseno", male, and "koitai", have sex with, a man shall not have sex with a man as he does with a woman. 

LUREEN: Actually the earliest translation refers to men, men bedding down. The context in terms of the others writings at the time... Dale Martin has done a wonderful job out of Duke University. Talks about economic exploitation, exploiting others by means of sex. Perhaps but not necessarily by homosexual sex. It's talking about ... It doesn't specifically spell out there in terms of homosexuality. It's talking about exploitation based on sexual action. So I would disagree. Dale Martin's done wonderful work. He's at Duke University, biblical scholar. 

JOHN: But you didn't just disagree with what I said. 

LUREEN: Yes I did. 

JOHN: What you did was you brought in some extraneous factors that have nothing to do with the word "arsenokoitai" and its rootedness in the Septuagint and its original Hebrew meaning in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. 

LUREEN: We could disagree on that and I'd love to correspond with you on that, but I also want to respect the two minute ... 

MODERATOR: Let's move on to another question over here. 

QUESTIONER: This is directed to Lorraine. 

LUREEN: Lureen. 

QUESTIONER: Sorry. 

LUREEN: That's OK. 

QUESTIONER: When you said that it seemed like you were going a lot off of that women were degraded and I just wanted to know where you got the passage that a woman should cleave to a man. Because I will read it to you out of the Bible. This is Genesis 2:24. And it says, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh." It doesn't say anything about the woman uniting to the man, or cleaving to the man. It is the man cleaving and uniting to the woman ... 

LUREEN: That's my point. 

QUESTIONER: ... and it is not degrading to the woman. 

LUREEN: I'm a feminist and I'm not afraid to say that. I'm a feminist and in looking at historical perspective in terms of the patriarchy, women were treated as property and indeed a man cleaved to the woman, and she became his property. If you look throughout scripture, and Jeff, we could do a whole class on the scriptural understanding of the treatment of women and how women are degraded throughout scripture. Example. Judges 19 where it's a parallel story to the Sodom and Gomorrah story, where the concubine gets tossed out and raped all night and left for dead. And the treatment of women historically throughout the scriptures, and I would challenge you to read the whole scriptures, that it is very patriarchical and very demeaning and degrading to women. 

QUESTIONER: How would you respond to the fact that Jesus, when he was resurrected, the first two people to hear the gospel message are women and they are going out and telling the gospel to the men. They are treated as higher and they are treated with great respect in that sense. And I do not believe that they were degraded in any way throughout the Bible. 

LUREEN: Well actually, Jesus turned the social paradigm, where it was God, male, female, children, animals, plants, Jesus turned the social paradigm upside down. And the fact that Jesus came to women should be the very fact that indeed, equality for all people. I think he did that intentionally. And even Paul's experience, how women are to be silent, second-class citizens. I think there is some room in there to look at how women are treated. Jesus was definitely a liberator of men and women, of people who were outcasts and the marginalized people. So I agree with you that Jesus came to women. I think Jesus came to women for a reason. All denominations should have women priests and ministers, and yet we don't because Jesus was male. Because Jesus was male therefore we can't have women priests. You see the argument? 

QUESTIONER: Yes, but also the word in the Genesis 2 passage says "united" and "united" would be equal. 

LUREEN: There is a translation that is "cleaved". Right offhand I don't have my Hebrew with me, do you know the exact Hebrew word? 

JOHN: I've translated it ... 

LUREEN: So have I. 

JOHN: ... but I don't know it offhand. Let me go back here and say that the answer to all of this is again Genesis 1 through 3 on its own terms: creation, sin, and redemption. Genesis 2, the end where we quote there in verse 24, is the conclusion of the order of creation. What it is saying is a man shall leave his family. Actually that one passage is sort of rewritten back into the order of creation. It's an interpretative point. It says, this is why a man leaves his father and mother, OK, and joins to his wife. The point being, that a man leaves his family, joins to his wife, and a new family is started. And each family has its own integrity. The word is union. 

And in fact when it comes to Ephesians 5:21 it says submit one to another out of reverence for Christ. And the word submit means to yield in favor of, it means to give as you are given to. And therefore there are three verses that follow, wives submit to your husbands. And six verses of husbands, as Christ died for the church, so you too give up your lives for your wives. And so the whole predicate is the definition of God's power in Genesis 1 and 2 of the power to give. 

