Customer Reviews

Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book deserves to rank higher on Amazon.com's sales list. It seems very difficult to find a book that deals with this subject fairly, since this subject is so politically charged. But this book does a very good job of laying out the most current scientific research. People who should read it may not because they may assume that it's coming from a traditional religious perspective. Ultimately, it is. But the authors lay the scientific research out fairly and draw rational conclusions from it. It's hard to see how anybody could be offended by this book, no matter what side of the fence they happen to be on.Much of the material overlaps with Thomas Schmidt's "Straight and Narrow" (published five years earlier by the same publisher, Intervarsity Press). But Schmidt's book was more overtly critical of homosexuality, whereas this book is somewhat less personal and more clinical. The authors seem to take some pains not to offend. But the book does show (as Schmidt does) that the media coverage of this subject tends to really oversimplify (and, to a degree, whitewash) a very complex subject.

Too often in today's moral debate over the issue of homosexuality, people from both sides rely on rhetoric and slander in trying to prove their case. Thank God for Mark Yarhouse and Stan Jones and their appropriately titled book, "Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate". I learned so much from this relatively short (183 pages) book that helped to remove areas of ignorance I possessed on the issue of homosexuality. It contains an utter wealth of information.

If you are a Christian looking for a book with a bunch of Bible verses and simplistic "Jesus can heal the homosexual" anecdotes, then look elsewhere. But don't worry. Jones and Yarhouse do NOT elevate science above Scripture. They believe faith and science overlap and do not contradict one another when each is properly understood. Their main thesis is that homosexuality is immoral and that nothing found in the scientific research disproves this fact. However, they argue, its unrealistic to say that ALL homosexual people are capable of converting to a heterosexual lifestyle. Therefore, there are only two moral lifestyle choices: celibacy for non-married persons (heterosexual and homosexual) or marriage between one man and one woman.

This book is packed with statistics from research done on various aspects of homosexuality including its prevalance (2-3% of overall population), possible causes (genetic, abuse, early childhood, home life, etc.), and rates of success for those people seeking to leave the homosexual lifestyle (approx 30%). If you're not the type who enjoys statistics, the authors do a great job of summarizing the research in an easy to understand manner.

This book is a must-read for anyone wanting to know the FACTS about homosexuality and its relationship to a biblical worldview. As Christians we need to be informed on this important issue, and we have these two men to thank for informing us.

How prevalent is homosexuality? What causes it? Is it a psychopathology? And can it be changed?

Social scientists have researched these questions for decades. Increasingly, individual Christians and Christian denominations draw on the findings of that research as they debate whether homosexual behavior is permissible, whether same-sex marriage is desirable, and whether non-celibate homosexuals can be ordained to ministry. Unfortunately, many Christians and churches that draw on this research do so without conceding that its findings are complicated. Moreover, they all-too-often reach conclusions that do not follow logically from the premises.

In Homosexuality book, Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse survey "the use of scientific research in the church's moral debate" about homosexuality, as the subtitle states the purpose of the book. Jones and Yarhouse are members of the American Psychological Association, professors of psychology, and published researchers. They are also evangelical Christians who defend the traditional Christian prohibition of homosexual behavior.

Chapter 1--"Research, Reason, and Religion"--sketches a portrait of the relationship between science and religion. Jones and Yarhouse reject (1) perspectivalism, "the view that science and religion are two complementary ways of knowing (epistemologies) that deal with alternative and distinct vantage points or perspectives on reality"; (2) imperialism, "the view that science and religion are competing descriptions of the same reality, with one trying to utterly dominate and replace the other"; and (3) postmodern relativism, in which "science's authority [and Scripture's, I might add] has been replaced by the authority of narrative...stories that can be true for one person and not for another." Instead, they advocate (4) critical realism; "we believe that there is a real world out there where it is possible to know and know truly (hence, `realism'), but we also believe that our theories and hypotheses about that world, and our religious presuppositions and beliefs about reality, color and shape our capacity to know the world (hence, `critical realism'" (pp. 14-15, passim).

