With the ELCA assembly’s approval of the Sexuality Statement and the associated resolutions, it is high time that all sides go to the meat of the matter, to try to understand precisely what homosexuality is. Recent neurobiological breakthroughs on this subject and the consequences of findings of the Human Genome Project for the ELCA’s decisions simply did not receive the attention they deserved, just as the media in general has not promoted this data in our broader public discussions. Why not? Let’s see.

But first, we should consider: why does this data matter at all in assessing the denomination’s actions and in its next steps? Confessional Lutherans are committed to taking into account the best-available insights of reason and science in their public policy deliberations and actions. Our two-kingdom ethic mandates that we are subject to reason concerning matters of the kingdom on the left, such as in determining the natural law, which includes issues of marriage and sexuality:

For marriage is a rather secular and outward thing, having to do with …. matters that belong to the realm of government, all of which are subjected to reason (Gen. 1:28).¹

In a sermon on Isaiah Luther made a similar point:

In earthly, human affairs man’s judgment suffices. For these things, he needs no light but that of reason. Hence God does not in the Scriptures teach us how to build houses, to make clothing, to marry… and so on. For these, our natural light is sufficient.²

Let’s examine what the natural light of reason, limited and susceptible though it be to amendment by new data, reveals regarding homosexuality, the degree to which it is natural, and in what ways it might or might not reflect the will of God.

Lessons of Contemporary Neurobiology

Too often when discussions of Science enter into theological conversations about homosexuality, sole reference is made to a 1972 action of the Board of Trustees of the American Psychological Association to remove homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual, entailing that it was no longer considered a mental illness. True enough, that is the reality in the guild of Psychology. It is the viewpoint of the media and of most Americans (including delegates to the recently completed ELCA Assembly): homosexuality is regarded as natural, an inevitable consequence of genetic inheritance. This impression regarding popular opinion in America was confirmed by a 2007 CNN poll.³ But that is old science. The latest findings to achieve general scientific consensus in the field of neurobiology and the research associated with the Human Genome Project indicate that the reality of homosexual inclination is more complex than the older APA consensus.

This is the problem. The public and the ELCA membership in particular do not know this new data. And in the debate held prior to and during the assembly, the ELCA national offices did not seem to want the constituency to be informed regarding what I now share.⁴

According to the most recent research, the inclination to homosexuality is likely natural. There are lots of supporting data. Researchers have indicated that homosexuals have different mind structures from heterosexuals. They have different hypothalamic structures (the parts of the brain located just above the brain stem that regulate body functions like temperature, smell, and perhaps sexual behavior). It seems that a tiny clump of neurons of the anterior hypothalamus are in the case of heterosexuals usually more than twice the size of this clump in the case of homosexual men. It is also the case that this region of the brain is activated in homosexual men by the smell of male sweat, rather than by female urine which stimulates straight men’s reactions. There are also homosexual-heterosexual differences in the size of the brain’s anterior commissure (a band of fibers in the front of the brain which join its symmetrical parts in that region).⁵ In one study conducted in the early 1990s (though not repeated in some subsequent tests), a gene associated with the X28 marker on the X chromosome was found to differ in gay men in comparison to a sample of straight men. These findings prompted a discussion of whether there might be “gay gene.”⁶ In any case, there is evidence of some biological differences between gay and straight men.

Homosexuality also seems to be shaped by birth order. A man is more likely to be gay if he is a later-born son. Various earlier studies prior to the most recent findings of University of Toronto researcher Ray Blanchard and colleagues have made this finding. Blanchard and his colleagues have now concluded, based on 145 samples from many geographic regions, that birth order may be the single most reliable biodemographic difference between homosexual and heterosexual men. It seems that each older brother a man has increases the odds of his homosexuality by 33%. It is being hypothesized that the fraternal birth order effect leads some mothers to a progressive immunity to Y-linked, male-related histocompatibility antigens (H-Y antigens). These antibodies, it is contended, pass through the placenta to the fetus and affect aspects of sexual differentiation in the fetal brain. Without exposure to these male hormones, masculinization of the brain does not transpire.⁷

Other Natural Behaviors

In view of the data just considered it is logical to ask whether they settle the case regarding homosexuality in favor of the more liberal position taken by the recent ELCA assembly. Homosexuality seems biologically influenced, part of God’s good creation! That is one way of reading the data. But other scientific findings warrant consideration before a conclusion is reached.

