An Exchange of Letters and Emails

Jacqueline Keenan, DVM 5246 Pommeroy Dr. Fairfax, VA 22032 October 7, 2007 Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, Episcopal Church Center 815 Second Avenue New York, NY 10017 Dear Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, There is a matter of grave importance to the church that I would like to discuss with you. It appears that TEC's divisive direction is driven by the belief that for many people homosexuality is a biological given. Twice I have had important people in TEC's leadership claim that there is science supporting the biological or fixed basis for homosexuality, but neither would give me their studies when I asked for them. In this letter I will describe those incidents, hoping that you will present the science that supports their view. I also will outline some major issues that people have ignored when they cite studies. Hopefully, you will avoid sending studies with these issues, and that will save time. To Set Our Hope on Christ based its understanding of homosexuality on the idea of orientation, which is an unbiblical concept from science. After seeing my article, "Why Theology Should Precede Change," an author of To Set Our Hope on Christ insisted that there was "other science" that she was considering. I sent her an email asking to see this science. I know that she got the email, because I called her to verify that she had it. That happened last spring, and she never answered me. Nine days ago I received an email from a senior bishop in the church. I had been carrying on a long discussion with him about the problems with the understanding of homosexuality as a fixed and genetic stereotype. In the email he said, "I hope in the future that you will, with your scientific background, pay close attention to the many people who study these matters who are learning that homosexuality is, at least in many instances, a given and not a choice." Of course, I had looked for science that shows a biological basis for homosexuality, and there had always been major problems with the science. I also had consulted with some very good psychiatrists who have followed the science and worked with homosexuals, and they too could not find any science showing a biological basis for homosexuality in anyone. I asked the bishop for his science, but he simply said that the fixed nature of homosexuality was the opinion of some psychiatrists. Yet he did not give any basis for that opinion. Are we talking about testimonials or research? Since even research done by homosexuals shows that so many people change attractions, please explain the scientific basis of the church's opinion that homosexuality is fixed. In one study the homosexual researcher found no characteristics to distinguish the 58% of lesbians who had changed after eight years from the 42% who did not. So how do psychiatrists determine that homosexuality is fixed for some people? It is important to differentiate between issues that are truly fixed and issues that are experienced as not being a choice. One of the psychiatrists that I have talked to affirmed that early trauma or family dysfunction can lead to issues that are experienced as not being a choice. Issues from early childhood problems are not fixed, but are difficult to change. Since so many changeable behaviors are experienced as fixed, I think that we must differentiate between those things that are truly fixed because of biology and those things that people experience as fixed. These are different issues. The latter are subject to change through psychological therapy and through the grace of God. The church's document To Set Our Hope on Christ claimed a biological basis for homosexuality. It is on that basis that many people in this church have been willing to bless homosexuality. If you are saying that the unverified opinions of some psychiatrists is the actual reason for the church's direction, please say so publicly to be fair to the many Episcopalians who were fooled by To Set Our Hope on Christ. But if you are arguing that homosexuality does have a biological basis, I request that you send me studies to that effect, and please be sure that they were not debunked in the literature years ago. To Set Our Hope on Christ is an example of proof texts from science. I spoke to the author of that part of the paper. He said that TEC has no good system for dealing with science. He indicated that although there is lots of science out there, he had no way of knowing which studies had been declared invalid. That is how Bailey and Pillard got into the paper as an example of genetics. So the church needs a better system for dealing with science, or it will continue to resurrect long dead issues. Hopefully, you will pay attention to the history of the studies that you claim support your position. Another thing to watch out for in picking studies is the problem of confounding variables. The twin studies were a good example. If you have not read my article, you need to. It shows that the small concordance left after seeking unbiased samples is explained when the environment is examined. When the environment was not examined, the high prevalence rate in the twins showed an environmental effect, unless you believe that Australians genetically