What do you think?
Rate this book
Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate
How prevalent is homosexuality? What causes it? Is it a psychopathology? Can it be changed? Questions like these often accompany discussions of homosexual behavior. For answers we naturally look to scientific studies. But what does the scientific research actually show? More important, what place should this research have in shaping the church's response? Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse help us face these issues squarely and honestly. In four central chapters they examine how scientific research has been used within church debates--in particular within Methodist, Presbyterian and Episcopal contexts. They then survey the most recent and best scientific research and sort out what it actually shows. Next they help us to interpret the research's relevance to the moral debate within the church. In a concluding chapter they make a strong case for a traditional Christian sexual ethic. Church groups considering these complex issues will find helpful discussion questions at the end of each chapter. This book is essential reading for anyone involved in the church's debate over homosexual behavior.
192 pages, Paperback
First published November 30, 2000
5 people are currently reading
66 people want to read
About the author
Stanton L. Jones
27 books23 followersSTAN JONES, PHD, who recently retired from his posts as provost and professor of psychology at Wheaton College, is a nationally recognized Christian expert on sexuality. He has written books on psychology and Christianity and on homosexuality and has contributed numerous articles to such professional journals as American Psychologist.
Stan and his wife, Brenna, are active in teaching about parenting and marriage in their church. They wrote the original versions of the God's Design for Sex series while their three children were young; now, they enjoy their three kids as adults as well as the early stages of grandparenting.
Stan and his wife, Brenna, are active in teaching about parenting and marriage in their church. They wrote the original versions of the God's Design for Sex series while their three children were young; now, they enjoy their three kids as adults as well as the early stages of grandparenting.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
January 23, 2016
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.
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.
August 19, 2024
TWO EVANGELICALS REVIEW RESEARCH ON HOMSEXUALITY
The authors state in the first chapter of this 2000 book, "As this title [of the book] suggests, we are asking the question of how research on homosexuality should inform our understanding of homosexuality, particularly in the church. How should we think about the relevance of scientific evidence to our moral and theological views of homosexual behavior? How can science have any relevance for a religious position?" (Pg. 13) They add, "we will discuss the scientific basis for these and other claims made by proponents for change from the traditional Christian sexual ethic. We will also discuss the formal relevance of the scientific research to the moral debate in the church." (Pg. 24)
They point out, "the prevalence rate of homosexuality does appear to be a genuine point of discussion in the church today. The inaccurate 10% figure is often misused... The 10% figure is usually attributed to the Kinsey study of males. What many people may not know is that Kinsey NEVER reported that `10% of the population if homosexual,' as is often suggested in popular reports or discussions... Kinsey actually reported... that 4% of white males were exclusively homosexual throughout their lives after adolescence... Kinsey also consistently reported ... that female homosexuality appeared to occur at about half the rate of male homosexuality. So the first thing to note about Kinsey's `findings' is that the `10% of the population is homosexual' claim is not one that Kinsey ever made." (Pg. 35-36) They add that "Kinsey oversampled college graduates... But two sample distortions are the most shocking: First, Kinsey drastically oversampled prison inmates... he especially sought interviews with sex offenders, men imprisoned for crimes such as rape, pederasty... and sodomy... So BOTH figures [4% and 10%]... are probably inflated due to oversampling from a subject pool that is more likely to engage in same-sex behavior to begin with." (Pg. 36-37)
They critique the study done by Simon LeVey ['Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality']: "First, the LeVay study examined only 35 people (which is a very small number of people for research purposes)... Furthermore, all of the homosexual men and six of the presumed heterosexual men died of AIDS. What is important about this fact is that (1) it makes the supposition that the six `heterosexual' men who died of AIDS seem questionable, and (2) AIDS and the medications used to treat HIV infection can affect the size and shape of the very part of the brain LeVay was studying. We do not know whether his findings are related to homosexuality or to the medications used to treat HIV." (Pg. 70)
They point out about popular interpretations of the famous study by Evelyn Hooker: "The prevailing wisdom at that time was that to be homosexual was to manifest obvious signs of pathology.... Hooker's study challenged this common assumption. In this study Hooker refuted the generalization that all homosexuals were manifestly disturbed... But... Hooker's study is often interpreted as having accomplished much more..." (Pg. 99)
They conclude, "We have dealt here only with the `scientific' arguments advanced against the church's traditional ethic. There are of course biblical, theological, sociological, strategic and political arguments in play in this great debate, but those are beyond the scope of this book. The issue of homosexuality is, we believe, by and in itself a rather isolated and peripheral issue, but it is a battlefield on which other much more weighty theological and biblical concerns are being debated; it is an issue that has the potential, already partly realized, to splinter and divide the body of Christ. Christians must attend carefully to it." (Pg. 182)
This is an excellent overview of recent research from an evangelical Christian perspective.