Now, in Genesis 3 when we sin and you walk that all the way through, the Old Testament is utterly candid in showing the sin, Judges 19 being one of them. There is tremendous male chauvinism, there is also a little bit of female chauvinism thrown in as well. There is no basis whatsoever in the order of creation for property rights toward woman at all. In fact, if you look through the language and context all the way through the Hebrew scriptures there is almost no concept of property rights toward women. Whereas you look at all the other cultures around them, and it's demons, dust, dirt, and animals how women are treated. And so what the Bible has is candor. Genesis 1 and 2, male and female, were made in God's image equally. And as British philosopher Elizabeth Wahlgast put it, women bear babies and men don't, and that's where the battle is enjoined many times. Because there's a tremendous history of male chauvinism, of men who treat women as second class because they bear children. And that's wrong, that's sinful. But when you look at the order of creation, and how it points out the sin in the Old Testament and redeems us from it, it shows that Jesus didn't up-end the order of creation. He up-ended sin to restore us to the order of creation. 

MODERATOR: Another question, in the back? 

QUESTIONER: Firstly, I'd like to say I'm a very strict Catholic, but I'm also gay, and I think it goes hand in hand. How can one say homosexuality is not part of creation? That is just as bad as saying evolution and creation do not go hand in hand, evolution being physical and creation being spiritual. There is great scientific evidence supporting that homosexuality is natural, God's gift. Evidence found on the X chromosome. The biochemistry of the human body defines homosexuality. Also, biology defines heterosexuality. Now because our loving God created us, then why would something God created be a sin? 

MODERATOR: Are you directing that to John? 

JOHN: I'll begin since it tends to challenge my assumptions. A couple of observations. Number one, I was raised a macro-evolutionary, Unitarian agnostic. And so I came from a background that doesn't share my current assumptions. In part of my education, seminary insisted on studying Charles Darwin on his own terms before I studied his critics. As Phillip Johnson has pointed out, evolution today is a religion without substance. It is very poor science. The scientific community continues to turn away from it. And I am delighted to argue that on its own terms. 

Number two, we ultimately have to deal with what does Genesis 1 and 2 say about God and his own nature. And what Genesis 1 and 2 says, among other things, is that man is not an animal. He has God's image, where the animals do not. We are made after God's own kind, where each of the animals is made after animal's own kinds. And there's several points where we are distinguished from the animals. And God makes each form of life by fiat. You don't have macro-evolution from one species to another. 

And then I think also you are looking back at this from post-creation. For example, I've read Simon LeVay's studies, the Johns Hopkins studies, DeHamer's studies for the NIH, John Boswell, the late professor of history at Yale University. And I'm convinced there's no evidence for a genetic component for homosexuality. What I think there is tremendous evidence for is a pre-cognizant identity. In other words, many people who have an identity that's very different, that they then lay it on their lives and identify as homosexual. They have always felt different for as long as they could remember. But the other problem that you run into as well is bisexuality. By the way, I don't make stereotypes about that the way I think you alluded to. 

LUREEN: No, I wasn't referring to you. 

JOHN: OK. If someone says they're bisexual, or, if many homosexuals are homosexual only for a season in their life, we have to ask ourselves, what is genetic? You can't be black for a season in your life, and white for a season, unless you change the color of your skin through some chemical transformation. And so I don't see the evidence there whatsoever. And we can debate that. 

But even if we agree or disagree ultimately on science, or something like this, the ultimate question as a Catholic for yourself, myself as an evangelical, or anyone who says they're Christian, is, do we take scripture on its own terms? And scripture starts with the order of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. And I think the evidence has to be demonstrated there, according to God's nature, that homosexuality is a gift. 

LUREEN: And to respond to that. I believe the medical science is very helpful in terms of helping see that it is a predisposition. I think it's also a slippery slope, the medical evidence. I think to be able to be Christian and gay, lesbian, or bisexual, yes to that. As I've said and I will continue to say, I start with Jesus Christ first. I have to do some reading, because I know this is the approach of the radical right in terms of creation. How'd you call it? Creation-based redemption? What's the phrase? 

JOHN: It's creation, sin, and redemption. But you know, I haven't found any liberal scholars with whom I studied who will say this is not scripture on its own terms. 

LUREEN: But the point I'm trying to make is that I have not studied that. I studied Jesus Christ as a Christian and the theology there around. It is a question I ponder a lot. Being an out lesbian clergywomen is not exactly what one would call profitable. I get death threats all the time from Christians. I get hate mail from Christians. Talk about sin, when people attack gay-lesbian-bisexual people saying that we're not Christians, my suggestion is "judge not lest ye be judged." Let God decide. Let us do our work and see what fruit that we manifest. I said to my presbytery colleagues, let me have a church for a year. And I'd bet you money that church will be growing, alive. It's interesting John that you're liberal in your roots and I'm evangelical in my roots and we've kind of flip-flopped. In terms of Campus Crusade and Fellowship of Christian Athletes ... 

JOHN: That's what the secular humanists also said to me. 

[laughter] 

LUREEN: But I am not a secular humanist, I am a Christian. 

