Written by Youthworks Editor

An extract from Gordon Preece’s introduction toSexegesis.

I write this introduction to  Sexegesis: An Evangelical Response to Five Uneasy Pieces on Homosexuality, by Australasian Anglicans, as a response to the invitation to a conversation that Bishop Mark Burton mentions in his preface to  Five Uneasy Pieces  (FUP vii). I particularly write in response to the Introduction by the distinguished Michael Kirby. I was once thrilled as a young clergyman to sit opposite then Judge Kirby after a dinner address he gave at New College, University of NSW in the 1980s. I found him a most engaging conversation partner. I hope I can keep that conversation in mind in this more difficult conversation where, frankly, he adopts a more polemical tone, understandably in some ways, for there are high personal and ecclesiological stakes in this conversation, on both sides.

Sexegesis is literally exegesis or reading out from texts, texts on sex, specifically homosexuality. We ¢â‚¬â„¢ve used the term deliberately because we believe that the  Five Uneasy Pieces  written by Australian Anglican scholars advocating a revisionist reading of the Bible on homosexuality, do not, apart from the Meg Warner and Alan Cadwallader pieces, spend much time on exegesis. They generally jump quickly to wider hermeneutical or interpretive issues regarding Scripture ¢â‚¬â„¢s relationship to other authorities, such as science or experience, or contemporary ethical and cultural standards. We don ¢â‚¬â„¢t ignore these, but want to first emphasis the text on sex, in its context, without risking the contemporary clamour around this issue drowning out the voice of God in the voice(s) of Scripture. As sociologist Peter Berger once said:  ¢â‚¬Å“whereas Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss, today we betray him with a hermeneutic. ¢â‚¬  Both sides of this debate need to beware of this.

I also write soon after conversations with the Global Atheist Convention held in Melbourne on April 13-15, 2012. In bringing it and his Introduction together, I am not implying that Justice Kirby is a non-believer, but observing a methodological similarity between the New Atheists and his privileging of new discoveries of science over against old dogma and the art of traditional interpretation. Kirby claims that the source for the churches ¢â‚¬â„¢  ¢â‚¬Å“terrible pickle over human sexuality ¢â‚¬  is  ¢â‚¬Å“the age old problem of the text. And the human disinclination in the face of  new  knowledge, to adjust to the necessities of  new  thinking ¢â‚¬  (xix, my italics). This almost automatic rejection of the old or traditional is puzzling in contradiction with, for instance, Justice Kirby ¢â‚¬â„¢s support of the monarchy, or Anglican liturgy, or many traditional legal practices. This seems to deny what G.K. Chesterton calls   ¢â‚¬Å“the democracy of the dead. ¢â‚¬ 

My conversation with Michael Kirby reminds me of one I had with then Archbishop of Brisbane Peter Hollingworth soon after the 1998 Lambeth Bishops Conference of Anglican bishops which voted resoundingly, by 526 to 70, against the practice of homosexuality, and for a continued process of listening to Scripture and homosexuals. Hollingworth wrote to his diocese using similar language to Kirby, contrasting these new scientific understandings of the liberal and open West with the new and somewhat na ƒ ¯ve and hermeneutically unsophisticated understanding of Scripture on homosexuality by African bishops. I asked Archbishop Hollingworth then, as I ask Justice Kirby now, why  ¢â‚¬Ëœnew ¢â‚¬â„¢ is positive when referring to the disputed findings of modern science concerning homosexuality and negative concerning the traditional interpretation of Scripture adopted by the African Bishops at Lambeth, though they are relatively new to the faith. I ask the same question of current Brisbane Archbishop and Primate of Australia, Phillip Aspinall, who says  ¢â‚¬Ëœthat we do know now more than the biblical authors knew about homosexuality. That must be taken into account as must the experience of homosexual people who are committed to Christ and the Church and who do not believe they are called to celibacy. ¢â‚¬ 

Perhaps we know more scientifically now, and have more open homosexual experience to draw on, but that does not give either source the final word in a Christian conversation. Further, Archbishop Aspinall ¢â‚¬â„¢s March 2012 Ad Clerum to Brisbane clergy commended the study of  Five Uneasy Pieceswithout citing other books taking a different position or even, like Edgar ¢â‚¬â„¢s and my  Whose Homosexuality?, containing both sides. That is a monologue, not a dialogue.

