FAMILY RESEARCH REPORT	Journal of the Family Research Institute Founded 1982
Skepticism Confirmed!!			Vol. 14 No. 7 Nov 1999

Fallwell Creates "Big Tent"

Our last issue [Family Research Report, October, 1999], discussed the planned meeting between Rev. Jerry Falwell, representing Christianity, and Rev. Mel White, representing the gay "Christian" movement.

FRI predicted that little good could come out of such a meeting between a well-known representative of the Christian clergy and an equally well-known "Christian" gay rights leader, except confusion among Christians and a perception that the dispute between Christianity and homosexuality is ultimately about modest differences.

We were also concerned that by setting up a "dialogue" with gay leaders, Falwell would be giving a signal that he might be changing his mind about the Christian stance toward homosexuality a "mind change" that has occurred or is occurring, among others, in the Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopal, and Church of Christ denominations.

While one might profitably debate gay leaders, you cannot dialogue with them without ceding the homosexual movement considerable legitimacy and making your own supporters uncertain about fundamental Christian values.

Now the deed is done. The meeting transpired on October 23 at Falwell's Lynchburg Christian Academy. The Washington Post reported that "pictures of those killed for their beliefs or lifestyle graced the low platform from which White and Falwell spoke." Falwell was apparently going to serve hors d'oeuvres and snacks at the meeting but some "on the religious right were insisting the New Testament forbids eating with sinners" (Washington Blade, 10/29, p. 26).

The scripture to which "some" were referring is I Corinthians 5:9-11 -- and it is only tangentially about eating: specifically, "you are not to associate with those who live in sexual sin. I did not mean that you should altogether keep away from people who live in sexual sin in this world or from those who are greedy, who rob, or who worship idols; then you would have to get out of this world.... Stop associating with anyone who calls himself a Christian and yet lives in sexual sin or is greedy, worships idols, slanders, gets drunk, or robs. Do not even eat with such a person" (New Evangelical Translation).

The King James translation puts it "not to company with fornicators" and "not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator... with such a one no not to eat." The New English translation renders the scripture "you must have nothing to do with any so-called Christian who leads a loose life.... You should not even eat with such a person" while Beck translates the passage as "Don't mix with anyone who calls himself a Christian but lives in sexual sin.... Don't even eat with such a person."

So much for the plain sense of scripture. "'Falwell decided, and Mel [White] supported the decision, that the greater good of this meeting was far too important to be sidetracked over a debate about... whether to serve [the food] or not, [Falwell spokesman Marc] DeMoss told the Blade." So bottled water was placed at each table, which was occupied by four members of the gay and four members of the Falwell delegation.

It thus appears Falwell believes Christians can associate with, keep company with, and mix with "Christian" sexual rebels, and give them standing, platform time, applause in church, water, and the opportunity to "meet and meet again," yet still live up to I Corinthians 5:9-11 as long as Christians don't eat with them. Talk about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel!

Just what was the "greater good of this meeting?" Through spokesman DeMoss, Falwell said "Four hundred people who disagree met for 90 minutes without any shouting. The building didn't collapse. They discovered it was OK and even legal to meet and meet again" (Washington Post 19/24). Surely no one thought the building would collapse!

The ideal of American tolerance maintains that opinions even religious opinions are in the long run just minor things that should not get in the way of "getting along." In the 'bad old days,' Christians would have shunned those who called themselves "Christian" homosexuals or "Christian" prostitutes. Today, camaraderie in spite of fundamental differences is an all important goal. The Washington Post construed the purpose of the meeting as "aimed at demonstrating the Christian love and tolerance both men say America badly needs." Nowadays, "shunning" or "avoiding" those who call themselves Christian, yet who violate fundamental Christian teachings, is considered unAmerican.

There were protesters at the meeting, including ministers who protested that Falwell was granting recognition to homosexuality and the gay leadership, thus defying Paul's admonitions against association with heretics. The other side of the coin was also represented by Bob Kunst. Kunst (a gay activist who has protested and debated FRI's chairman at various venues, including radio programs in Florida when Cameron spoke against homosexuality) declared that "I wish to treat [Falwell] as the pariah he is, and not offer him any respect, which your meeting will attempt to do. Legitimizing Falwell is to slam at every Gay and Lesbian who's had to endure his bigotry and is too high a price to pay."

