Reviewed by Rowland Croucher

This 71-page report was commissioned by the Uniting Church in Australia. It was received in November 1984; congregations and other councils of the church are invited to offer their comments. Dr. Dicker's committee will then submit a further report in 1986.

Two urgent questions prompted the study: (1) Should the church ordain anyone who is a self-declared homosexual? (2) Should practising homosexuals remain or become confirmed members of the Uniting Church?

The committee of twelve people (three women and nine men) examined the nature of homosexuality within the total framework of human sexuality, with particular reference to biblical, theological, pastoral, physiological, psychological and legal issues.

Homosexuality, the committee found, is a very sensitive issue for Christians. It also provokes extremes of viewpoint: "On the one hand, some statements made by spokespersons of homosexual groups are irresponsible and provocative and without factual basis. On the other hand, within the Church there are signs of homophobia - an irrational fear of homosexuality which is equally incapable of looking at the issues calmly and responsibly and which sometimes leads to an open hostility towards homosexuals and to any persons who give support to them." (p.14)

In essence, the committee found that

* The homosexual condition is not one that is chosen by the individual; its causes are unknown.

* In the majority of cases, no treatment is successful in effecting change in the homosexual condition.

* Not all homosexuals belong to the promiscuous, gay-bar crowd; and the incidence of homosexual seduction of children, for example, is proportionately no higher than heterosexual seduction.

* There is little evidence that homosexuality is increasing in our society, although homosexuals are certainly more visible.

Although there are three appendices on the biblical material the main body of the report may I think be summarized fairly in these terms:

(1) Because Christians hold different views of Scripture, they will, as a consequence, adopt different points of view on homosexuality. Those who take a hard line would argue that the Leviticus (18:22, 20:13) and Romans 1:26ff. texts are clear: God condemns homosexual acts. Those who take a softer view might argue that we are not necessarily always to be bound by the words of Scripture (e.g. Jesus, in Mark 10:1-12 does not permit divorce for any reason).

(2) Jesus, who was concerned for outcasts, the oppressed, and all who were victimized by society calls us to love our neighbours, whoever they may be. Unfortunately, some see the church as one of the most oppressive institutions in society with regard to homosexuals.

(3) The homosexual condition, which was not chosen, and cannot change, can't be something for which the homosexual is guilty.

(4) Regarding homosexual acts, some Christians would hold that they are always sinful. Others argue that both homosexual and heterosexual acts are moral when they take place within a permanent relationship of love and fidelity.

How did the committee conclude, with regard to the two key questions of ordination and church membership? They could not reach consensus on those specific issues. However, they were of the opinion that "the homosexual condition should not in and of itself be grounds for making a person ineligible for membership [nor should] a declared homosexual condition ... of itself be a bar to ordination." (p.24)

Overall, my impression is that the report is more sympathetic to what it calls the "softer line". Where other denominations' decisions are cited, the churches chosen are generally the more "liberal" ones. The bibliography also seems to be biassed towards a similar stance: where conservative authors are cited they are either "evangelicals" who have a more permissive approach (Scanzoni and Mollenkott), or who "eloquently state the position against acceptance of homosexuality" (Williams). Perhaps the addition of such popular evangelical books as John White's Eros Defiled or A Davidson's The Returns of Love might have redressed this imbalance.

One of the great sadnesses in such debates is the tendency to be polarized into either a sophisticated antinomianism or an unloving legalism. The first has an inadequate view of biblical authority, the second an inadequate practice of Christian love. The report is cognizant of these dangers, though its warnings about the second seem to me to be more strident that those about the first. In tackling any moral or social problem, Jesus has shown us that both Christian love and God's law must play a role. He did not condone the sin of the woman taken in adultery; but neither did he condone the judgmental unloving attitudes of her accusers. This report rightly affirms that homosexuality relates to persons not just theological abstractions. Indeed appendix 3 ("The command to be a neighbour") is a splendid piece of writing on this theme.

I remember reading the "Report on Homosexuality" produced by the Ethics and Social Questions Committee of the Church of England (Diocese of Sydney) produced in 1973. Whilst I would share, in general, the evangelical stance of its authors, I found almost no concern or compassion for homosexuals as persons there. However, one of the books recommended in the present report -Norman Pittenger's Time for Consent - goes to the other extreme. Pittinger is too much swayed by the intense personal anguish of the homosexuals he has met. Building on the thesis "malum in se" - nothing is evil in and of itself - he approves of homosexual acts between persons who are "committed to each other, loyal to each other." Pittenger is too cavalier in his treatment of biblical authority: in fact there is little attempt to exegete the relevant biblical passages at all. The possibility of chastity or continence (words which may have fewer connotations of asceticism than "celibacy") he ignores. "Those who urge that homosexuals should suppress their sexuality are asking that they should become incipient or actual neurotics" (p.113). That isn't necessarily so.

Another disappointment in this Report is its failure to elaborate on the positive alternatives to homosexual practice. The Pattisons' study of homosexual males who changed their sexual orientation in the context of a Pentecostal Church fellowship deserves more treatment than a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement of the small number involved, and that the "church life of the particular congregation sounds ideal." My question at that point was: Why can't we replicate that sort of warm, accepting fellowship in our churches? Research is unanimous that if homosexuals who are young and highly motivated to change find such a vibrant Christian group their chances of joining the "some of you were like that" people Paul describes (1 Cor. 6:11) are significantly higher. If some can change why not more? If some churches are like this, why not more? Let us be realistic, yes, but let us not run the risk of selling short the life-changing power of Jesus. The Report is notably muted on this point.

Of many other concerns, let us conclude with two. I'm not sure that we can leave the statement "Adolescents sometimes engage in homosexual acts as experimentation without this signifying that they are going to be homosexuals" (p.15) just there. In his sociological and psychological study made for the British Home Ministry, The Homosexual Society (1962), Dr. Richard Hauser warns that an adolescent can "cross the line" into an ongoing homosexual lifestyle through a phase of sexual ambivalence. Hauser points out that only 4% to 8% of active homosexuals are exclusively homosexual in their orientation; the far greater number are bisexual - that is, many have chosen homosexual behaviour. Dr. Evelyn Hooker, psychiatrist and noted researcher on homosexuality, concluded that for a young man wavering over a homosexual decision "one of the many determinants of a confirmed homosexual pattern may be his coming into active contact with the homosexual community in late adolescence when he is not firmly established in his sexual pattern" (P. & B. Wyden, Growing Up Straight, 1968, p.210). I was alarmed to read recently that in several Australian states children have access to books like Young Proud and Gay in their school libraries.

Finally, I would change one word in the assertion that "Many [homosexuals] have liaisons which are as stable as heterosexual relationships." I understand that there are not many homosexuals involved in lasting unions. Psychiatrist Robert Kronemeyer points out, "The brevity of gay alliances...is legendary. It is difficult, if not impossible, for either partner to fulfil all the neurotic needs, fantasies and expectations of the other" (Overcoming Homosexuality, Macmillan, 1980, pp 28-29). Although not all homosexuals are promiscuous, it may be true that homosexuality is inherently promiscuous. A 1978 study of the University of Indiana's Institute for Sex Research (the "Kinsey Institute") found that "the average gay male has had at least 500 different partners during his sexual career, most of whom are strangers and one-time contacts" (Kronemeyer p.32).