With this perspective in mind, the authors survey research regarding the four questions asked at the outset of this review. Chapter 2 examines the prevalence of homosexuality, chapter 3 its etiology or cause, chapter 4 its status as a mental disorder, and chapter 5 the efficacy of change methods (p. 29). Each chapter begins with examples of how individual Christians and churches use--more typically, misuse--scientific research on a given topic; continues with a fair and appropriately nuanced survey of what the research actually shows, or doesn't show; then draws out the "formal relevance of research to the moral debate" (p. 45), focusing on the logical relationship between scientific premises and moral conclusions.

Regarding the prevalence of homosexuality, Jones and Yarhouse conclude that "homosexuality [understood as a `stable life orientation'] almost certainly characterizes less than 3% of the population, and the correct percentage combining men and women might be lower than even 2%" (p. 44). However, they go on to argue, "We can think of no compelling rationale for why the prevalence of a particular behavior should be directly related to whether that behavior is moral" (p. 45). The fact that some vices are common and some virtues rare does not make them less vicious or virtuous, after all.

Regarding the etiology of homosexual orientation, the authors survey "psychological/environmental theories" (pp. 54-60) and "biological theories" (pp. 60-83). They conclude that neither nurture nor nature fully explain homosexual orientation. Instead, they argue that the research supports a "weighted interactionist hypothesis." In other words, "an individual person's experience of same-sex attraction will be related to a host of interrelated factors," including "biological influences," "psychological (early childhood) influences," "other environmental influences," and "adult experiences." These influences are "weighted differently for each individual," "cumulative," and a "push" rather than a "cause" of sexual orientation (pp. 85-86). How is this interpretation of the evidence relevant to the church's moral debate? In two ways: (1) "there appear to be a variety of factors that provide a push in the direction of homosexuality for some persons, but there is no evidence that this `push' renders human choice utterly irrelevant" (p. 88). (2) "Science has not eliminated responsibility for sexual behavior" (p. 89). In other words, a person may not choose his or her orientation--although this can't be completely ruled out in some cases either--but he or she can choose how to act upon that orientation. The authors conclude, "The church's moral concern is not fundamentally with homosexual orientation, no matter how it develops," for "it may be understood as one among the many ways in which we humans, sinful and fallen as we are, are inclined to lean toward choices and patterns that do not bring honor to God." Instead, the "church's moral concern is with what an individual does with his or her experiences of same-sex attraction" (p. 90).

Regarding the status of homosexuality as a moral disorder, Jones and Yarhouse survey four criteria "commonly used to define behavior patterns as abnormal": "statistical infrequence"; "personal distress"; "maladaptiveness"--i.e., "behavior or characteristics that sabotage rather than abet a person's moving in a positive, healthy direction"; and "deviation from social norms" (pp. 98, 107). Based on these criteria, they conclude that the evidence offers a "mixed scorecard." Homosexuality is "infrequent." There is "a correlation of homosexuality with personal distress, though not all homosexuals are distressed." "[A]rguments regarding maladaptiveness are also inconclusive," mainly because "it may be hard to establish a clear definition of maladaptiveness that would be widely accepted in the secular community." And "it is clear that homosexuality violates societal norms, though consensus on these societal norms in America is decaying" (pp. 112-113). Jones and Yarhouse wrote that sentence in 2000. Given the ongoing debate regarding California's Prop 8, that sentence is still true a decade later. How do these conclusions relate to the church's moral debate? "Christians must recognize that neither societal consensus itself, nor societal judgment of a pattern as unhealthy, disturbed or abnormal bears any necessary relation to moral judgment in the Christian tradition." Why not? "Morality is not usually conceived as determined by democratic vote in the Christian tradition" (p. 113). Additionally, "ethical abnormality and psychological abnormality are not the same thing, nor are they related by necessity" (pp. 113-114). Sins are not necessarily pathologies, nor pathologies necessarily sins.