JOHN: Some of them are my best friends, literally. I do forums with them. But they were surprised I went in what they thought was the wrong direction. 

LUREEN: Being Presbyterian, we believe that people of good faith may differ. And that is something that I hold to. I want to be in a denomination that has evangelicals as well as screaming liberals. I'm kind of more moderate. So I want to say that I respect your position. I don't agree with it. I also do say that this would be an incredibly cruel joke on God's part if God has created this way. I just want to end on that. 

Another question? 

MODERATOR: OK, we're going to talk to a man that gets death threats also. You have a question? 

QUESTIONER: I have one observation. It's been my impression that Christ actually was the beginning of the change regarding the status of women. He gave them the status that they so justly deserved. But he also in Matthew 19:4 reminded, he said, "haven't you read?," and then he quotes the scripture that the young lady over here observed. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife. But that wasn't my question. 

My question is, perhaps it's only because of the context of the debate, which is homophobia and homosexuality. But when you refer ... 

LUREEN: Are you talking to me? 

QUESTIONER: Yes. Excuse me. 

LUREEN: I just want to make sure. 

QUESTIONER: Ms. LaFountaine, when you refer to gay, lesbian, and bisexual, do you limit your sexual, not yours, but do you limit your addressing sexuality to those three? 

LUREEN: What are you getting at? I'm not sure I understand your question. 

QUESTIONER: Well, do you ever include other... ? 

LUREEN: Heterosexuals, yeah. 

QUESTIONER: And are there others? 

LUREEN: In terms of sexual orientation, those are the sexual orientations that I know. What is it that you're getting at? What's your subtext? 

QUESTIONER: The context of sexuality with bestiality ... 

LUREEN: Oh, my gosh. 

QUESTIONER: ... or pederasty ... 

LUREEN: Oh! 

QUESTIONER: All of those are sexual conduct. Now, do you exclude those when you just say there's only your gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual? 

LUREEN: Yes. I have to be honest. This isn't meant to be rude. But that question is so offensive to even relate. And this is something that I've struggled with, the literature that suggests that we are having sex with animals. That is preposterous. 

QUESTIONER: I'm not saying that you are. 

LUREEN: No, no, no. Hang on. You want to follow up and then I'll answer your question? Is that your question? 

QUESTIONER: Go ahead. 

LUREEN: OK. I think what we're saying, gay-lesbian-bisexual, trans... Transgender is a whole other thing that I have to admit that I don't understand. That's about gender identity and that's something I have just... That's not around sexual orientation. Those of us that are working in the movement for freedom for all, liberty and justice for all, no exceptions. I think you're familiar with that from Equality Colorado. Those of us that are in the Christian church, other faith perspectives, and the secular gay-lesbian-bisexual political movement, we do not have even in terms of sexual orientation... We are talking about sexual orientation, male and female. The whole idea around bestiality is not what we are talking about. Pedophilia is a crime, it is a sin against humanity I believe. And I would never advocate for pedophilia or bestiality. That's my response. 

QUESTIONER: But that it's against the law of course is not any defense of the issue, because homosexuality is against the law in twenty-three states. 

LUREEN: But not in this state. 

QUESTIONER: I just wanted to be sure that you limit the sexual behavior that you describe to gay, lesbians, and bisexual. And other sexual behavior, you put that in another category? Is that what you are saying? 

LUREEN: I'm not sure in what category to put it in. I think in terms of bestiality ... 

QUESTIONER: It's sexual expression. 

LUREEN: Well, it's sexual expression but it's not human expression. It's offensive to even begin to argue about bestiality. I would never advocate for bestiality and I don't think my colleagues would either. We can talk about gay-lesbian-bisexual people here. 

QUESTIONER: All right, thank you. 

JOHN: If I could just follow through there. William Stanton is the past president of SEICUS, Sexuality Education Information Council of the U.S., which is very much involved in advocating homosexuality in the public schools. He is also a theologian, he has written theologically. And he has defined something called pan-sexuality, where he says that anyone can have sex with anyone, anything, or any object they want to. And that's his theological basis for sexual freedom. And you may not be familiar with Dr. Stanton. I did a forum with him at the University of Pennsylvania. I'm glad to hear you're offended by bestiality. But you have a person who is arguing theologically within the framework, that this is a valid expression. Now, he may say it's not the most healthy, and he's not recommending it. But he's saying it's a valid expression. And so I don't think it's offensive to raise the question because historically that practice has been there. 

Pederasty. The National Man-Boy Love Association and their marches and so forth. Those are legitimate questions. And so I don't think you should be offended by the question. You should be offended if someone assumes you endorse it without first asking you. So I think the question raises an honest question many people have. 

