Editorial: A Critical Look at the Barna Study on the Religious Life of Homosexuals

Introduction

Martin Luther is reported to have said that gospel preachers disgrace themselves by failing to take a stand on God's word in the face of opposition.

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.¹

In his day, Luther stood against a Roman Catholicism that sold indulgences to parishioners so that they might buy forgiveness of sins. For Luther and the other Reformers, the sale of indulgences amounted to a nullification of the Bible's teaching about justification and grace. Justification by grace through faith alone in the work of Christ alone were doctrines under siege because of a tradition that did not accept sola scriptura. The Reformers understood that the authority of the Bible itself was at stake, and in that sense the Reformation became a battle for the Bible. That battle would have been lost, however, had faithful believers such as Luther failed to identify those places at which the assault on biblical truth was most fierce. To shrink back from that fight was nothing less than a cowardly capitulation to the enemies of truth.

In every generation, Christians face opposition to the word of God that they profess. Sometimes the attacks are subtle. Sometimes they are not. The issues vary, but the opposition from the enemy does not. His line of attack is ancient: "Hath God really said?" (Gen 3:1). Has God really said that there is only one way of salvation? Has God really said that you cannot serve God and your money? Has God really said that you shouldn't lust after that woman who is not your wife? And the attacks go on and on.

In our generation, one line of attack goes like this: Has God really said that there is male and female? Has God really said that a man shall cleave to his wife and become one flesh with her alone? This line of questions is particularly effective in cultures that have cast off the heterosexual norm that is revealed both in nature and in the Bible. Many in the West in general and in America in particular regard this heterosexual norm as the ethic of the powerful who wish to repress unjustly the sexual freedom of the homosexual minority. Thus biblical notions of manhood and womanhood and God's design for human sexuality are precisely that place where "the world and the devil are at that moment attacking."

The issues have changed, but the opposition to God's word hasn't. The question for us is whether or not we will "flinch" or stand true. The culture's hostility to biblical teaching on gender and sexuality has only increased in recent decades, and the rising tide of opposition shows no signs of subsiding. One can hardly suggest today that God has a distinct heterosexual purpose for human sexuality without being dismissed by many as hateful and bigoted. In other words, there's no quicker way to be dismissed as narrow and irrelevant in today's culture than to declare faithfully the word of God as it relates to human sexuality. It is not surprising, therefore, that even some evangelicals are calling for muted tones on the topic of homosexuality. It was only three years ago that Brian McLaren called on evangelicals to stop talking about homosexuality. He argued that our ethic is offensive to the culture and that we are not really sure what the Bible teaches on the subject anyway.² Essentially, he made the ancient appeal: Hath God really said? Clearly, the mainstreaming of homosexuality in the culture is now putting pressure on communities of faith, and some are caving in.

A Look at Barna's Recent Study

I see a similar tendency in George Barna's recent remarks about a study released by The Barna Group. Last summer, the Barna Group released the results of a survey that explores the spiritual life of gay and lesbian adults. The study examines "20 faith-oriented attributes" and how homosexuals and heterosexuals differ from one another on these attributes. Among other things, the survey found that heterosexuals are more likely than homosexuals to hold an orthodox view of God, to attend church, to read the Bible, and to pray regularly. Homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to be unchurched, to have an unorthodox view of God, and to identify themselves as "liberal" on social issues.

What particularly piqued my interest was George Barna's commentary on the survey. He argues that some popular stereotypes about the spiritual life of gays and lesbians are simply wrong. He writes,

People who portray gay adults as godless, hedonistic, Christian bashers are not working with the facts. A substantial majority of gays cite their faith as a central facet of their life, consider themselves to be Christian, and claim to have some type of meaningful personal commitment to Jesus Christ active in their life today.

The data indicate that millions of gay people are interested in faith but not in the local church and do not appear to be focused on the traditional tools and traditions that represent the comfort zone of most churched Christians. Gay adults clearly have a different way of interpreting the Bible on a number of central theological matters, such as perspectives about God. Homosexuals appreciate their faith but they do not prioritize it, and they tend to consider faith to be individual and private rather than communal.

It is interesting to see that most homosexuals, who have some history within the Christian Church, have rejected orthodox biblical teachings and principles—but, in many cases, to nearly the same degree that the heterosexual Christian population has rejected those same teachings and principles. Although there are clearly some substantial differences in the religious beliefs and practices of the straight and gay populations, there may be less of a spiritual gap between straights and gays than many Americans would assume. ³

Barna thinks it significant that the study establishes that a majority of homosexuals are spiritual persons. For him, it's important because the statistic blows up a stereotype that portrays gay people as non-religious.

But we have to question whether Barna has rightly interpreted the significance of this study. To say that most homosexuals consider themselves to be religious (or even Christian) is not surprising—or at least it should not be. Most Americans consider themselves to be Christian, but of course it doesn't actually follow that they are. Many sinners think themselves to be Christian, but thinking does not make it so. A close look reveals that many who claim the name "Christian" are not Christian in any biblical sense (Matt 7:21; 2 Tim 3:5).

The problem is that large segments of the population simply don't understand what Christianity is. In fact, this study says that both gay and straight people believe in similar proportion that "good people can earn their way into Heaven through their goodness." Misunderstandings about Christianity abound, and it's no shock that the rate of misunderstanding between heterosexual and homosexual populations would be similar. This doesn't make the homosexual population more Christian than we previously thought. It does reveal, however, that the population in general is more confused about Christianity than a "Christian" nation should be. Evangelicals who are "surprised" by this finding need to read their Bibles more.

Why does Barna think it so important to downplay the differences between the spiritual lives of homosexuals and heterosexuals? The data shows that there are some significant divergences between the two groups with respect to the proportion and the content of their religious practices. The study shows homosexuals to be more likely than the heterosexuals to be heterodox and unchurched. Why does Barna minimize this difference while hyping the alleged similarity? The data would not seem to point in this direction, though the ever-present cultural pressure to mainstream homosexuality would.

Conclusion

Thomas Kuhn once argued that there is no such thing as theory-neutral observation, for all scientific observation is theory-laden.⁴ In other words, our worldview and personal experiences color everything that we see so that there is no such thing as objective, detached observation of facts. That appears to be the case with respect to the way that Barna has characterized the results of The Barna Group survey. What led Barna to his peculiar interpretation of this study? It appears that Barna's analysis is not immune. Can it be that even Barna's analysis has been shaped to some extent by the prevailing cultural winds?

Evangelicals need to be wary of external influences that are pushing us to give up a biblical sexual ethic&38212influences that compel us to minimize the difference between biblical teaching and where the culture departs from it. We cannot give-in to the temptation to declare this a matter of religious indifference, as though the question of homosexuality were a second or third order issue. The word of God compels a clear word from Christians on matters of sexuality. There is no faithful discipleship that ignores the heterosexual norm that is affirmed over and over in both the Old and New Testaments. There is no call to repentance from sexual sin where this critical teaching is left out or ignored. When this teaching is overlooked, that is the "flight and disgrace" that Luther warned against in his day, and it is a warning that we would do well to hear in ours.