Challenging Assumptions Towards Homosexuality

Recommended APA 7th Edition Citation:

Grinev, L. (2023, June 14). Challenging assumptions towards homosexuality. In Articles. WellnessToday180. https://wellnesstoday180.net/blog#articles

Homosexuality (i.e., same-sex relationships) is a topic of contemporary controversy. Homosexuality will be reviewed under two scopes, the levels-of-explanation and integration views. The levels-of-explanation view will be introduced by Myers (2010) and the integration view will be presented by Jones (2010) to examine homosexuality. Further support to analyze differences in research approaches and teachings concerning homosexuality in the scope of either view will be derived from additional sources. Overall, this review aims to discover how different conclusions on the same topic can be drawn between the two views.            

Levels-of-Explanation View

Johnson (2010) prefaced the levels-of-explanation view as an approach that creates distinctions between psychology and theology. These distinctions, also known as levels, consist of boundaries that cannot be fused (Johnson, 2010). In other words, intersectionality does not exist between levels in the levels-of-explanation view (Johnson, 2010). Nevertheless, each level of investigation in the levels-of-explanation view contain respective scopes of study and methods to yield understandings of reality, whether biological, physical, social, or theological (Johnson, 2010).

Myers (2010) indicated sexual orientation as an example emersed across studies in the levels-of-explanation view. Challenging assumptions and expanding the understanding of sexual orientation, particularly homosexuality, has become prominent psychological topics (Myers, 2010). Findings exhibited by Myers inform that sexual orientation is not influenced by parental or psychological factors. Additionally, active faith does not affect sexual orientation (Myers, 2010). Yet, more importance of biological factors much like tolerance toward sexual orientation is being seen (Myers, 2010). Lastly, efforts to change a person’s sexual orientation have been deemed failures (Myers, 2010).

Few bible verses cover same-sex relationships, according to Myers (2010). Original controversy concerning homosexuality arguably stems from interpretations from the words of Leviticus 20:13, which can be seen in the King James Bible (1769/2008), that incites death for men laying with another man. However, Leviticus is Old Testament, and the word of Jesus condemning homosexuality in the New Testament, among other verses, cannot be identified, according to Myers. As Myers found, most biblical oppositions to same-sex relationships are in the context to adultery, child exploitation or violence, idolatry, or temple prostitution. Regardless, biblical scopes within the levels-of-explanation view are generally seen to be against same-sex relationships (Myers, 2010).

Secular approaches in the levels-of-explanation view were seen in Myers (2010) of having promoted acceptance and understanding of homosexuals. Biblical approaches in the level-of-explanation view are staging natural revelations of grace and love to encourage acceptance and understanding of homosexuals (Myers, 2010). As preached in 1 Peter 3:8, Hebrews 10:24-25, and Romans 15:7 in the New Testament (King James Bible, 1769/2008), biblical philosophers, like followers, should learn to accept one another. Further acceptance and understanding of same-sex relationships can be expected to be seen following open, honest dialogue through either scope of the levels-of-explanation view (Myers, 2010).

Integration View

Unlike the levels-of-explanation view, the integration view is interdisciplinary (Johnson, 2010). Hence, intersectionality between psychology and theology views exists within the integration view. As a result, biblical-based psychology and Christian worldviews within science have yielded from an integration view (Johnson, 2010). Likewise, integrative approaches can be utilized to combine practice with values, such as providing support that allows Christian psychologists to draw resource from biblical teachings within professional endeavors in client treatment or to glorify God in findings (Jones, 2010).

When approaching homosexuality in an integration view emphasized by a biblical foundation, Jones (2010) contended that Genesis 2:15-24, as seen in the King James Bible (1769/2008), justifies sexual relationships solely between a man and a woman to make one flesh following union (i.e., marriage). Wolters (2005) elaborated that sin, such as promiscuity beyond heterosexuality (i.e., different-sex relationships), arose when God’s standards or rules for living were violated after Adam and Eve rebelled. In other words, an increase of homosexual occurrences is argued to be a result of The Fall of mankind in a biblical view. Through Paul in 1 Corinthians 6, sexual immorality, like homosexuality, is condemned. Thus, Christian philosophers seek to reinforce convictions after investigating homosexual conduct (Jones, 2010).

Contrarily, an integration view emphasized by a secular foundation has enriched understanding concerning homosexuality without contesting or supporting moral constructs (Jones, 2010). Secular findings have indicated that homosexuality is genetic (Jones, 2010). If genetic, engaging in homosexuality is not necessarily voluntary, and Jones (2010) noted that if it is not voluntary, it cannot be a sin. Still, Christians are set to believe that Christian morality is based on responses to God’s moral law, and moral law dictates not to subject the self to sin (Jones, 2010). Therefore, acts opposite to God’s Creation and commandments incurs sin. Indeed, John 14:15 from the King James Bible (1769/2008) states that those who love God will keep His commandments.