mutate at warp speed. One of the difficulties is that so many researchers ignore the environment. That problem seems to have arisen from the APA's 1973 vote to remove homosexuality from the DSM. In case you missed what happened at that meeting, I will give you an account that has been published and independently verified by people who were present. The research presented in the committee responsible for recommendations on the DSM consisted of the now discredited Kinsey data and some work done by a Dr. Hooker on overcrowded mice. In the late ‘60s Dr. Hooker had chaired a task force. She was an experimental psychologist who worked with mice, and she left out of the task force the clinicians who spent their lives studying homosexuality in people. That psychiatrists were aware of the excluded clinical research is evidenced by Bayer's poll showing that four years after the 1973 APA vote, 69% of the members of the APA thought that homosexuality was "usually a pathologic adaptation." One psychiatrist who was at the 1973 meeting said that for about six years the activists had so disrupted their meetings that they could not get their work done, and there was also a low turnout that favored the vote. The APA buckled to pressure. Because of this vote, it is politically incorrect to look at homosexuality as anything but another biologically normal behavior. Given the outrageous history of the APA, it is not surprising that there are psychiatrists who now want to claim by fiat rather than science that homosexuality is fixed. As an example of how ignoring the environment affects research I will use the research showing that homosexuality is more common in younger brothers. Although this would only affect about 6% of the population, it could show a biological basis for some people. Researchers have hypothesized that there might be an immunological or hormonal change in the mother that caused the homosexuality. However, very good psychiatrists who work with Bowen systems theory have pointed out that this situation is also typical of family dysfunction. Birth order issues represent one of the eight basic concepts in Bowen systems theory. But the people doing this research have no interest in considering the environmental issues. Therefore, a lot of effort will be poured into looking for biological explanations all the while assuring everyone that the biological explanation exists, but just has not been found. So please do not cite studies that have multiple possible causes with biology as only one possibility. You are a scientist. You know what is required for real evidence. In this case the immunological or hormonal cause must be identified and verified. It seems that the people of the Episcopal Church have a right to know whether you are actually basing your direction on real evidence of the fixed nature of homosexuality in some people, or the wishful thinking on the part of some individuals in the psychiatric profession. It is clear that opinion is not science or proof. Further, the people of the church should be aware of whether you have decided that the witness of scripture is wrong based on the opinions of some psychiatrists or based on real evidence. Do most Episcopalians believe that unsubstantiated opinions are more valid than God's opinion? The people of this church thought that decisions were being made on the basis of the science presented in To Set Our Hope on Christ, but that is seriously flawed. Perhaps you should have owned up to that and told them the real reason that you want to bless homosexuality, whatever that may be. Since you are planning to bless homosexuality eventually although you must wait for now, please send me studies that show that there is any scientific basis for claiming that homosexuality is fixed for anyone. As one scientist to another and one Episcopalian to another, I ask you to show me the studies in order to engage in a real dialogue rather than innuendo. It is bizarre that I am forced to drag this discussion into the public eye in a church that prides itself on dialogue, but my experience is that private attempts at dialogue are unfruitful. Do the people of this church want to continue the destruction of a whole communion, if there is no biological evidence or other scientific basis for the unbiblical direction you are taking? Is there any evidence at all that demonstrates your position? We Episcopalians have a right to know the truth about this. Yours in Christ, Jacqueline Keenan Cc: The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rev. Ephraim Radner, David Mills, editor of Touchstone The Episcopal Church The Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori Presiding Bishop and Primate October 23, 2007 Dear Dr. Keenan, Thank you for your letter, and the concerns you raise. Let me recommend that, as a veterinarian, you might wish to begin with Bruce Bagemihl's exhaustive study Biological Exuberance. I cannot respond in detail to studies which are not cited. Science is not the only basis by which many people in this church are coming to the conclusion that homosexual orientation is a given (a matter of creation) and that it may be possible to bless it as a reflection of God's image in creation. Many, many faithful people (of both homosexual and heterosexual