Despite Kunst's protest, there were plenty of homosexuals in Mel White's "Soulforce" delegation who were all too happy to meet with Falwell. Consider some of the concessions offered by this major Christian leader, as quoted by the Washington Blade, a gay journal, in an article it titled "God loves you: Falwell vows to 'keep big
mouth shut.'"

Falwell stated that "We have not liked what you've done and we've been so loud and vocal and articulate about it that we've convinced you that we don't like you either.... Well, I want to tell you we apologize for that, we are sorry for that." "I want you to know that, while we do believe your lifestyle is wrong, we believe that God loves you as much as he loves us."

Falwell promised to "be your friend, to love you, to keep my big mouth shut when it needs to be shut and at the same time, you've got to allow me to oppose same-sex marriage for a lot of reasons I'm not getting into today." Falwell said that the frequently used "love the sinner, hate the sin" should be replaced "with the fact that we love the sinner far more than we hate the sin."

Despite such remarks, the "Rev. Jimmy Creech, a heterosexual Methodist minister, said he also regarded the language coming from Falwell... as 'equivalent to spiritual violence.' Creech also said that 'calling Gay male, Lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people 'sinners' denigrates their dignity and integrity. GLBT people do not need [Falwell's] approval and acceptance to honor their own dignity and have self-esteem. We went [to Lynchburg] to begin the process of reducing the violent language, and we made progress.'

What may happen, Creech said, is that Falwell will 'continue to use language that we find offensive, but which he doesn't understand to be offensive... so we're going to be in a continual educational process.' At least, Creech said, Falwell has provided 'one open door to the fundamentalist, evangelical Christian community' a door that we think will make a big difference.... He risked more than we did." (Washington Blade, pp. 26-27).

Indeed! Not only did Falwell open the door to the gay activists, he clearly disregarded the admonition
of St. Paul to "discriminate" against those so-called "brothers" who are involved in sexual sin, including homosexuality. How does Falwell reconcile his nondiscrimination (except for snacks) with the philosophy of St. Paul?

Rev. Mel White, who shared the platform with Falwell, cheated on his wife while he was married and then abandoned her and his family to live the gay life. White is clearly a heretic by the standards to which Falwell claims allegiance. Yet by the invitation and platform sharing, Falwell gave White a kind of "big tent" OK to the "Christian gay movement," the same movement that demonstrated against "spiritual violence" at the November trial of Creech for "marrying" two gays.

Would Falwell do as much for "Christian" pedophiles, "Christian" murderers, "Christian" rapists, or other promoters and practitioners of sin in open rebellion against Biblical law? Does God love "Christian" pedophiles any less than "Christian" gays?!

Perhaps most disturbing is that, for all his apologies, Falwell got little in return. The Washington Blade reported that "For himself, White also offered Falwell an apology for 'that bag of HIV-tainted urine you got in your mailbox,' for 'the times you've been surrounded by Gay activist picketers who scared you and [your] wife,' for the 'death threats you've gotten in the mail.'" The Washington Post reported "according to DeMoss, White apologized for hateful speech directed at Falwell and other Christians who say homosexuality is a choice, and therefore sinful." In summarizing what had gone on the day before, the Associated Press noted that at "Saturday's meeting, both sides apologized for harsh words said over the years and discussed ways to reduce violence against homosexuals." (Denver Post 9/25/99, p. 3A).

Notice how the remarks were "spun" by the various media. Falwell apologized for possible implications or interpretations of words, but was nonetheless accused of "spiritual violence," whatever that means. White apologized for a bag of HIV-infected urine and various kinds of death threats (which he himself apparently did not make)! However, DeMoss "cleaned up" what White actually said, so the Washington Post was able to quote DeMoss without revealing the tremendous disparity between what Falwell "gave" and "apologized for" and what White offered and apologized for in return. The Associated Press mentioned mutual apologies for "harsh words" and the discussion of "ways to reduce violence against homosexuals," not about ways to reduce death threats against Christians!