Regarding the efficacy of change methods, Jones and Yarhouse's conclusion offers support to neither those who think homosexual orientation is "immutable" nor those who think "reparative therapy" is a cure-all. Based on the research evidence, they conclude: "Change of homosexual orientation may well be impossible for some by any natural means. Yet the position that homosexuality is unchangeable seems questionable in light of reports of successful change" (p. 148). How is this conclusion--also a "mixed scorecard"--relevant to the church's moral debate? "The core issue is that the church's stance on homosexual behavior requires only that individuals be able to refrain from homosexual action and find a life of fulfillment in God's own provision in meeting their personal needs and not that they necessarily be able to become heterosexuals. Certainly behavior change is within the realm of that which can be changed, as evidenced by our understanding of autonomy and free will, as well as scientific findings that clearly support change of behavior methods" (p. 150).

Chapter 6, "Toward a Christian Sexual Ethic," concludes the book and restates "the core of the Christian sexual ethic" in four propositions: (1) "our sexuality...is a precious gift from God"; (2) "full sexual intimacy is properly experienced only between a man and a woman who are married"; (3) "those who are not married should refrain from full sexual intimacy with others"; and (4) "all persons, married and unmarried, should be characterized by certain virtues that will guide and mold their living out of their sexual natures before God and their fellow men and women" (p. 157).

Jones and Yarhouse's book will unsettle both revisionists and traditionalists, i.e., the two basic positions in the church's moral debate about homosexuality. On the one hand, Jones and Yarhouse demonstrate, persuasively in my opinion, that revisionists often mischaracterize the scientific research on homosexuality and draw illogical moral inferences from it, whether they have misinterpreted it or not. On the other hand, traditionalists may not like the complicated picture that scientific research on homosexuality draws. Indeed, some traditionalists may simply dispense with the scientific research altogether, in an act of what Jones and Yarhouse might characterize as "imperialism from the religious side, "i.e., a "push for the elimination of scientific research that impinges on any religious question, or [denial of] the validity of any scientific research that conflicts with their understanding of how reality should be" (p. 14).

Personally, I finished reading the book and pondered anew "the mystery of iniquity," to borrow a phrase from Paul, perhaps out of context (2 Thes. 2:7 [KJV]). It is easy to judge the sins of others, especially the ones I am not tempted to commit. But when I consider the orientation toward sin I find within myself, I say with Paul: "I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Rom. 7:23-25 [NIV]).

Jones & Yarhouse have provided sufficient evidence in exposing the sensational, headline-grabbing but flawed claims of pro-homosexual "research" for those willing to allow the evidence to examine their presuppositions or suppositions regarding the moral debate regarding the legitimacy of homosexual behavior as an alternative lifestyle.

In addition, J&Y do an excellent job of distinguishing between homosexuality (the belief that one is gay) versus homosexual behavior (the acting out based on one's conviction). Gay-ness is neither moral or immoral; whereas the acting out behavior is a moral or immoral issue, especially within the church's historical understanding according to the rules of orthodox hermeneutics.

Finally, J&Y provide a well-thought out model for how one may come to believe they are gay (the interactionist hypothesis).

This is a solidly researched and excellently written book on the subject of homosexuality from two top Christian psychologists. While they have their convictions (pro heterosexual marriage only), this does not of necessity make them biased, prejudiced, or bigoted in their discussion of the issues at hand. The charge that their beliefs makes them biased or bigoted is a biased and bigoted charge wholly without merit.

Buy this book and read it carefully. It will provide you insight into the issues at hand in Western society today, particularly within the church.

What a tremendous book on a very touchy and debated subject. The facts in this book and the information on the actual studies that are frequently quoted are very enlightening. I recommend this book whether you are pro or con. It will broaden your perspective.

The subtext of this work could possibly be retitled the "The Misuse of Scientific Research in the Churches Moral Debate". I think the only real value in reading this book is to get an idea of how far removed some Christian commentators are from the realities of life and what it really means to be homosexual in the 21st century.

Early in the work, the authors state their position. Quoting from Chapter 1 page 11 `We believe in being clear about our assumptions and presuppositions, so we confess that we are defending the historic understanding of the church, grounded on the Bibles teaching, that homosexuality is immoral. Let us give away our punch line at the very start: We will show, persuasively we hope, that while science provides us with many interesting and useful perspectives on sexual orientation and behaviour, the best science of this day fails to persuade the thoughtful Christian to change his or her moral stance. Science has nothing to offer that would even remotely constitute persuasive evidence that would compel us to deviate from the historic Christian judgement that full homosexual intimacy, homosexual behaviour is immoral.'

