•  
• The claim that:

• "Homosexuals are born that way"

• "Homosexuals cannot change their orientation"

• "We should accept loving, faithful and mutual homosexual relationships"

• "Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality."

• "Everyone has the right to express their sexual orientation in a sexual relationship"

• "The essence of the Gospel, and of Jesus' teaching, is that we be `inclusive' "

• "Biblical references to homosexuality are just `a few scattered texts'."

• "The Bible's teaching on homosexuality is culturally conditioned".

• "The Bible is not the Word of God."

• "The Bible only forbids the practice because it was associated with pagan cults"

• "The Church will grow into accepting the ordination of practising homsexuals"

• "The ordination of practising homosexuals is an issue of justice"

• "Let's not decide. Let's not offend anyone by making a decision"

• "Let parishes choose whether to have a practising homosexual as a minister"

• "To oppose, and to decline ordination, is to HATE homosexual people"

1. The claim that "Homosexuals are born that way"

(a) such a claim is unproven - studies of a genetic, hormonal, or other physical basis for homosexuality remain tentative or inconclusive.

(b) a number of studies suggest that homosexual orientation arises out of psycho-social influences, such as a deficient attachment to the same-sex parent.

(c) the fact that one (or at most two) percent of the population are homosexual in orientation, from whatever cause, does not mean that state is normal or desirable - it may still be a disorder, an aberration of nature similar to any genetically determined physical illness (Note: the claim that 10% of the population is homosexual is now fully discredited)

(d) a predisposition towards aggression, temper, or alcoholism may have a hereditary or physical basis - but that does not mean we should accept aggression, temper, or excessive drinking as acceptable behaviour.

(e) Christians believe in the doctrine of "original sin". We live in a fallen world, compromised by sin, and then by suffering and imperfection (Rom.8:18-22). Our sinful nature is inherited. A predisposition towards all sorts of sin is now part of our nature. But that does not excuse the actual practice of sins - in God's eyes we are responsible for our actions.

(f) orientation does not necessitate sexual practice, either for those of homosexual or heterosexual orientation - in either case, celibacy is possible, and is the biblical standard for the unmarried.

(a) The Bible documents such change (1 Cor.6:9-11)

(b) There are many studies, reports, and testimonies - both from New Zealand and overseas - of successful change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation, through psycho-analysis, reversion-therapy, Christian conversion and/or the support of ex-gay groups (eg. see Submission to the Justice and Law Reform Select Committee on the Human Rights Commission Amendment Bill, Lion of Judah Ministries, 1993, pp.65-82 - this book is available from them at PO Box 31-423, Lower Hutt). The rate and permanence of that change varies, and is usually a process taking some time.

(c) the existence of several ex-gay groups in NZ (Lion of Judah, Exodus, Rock of Life) is evidence that a change of orientation is possible. It is special pleading to suggest that these ex-gays "cannot have been real gays". (The existence of ex-gay groups undermines the claims of the gay lobby, and such groups have been subjected to constant harassment, abuse, and threats).

(d) Those homosexuals achieving a change of orientation have been those who wanted to change (whereas the majority of homosexuals remain trapped in the mindset that they cannot and should not change, and are under strong pressure from committed gays not to do so).

(a) There is no biblical warrant for such a view.

(b) If homosexual behaviour is a violation of God's created order, and offensive to the Creator, it can never be condoned, no matter how exemplary the relationship may be in other respects.

(c) Same-sex relationships lack the complementarity of male-female gender relationships, something intrinsic to our creation in the image of the triune God, whose very being expresses a complementarity of loving relationships within the Godhead. Humans are created in a co-humanity of male and female, different, and made to relate to each other. Same-sex unions are a denial of our created co-humanity in the image of God.

(d) If the church endorses such relationships, it must also offer homosexual marriage services, pre-homosexual marriage counselling, and annuities for the surviving partners of clergy homosexual marriages.

(a) The fact Jesus did not say anything about homosexual practice most likely indicated he considered it unthinkable.

(b) Jesus was aware of the Holiness Code in Leviticus (he quoted it on another matter), which called God's people to be holy, and which called homosexual practice an "abomination".

(c) Jesus warmly affirmed the Genesis passages that see male-female sexuality and marriage as God's created order - he made no allowance for any other pattern.

(a) neither the scriptures nor Jesus himself acknowledge any such "right"

 (b) the scriptures and Jesus himself emphasise instead the responsibility of God's people to live holy lives, in response to God's grace, in accordance with his will, and with self-control.

(c) Jesus, a young man, lived a single and chaste life.