The authors state in the first chapter of this 2000 book, "As this title [of the book] suggests, we are asking the question of how research on homosexuality should inform our understanding of homosexuality, particularly in the church. How should we think about the relevance of scientific evidence to our moral and theological views of homosexual behavior? How can science have any relevance for a religious position?" (Pg. 13) They add, "we will discuss the scientific basis for these and other claims made by proponents for change from the traditional Christian sexual ethic. We will also discuss the formal relevance of the scientific research to the moral debate in the church." (Pg. 24)
They point out, "the prevalence rate of homosexuality does appear to be a genuine point of discussion in the church today. The inaccurate 10% figure is often misused... The 10% figure is usually attributed to the Kinsey study of males. What many people may not know is that Kinsey NEVER reported that `10% of the population if homosexual,' as is often suggested in popular reports or discussions... Kinsey actually reported... that 4% of white males were exclusively homosexual throughout their lives after adolescence... Kinsey also consistently reported ... that female homosexuality appeared to occur at about half the rate of male homosexuality. So the first thing to note about Kinsey's `findings' is that the `10% of the population is homosexual' claim is not one that Kinsey ever made." (Pg. 35-36) They add that "Kinsey oversampled college graduates... But two sample distortions are the most shocking: First, Kinsey drastically oversampled prison inmates... he especially sought interviews with sex offenders, men imprisoned for crimes such as rape, pederasty... and sodomy... So BOTH figures [4% and 10%]... are probably inflated due to oversampling from a subject pool that is more likely to engage in same-sex behavior to begin with." (Pg. 36-37)
They critique the study done by Simon LeVey ['Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality']: "First, the LeVay study examined only 35 people (which is a very small number of people for research purposes)... Furthermore, all of the homosexual men and six of the presumed heterosexual men died of AIDS. What is important about this fact is that (1) it makes the supposition that the six `heterosexual' men who died of AIDS seem questionable, and (2) AIDS and the medications used to treat HIV infection can affect the size and shape of the very part of the brain LeVay was studying. We do not know whether his findings are related to homosexuality or to the medications used to treat HIV." (Pg. 70)
They point out about popular interpretations of the famous study by Evelyn Hooker: "The prevailing wisdom at that time was that to be homosexual was to manifest obvious signs of pathology.... Hooker's study challenged this common assumption. In this study Hooker refuted the generalization that all homosexuals were manifestly disturbed... But... Hooker's study is often interpreted as having accomplished much more..." (Pg. 99)
They conclude, "We have dealt here only with the `scientific' arguments advanced against the church's traditional ethic. There are of course biblical, theological, sociological, strategic and political arguments in play in this great debate, but those are beyond the scope of this book. The issue of homosexuality is, we believe, by and in itself a rather isolated and peripheral issue, but it is a battlefield on which other much more weighty theological and biblical concerns are being debated; it is an issue that has the potential, already partly realized, to splinter and divide the body of Christ. Christians must attend carefully to it." (Pg. 182)
This is an excellent overview of recent research from an evangelical Christian perspective.
March 19, 2021
In the Church's moral debate about homosexulity, Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse address two questions: 1) What does scientific research say about homosexuality? and 2) What are the implications that Christians should draw from this for theological ethics? They examine what scientific research actually says about how prevalent homosexuality is, what causes it, whether it is a psychopathology, and whether it can be changed. Finally, they present a Christian theological account of sexual ethics, arguing for a traditional sexual ethic.
Christians arguing for the acceptance of homosexual behavior in the Church frequently make appeals to the findings of scientific research. Very often, these appeals both distort what science actually says, and make unwarranted theological conclusions based on what science says. Jones and Yarhouse's study is valuable in carefully examining these issues and helping to bring clarity to this debate. The book is 20 years old, and further scientific research on homosexuality has been done since then, but their assessment of what science says is still largely accurate, and certainly no research done since they wrote this book would have any effect on their theological conclusions. I would highly recommend this book to any Christian interested in debates over homosexuality and theological ethics.
Christians arguing for the acceptance of homosexual behavior in the Church frequently make appeals to the findings of scientific research. Very often, these appeals both distort what science actually says, and make unwarranted theological conclusions based on what science says. Jones and Yarhouse's study is valuable in carefully examining these issues and helping to bring clarity to this debate. The book is 20 years old, and further scientific research on homosexuality has been done since then, but their assessment of what science says is still largely accurate, and certainly no research done since they wrote this book would have any effect on their theological conclusions. I would highly recommend this book to any Christian interested in debates over homosexuality and theological ethics.