orientation) have the direct experience of seeing the fruits of the faithful, committed, monogamous, life-long and life-giving relationships of persons of the same sex. That mode is in fact the way in which many if not most Christians experience the reality of God at work in their lives - they see Christ-like lives in those around them. You claim that those who come to such conclusions are taking an unbiblical stance. Many said the same of those who advocated for a more generous pastoral response to those whose marriages had ended in divorce. Even though Jesus had very direct words on the subject, the church as a whole changed its teaching and pastoral practice in regard to remarriage following divorce. The change had more to do with personal experience, and a broader understanding of the whole of the biblical tradition, than it did with one or two verses of the Bible. When we have, within the tradition, clear summaries of the teaching of that tradition as "love God and love your neighbor as yourself," many would find it possible to take a broader reading than what appears to be the plain sense of one or two verses. May your ministry be a blessing. I remain Your servant in Christ, Katharine Jefferts Schori (email reply) Dear Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, I did receive your letter today. The citations and the body of my argument are in my online article "Why Theology Should Precede Change." It is on many websites. Google my name and the name of the article. I cited the work of homosexual researchers in refuting the claim that homosexuality is necessarily fixed, so it seems that it is possible to make that claim and still love homosexuals. I have a close friend who is gay and likes to discuss this issue with me. He knows that I love him, but regardless of how he came to be gay, he also knows that I have some valid concerns about this not being a one size fits all issue. Yet many people in TEC are treating it that way. Because of the difference in women and girls, there is a high rate of homosexuality in American young women and girls. This rate is much lower in societies that do not claim homosexuality as being fixed and just another acceptable option. In my article I cited the work of a gay researcher named Ritch Savin-Williams, who is the best known expert on prevalence rates in youth. I love my neighbor and I love myself. But for many years I carried a weed in my own heart that did not seem to be a choice, yet it was the worst possible sin. Because of abuse as a child, I quietly did not forgive people who hurt me. While I still carried that weed, I did remarkable work at church in our children's programs, the music programs, and education. People saw me as having wonderful fruits of the Spirit and I was very loving with the children. But when the Spirit did finally enter my life, the first thing that it did was start to pull the weed. That was very painful, and until it finally came loose, I doubted that I could ever change. In no way do the visible fruits of the Spirit testify to holiness regarding our other behaviors. I particularly have love and care for our young people, who are led to believe that same-sex attractions are normal and unchanging. What science can do is to help us test the claims that are made about the nature of homosexuality. The notion that homosexuality is created is not being supported by research, and any revelation of creation should be supported by scripture. Scripture says nothing about homosexuality as being created by God. I do not see a direct comparison with divorce. Hopefully, you agree that divorce is a bad thing. I hope that you do not intend to bless divorce too. For those who have divorced, I hope that you would not encourage them to continue to get divorced. These two issues are like apples and oranges in that one is being extolled and the other is viewed as unfortunate, but the church is dealing with divorce by supporting healthy marriages. I am surprised that you have not kept up with recent understandings of homosexuality. I know that you are busy, but you cannot tell children that homosexuality is not a good option, yet if you take that option, we will bless it. As much as your stance reflects the dogma on TV and in the newspapers, it does not reflect what is being learned. The bibliography of my article would be a good starting place for you to educate yourself. Since attractions change so often, it makes a difference whether people choose to act on those attractions. Reinforcement is an issue, especially in women. Again, look into the articles that I cited. There has been some important new research done by some very fine researchers. Most of them are homosexual. So I assume that your answer means that you have no new evidence that would show homosexuality to be biological or fixed. Therefore, you don't mind that I intend to point that out to the communion. Apparently, you don't need to know what is going on in the world of research, because you think that you have a revelation that counters the actual research and scriptural statements about homosexuality. At least people in TEC and the communion will know the basis for your direction. Thank you for being clear. Yours in Christ, Jackie Keenan

Last Updated ( Wednesday, 16 January 2008 )