1 Homosexuality Worldviews Mark L Chase School of Behavioral Science, Liberty University Author Note 2 Abstract Using published scholarly textbooks and articles, this paper examines how a controversial topic like homosexuality can produce different conclusions when viewed through different psychology-Christian worldviews. Keywords: Levels of Explanation Viewpoint, Integration Viewpoint, homosexuality 3 Homosexuality Worldviews Few topics generate as much controversy as does homosexuality, especially when it comes to religious views. While the United States is considered to be generally secular, with significant acceptance of sexual diversity and orientation, religious viewpoints continue to inform much of society's dispute about the topic (Carlstrom, 2020; Moon, 2014). Though many feel religious views only serve to encourage stereotyping and conflict, it is, in reality, a key to understanding the relationship of religion and secularism in the United States. According to Rosentiel (2007), "American secularism is derived from the strength of religion, not from its weakness" (p. 3). The secular public is known for taking either a pro-gay or anti-gay attitude towards homosexuality, whereas Christians view homosexuality as either "born gay" or a "sinful choice." While this binary opposition simplifies defending a particular worldview, it turns out that beyond the dichotomy lies six religious perspectives that are more constructive in separating out the all-important moral questions from the secular viewpoints of sexual orientation. While beyond the scope of this paper, the six religious views begin with "God hates Fags," followed by "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin," "We Don't Talk About That," "They Can't Help It," "God's Good Gift," and "Godly Calling" (Moon, 2014). Each perspective has its own belief about same-sex attractions and sexual behavior based upon interpretation of what Scripture says and God's good creation. But as Carlstrom (2020) points out, "revisionism is a modern invention which aims at distorting biblical verses to make them say the opposite of what they contain" (p. 34). Hence, understanding, reality, and epistemology are subjective, based on one's 4 worldview. As will be discussed in the next section of this paper, psychology-Christian viewpoints are also mainly based on subjective constructs and are not immune to revisionism. Different conclusions can easily flow from the same facts based on perspective, epistemology, and interpretation. Levels of Explanation View & Homosexuality The levels-of-explanation (LOE) view is the most secular approach to understanding science and psychology within a Christian context. Psychological science and faith share the beliefs of humility, skepticism, and psychological inquiry; therefore, both can co-exist in the same space. LOE views the disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, philosophy, and theology all on equal footing, each providing a perspective from which to study and conceptualize human nature, functioning, distress, and God's world (Myers, 2010). Myers (2010) stresses that "the multilayered ways of looking at a phenomenon enables us to build bridges between different perspectives" (p. 52). The epistemologies from all the disciplines guide empirical research, though the Bible is excluded to avoid misinterpretation and worldview differences. LOE is the only psychology-Christian template or viewpoint that excludes the Bible as a source of knowledge and wisdom. Based on the scientific methodology utilized in the LOE view, empirical research without direct regard to Scripture, Myers (2010) makes a strong case that homosexuality is a biological/genetic disposition, not a moral choice or failure, that has long been the go-to explanation. Moon (2014) refers to this perspective as "They Can't Help It," which lies between a homonegative and homopositive societal perspective. 5 Perspectives, both individual and societal, tend to either minimize or bring into the spotlight underlying moral and ethical issues. In this example, we see a moral issue swept under the rug in favor of science and scientific findings. In the forthcoming discussion, we explore precisely how merely changing a perspective changes an outcome. Integration View & Homosexuality The integration view (IV) is the second most secular approach to understanding science and psychology within a Christian context. IV values science and research but dualistically since scientific truth is God's truth. According to Jones (2010), "Scripture does not provide us all that we need in order to understand human beings fully" (p. 101); hence psychological science and research fill in the blanks to understand better human nature, functioning, and distress. Biblical truth is foundational to an IV approach, as is paying attention and asking questions when conflict arises between credible psychological science and one's Christian faith, integrity, and convictions. Jones (2010) provides an excellent discussion on utilizing the IV approach in his dialogue about homosexuality. Recall, IV is mindful of both science and God's word, with the latter being the starting point. Six passages in the Bible account for homosexualities' sinful nature: Genesis 19:1-29, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 (Moon, 2014). Upon a thorough understanding of Scripture, we discover homosexuality itself is not a moral issue; instead, it is the voluntary homosexual act (Jones, 2010). The inaccurate information is an excellent example of revisionism and distorting reality to fit society's 6 perspective. We next look at the science that both supports and contradicts Scripture to gain an understanding of why differences exist. In Jones's (2010) example, we see that the empirical research itself was faulty, resulting in a Type One error. Additionally, when the empirical study was reproduced, and new findings were released, society was not interested as it had already gotten the desired answer of biological/genetic disposition. Never the less, the moral issue of homosexuality remained just as it did before considering science in the equation. Moon (2014) refers to this perspective as "We Don't Talk About That," which also lies between a homonegative and homopositive societal perspective. Conclusion The primary reason why Myers (2010) and Jones (2010) arrived at different conclusions, even though both are Christians, is based on the psychological scienceChristian methodologies each employed to analyze the issue. Jones (2010) used an additional source of knowledge, Scripture, and asked questions and investigated more when differences existed between the status-quo and Christian reality. Society believes what it wants to believe, not necessarily what it should believe, even when science or God's word says otherwise. 7 References Carlström, C. (2020). "God's word does not change as trends do" – contemporary discourses on homosexuality in Swedish Christianity. Theology & Sexuality, 26(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/13558358.2020.1790988 Johnson, E. L. (2010). Psychology & Christianity: Five Views 2nd Ed. IVP Academic. Jones, S. L. (2010). An integration view. In Johnson, E. L. (Ed.), Psychology & Christianity: Five Views 2nd Ed. (pp. 101-128). IVP Academic. Moon, D. (2014). Beyond the Dichotomy: Six Religious Views of Homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(9), 1215–1241. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.926762 Myers, D. G. (2010). A level of explanation view. In Johnson, E. L. (Ed.), Psychology & Christianity: Five Views 2nd Ed. (pp. 49-78). IVP Academic. Rosentiel, T. (2007). Religion and Secularism: The American Experience. Pew Research Center Religion and Public Life.