(d) the Christian church has always had only two basic sexual principles - faithfulness within marriage, and chastity outside it.

(e) millions of single Christians - not yet married, no longer married, or never married - have lived without any intimate physical expression of their sexuality.

(a) The validity of a Bible teaching is not established or diminished simply by how many references may exist.

(b) The Bible does not condemn homosexuality on every page, because there was no simply no debate - homosexuality is clearly an `abomination' (Leviticus 18 and 20), and an obvious example (Romans 1) of a natural, moral and spiritual perversion.

(a) The Bible's teaching is timeless and universal, but in interpreting it we need to distinguish between those peripheral and culture-bound aspects with no direct application today, and those truths about the nature of God and humanity which are true and applicable in every age and context.

(b) If the Bible's teaching on basic human sexuality can be dismissed as peripheral and culturally conditioned, then so may be almost everything else in the Bible - including the existence of God, monotheism, the concept of revelation, the goodness of creation, the sanctity of human life, the moral law of God, heterosexual marriage, the message of the prophets, the incarnation, the sayings of Jesus, the atonement, the resurrection, the message of the gospel, the church, the sacraments, the call to witness and to proclamation, and the call to justice and peace. This is abandonment to a canon of subjectivity. We should frankly recognise that in anything and everything we are placing our own subjective opinions and preferences above the Word of God. We may as well formalise our rejection of the historic apostolic faith, renounce the standards of the church, celebrate our apostacy, rejoice in our unknowing, and blissfully set ourselves adrift on the sea of unbelief.

(a) The Reformers certainly acknowledged that the Bible bears witness to the living word of God, Jesus Christ the Word incarnate. But they would never have agreed that the scriptures are less than the Word of God. The Westminster Confession, the key Subordinate Standard of our Church, clearly states in its foundational first chapter that Holy Scripture is "the Word of God written" (1:2) and the "the word of God" (1:4). The self-revelation and communication of God is also wider than the Scriptures, and includes for instance natural revelation and the "works" of God (1:3)

(b) There is no ambiguity in the PCANZ Book of Order Reg.475 - "The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as interpreted by the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Declaratory Act of this Church, are the standards by which teaching and conduct are tested." Nor is there any ambiguity in the founding Agreement for Union, 1901: "the doctrinal basis of the Church shall be the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments"

(c) Christ, the divine and incarnate Word, never condoned immorality or homosexuality, or the setting aside of the call to live holy lives.

(a) These claims are not supported by the majority of responsible biblical scholars. They are special pleading, by those anxious to explain away the clear biblical prohibitions on homosexual behaviour.

(b) If homosexuality is a universal phenomenon, as we are constantly told, then surely that is what the Scriptures were referring to (rather than to obscure "cultic practices" and "Greek pederasty"). The homosexual apologists cannot have it both ways.

The ordination of women does not constitute a fair or valid precedent for the proposed ordination of practising homosexuals. The ordination of women is scripturally arguable, whereas the other is scripturally unthinkable. Ordaining women never called into question basic Christian standards of morality, or the creation of humanity in a divinely-ordered mutuality of male and female that reflects the very nature of the triune God.

(a) Justice is not the issue. There is no "right" to ordination. But there are God-ordered standards for those in Christian leadership.

(b) Some want to ordain practising homosexuals, so as to signal the Church's legitimisation and "de-sinning" of something the Church has for 2,000 years consistently considered a lustful violation of God's created order.

(c) We believe the heart of the issue is the continuing authority of the Word of God - as interpreted responsibly, and in accordance with the historic apostolic faith.

(a) What matters is God's view, as revealed in his Word. The standards of God have always been offensive to those who do not obey them.

(b) Such a suggestion implicitly puts aside the authority of the Scriptures, the Subordinate Standards (eg. Larger Catechism, answers to Q.28, Q.139), and the decisions of the 1985 and 1991 assemblies. It makes the historic Christian sexual ethic only optional. Such a radical change would need to be approved under the Barrier Act, with an Act of Modification.

(c) such uncertainty would only breed confusion and turmoil. There could be expensive litigation from both sides, and peace and order would suffer greatly.

(a) Are we congregational or Presbyterian? So long as we have a denominational identity, structure, and budget, we need common standards.

(b) This suggestion implies that such ordinations will be permitted within our Church. But that is unacceptable. If homosexual practice is offensive to God, and forever contrary to his intentions, then it may not be tacitly permitted in any part of the church.

(a) Homosexual activists tend to imply, "unless you agree with everything I say or do, you hate me".

(b) We do not love people by fudging divine truth. Rather than condoning sin, the Church must offer the authentic Gospel of grace and transformation in Christ