Is everything “natural” logically equal to “God’s good creation” or “the will of God”? Research indicates that sexual promiscuity is also natural. Nearly 1000 of the 1154 past or present human societies ever studied have permitted a man to have more than one wife. Raging libido in men, it could be concluded, may be related to the natural reality that healthy males have a nearly infinite potential rate of reproduction. The biological data could also suggest that females naturally tend to be promiscuous when seeking a potential father with good genes who will invest in their offspring, as research indicates that most women who cheat on their mates do so when ovulating.⁸

Likewise, it appears that some of us are born with more of a natural inclination to violence than others. It seems that individuals with a particular version of the MAOA gene called 2R have a much higher likelihood of being prone to criminal behavior. Variations in a dopamine transporter (DAT1) gene and a dopamine receptor (DERD2) gene also contribute to bad behavior.⁹ Are these inclinations part of God’s good creation, the will of God? Even things that appear to be natural, the result of genetic inclinations, can be and are judged by Christian and other moral persons of good will as evil—ingredients of a sin-scarred world. Is it too late for a dialogue on these issues in the ELCA and among the public at large?

Insights from the Human Genome Project

Homosexuality is yet more complex. The world-renowned tracing of genes known as the Human Genome Project, just completed during this decade, has shed light on the age-old problem of whether biology or environment determines who we are. The answer is both. We are not genetically determined. There are not enough genes and possible genetic combinations to account for the individuality of all the homo sapiens who have ever lived.¹⁰ What does this entail for assessing homosexuality?

Francis Collins, the Head of the Human Genome Project, notes the evidence from twin studies supporting the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. While only 2% to 4% of the general male population is gay, there is a 20% likelihood that a homosexual fraternal twin and a 50% likelihood that a homosexual identical twin male will have a twin who is also gay.¹¹ But not every identical twin of a gay man is himself an active homosexual. Just as many later-born males are happy and secure heterosexuals.

Environment plays a role in the determining sexual preference. This has all sorts of implications for admitting practicing gays to the ministry and the implications that might have for nurturing our youth. Don’t we still need a dialogue about this range of issues?

What Does This Mean?

What does all this entail regarding the next steps American Lutheranism takes? I don’t want to prejudice this data by sharing my judgments. I would prefer you and the rest of the Church try to figure out its implications for actions on the ELCA assembly’s decisions. On one hand, it could be argued that even if homosexuality is influenced by one’s environment, it is still not a choice, and so is natural and good. But could it not also be argued that legitimizing homosexuality, that making it a valid practice in the church, will threaten heterosexuality, effectively encouraging those with genetic homosexual dispositions to adopt the gay lifestyle, when in a community where heterosexuality is the norm they might have gone the other way? On these grounds, our debate would not just be about the rights of the individual (our so-called “bound consciences”), but a struggle over what is good for the community.¹²

Alas, contrary to Bishop Mark Hanson’s September Open Letter in which he seems to encourage conversations on the issues raised by ELCA assembly decisions, the Higgins Road hierarchy never did and still does not seem to want a churchwide debate on the matter. I was informed by The Lutheran editorial staff member Kathleen Kastilahn, speaking on behalf of the magazine’s editor Daniel Lehman after the assembly’s actions, that the relevant scientific data would not be considered in future issues even while admitting that this data had not previously been considered by either side in the debate. Besides, she added, we need to move ahead with ministry concerns; we are not interested in “re-arguing the matter.”¹³ Note the admission here that the scientific data had not and would not be considered. Why not?

An email I received from Roger Willer, Director of Studies for the ELCA, said: "The task force [formulating the Social Statement on Human Sexuality] did have presentations by scientists as part of their ‘research phase,’ and were aware of the data but I think the basic message from scientists is that the jury is still out on the relation of the scientific data and the social phenomena of homosexuality." The chair of the Taske Force, Bp. Peter Strommen, largely echoed these sentiments, even conceding that the scientific data indicates that homosexuality is not genetically determined, that in this case there is a "complex interaction between biology and environment" (as the data I have presented indicate).¹⁴

Get that? Both staff and the Human Sexuality Task Force, it seems to me, concede that no clear scientific grounds exist for changing policies regarding practicing gays. When I asked why neither the ELCA staff nor the Task Force shared the scientifically ambiguous status of the scientific data regarding homosexuality with the assembly or with the church at large I was informed, contrary to the previously cited poll data regarding public perceptions, that no one voiced the belief to the Task Force that homosexual practice is genetically determined, and besides the data challenging this conclusion was already public.¹⁵ It boggles my mind that the Task Force members and staff did not know how many gay ordination proponents in the ELCA operate with the assumption that homosexuality is genetically determined. At the very least, they should have attended to previously-cited survey results regarding the attitudes of the American public at large. What cannot be substantiated is the Task Force chair’s claim that the relevant scientific issues I have raised in this article were already considered in a 2003-2004 Study Guide released by the Task Force. That is simply not possible, since the relevant findings of the Human Genome Project and its implications for homosexuality were not released until October 2004.¹⁶