July 22, 2022
This book is homophobic GARBAGE! The 'science' He speaks of is unholy GARRRRRRBBAGE. We (lgbtq folks)can live our lives like PEOPLE not PROBLEMS! This book looks like it was written in the 70s and is honestly offensive to 10 PERCENT of the population. End of story.
September 7, 2021
I appreciate Yarhouse’s contribution to such a hot topic. Found this book insightful and challenging as I worked to create my own understanding of biblical sexuality.
April 2, 2016
Besides the mere fact that time outdates the "scientific" material in this book, it simply makes bad arguments. Many conservative Christians mimic "scientific" or "secular" dialogue to appear more balanced, when the flaw is in their narrow conception of morality, faith, and scripture. Most importantly it is bad theology. Critical realism here and in other writers such as Christian Smith posture as tolerant dialogue of trying to understand secular arguments. Much of the rhetoric is consumed with an idea of postmodern relativism. The thinkers are quite capable of critiquing the historical relativism of others without seeing that their own adherence to fundamentalist / evangelical values that are historically situated - most notably the inerrancy of scripture. In fact, many evangelicals are divided on the issue of homosexuality, so presenting the "church" and interpretation as monolithic is itself a problem (and this is not new but Reagan's right and the "moral majority" over-occupies the imaginative space of media). Right wing Christians continually employ minority rights rhetoric to seek inclusion in secular discourse, yet their perspective is most often totalizing. Even the idea that there has been an "erosion" of so-called Christian values frames a monolithic notion of religious belief and correctness. It is prideful and violent in its application toward a public. Such views are out of sync with the post-secular world we live in. Jones and others continue to advance outdated shadow-boxing again a moribund argument about truth and relativism. Part of the tactic also appears to bore the reader into a lull until he or she accepts a bad argument by appealing to liberal tolerance. I'm no conspiracy theorist but I also do not think the perspectives of the writers of this book are moral. It makes me sad to think of how recourse to bad rhetoric conveys moral weakness. It reminds me Quintilian's argument that to make a good argument you have to be a good person.
June 12, 2013
The tendency to aggressively use scientific research to advance ideological goals. The tendency to reshape Christian theology so it would fit one's personal experiences or circumstances. The tendency of postmodern relativism to elevate self-actualization and subjective truth while diminishing (and dismissing) both science and Scripture altogether.
In my opinion, Dr. Jones and Dr. Yarhouse have presented a convincing argument that addresses these trends.
The dynamic relationship between religion and science is reviewed in chapter 1. A summation of a traditional, Christian sexual ethic is offered in chapter 6. Each of the core chapters (2 – 5) are roughly divided into five parts:(1)in regards to the chapter’s theme, an introduction to the predominate use of research in that area in the church’s moral and ethical debates (2)a comprehensive, but succinct, review of scientific findings and the scientific literature (as of the year 2000)(3)the authors’ conclusion on the formal relevance of research to the moral/ethical debate(4)a chapter summary(5)review and discussion questions
And these are the chapters:
1. Research, Reason & Religion
2. How Prevalent Is Homosexuality?
3. What Causes Homosexuality?
4. Is Homosexuality a Psychopathology?
5. Can Homosexuality Be Changed?
6. Toward a Christian Sexual Ethic
It should be noted that the thrust of the book provides analysis of how scientific research has been used historically in specific denominational debates among Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopals. Yet the material and discussion presented is relevant throughout the larger Christian community.
In my opinion, Dr. Jones and Dr. Yarhouse have presented a convincing argument that addresses these trends.
The dynamic relationship between religion and science is reviewed in chapter 1. A summation of a traditional, Christian sexual ethic is offered in chapter 6. Each of the core chapters (2 – 5) are roughly divided into five parts:(1)in regards to the chapter’s theme, an introduction to the predominate use of research in that area in the church’s moral and ethical debates (2)a comprehensive, but succinct, review of scientific findings and the scientific literature (as of the year 2000)(3)the authors’ conclusion on the formal relevance of research to the moral/ethical debate(4)a chapter summary(5)review and discussion questions
And these are the chapters:
1. Research, Reason & Religion
2. How Prevalent Is Homosexuality?
3. What Causes Homosexuality?
4. Is Homosexuality a Psychopathology?
5. Can Homosexuality Be Changed?
6. Toward a Christian Sexual Ethic
It should be noted that the thrust of the book provides analysis of how scientific research has been used historically in specific denominational debates among Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopals. Yet the material and discussion presented is relevant throughout the larger Christian community.
December 23, 2013
Excellent - well done both in theological and scientific terms.
August 13, 2016
A intermediate treatment of a controversial issue.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews