Dr. Patrick Chapman on 'Thou Shalt Not Love'

Dr. Patrick Chapman is the author of Thou Shalt Not Love, a book examining, as the subtitle says, "What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays."

That topic is ripe for exploration. What does it mean for religious people to say that they "love the sinner but hate the sin?" Why is it necessarily the case that religiously devout heterosexuals see gay and lesbian relationships--even committed life partnerships and families--as "sinful?" What about gay people who are also pious and passionately devoted to their faiths? Are religious heterosexuals truly concerned for the souls and the salvation of gays and lesbians--or is their rhetoric merely a thin cloak for faith-based prejudice?

Chapman's book addresses such topics, offering a clear and insightful view into a highly charged, often muddy, and frequently fractious area of social concern.

Dr. Chapman recently chatted with EDGE about his book, and about the possibility that one day faith will come to embrace the full spectrum of human sexuality.

EDGE: Gays and lesbians hear a few different things from the religious community: we hear that we have "chosen" to love others of the same gender; we hear that we are "afflicted" with homosexuality but we can be "cured" through counseling and prayer; and we hear that God did indeed create us as gay, but that we are nonetheless "called" to lead celibate and solitary lives. Which of these messages is most typical of the Evangelical movement?

Dr. Patrick Chapman: Evangelicals are shifting how they view homosexuality.

Traditionally, evangelicals believe homosexuality results largely from a poor relationship during the formative years with one's same-sex parent. Because [evangelicals believe that] homosexuality results from social and psychological factors, [they subscribe to the idea that] counseling can repair the relational "damage" that supposedly caused someone to be attracted to the same sex.

It is important to remember that many evangelicals define homosexuality by a person's behavior, not [his or her] orientation. Thus, because all people are supposedly born heterosexual, and because homosexuality is defined by behavior, a celibate person is not homosexual.

From this perspective, a person who engaged in homosexual behavior but is now celibate is "ex-gay": they are no longer gay because they are not engaging in the behavior.

However, partly resulting from the scientific evidence, some evangelical leaders are starting to acknowledge that homosexuality may be inborn. Specifically, in March 2007 Albert Mohler, the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, stated the scientific research indicates some level of biological causation for sexual orientation; he added if a prenatal "cure" is found, then it should be used.

Nonetheless, I believe this was an important milestone in the fight for equality. Evangelicals believe that Psalm 139:13-14 implies God "knits every person together in the womb." Mohler suggested a homosexual orientation develops pre-natally, from an evangelical perspective he was stating that God makes people homosexual.

Thus, Mohler's admission challenges the very foundation of evangelical opposition to homosexuality: how can a Christian condemn something God intentionally created in a person?

While Albert Mohler did not make the connection between his statement and Psalm 139, the resulting uproar within the evangelical community indicates to me that others did. As evangelicals increasingly accept the scientific evidence that sexual orientation is inborn, they will have greater difficulty in justifying their opposition to homosexuality.

EDGE: Your book suggests that gays and lesbians need to dialogue with Evangelicals--who believe in the literal truth of the Bible--from their own side of the debate, starting our arguments from the very Biblical passages that Evangelicals cite when they condemn us. But how will that help us?

Dr. Patrick Chapman: I divide American society into three groups. There are those who are pro-gay (typically supporting same-sex marriage); there are those who are anti-gay (typically opposing any legal recognition of our relationships); and there are those in the middle (typically opposing marriage but supporting some other legal recognition).

These three groups are roughly equal in numbers. A majority of Americans, including a substantial portion of those in the middle who are closely watching the debate between the pro-gay and anti-gay sides, believe in the Christian God and consider the Bible to have some degree of authority. As such, we cannot ignore the Bible.