LUREEN: In terms of bestiality, I grew up in eastern Washington, farmer's country, and some of the practices... It's interesting, we never talk about heterosexual deviation sexually. You know, I think it would be interesting, folks, to be able to look at what over 90% of the population does, the deviations within heterosexuality. That's the offensive part, that it always gets labeled ... 

JOHN: But you know... 

LUREEN: Excuse me, let me finish. Let me finish. Gay-lesbian-bisexual people, we always get scapegoated. Bestiality, pedophilia, and all that. If you look at the statistics, 95% of pedophiles are heterosexual men. Hard and fast statistics. How come people keep associating gay-lesbian- bisexuality with pedophilia and bestiality. We need to really look at the crux and the reality. That's the offensive part of it because we continue to hear it over and over and over again. And I don't know of any of my colleagues ... And I work with the National Council of Churches gay-lesbian-bisexual caucus groups. I work on the national level. I don't know of any of my colleagues that would endorse such behavior. So I think that's the offensive part. 

MODERATOR: We have to move on to the next question to keep it flowing. We're going to take a couple more questions. Is there any kind of closing? OK, I have a question before we go on. I get to do this because I've been working hard setting up. As a pastor, this is to Lureen. Do you identify with the term evangelical? 

LUREEN: I identify as Christian. 

MODERATOR: OK. There's a movement called the Metropolitan Community Church and they identify themselves as evangelical. Evangelicals believe the Bible. That's one of the tenets of evangelicalism, believing the Bible. My question to you, Lureen, as a Christian, if I am a new Christian, and I just sit down and I decide to spend a week or so reading my Bible. When I run upon passages that deal with the issue of homosexuality, am I going to come away from the Bible simply as a layperson looking at the Bible, am I going to come away with a positive endorsement of the homosexual whatever, lifestyle, persuasion? Or am I going to, in your opinion, come away with a primarily negative assessment of that? 

LUREEN: OK. First of all I ... [end of tape 1 side 2] ... new Christian that I struggled with. Part of the thing about being in Christian community is to be just that, in community, to be able to ask questions. Because when we went to Bible study, it says women shouldn't teach in church, ask questions. And my professors telling me I should be a minister. I asked the question within the community. So I think new Christians or anybody should always be in community. Because there are things in the Bible ... 

I'm sure you have heard the old story where the man picks up the Bible and he opens it and he says, OK God, speak to me. He flips through it, closes his eyes, and he puts his finger down and it says, Judas committed suicide. He goes, whoops, I don't think I like this one. So he flips the Bible open, flips through the pages and goes to the passage where it says, go and do likewise. 

You understand? I think it is important in the context of scripture. The six passages, if they're not understood within the context, they're negative. 

MODERATOR: So you're saying that the traditional Christian teaching on those passages, those have been interpreted out of context? 

LUREEN: Out of context. Just as the passage in Leviticus that says children who curse their father and mother should be stoned to death. 

MODERATOR: OK, what is the passage in Leviticus that says man should not lie with man? 

JOHN: That's Leviticus 18:22 and then in 20:13. 18:22 is the first one. The first one says a man shall not lie with a man. The second one says if a man lies with a man, the death penalty is to be enforced. 

MODERATOR: OK, now, I don't remember if you gave your interpretation of that, but what is the context and what is the proper interpretation according to your understanding? 

LUREEN: >From my reading and in terms of scholarship, that this is part of the Levitican holiness code. Leviticus 17 through 26 is, in terms of the laws, over 617, 630? John, help me. 

JOHN: 613. 

LUREEN: Laws that talk about how that community was to be a community. They were in a pagan culture. In terms of their own identity, they had specific laws about shellfish, don't eat shellfish, don't wear mixed fabrics, don't tatoo, don't cut your hair. And so they were laws specifically for that community, written to the Levitican priests. It was a priestly manual, if you will, to talk about how the community needed to be. The laws were there for a good reason. Because if a man lay with a man, he'd waste his semen. And you're not supposed to waste the seed of the nation Israel. 

MODERATOR: So in that context, when you go to the New Testament, do the New Testament writers say what you just said? In other words, do they say, we see these passages in that context as part of this law that is not applicable to us? Or do they seem to follow right along? 

LUREEN: Well, as I said, when Jesus was asked what the most important commandment was. And Jesus, being a good Jew knew the Levitican code, knew the holiness code, he takes from Leviticus and says love God and love your neighbor. So for me that sums it up. 

MODERATOR: OK, we'll take a couple more questions. 

QUESTIONER: I just wanted to make a statement and see what your response would be. What is your name again? 

LUREEN: It's Lureen. It rhymes with keen. Lureen, keen. 