Inconvenient Truths

Justice Kirby cites a few  ¢â‚¬Å“Inconvenient Truths ¢â‚¬  or key examples of this new knowledge. First is Alfred Kinsey the mid 20th century pioneer of sexuality research showing that homosexuals and bisexuals were  ¢â‚¬Å“widespread ¢â‚¬ , not an evil and  ¢â‚¬Å“tiny minority ¢â‚¬ ,  ¢â‚¬Å“wickedly choosing ¢â‚¬  unnatural sexual expressions. While Kirby doesn ¢â‚¬â„¢t cite Kinsey ¢â‚¬â„¢s alleged conclusion of 10% of the population having a homosexual orientation, as he commonly has, now putting it at  ¢â‚¬Å“say four percent ¢â‚¬  (xxiii), doubling the best attested figures, he still accepts Kinsey ¢â‚¬â„¢s authority. This despite the fact that new research has shown the 10% figure to be wrong by c. 500%. Kinsey ¢â‚¬â„¢s flawed and fraudulent report fuelled the sexual revolution.

Kirby ¢â‚¬â„¢s second argument is that homosexual and bisexual inclinations were  ¢â‚¬Å“the very expression of their nature … some (perhaps many) cases … were the product of genetic hard-wiring, over which the[y] … had no more choice than they did over their skin and hair colour, … gender and left or right handedness ¢â‚¬  (xix). I have heard something similar from a gay Uniting Church clergyman who from a young age felt himself attracted to the bare-chested Indians in cowboy movies.

Yet we should also hear the following from a range of disciplines, gender and political persuasions. Prominent UK gay rights activist Peter Tatchell has said:

[A]n influence is not the same as a cause. Genes and hormones may predispose a person to one sexuality rather than another. But that ¢â‚¬â„¢s all. Predisposition and determination are two different things.

There is a major problem with gay gene theory, and with all theories that posit the biological programming of sexual orientation. If heterosexuality and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined (and therefore mutually exclusive and unchangeable), how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can ¢â‚¬â„¢t.

Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology at University of Kent adds:

Thankfully, the experience of human endeavour tells us that who we are need not be determined by a biological accident. Yes, our genes influence our behaviour. But this does not determine who we are. We are not the slaves of our biology and possess a formidable capacity to make our own world and on a good day to even choose who we want to be.

John D ¢â‚¬â„¢Emilio, US gay activist and professor of history of women ¢â‚¬â„¢s and gender studies at the University of Illinois, Chicago, says this on the convenient  ¢â‚¬Ëœtruth ¢â‚¬â„¢ of the  ¢â‚¬Ëœborn gay ¢â‚¬â„¢ theory of Kirby and others:

 ¢â‚¬Å“[B]orn gay ¢â‚¬  is an idea with a large constituency, LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual] and otherwise. It ¢â‚¬â„¢s an idea designed to allay the ingrained fears of a homophobic society and the internalised fears of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. What ¢â‚¬â„¢s most amazing to me about the  ¢â‚¬Å“born gay ¢â‚¬  phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter. It ¢â‚¬â„¢s an idea with such social utility that one doesn ¢â‚¬â„¢t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible. ¢â‚¬ 10

Talk about gay genes has proven premature. After the initial euphoria at the completion of the Human Genome Project there was a tendency towards genetic determinism. The balance is swinging back to a consensus that environment and genetics/neurology, culture and nature, are mutually interactive. Francis Collins, head of the human genome project states that homosexuality is  ¢â‚¬Å“a predisposition, not a pre-determination. ¢â‚¬  That predisposition can be a very powerful one, but it does not resolve those with it from human responsibility for what they do with it. That is both a burden and a hope.

To download a sample, or purchase a full copy of the book, visit  www.sexegesis.com.