The homosexual movement is so intent on elevating its status at the expense of traditional sexual mores that it will be content with nothing less than total capitulation by Christianity. Unfortunately, Falwell seems to playing right into the hands of the homosexuals. The next day the gay delegation "attended a Sunday morning service at Falwell's church, where they were asked by Falwell to stand and be recognized and were applauded loudly by the congregation." (Washington Blade, p. 27)

The Associated Press noted that in his sermon "the Moral Majority founder was careful not to offend his visitors, preaching from Proverbs 13, which offers advice on successful living in the eyes of God. He spoke on the importance of working hard, living with integrity and not focusing on material things." The Associated Press accurately noted that Falwell "was careful not to offend his visitors" by his sermon. Falwell was also careful not to explain why he opposed same sex marriage the day before.

Although Falwell still reserved his "right" to oppose homosexuality, if he will associate and dialogue with openly homosexual "Christians" and have them and their leaders applauded by his congregation in rather clear violation of the Pauline standard, what is 'the big deal about homosexuality'?

If Falwell will apologize for rhetoric that might, by some fanciful thinking, stimulate anti-gay violence (which is not to say there has been any proof whatsoever of a direct link between Falwell's words and physical violence by others), he gives the appearance (even if it is not his intention) of "reconsidering" homosexuality, even as Falwell eventually "reconsidered" the treatment of blacks during the civil rights movement.

One of the functions of religion is to lay down and enforce rules that restrain those seeking to do wrong and to keep them from "corrupting" others. In Christianity, this is the "preventative" side of Biblical law. No one likes to be told that what he is doing and intends to continue doing is wrong. Such "lawgiving" and "standard holding" are inherently offensive. But if people need to be restrained for their good and the good of society, then their personal "offense" at being held accountable is irrelevant.

Falwell, along with many others in Christendom, seems to have bought the argument that sexual heretics will be "won over" by associating with "real Christians." It is strange that this line of reasoning appears to have been rejected by St. Paul in favor of protecting Christians from the sexually rebellious (e.g., "do you not know that a little yeast spreads through the whole dough. Get rid of the old yeast in order that you may be a new batch of dough" I Cor. 5:7).

Was Falwell or St. Paul the more perceptive about which side would be more apt to "convert" the other? Consider the following hint: after the meeting on October 23, "David Chandler, a gay member of San Francisco's Doleres Street Baptist Church... [and his pastor] "took two Liberty University students to lunch. In the parking lot afterward, the other member suggested they pray together. 'We all four put our arms around each other,' Chandler recalled, 'and we each said a prayer out loud, thanking God that our paths crossed... looking forward to keeping in touch" (Washington Blade, p. 27).

The seeds of accommodating homosexuality and homosexuals have been sown and watered in one of the temples of Fundamentalism. Who knows, eventually the two Liberty University students, whose parents undoubtedly are paying the freight to keep their kids away from trouble, may find themselves "in touch" with other homosexuals.

About half as many women as men claim to "be homosexuals." Both gays and lesbians frequently claim that they were "born that way," and that they "knew" that they were homosexual in their early childhoods. However, when and how women "adopt" a lesbian identity has been studied less frequently and is therefore more uncertain.

A 1987 large scale study of students has recently received another reanalysis, focusing on those who declared themselves to be lesbians. A number of its findings shed light on the development of lesbianism.

36,284 students aged 12 through 19 who were attending public schools in Minnesota were administered questionnaires, including questions about their sexual "feelings" and experiences. As samples of public school students go, this one was fairly representative of students in the state as well as being the largest of its kind.

Although the study was quite large, caution must be used in interpreting the results of questionnaire studies given to adolescents at school. Consider the responses to one particular question about "running away from home."

When the investigators asked "during the last 12 months, how often have you run away from home?," 10% of the girls claimed to have done so during the past year one out of ten! Had the question been phrased "felt like running away" or "wanted to run away," the results might make more sense. But are we really to believe that, every year, at least 10% of girls "run away from home?"