This book is written for a conservative Christian audience who still have not worked out that a homosexual orientation, as such, does not automatically determine a person's morality any more than heterosexuality does. Morality is a choice but sexual orientation isn't. To falsely judge a group within society because they are attracted to the same sex and not the opposite by calling that entire group immoral is not only irresponsible but also in conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ himself.

Chapter 2 is titled `How Prevalent is Homosexuality?' This seems a strange place to start the argument but not unusual. It has probably been some time now since Queer sociologists and commentators have used Kinsey's figure of approximately 10% of people being homosexual in their orientation but by introducing this question first, it serves two purposes for the authors. Firstly, it gives the impression that we have been deceiving people about our real numbers and secondly by reducing the numbers any requests for equality are not as important as we make out. After all, 2-4% of the population - are they all that important one could conclude. The table on pages 42-43 of 11 different studies in this area does not really prove their point but actually demonstrates how difficult it is to get a definitive number. My feeling is that we will never have an accurate figure until all stigma attached to homosexuality within our society is removed. In the meantime people who experience fluidity in their sexual orientation and heterosexuals who have same sex experiences sometimes get thrown into the mix.

When referring to scientific research the authors frequently quote from studies done in the 60's, 70's and mid 80's. Even research from the 1950's is citied. Whilst this research may have been valuable at the time, my impression is that it is now considered dated by most professionals without a bias. Possible causes of homosexuality according to the authors are strong mother/weak father, early sexual experiences with someone of the same sex, sexual abuse and new one for me I hadn't heard of, that the `exotic becomes erotic'. This theory proposes that we eroticise over the gender we are not connected with. So `normal' males will eventually eroticise over girls but homosexual men eroticise over men because they feel distant and unconnected with other males. An interesting theory perhaps but lacks credibility in the light of those who have only known attraction to the same sex from very early childhood.

When dealing with the various biological theories, the authors point to flaws in the research methodology and the exceptions rather than being able to identify what the research is actually saying to us. That is, there are prenatal factors such as genetic and hormonal influences that increase the likelihood, but do not guarantee, a person will be same sex attracted.

I think Chapter 4 `Is Homosexuality a Psychopathology' is the most offensive. To quote from page 94 of that chapter. `The short answer to the question `Is Homosexuality a Psychopathology' is no, if a person were to mean that the answer can be found by a quick look through the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental Disorders; Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) of the American Psychiatric Association. Homosexuality is not listed as a formal mental disorder in the DSM-IV, and hence is not a `mental illness'. But as we will see in this chapter, answering the question `Is Homosexuality a Psychopathology' is much more complicated than simply checking a manual.' The authors go on to expand on research done on the mental health of gay men and lesbians. This is where the writing becomes incredibly biased and using statements like `the hospitalisation rate for homosexuals is 450% higher that the general population'.... `suggesting over 300% increases in incidence of serious personal distress amongst lesbians'...and `the elevated rates of depression, substance abuse and suicide challenge the adaptiveness of homosexuality' reflect the authors very negative impression of gays and lesbians. What is not introduced in this chapter are the possible causes of any mental health issues like rejection by family, societal norms of conformity, religious dissonance and even persecution.

There are large amounts of material from the book that demonstrates it has been written with a strong bias and not relevant to the more informed academic or mental health professional. For example, in the summary of the chapter `Can Homosexuality be Changed?' it says, `the research of sexual orientation is intensely debated today. Most of the research was conducted and published between the 1950's and the 1970'[s, with an average positive outcome of approximately 30%.' As this work was written in 2000 Spitzer's recent conclusion that changes to one's sexual orientation "are probably quite rare, even for highly motivated homosexuals". It has been estimated that reparative therapists have a cure rate of 0.02% which means a failure rate of 99.98%.