QUESTIONER: All right. The scripture in Romans 1, I believe the exact words, are that the men exchanged the natural for the unnatural, and then the women followed suit, to sum it up. I wanted to comment that there is a lot of debate in the scientific community about the genetics, the validity of homosexuality. I have no doubts that there could be things that could lead you into that lifestyle. However, the actual mechanics of the human body, just as a human myself, can speak that obviously the homosexual lifestyle doesn't produce anything that God engineered the whole thing for. When a man lays with a woman it serves a purpose. It's obviously designed that way. So it seems even before I became a Christian, I thought about this when I came to the conclusion that there was in fact a God, that it was contrary to his will for this to happen because it's not productive. Also I'd like to add to that, it says that fornicators, adulterers, I think it's in Romans, or in one of the epistles of Paul, I can't remember the exact scripture... 

JOHN: 1 Corinthians 6:9. 

QUESTIONER: Fornicators, adulterers, and homosexual offenders shall not inherit the kingdom of God. And I agree with you 100% that heterosexual deviancy is absolutely reproachable in the sight of God. But to argue that homosexuality is OK because they're doing that. You know what I'm saying? I'm not trying to insult you here. 

LUREEN: That's OK. 

QUESTIONER: But that is wrong, I agree with you. But I also believe that homosexuality is wrong because the Lord himself, when he came upon the adulterous women when they were about to stone her, they said, this women has been lying with men. They didn't bring the man out, which is ironic. But they said to him, he who is without sin cast the first stone. Well he had the right within himself to cast the stone at that woman. And then he said to her, go, woman, and sin no more. He called adultery sin. And by associating the adultery that he speaks of as sin and not to do it anymore, I would identify also in parallel homosexuality with that also. The Lord calls us to holiness. He calls us to return to the natural order. That's how I see that. 

LUREEN: In terms of productive sex. Isn't that what you're saying? Procreation? 

What do we do with single people? What do we do with couples that are barren? So in terms of procreation, are they "less than" because they can not bear children? 

QUESTIONER: [unintelligible comment about the Fall] 

LUREEN: That's an easy answer. In terms of homosexual sex, in terms of sexual behavior, I would say ... You know, part of the challenge is ... because John can do this academically and intellectually ... Part of the challenge is that when we're talking to defend our lives and defend who we are, we're talking about very personal things. And having to defend why, when I make love with a woman, is as close to experiencing God as when you make love with a woman yourself. That is indeed in terms of being able to make love and to be with your spouse (hopefully someday I'll get to have that legal right), but to be with your spouse, to experience that covenant, that relationship, in such a powerful, profound way. In terms of productivity, it doesn't matter if sexual behavior is productive. That's not the point of sexuality I don't believe. It's not out of this notion that we have to bear children. 

Remind me of the other part ... oh, in terms of the vices when Jesus spoke to the adulterous woman. Jesus spoke about heterosexual sin all over the place. Jesus did not mention once about homosexual... 

QUESTIONER: [unintelligible comments]... He equated adultery with sin, so I would assume that in the context of the scripture that he would call homosexuality sin. 

LUREEN: Well, I think the assumption reads a lot into the passage. The word "homosexual" doesn't even occur until 1869. There could have been a couple of different words if Paul, or the writer of Timothy wanted to talk about homosexuality, could of have used a word that talked about men who were being penetrated. They didn't. "Malakoi," which means effeminate and actually was translated originally soft and effeminate. It's only around the mid-20th century when social politics and sexual ideology began to inform the translation that the translations begin to change to homosexual perversion. I have the same question about "ar"... How do you pronounce that John? 

JOHN: "Arsenekoitai". That's the word that follows "malakoi." 

LUREEN: I have the same problem in terms of translation. That those translations have changed over a period of time. They haven't changed because of historic research. They've changed because of sexual ideology, in terms of how shall we translate this. I would suggest that the original meaning wasn't around homosexuality, homosexual orientation. I think it's a huge leap to say what Paul said in the Pauline letters that Jesus would say. Paul said a lot of things that I don't think that Jesus could affirm, particularly around the role of women. Because Jesus was the liberator around the role of women. And yet Paul said some very strong things about women. 

MODERATOR: OK, we'll let John respond and then we'll have the closing statements. And then you can ask questions directly. I think they'll be here for awhile after the debate ends. Anyone who has to go can go. 

LUREEN: Some. Because I have to preach in the morning. 

MODERATOR: OK, but you'll have an opportunity to ask a few questions directly to them. John, if you'd like to have your response to this question, and then we'll go into the final statement. 

JOHN: I would love to talk about the feminist issue and Pauline language, because I did my thesis on that at Harvard. But that takes us a little far afield right here. 

LUREEN: And I did my thesis at Princeton as well on that. 