Not likely. Undoubtedly, 10% of the girls answered the question this way, but the responses do not seem to correspond to reality. Other questions may have been read, interpreted, and answered accurately by these adolescents. But caution is in order nonetheless.

As to "sexual orientation," the investigators asked: "many people say that they have different feelings about themselves when it comes to questions of being attracted to other people. Which of the following best describes your feelings?" Six choices were provided: "100% heterosexual (attracted to/daydream about persons of the opposite sex)/ mostly heterosexual/ bisexual (equally attracted to men and women)/ mostly homosexual/ 100% homosexual ("gay/lesbian"; attracted to/daydream about persons of the same sex)/ not sure."

A complete breakdown by age for these possible responses has not yet been published, but the article reveals that of the 18,444 girls in the study, only 13 said that they were "100% homosexual." That's only 0.07%! The number is so small that the 13 could be "stray" or "mistaken" checks on the questionnaire box! By adding-in the "mostly homosexuals" and "bisexuals" the authors ended up with 182 homosexuals. So just under 1% of the girl students in the survey claimed some sort of homosexual "feelings."

Females often decide that they "are" homosexual in their 20s or 30s, so the proportion may grow. But females are also apt to go from "homosexual" to "heterosexual" as they age, so "what eventually will fall out" is unknown. But very few surveys report more than 1% of women as being lesbian.

Maybe the most telling finding for the girls was that homosexuals (5.9%) were much more apt to report having engaged in prostitution in the past year than heterosexuals (0.7%)! Perhaps this result is suspect like the results on "running away from home." Interestingly, though, the 8-fold differential in prostitution was not matched in reports of general sexual intercourse. There, 33% of lesbian girls vs. 29% of heterosexual girls said that they had engaged in sexual intercourse. However, of those who were not virgins similar to results from the FRI and Kinsey studies lesbian girls started earlier and claimed to more sexually "active."

62% of lesbian non-virgins vs. 45% of heterosexual non-virgins reported having engaged in sexual intercourse before the age of 14. And 22% of the lesbians vs. 15% of heterosexuals said that they engaged in sexual intercourse at least twice a week. The lesbian girls were thus more active heterosexually than the heterosexual girls were. This fits the traditional view that homosexuality is often "an addition to one's sexual repertoire or an attempt at variety" as a reaction to "too much sex, too young."

As opposed to the question on running away from home, which we suspect was misread or misinterpreted by some of the students, the question on sexual abuse was simply poorly written: "have you ever been sexually abused? Sexual abuse is when someone in your family or someone else touches you in a place you didn't want to be touched, or does something to you sexually which they shouldn't have done." Hopefully the girls understood that "touches you in a place you didn't want to be touched" only referred to sex organs (but maybe they didn't). Also hopefully the girls ignored the redundancy of "does something.... which they shouldn't have done."

22% of lesbian girls but only 15% of heterosexual girls said "yes" to this question. But what does a "yes" in this case mean? That lesbian girls were "into" sex at a younger age and were more frequently "into" prostitution might explain the higher percentage. Or maybe lesbian girls are more apt to seek the status of having been "victimized."

If "educators" wanted to know about students' sex lives, you would think they would ask clear and precise questions. But they didn't. Indeed, they asked questions about "sensitive issues" at about the same level of lucidity at which many textbooks are written that is, approximating a kind of verbal "mush."

About one of every 7 girls in this study made a claim of sexual abuse. But as broad and general as the question reads, it is likely that many fewer actually were "sexually abused" in a legal sense.

Overall, the results of this study reinforce what FRI has noted before about "homosexual or prehomosexual youth" they are generally troubled kids doing troubling things.

Reference:

Saewyc, EM, Bearinger, LH, Blum, RW, Resnick, MD. Sexual intercourse, abuse and pregnancy among adolescent women: does sexual orientation make a difference? Family Planning Perspectives 1999:31;127-131

As FRI has noted in previous reports, although the U.S. government appears to be backing the use of "moderate" drinking as good for the heart, there is a fair amount of evidence to the contrary.