Even in an integration view, tensions exist between biblical and secular foundations (Jones, 2010). Regardless, both foundations have found that it is rather impossible to change sexual orientation (Jones, 2010). Furthermore, misinterpretations of results are noted from each foundation (Jones, 2010). Nevertheless, Jones (2010) suggested that biblical foundations can yield understandings of sexuality as much as secular foundations.

Comparison

Approaches inform conclusions. Through an analysis between the levels-of-explanation and integration views, tensions concerning homosexuality exist between biblical and secular approaches. On the one hand, homosexuality is viewed as rather condemned construct in biblical approaches. On the other hand, secular approaches accept the biological constructs to support homosexuality as a natural human condition (Jones, 2010; Myers, 2010).

The difference between conclusions can also be informed by sources. The Bible specifically and significantly is the foundation to all Christian philosophers. A selection of one or more theories is often the foundation for secular investigations. Conclusions to support biblical frameworks will be made in alignment with the word of God, as seen in the levels-of-explanation view (Myers, 2010). For secular approaches, like those seen in the field of biology or psychology, as a separate level within the levels-of-explanation view, results will be presented with highest empirical standards (Jones, 2010).

Altogether, Christian philosophers will advocate for natural moral laws (Isherwood, 2016). Hence, the purpose of sex as a means of reproduction between a man and woman will be promoted by biblical scholars (Isherwood, 2016). In other words, homosexuality challenges natural moral laws inherited by Christians (Isherwood, 2016). Yet, liberating ideology, much accredited to secular theologians, are presenting new interpretations from Christian literature (Isherwood, 2016). Some Christian philosophers, as noted in Jones (2010) and Myers (2010), are shifting arguments that the acts of homosexuality are condemned, not homosexuality itself as a result. Therefore, future conclusions from either biblical or secular foundations may resonate more acceptance, tolerance, and understanding toward homosexuality.

Conclusion

Melchart (2020) informed that biology affects psychology and culture just as much as culture affects psychology and biology. Beliefs and religion are embedded in culture (Melchert, 2020). Yet, until the 20th century, biblical and secular approaches were isolated (Isherwood, 2016), which can be seen true in the levels-of-explanation view from Myers (2010). More collaborative approaches have risen to combine biblical and secular approaches, hence the integration approach from Jones (2010).

Proverbs 6:6 and 30:24-48 from the King James Bible (1769/2008) signaled that biblical approaches like teachings should consider extrabiblical sources of wisdom. Additionally, 1 Corinthians 1:14 and 10:13 pointed that biblical approaches and teachings should include investigations of deeper continuities and commonalities. The American Psychiatric Association (n.d.) has encouraged cultural competency in psychological-based practices to expand collaborative care models. Altogether, the foundations of biblical and secular approaches, or at least occupational expectations in secular fields of work, call for interdisciplinary considerations.

Jeremiah 1:15 from the King James Bible (1769/2008) informed that God knew of all before He placed us in a womb. Natural order is of importance to biblical scholars in glorifying approaches and conclusions in the name of God. Findings from Jones (2010) and Myers (2010) indicated that homosexuality may stem from biology. All that is created is a product of God (King James Bible, 1769/2008, Ephesians 2:10). Arguably, homosexuality may be well within natural order, and a shift towards the acceptance, tolerance, and understanding of homosexuality in respective investigative scopes is being seen more contemporarily (Isherwood, 2016; Myers, 2010). In turn, conclusions, although now differing, even toward homosexuality, may come to light more similar with collaborative or intersectional approaches.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (n.d.). Learn about the collaborative care model. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/professional-interests/integrated-care/learn 

Isherwood, L. (2016). Christianity and homosexuality. Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss228 

Johnson, E. L. (Ed.). (2010). A brief history of Christians in psychology. In Psychology and Christianity: Five views (2nd ed., pp. 10-56). InterVarsity Press.

Jones, S. L. (2010). An integration view. In E. L. Johnson (Ed.), Psychology and Christianity: Five Views (2nd ed., pp. 57-112). InterVarsity Press.

King James Bible. (2008). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1769)

Melchert, T. P. (2020). The foundation framework for understanding human psychology and behavioral health care. In Foundations of Health Service Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 3-19). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816426-6.00001-3 

Myers, D. G. (Ed.). (2010). A levels-of-explanation view. In E. L. Johnson (Ed.), Psychology and Christianity: Five Views (2nd ed., pp. 113-164). InterVarsity Press.

Wolters, A. M. (2005). Creation regained (2nd ed.). William B. Eerdmans Publishing.