JOHN: Marvelous. Let me, Lureen, just make this one comment. I am academic in my roots, but I am pastoral in my calling. And I am not going for one inch to negate your human experience or anyone else's. In fact, one thing you mentioned earlier was how many people here have related to homosexuals. I have gone out of my way to be friends with and to study with and to have lunch with and to converse with not only homosexuals, but virtually anybody I can find who disagrees with me or has a different perspective or experience. 

My roommate senior year in college was one of the first people in the country to die of AIDS. I didn't know he was homosexual until after he died. He didn't reveal it to a friend of mine until shortly before he died. And I can tell you that looking post facto on his experience, there is nothing but love and respect for him as a human being struggling with a form of brokenness in his life as I understand it. And my ultimate concern is pastoral. My ultimate concern is to demonstrate the image of God to people so they can overcome homosexuality as one of many things that will hinder fellowship with God. 

And this comes back to the question this one gentleman asked. And that goes to Romans chapter 1, God's designing of male and female. He designed us male and female not only to have babies. I mean, Carol Gilligan, in her seminal work in 1981 at Harvard, completely revolutionized feminism in terms of challenging Colberg psychology that looked at psychology of men and woman only from a male perspective. And she said in the midst of an egalitarian movement and feminism, no, men and women are different. And the subsequent studies on right half of the brain, left half of the brain, show that men think in terms of goal orientation, preeminently, and women in terms of relationship. We both think of both, but there is distinction and complementarity that come together not only in sexual expression but also when it comes to the sharing of duties in raising children. So it's much more than procreation. 

But from the beginning God did design us to procreate. And this question here says the plumbing of it shows very clearly how it works. And one thing I have not done tonight, and I do my best to avoid, is to be negative about people who may represent the homosexual rights movement, or negative about lifestyle and actual facts. I've tried to make all my argument positive from Genesis 1 and 2 and the order of creation. And therefore I will say very little here except to say that I am a PK. That's a physician's kid. And I know first hand from the emergency room and the hospital the absolute pathology of male homosexual activity. With lesbians it is far less so, because if you pardon the French, the plumbing is different, and the poisons that get passed between man and man is far more difficult between woman and woman. The bottom line is that I believe that psychologically, socially, and physiologically man and woman are designed for each other, in the order of creation, and subsequent to that we have brokenness. 

So when the answer comes, Lureen, about single and barren, this gentleman said it's the Fall. You said that's a simplistic answer. I think, no, it's not a simplistic answer. The Fall itself is exceedingly complex, OK, but the theological foundation says, moth tomouth, if you eat of the forbidden fruit, in dying you will die. And that's a participle and it's gone on for many thousands of years until Jesus Christ returns once again. 

And then finally, in terms of the language in 1 Corinthians 6:9. "Malakoi", yes, means soft and effeminate one. It was a hard word to translate. It is now translated as male prostitute. I think that's a very fair translation in all the possibilities because of the softness that was being yielded to and the cultural way the word was used. You see, words are used that only cultures can understand. Both in Hebrew and Greek the word for male prostitute, and even for some homosexuals, is the word dog, a dog in heat without control. And so, if you see the word dog, you don't know that it's referring to a male prostitute unless you know the culture. And I think that the translators have said that the word "malakoi" culturally refers to male prostitutes. 

The next word, "arsenekoitai," I already quoted for you. Paul lifted that directly out of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. And so Lureen, when you say he could have done some other words, no, I don't think he could have. He was a Hebrew, he was a Pharisee of Pharisees. And in making known the New Testament law he went right back to the Old Testament law. The difference was that the Old Testament was a theocracy and we will not be a theocracy again until Jesus Christ returns. And both theocracies are communities of choice. Joshua said, choose this day whom you shall serve. If you don't think the laws of God are good, you can leave elsewhere. And so the laws in Leviticus 18, we talk about the Levitical code, is to separate the society of Israel from the moral sins of the pagan nations at two levels. Number one, those that violated the Ten Commandments, and number two, to separate them culturally, so much so that they would have an identity that would help them affix more to the moral code. 

MODERATOR: All right, let's have our closing statements. 

LUREEN: That wasn't his closing statement? 

JOHN: I was answering his question like you did. 

MODERATOR: That was a response. Since you began you can begin with the closing statements. 

LUREEN: Actually, since I started why doesn't he close and then I'll close. 

JOHN: Well, we agreed ahead of time... 

LUREEN: OK, fine. 

JOHN: Because whoever goes first should go first at the end. And I would have let you go last except you took the affirmative. 

LUREEN: You've heard a lot of things here tonight. It's also interesting to talk about Ivy League, he's Harvard, I'm Princeton. What do you make of that? 

JOHN: I flunked ninth grade. 

LUREEN: Only a Harvard grad. [laughter] Does that cut into my time? 