But if for purposes of argument we grant this account of why no churchwide consideration of the relevant scientific data has been provided, there are significant flaws in the Task Force reasoning (as well as the staff and the ELCA Church Council to the degree they supported the Task Force’s processes). The Task Force chair indicates that the “focus of the social statement is theological and biblical.”¹⁷ But to proceed on that basis, expressly not considering the relevant science in this case, seems to be a denial of the two-kingdom ethic for, as we have seen above, Luther would direct us to engage the best-available knowledge on issues of human reason. And if we concede at least by logical implication as the Task Force and the Director of Studies have that there is no clear scientific grounds for changing policies, the only rationale left for the Task Force, staff, and Church Council was to appeal to individual rights (“bound consciences”), certain historical-critical readings of the Bible, or versions of Lutheran theology which as we have seen discount a role for reason and the two-kingdom ethic in public policy decisions! The ELCA assembly has either acted on the basis of bad theology or acted while evading consideration of all the relevant scientific information due to some questionable judgments about what our constituency understands about this data.

There are other Higgins Road evasions of which ELCA members ought to be aware. I sought out pastoral advice from denominational staff after the assembly actions on my constitutional obligations as an ELCA pastor in view of these actions, as well as on the new standards for ordained ministries and policies regarding gay/lesbian marriage. For ordained ministers in the ELCA shall “accept and adhere to the Confession of Faith of this church… [and] shall comply with the constitution.”¹⁸ The initial reaction to the inquiries I made to the denomination’s Office of the Secretary, Communication Services Unit, and Church in Society Unit was either (1) we do not know the precise status of the assembly’s actions; (2) a distinction is to be made between the constitution and revised ministry policies; or (3) the assembly’s actions on ministry policies do not require changes to the ELCA constitution. Typical corporate-response rhetoric, pleading ignorance. Overall, the dominant response was that “we don’t know the status of what has been and will be done.”¹⁹

But when I asked the follow-up question of whether changes to the policies regarding the ordained ministry did not also change the meaning of the constitutional clauses pertaining to standards for ordained ministry, or of the clauses pertaining to confessional subscription (since the new ELCA policies will challenge the historic interpretation of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions), I either received no response at all, an opinion that there are no constitutional stipulations regarding how the Confessions are interpreted (anything goes, it seems, as long as I agree to subscribe to them), or a curt, “I have answered your question, and quite clearly, I think.” At least two staff members honestly admitted that we don’t have an answer to the precise status of what the assembly has done and what the follow-up actions will do.²⁰

This is how ELCA staff responds to the media and its pastors! Smell a rat, particularly in the ruling that a 2/3 majority was not required in the assembly’s policy votes? If the status and legal consequences of the assembly’s actions were that clear constitutionally, why is staff not prepared to provide simple, well-documented, courteous answers to those like myself sincerely seeking counseling and clarification? And if we really do not know the status of the actions taken and those to come, how could we be so sure that the constitution was not effectively changed by the assembly (in which case the 2/3 majority would have been required)?

Putting aside the brusque unhelpfulness of several of the ELCA staff in my efforts to gain clarity, and even the possible constitutional irregularities of the new policies regarding homosexuality, I’m more concerned about why the staff as a whole has not and still will not expose all segments of the church to the scientific data presented in this article. Grappling with this data offers a lot more promise for a civil discussion of what comes next regarding homosexual leadership and gay unions in American Lutheranism. Consider again the initial quotations. Seriously engaging all the available scientific data, subject to revision though its findings be, seems to be Luther’s advice to us.

Mark Ellingsen is Full Professor of Church History at the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta, Georgia and the author of 15 books, most recently Sin Bravely: A Joyful Alternative To a Purpose-Driven Life.

