Editor

The Morning News

P.O. Box 7

Springdale, AR 72765

Attn: Tammy Heise/Religion editor

Human Sexuality, Divine Love Cross-Examined

I am writing in response to the recent series on Rev. Bill Stroop’s seminar on Human Sexuality, Divine Love Examined, taught at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church.

In a spirit of Christian charity I would begin my response by looking for common ground with Rev. Stroop. For example, I would agree with Rev. Stroop that human sexuality is in fact a gift from God. I would also agree that science and scripture can both provide human beings with insight regarding “truth”. Having said that, I would like to respond to what I believe are Rev. Stroops false conclusions regarding his suggestions as to what constitutes God’s design for sexual expression.

Rev. Stroop seeks to establish a link between science and homosexual expression suggesting that scientific research provides a basis for rejecting the “absolute” truths of scripture that condemn such practice. I find it interesting that Rev. Stroop chooses to present only the research that supports his conclusions. For example, Rev. Stroop calls into question the most recent studies on the incidence of homosexuality in the general poplulation (less than 1.7% according to Dr. David Forman's study at the Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, England1), while suggesting that the 1948 Kinsey study is better science. However, the precise reason that the Kinsey study has been rejected within the scientific community is that it is bad science! Kinsey’s scientific methodology is flawed in a number of ways.

First, Kinsey’s study group is not reflective of the general population. Of the 5,300 individuals in Kinsey's study group 25% were prison inmates, "who by nature of their confinement, couldn't have heterosexual intercourse." In addition, 44% of these inmates had had homosexual experiences while in prison.2 Hardly a representative pool of the general population.

Second, there were other major flaws in the group selected for the research. Kinsey admitted that "several hundred male prostitutes" were used in his sample. This alone would seriously compromise any hope for an accurate number on the incidence of homosexuals in the general population.3

In addition there was clearly a "volunteer bias." In attempting to select a representative group to work with, one does not merely run an ad and accept anyone who responds. Research has shown that those responding to a study as intimate as the one Kinsey was doing would not be representative of the general population. In fact, the widely renowned psychologist Abraham Maslow pointed this out to Kinsey before his finding were published, but he refused to listen!4

From this hopelessly skewed data Kinsey extrapolates his conclusion that 10% of the general population is exclusively homosexual! While the scientific community long ago rejected Kinsey's research, those like Rev. Stroop who seek to present homosexual behavior as "normal", continue to point to Kinsey's findings as if they were fact! Hardly an unbiased presentation of the scientific data available on the subject.

Rev. Stroop also seeks to use science to justify his supposition that homosexual behavior is not a volitional choice, but a genetically determined response. He points to studies that suggest there are biological factors that determine sexual orientation and then suggests that homosexual expression is part of God’s Creation. Once again Rev. Stroop’s conclusions are flawed.

First of all he fails to address the many thousands of individuals who at one time considered themselves exclusively homosexual and who subsequently chose to be heterosexual! The very fact that these people chose to change their sexual orientation is evidence that mitigate against Rev. Stroop’s position. Dr. Robert Kronemeyer, in his work Overcoming Homosexuality, writes: "With rare exceptions, homosexuality is neither inherited nor the result of some glandular disturbance or the scrambling of genes or chromosomes. Homosexuals are made, not born 'that way'. From my twenty-five years' experience as a clinical psychologist, I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned response to early painful experiences and that it can be unlearned."5

The point is that scientific research does not suggest that homosexuality is genetic, or biological, rather that it is a lifestyle choice that can be (and often is) changed!

Rev. Stroop's conclusions are also theologically flawed. Mr. Stroop conveniently lays aside his own theology to make his point. That is, one of the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith, which Rev. Stroop claims to represent, is the belief that humankind is born with a sin-nature. In simplest terms those of the Christian faith believe that people are born “broken”. That is, Christians believe that since the Fall of Adam, every person born comes into this world “flawed”. How then can we look at that which is broken, or flawed, and then come to the conclusion that what is broken was part of God’s original design? Yet, that is exactly the logic that Rev. Stroop suggests!