I think the good news of the gospel, as I experience the gospel was that in Jesus Christ I experience my salvation. And when I came out finally ... and I'm talking about experience. I think it's important to understand that as a Presbyterian, we hold scripture very highly. Scripture is central to my faith. And so when you hear people say, well, homosexuals, we have this agenda. I have an agenda. You know what my agenda is? Justice for all people. You know what my agenda is? There's no more hungry, there's no more poor people. That the hungry are fed, the naked are clothed. That no longer is anyone going to be denied their humanity because the right wing agenda says, "you are not." Desmond Tutu said that indeed that is nearly ultimate blasphemy that a child of God should even question whether they are a child of God. Yes, I believe that one can be Christian and gay or lesbian or bisexual. I live that everyday of my life. I believe that indeed sexuality is God's good gift to us. Your sexuality, my sexuality, that is God's good gift to us. It enhances fellowship with God. 

I want to share a quote from Dr. Dale Martin, biblical scholar from Duke University, because I think he sums it up better than I can. He says: 

"Any interpretation of scripture that hurts people, oppresses people, and destroys people, can not be the right interpretation no matter how traditional, historical, or exegetically respectable. There can be no debate about the fact that the church's stand on homosexuality has caused oppression, loneliness, self-hatred, violence, sickness and suicide for millions of people. If the church wishes to continue with its traditional interpretation, it must demonstrate, not just claim, that it is more loving to condemn homosexuality than to affirm homosexuals. Can the church show that same-sex loving relationships damage those involved in them? Can the church give compelling reasons to believe that it really would be better for all lesbian and gay (and I would add bisexual) Christians to live alone without the joy of intimate touch, without hearing a lover's voice when they go to sleep or wake? Is it really better for lesbian and gay teens to despise themselves and endlessly pray that their very personalities be reconstructed so that they may experience romance like their straight friends? Is it really more loving for the church to continue its worship of heterosexual fulfillment (a non-biblical concept, by the way), while consigning thousands of its members to a life of either celibacy or endless psychological manipulation that masquerades as healing?" 

"The burden of proof in the last twenty years has shifted. There are too many of us who are not sick or inverted or perverted or even effeminate, but who just have the knack for falling in love with people of our own sex. When we have been damaged it is not due to our homosexuality, but to your and our denial of it. The burden of proof now is not upon us to show that we are not sick, but rather on those who insist that we would be better off going into the closet." 

"What will build the double love of God and love of neighbor? Is homophobia wrong? Yes. Is any kind of phobia, xenophobia, any kind of injustice toward another human being wrong? Yes. Is homosexuality wrong? No." 

I believe, and people will shake their head and disagree with me, and that's OK. That's OK because this is my experience. You have your experiences, presumed heterosexual. But this is my experience. And this is not only my experience, but of thousands of gays and lesbians and bisexuals. But this is my experience in terms of the biblical scholarship that is coming out, literally, out of the woodwork. I have a bibliography for folks if they want to see some of the new stuff that's coming out from renowned scholars. Even Richard Hays, an evangelical, says five out of the six passages have been translated wrongly against gay-lesbian-bisexual people. He holds up Romans 1 from the creation perspective. I believe that in Jesus Christ we are all made free, that my redemption is in Jesus Christ, and that homosexuality is God's good gift to me and to my brothers and my sisters. 

I hope that in your disagreement with me, or my brothers and my sisters or parents and friends and family and aunts and uncles and colleagues, that you will treat us with respect. Because we can disagree. That's OK. I'm 36 years old. It's taken me 36 years to really come to terms that this is indeed God's good gift, flowing upstream against the homohatred that is in this country, that is perpetuated by people of the radical right agenda. That is perpetuated by people that don't understand sexuality, period. 

I believe in the end we will all be made new. And that we will be surprised who is on the other side with us. I think that if this is of God, friends, I would really look at why you are opposing something that is of God and look for the fruits of the Spirit and look at God's good work in the gay-lesbian-bisexual community. Thank you. 

MODERATOR: Thank you, Lureen. John? 

JOHN: Lureen, thank you so much. I will just do two things here. Reiterate a couple of thoughts and then read my best public policy agenda which I think supports the humanity of homosexuals while disagreeing with the normalcy of it. 

But I do want to make this observation. I began my presentation this evening by appealing to the order of creation. And I am satisfied at this point, Lureen, that you have put experience on top of the agenda, the opposite of the Wesleyan quadrilateral. I am also satisfied that your experience of sexual identity has also inverted the order of God, life, choice, sex, from your words. Many times you backed away from that but I have written so many notes to myself: you have your experience, I have mine. And so, that's fair if we have different experiences. The question is how are experiences judged and how does God judge them. That's the first observation. 