In the final chapter `Toward a Christian Sexual Ethic' it says, 'To summarize, the essential claim in the discussions about the prevalence is that the high prevalence of homosexuality , claimed to be 10% or more of the general population, demands revision of our traditional ethic. The best studies, however suggest a prevalence of between 2 and 3%. More importantly, prevalence has no claim on ethic, since Christians commonly believe that some sinful life patterns are very common such as pride while some are rare like bestiality'. And on the following page we read, `Even if the homosexual condition of desiring intimacy and sexual union with a person of the same gender is caused in it's entirety by causal factors outside the personal control of the person, that does not constitute moral affirmation of acting on those desires. If it did, the pedophile who desires sex with children, the alcoholic who desires the pursuit of drunkenness, and the person with Antisocial Personality Disorder who desires the thrill of victimization and pain infliction would all have a equal case for moral approval of their exploits' (my emphasis. One wonders what the authors solution might be for the `homosexual condition' if we are equated with paedophiles, alcoholics and anti-social behaviour and later put in the same basket with schizophrenia, panic attacks, witchcraft and greed.

As a gay man from a strong religious background, reading through this book, I often found myself asking the question, `Who are you talking about. I'm not sick, I know I certainly didn't choose to be gay, I wasn't sexually abused, my first sexual experiences were with guys because that is the only attraction I had and my homosexuality is not a problem to me'. I have to conclude that the authors are like many people in conservative religious circles who because of their negative view of homosexuality they are locked away in world that conveniently separates them from us and they actually don't know any well adjusted gay or lesbian people personally. The only homosexual people they have contact with are those in their churches who are tormented by the dissonance created by an outdated religious worldview. The rest of us are living normal lives and making a valuable contribution to society.

Anthony Venn-Brown
Author of "A Life of Unlearning - a journey to find the truth"

Jones and Yarhouse's comprehensive discussion of the science of homosexuality is welcome and long overdue. In particular, the authors touch upon a subject -- ex-gays -- that both liberal and conservative activists have avoided addressing scientifically because the facts reflect poorly on the claims of both sides.

This book makes no claim to be unbiased. The authors do impose a conservative Protestant filter upon their evaluations and commentaries. This results in extensive discussion of "the" (singular) Christian sexual ethic which completely excludes Catholic and liberal or independent Protestant perspectives on sexual ethics. The authors also succumb to caricatures of positions with which they disagree; they periodically stereotype the proponents of alternative ethical frameworks as well as the widely differing perspectives of gay-tolerant Christian and gay-tolerant non-Christian scientists, clergy and civil-rights activists.

Overall the book is a useful addition to the discussion of the science of sexuality within a conservative Protestant framework.

Stanton L. Jones and Mark A Yarhouse's book Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate will fail to convince anyone that is not already of the same opinion as the authors. With all good intentions the scientific evidence reviewed is such that supports their own view and lacking in that which is contradictory.

Attacks on Kinsey's research are nothing new, but the continued flaws of those attacks should be pointed out. Treating Kinsey as if he were attempting to look more at prevalence than variance is one way in which the authors attempt to discredit the research. Mentioning that his original background was in entomology rather than human sexuality is another. The problem is that these are not flaws in Kinsey's research, rather they are a scientist focusing on one aspect and presuming that more research will be done on other aspects.

The attack on Kinsey's research for going after a variety of sources becomes more glaring when the sources Yarhouse and Jones approve of have such limitations in number. The authors, themselves, make many of the mistakes for which they criticize others. This book is neither balanced nor fair. It ignores the main thrust of scientific research - for example, I could not find one reference to the Journal of Homosexuality - in favor of side groups that have been discredited - such as members of NARTH.

The book looks good with a multitude of footnotes, but fails to provide such normal resources such as a bibliography, list of sources cited and more. It's an attempt to look profound and achieves banality.

This is a very well researched book by reputable authors, but, they started with the agenda to verify the validity of their faith.

Some of the statistics used for this book were taken from the typical pro christian sources.
The bottom line is that they are arguing for a position based on their holy texts. Thereby rejecting the rest of us who do not subscribe to the same beliefs.

Overall a very good book but the outcome was never in doubt.

Just another tool for the haters to use regardless of the intentions of the authors.

This book is a must read for all psychiatry shcools