Notes
1. Martin Luther, Wochenpredigten ueber Matt.5-7 (1532), WA 32:376,38/LW 21:93: “Weil der Ehestand gar ein weltlich eusserlich ding ist wie weib, find, haus und hoff und anders, so zur oeberkeit regiment gehoeret, also das gar der vernunfft unterworffen ist Gen. 1.” Cf. Martin Luther, Der 111. Psalem ausgelegt (1530), WA 31I:409f.,34ff./LW 13:369.
2. Martin Luther, Kirchenpostille (1522), WA10I/1:531,6/Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, 3.2, ed. John N. Lenker (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 319: “Inn zeyttlichen dingen und die den menschen angehen, da ist der mensch vornunfftig gnug, da darff er keynisz andern leichts denn der vornunfft.” For those inclined to argue that the issues before the assembly pertained to polity and matters of the kingdom on the right, it is interesting to note that the Confessions themselves (esp. Apology of The Augsburg Confession [1531], XXIII) considered reason and the natural order as relevant for determining a position on polity questions like the marriage of priests.
3. CNN/USA/Gallup Poll, reported in “Gay men, former lesbian on whether they can change,” June 30, 2007.
4. Correspondence with The Lutheran editor Daniel Lehmann about this data prior to 2008 indicated that the magazine would not consider this data until after the “Draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality” was made public early in 2008. But reminders to the editorial staff about this data after that date went unheeded. Likewise, the ELCA’s Director of Studies and headquarter’s staff member in charge of handling the Assembly’s debate on the sexuality questions was made aware of this data, even responded to it, but elected not to expose delegates to it. As an explanation for the neglect of this data (Dialog editor Kristen Largen also would not touch it, even though in all cases I invited the persons contacted merely to publish the data as press releases, leaving me and my analysis out of the picture), see Note 14.
5. Simon LeVay, “A Difference in Hypothalmic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men,” Science 253 (Aug. 30, 1991): 1034-1037; Ivanka Savic, Hans Berglund, and Per Lindstrom, “Brain Response to Putative Phenomones in Homosexual Men,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102 (May 17, 2005): 7356-7361; Laura S. Allen and Roger A. Gorski, “Sexual Orientation and the Size of the Anterior Commissure in the Human Brain,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 89 (Aug. 1, 1992): 7199-7202.
6. Dean Hamer, “Male Sexual Orientation and Genetic Evidence,” Science 262 (1993): 2063-2065.
7. Ray Blanchard, Kenneth Zucker, Peggy T. Cohen-Kettenis, Louis J. G. Gooren, J. Michael Bailey, “Birth Order and Sibling Sex Ratio in Two Samples of Dutch Gender-Dysphoric Homosexual Males,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 25 (1996).
8. Robert Wright, “Infidelity – It may be in our genes: Our Cheating Hearts,” Time, Aug. 15, 1994.
9. Guang Guo, as reported in “Study Discovers Genetic Link to Delinquency," Taiwan News, July 16, 2008.
10. “International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium Describes Finished Human Genome Sequence Researchers Trim Count of Human Genes 20,000 – 25,000,” Oct. 20, 2004.
11. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God (New York: Free Press, 2006), 260; Richard Pillard and J. Michael Bailey, “A Biologic Perspective on Sexual Orientation,” Psychiatric Clinics of North America (March 18, 1995): 71-84. It should be noted that in this case, as well as in most other research, the data pertains only to homosexual men, not women.
12. The idea of “bound conscience” was of course one of the buzz-phrases used by the ELCA Church Council in its recommendations to the assembly and was in fact one of the resolutions passed by the assembly—calling us all to respect each one’s conscience.
13. Kathleen Kastilahn, telephone message, September 2009; Mark Hanson, “A Message to ELCA Rostered Leaders,” Sept. 23, 2009.
14. Roger Willer, email to Mark Ellingsen, June 18, 2009; Peter Strommen, email to Mark Ellingsen, October 2, 2009.
15. Peter Strommen, email to Mark Ellingsen, October 6, 2009; Ibid., October 7, 2009.
16. Ibid., October 6, 2009; see note 10 above.
17. Strommen, October 6, 2009.
18. Constitution, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 7.22; see also 7.30ff.  
19. Ruth Hamilton, email to Mark Ellingsen, August 25, 2009; John Brooks, email to Mark Ellingsen, August 31, 2009; Katie English, email to Mark Ellingsen, September 14, 2009. Of those staff who responded to my inquiries, only English offered friendly and caring follow-up responses. But the ELCA Department of Studies terminated this dialogue on September 21, 2009, claiming that staff would not be able to satisfy me and, besides, staff had no time [to offer such pastoral care].  (Departmental action confirmed by Roger Willer, email to Mark Ellingsen, September 28, 2009.)  
20. Constitution and Bylaws, 7.22; 7.30ff.; English; Brooks; David Ullrich, telephone conversation, September 22, 2009; Marcus Kunz, telephone conversation, September 23, 209.