The second observation is Lureen, you are a very gracious person, and yet many times tonight you have set up a straw figure. You have set up a caricature of the radical right agenda. I have not once set up a caricature at all of homosexual organizations. You have talked about hate mail, you have talked about death threats. 

LUREEN: [unintelligible comment] 

JOHN: Reality, OK. I have not brought that to the subject because you'd be absolutely surprised to know what I've been through by extraordinary slander, deliberately, with media and newspaper people. And lawyers who I could have had disbarred because of what they did against me, trying to slander what I do. And the reason that I didn't do it is that's not my agenda. And they know I can do it, and yet they know they were false all the way through. But I didn't bring it up, and I'll tell you why I didn't bring it up. Because I don't think it is helpful whatsoever, that if either of us represent any point of truth, that we strengthen our case for truth by painting the caricatures of those who disagree with us. And so caricatures go in both directions. 

And my concern is what Peter says: "Judgement begins with the household of God." And therefore, I'm far more concerned with how I treat you than I'm concerned with how anybody who disagrees with me treats me. On this basis I have a resolution that I am trying to get into non-binding status at state and federal levels. And this sums up my interpretation. This will be my conclusion of biblical ethics in this degree. And there's a theology behind this, but this is now constitutional language. 

"Number 1. We believe that all persons hold the unalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness in accord with the Declaration of Independence and the 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As such, all persons hold equal dignity and equal protection under due process of law." 

I will die if it's what I have to do before I will let a homosexual or anyone else suffer undue process of law, suffer discrimination. I would rather give up my freedom than have someone else be denied their freedom. Especially since the height of biblical ethics is the love of those who disagree with you. 

"Number 2. We believe that the historic family unit rooted in heterosexual, faithful, monogamous marriage and the raising of children, is the basic institution in society. As such it deserves unique cultural and legal affirmation." 

The basis for the institution of marriage is not for rights to be bestowed upon people, taking money from the government, pooled the way Barney Frank recently argued (not saying that you're arguing that). It's not that marriage is a right. It's a responsibility. And I believe that if in any way we do not maintain the unique nature of heterosexual, faithful, monogamous marriage, as all of history has demonstrated, cultures will unwind. 

"Number 3. For those who by choice, circumstance, or the brokenness of adversity are unable to participate fully or partly as members of the historic family unit, they should be equally free from punitive laws restricting private association, whether heterosexual or homosexual." 

I do not have a puritanistic interpretation of a desire for laws against private sexual behavior, even if it's what I disagree with. And the reason is... 

"Number 4. All persons, however, must accept accountability for the public consequences of their private associations and actions and that they in no way deprive others of life, liberty, or property." 

I don't want the government to be responsible for the consequences of my sexual acts. My four children are my responsibility and my wife's responsibility. By the same token, for those who live outside of marriage, I don't think they should have the government or society pay for the consequences of their choices. I believe in radical equality right here, the ethics of choice. And I believe that, as sociological data show, the people who live the longest and the happiest and are the most economically productive are those who are married and have children. 

"Number 5. On this basis civil rights do not become balkanized into special interest groups competing against each other." 

MODERATOR: One minute, John. 

JOHN: Oh, time up. OK, one sentence. 

"Those in the majority (that is, myself as a married man or believing in marriage) have no greater access to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness than those in a given minority, whether that minority is objectively or subjectively defined." 

I believe that the Bible underscores heterosexuality in marriage. It does not do so for homosexuality. I am confident enough in that that the last thing I will ever do is deny Lureen or anyone else the equal access to make their argument. But I will make my argument with equal passion. Thank you. 

[applause] 

JEFF SHORT: I want to thank you all for being a part of our debate. I want to thank Lureen for coming down from Denver to argue that position and John to argue the opposite. 

It boils right down to this for Christians: what does the Bible have to say about this issue? We hope that the presentations today were helpful in clarifying in your mind what the Bible says about this issue. That's the authority we as Christians need to look to. We need to ask ourselves, what does this book that I hold up as an authority say about this issue, and then conform to what it says. 

Let's bow in prayer as a final closing to our debate. Would you bow with me in prayer. 

God, we thank you that we were able to have a debate tonight. We were able to argue both sides. We are able to do that in an orderly way. We thank you for that. And Lord, I pray that the truth will rise to the top. I pray that you will clarify in our minds what it is that you are communicating in your Word about homosexuality. And that you will allow us then to live that truth. Help guide us into that truth. We thank you for this night, Lord, and we pray this in Jesus' name. 

Amen.

 


[LaFountaine:Opening Statement | Rankin: Opening Statement | LaFountaine/Rankin Q&A | Audience Q&A- top]

 

[Top |Home |Faith |Bible]

text © 1996 John Rankin/Nadine Strossen ÿ