If we follow Rev. Stroop’s logic suggesting that homosexual expression is part of God's Creative plan because we find homosexuality practiced, we could then conclude that incest, necrophilia, and pedophilia are also part of God’s Creative plan because people practice these behaviors too! The point is that Rev. Stroop cannot selectively disregard the Bible's instructions regarding sexual expression and suggest that homosexuality is part of God's Creation, without embracing all forms of sexual expression.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Rev. Stroop’s presentation is that he uses science (only that which supports his position) to suggest that Divine Love is demonstrated by whatever sexual expression suits one’s fancy. While it is true that the sexual union of a husband and wife is a theological type of the love God has for His people (Ephesians 5:31-33); the context of the scripture is exclusively that of a monogamous heterosexual union.

However, Rev. Stroop ignores the fact that homosexual expression is not once mentioned in a positive light from Genesis to Revelation. That the model for sexual expression presented in Scripture at the beginning of Creation is heterosexual. That Jesus points to the Genesis account as the model of God’s will for sexual expression, and that all sexual activity outside of a monogamous heterosexual union are condemned by both Old and New Testament alike.

To suggest then that scientific research validates homosexual behavior as a model of God's Divine Love is contrary to good exegesis of the Scripture, and less than honest regarding the "blending of science and religion".

Concerning Divine Love it is important that we acknowledge that it is not limited to sexual expression; rather, true love is defined by what we chose to do with our lives. For example, the Divine Love toward humankind is demonstrated by Jesus’ choice to give His life for the sins of the World. Divine Love is demonstrated by human beings everyday not by their sexual expression, but by what they chose to do with their sexual desire. For example, the reality of a husband’s love for his wife is demonstrated by the fact that he chooses not to have sexual relationships with other women (or men!). Rather, his love for his wife is demonstrated in that he denies his physiological impulses to engage in sex with others and devote himself completely to his wife.

Unfortunately Rev. Stroop’s model of Divine Love suggests that people manifest God's love through whatever sexual practice they might chose (specifically a homosexual orientation as presented in his lecture). While his argument presented at St. Paul’s sought to provide a scientific/theological foundation to justify homosexuality, the logical progression of his argument would also suggest that any form of sexual orientation represent God’s love.

This of course is one of the foundational weaknesses with so-called “liberation” theology that Rev. Stroop and other supporters would prefer not to address. That is, once we abandon the clear restrictions of scripture regarding sexual expression so that we can justify homosexuality, where then do we draw the line for what is and is not acceptable? And who draws that line?

If we can ignore the Bible’s admonitions against homosexual behavior, as Rev. Stroop promotes, then why can’t people ignore all of the Bible’s directives regarding sexual expression? I doubt seriously that Rev. Stroop would suggest that the necrophilia practiced by Gary Ridgway (the Green River Killer) represents Divine Love! Yet, if we follow the flawed logic and conclusions of Rev. Stroop we are left with no moral compass to determine what is, and what is not “right” in the eyes of God regarding God's plan for human sexuality.

The tragedy I find in the theology of the likes of Rev. Stroop are the countless broken lives left in its wake. We have had the unpleasant task of attending to many deaths of wonderful young men who found justification for their homosexual lifestyles in the flawed teaching of men like Rev. Stroop. Taking his word over the clear teaching of Scripture they continued in their destructive lifestyle until it claimed their lives. Jesus sent His disciples into the world to bring life, not death. Mr. Stroop’s title, “reverend” suggests that he is a messenger of Life, however, the message he carries only promotes an early and unpleasant death.

People confused about their sexual orientation and Divine Love would be better suited seeking the counsel of those who once walked the path Rev. Stroop promotes, and since turned to find real life and true love not in homosexuality, but in submission of those desires to Jesus Christ.6

Paul M. Lester

3406 Cannon Ave.

Springdale, AR 72762