I encourage the GLBTQ community to learn about the Bible, but not in the superficial manner that is common in many evangelical churches. From experience, I know the typical evangelical is largely ignorant of the historical and cultural contexts of the Bible, of the findings of biblical scholars, and even of the biblical passages they use to condemn us. For examples:

I have yet to meet an evangelical who is aware there are two separate flood stories embedded within Genesis 6-9, which is presented as if it is one story;

I have yet to meet an evangelical who is aware that no Bible published before 1952 translates 1 Corinthians 6:9 as explicitly condemning homosexuals (and it is very difficult to find a translation explicitly condemning "sodomites," which was the term most often used prior to "homosexual" becoming common);

I have yet to meet an evangelical who knows the explicit reason Lot gave to condemn the men of Sodom when they attempted to gang-rape his angelic visitors;

and I have yet to meet an evangelical who knows what Ezekiel 16:48-50 says the sins of Sodom were.

Thus, if the GLBTQ community were to learn about the Bible and what it actually says, they could easily and successfully challenge a foundational source of opposition to our equality.

This is why I focus two chapters of Thou Shalt Not Love on examining the Bible. I believe by highlighting what scholars say about the Bible, and by demonstrating the opposition cannot defend its supposedly biblical arguments, a substantial portion of people in the middle can be won over, which would be enough to gain our equality under the law.

Furthermore, given Jesus' concern for societal outcasts and the Bible's constant admonition to help outcasts, we can also present a case, as some liberal evangelical leaders do, that Christians are biblically mandated to fight for our equality: the Bible consistently admonishes those who do not help societal outcasts.

I do not support simply dialoguing with evangelicals: I encourage the GLBTQ community and its allies to understand evangelicals, to become familiar with the Bible and biblical scholarship, and then to publicly engage conservative evangelicals on this issue. Simply dialoguing with them without understanding their views and without understanding the Bible will not help us.

Any GLBTQ person or ally, after learning (not just reading) what I have written about the Bible in Thou Shalt Not Love, will be able to successfully defend themselves when confronted with the typical conservative evangelical attacks against homosexuals, and do so in a manner that influences those in the middle.

EDGE: Given that Evangelicals believe in the literal word of the Bible, is there any reason to believe that the findings of science with regard to gays and lesbians will one day allow for a rapprochement with Evangelicals?

Dr. Patrick Chapman: In the Middle Ages, left-handedness was considered inherently immoral: the Latin word for "sinister" can also mean the left side. Left-handed people were even burned at the stake because of their orientation. Today, Christians see no connection between a person's handedness and his or her morality.

It will take time but I believe a similar rapprochement can occur with homosexuality. I believe this because the Bible is silent on general homosexuality, and because science demonstrates that sexual orientation is, at least, largely inborn.

Given the evangelical view that "God knits a person together in his or her mother's womb" (Psalm 139:13-14), I believe evangelicals will eventually recognize that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is inherently amoral rather than immoral.

EDGE: One speculation for the fervor with which Evangelicals have opposed marriage equality for gay and lesbian families is that they are looking to increase the pool of voters who will oppose other social rights, such as the right of a woman to choose to carry a pregnancy to term. Do you agree that abortion plays a role in the current faith-based opposition to same-sex marriage equality?

Dr. Patrick Chapman: While I do believe there is a correlation between those who oppose abortion and those who oppose homosexuality, I do not think the same-sex marriage issue is used as a tool to increase the number of voters opposed to abortion.

I do believe, however, the same-sex marriage issue has been used to motivate voters to participate in recent elections. Importantly, I believe the same-sex marriage issue is intimately tied to another social debate: creation versus evolution.

The debate on evolution is foundational to the debate on homosexuality and marriage equality. If evangelicals accept evolution as true, then the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" argument against same-sex marriage loses its foundation. Acknowledging that humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor requires evangelicals to focus on the spirit of the Bible's message(s), rather than interpreting its specific culture-bound details and examples as "law" for all people.

To acknowledge that Adam and Eve never literally existed is to acknowledge their supposedly prescriptive marriage is, instead, simply descriptive of marriage in ancient Israel; a description incorporating an explanation for why people marry, not who they must marry.

I believe the GLBTQ community needs to understand the creation-evolution debate is foundational to the debate on homosexuality.

Dr. Chapman's book Thou Shalt Not Love: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays, published by Haiduk Press, goes on sale Oct. 1. The book is available for pre-order from Barnes and Noble.com.