Recently, in Scotland, 5,766 working men were screened for their drinking habits and followed for 21 years to see if they had died.

Chances of survival were neither improved nor harmed by drinking 21 units of alcohol/week (that is, about 10 beers, or 3 1/2 bottles of wine). Once consumption surpassed that level there was clear evidence of greater mortality.

Conversely, there was no evidence that "moderate" drinking had any beneficial effects upon longevity. Thus, from a health-standpoint, if you want to drink, its probably OK. But if men want to drink a lot, they may significantly increase their chances of dying.

Reference:

Hart, C.I. Alcohol consumption and morality from all causes, coronary heart disease, and stroke: results from a prospective cohort study of Scottish men with 21 years of follow up. British Medical Journal, 1999, 318, 1725-1729.

Corner

Birth "Out-of-Control"

The birth control pill changed the way women conducted their sex lives often they felt they no longer had to "be careful" about sex or with whom they had it. Fornication wasn't such a bad thing when there was no risk of getting pregnant. Improved techniques also reduced the chances that abortion might kill the would-be mother. Recently, technology that enhances fertility is creating another change and it is a tragedy for many of the children born with the aid of it.

The facts are these: Since 1980 twin births have risen 52% and triplet+ births have increased 400%. Whereas blacks used to have a much higher rate of twinning, now there is essentially no racial difference. Women who "want" a child now are almost assured of having one even if they are in their 50s.

But there's a problem. "Infants born in multiple deliveries are born earlier and smaller than singletons, are less likely to survive the first year of life, and are more likely to suffer long-term disability if they do survive" (p. 2). Twins are 4 times, triplets 10 times, quadruplets 13 times, and quintuplets 30 times more apt than singletons to die within the first month of life. Mothers of multiple births are also at greater risk. There are between 2,000 to 5,000 additional children born at risk every year because of fertility technology. Thousands of kids, every year, are being victimized to indulge maternal desire.

The government report on this new situation dedicated to "nondiscrimination" did not reveal how many of these fertility-induced babies are being born to unmarried women. But a goodly number of these children are fatherless because the women involved feel a desire for children anyway. What a stupid, selfish tragedy! Women in their 40s and early 50s are now having kids. If the child survives the birthing process, he can look forward to graduating from high school with his mother in her 60s or 70s! Further, the chances are good that when he has his first child, his mother will need as much care and attention as his newborn! And if the mother is unmarried, all society has a good chance of having to support the mother and children particularly if the child has physical or mental handicaps.

There is a "time" to have kids somewhere between age 16 and the 30s. There is a "time" to let it slide if you haven't given birth. There is a place to have kids in marriage. Any women who want kids should find a way to get married and then consider the prospect of becoming a mother. Modern technology has made it possible for many women to "indulge themselves" at their children's expense. As with so many temptations, many cannot resist.

Having a baby above the age of 39 ought not to be a "right." Society should look out for the interests of the child(ren) involved, not for the whim or even earnest desire of the want-to-be-mother. Indeed, such fertility-enhanced pregnancies ought to be outlawed above the age of 39 until and unless the mother can present powerful evidence that she and her husband have good prospects of being able to afford the child(ren) and have made adequate provision for the children after the parents' demise. Just because it is technologically possible doesn't mean that it's right.

Reference:

Martin, J.A. and Park, M.M. Trends in twin and triplet births: 1980-97. National Vital Statistics Reports, 9/14/99

Family Research Report critically examines empirical data on families, sexual social policy, AIDS, drug addiction, and homosexuality, digging behind the 'headlines' and breaking new scientific ground.

FRR is published 8 times/year by the Family Research Institute.

Dr. Paul Cameron, Publisher

Dr. Kirk Cameron, Editor

Subscriptions: $25/yr ($40 foreign)

©1999

Family Research Institute

P.O. Box 62640

Colorado Springs, CO 80962-2640

(303) 681-3113

Return to top

Return to the FAMILY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Web site