Because I believe how valuable you are, as a Christian I must say to you, out of deep respect for you and a concern for your future, that as a homo sexual you are engaging in a sexual practice that is contrary to the design that God the Creator intended for you. Please understand that  these  things are not easy for Christians to say. These are not my ideas. We are all dependent on higher authority for issues of this nature.

First of all, thank you for your confidence. Telling me that you are a homosexual took courage, especially because you know I’m a Christian. You might have thought I would be afraid of you, look down on you, judge you, or consider you unworthy of friendship. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You are just like me — a fellow human being with creativity, passion and capacity for love. You are a person of deep spiritual sensitivity with a hunger for genuine life experiences and meaningful personal relationships. You have my affection, my admiration for you as a fellow human being, and, with your permission, my friendship. From my perspective, you are made in the image of a God who is your caring Creator and eventual Redeemer.

Because I believe how valuable you are, as a Christian I must say to you, out of deep respect for you and a concern for your future, that as a homo-sexual you are engaging in a sexual practice that is contrary to the design that God the Creator intended for you. Please understand that  these  things are not easy for Christians to say. These are not my ideas. We are all dependent on higher authority for issues of this nature. Of course, in the present climate, it’s easier not to say them, because if we do, we risk being accused of hate speech.

I do not say these things out of arrogance, or an inflated notion of my own wisdom or goodness! I am not giving you my personal opinion or carefully constructed theory. As a Christian, I stand very small and humble under God’s authority. I build my view of the world on God’s revelation of himself and the nature of what he made. I am trying to do this in a consistent way. I would not dare, on my own, to make this up. The Bible describes homosexuality as “unnatural” (Romans 1:26). Why you have adopted this unnatural life style I cannot say.   The subject has created a huge debate. Some say that genetics determine sexual choices. Others say that mistreatment in childhood encourages such sexual choices — especially a dysfunctional relationship with an unloving, demanding, or violent father. Some say fear, ignorance or convenience is the determining factor. It can certainly be said that one has more control over sexual behavior than one has over being born Asian, white, or black. Some homosexual behavior is obviously a temporary decision. There are what observers call “lugs”—“lesbians until graduation.”   These college women choose to live as lesbians throughout college, then later marry and become mothers.

In any case, human choices always involve morals. No one thinks morality doesn’t matter. Even people who claim there is no real good or evil claim their moral right to say what they believe. We all want to think that we are making good, right choices, rather than wicked, wrong choices, especially when it comes to our close relationships. So the question is, How can we establish what is moral?

The Moral Question

Sexuality is deeply moral, and as a homo- sexual, you claim a moral right to practice your sexual choice, and perhaps also the right to marry. We often define morality this way: any action that does not hurt someone else or violate his or her freedom. This principle is valuable, but incomplete. It presupposes that we know the entire meaning of “moral hurt” and the full implications of our actions. But what if someone is hurting himself? Isn’t that immoral in the larger scope of morality? Don’t I have a moral obligation to stop someone from hurting himself? (In France there is a criminal offense called “non assistance to persons in danger.” This means if you see someone in danger and do not take appropriate action, resulting in that person’s suffering or death, you are charged as a law-breaker). Perhaps the actions of two consenting adults might “hurt” a third person. Parents who eat ice-cream and greasy hamburgers every day for years and weigh 300 pounds are hurting their children by example, even if they don’t force their children to eat the same unhealthy food. Might a homosexual or lesbian teacher hurt the social and moral expectations of heterosexual students who learn under their influence and authority? You will reply that lesbianism is not wrong, and thus cannot hurt a student. But are you sure? Throughout history, most societies have agreed that a man and a woman marry and have children. Of course, history itself is not our final court of appeal, but morality is complicated. It does not depend on an individual’s hunches about right and wrong, nor can the widespread effects of moral choices be easily assessed for all parties.

Morality is larger than our individual under- standing of it and it is not limited to human relationships. Recent ecological awareness has helped us see how our moral choices affect the earth and the animals that live on, in, under and above it. But have we forgotten that morals include what the Creator has revealed about his design for living in the environment he made? Living in God’s world according to the way he structured the cosmos is the real basis of morality. The one who made this earth and everything in it is the one who has the authority and the wisdom to know how it best functions.

As I hope to show you, homosexuality is defined in Holy Scripture as a distortion of God’s original creative plan and, in that profound sense, is in moral discord with the will of the Creator. Having said this, I want you to understand that your life-style of homosexuality is no more contrary to the will of God than anyone else’s sinful life-style. We all have sinned and fail to meet God’s standard of perfection. If there were a scale of sins (and there is not), your desire for human affection and sexual pleasure is more understand- able than the greed of a self-indulgent boss who for years cruelly swindles his poor employees and their children out of money they rightly earned. But there is no scale, and none of us can justify our own sins by thinking we are a little better than the next guy. Sin, like deadly poison, contaminates utterly. Whether you put one drop or fifteen drops of sarin in a glass of water matters little to the person who drinks it! If we break one of God’s commandments, we’ve broken them all. You and I stand before God, stained through as guilty sinners. We both need to deal with that guilt.

Morals and Worldview

Worldview is how we function automatically, when we’re not even thinking. It’s what we settle on as the overarching principle by which we live and make decisions. We all try to put the world together in our heads, but existence is so big that we can’t get “outside” of it to make a full and objective judgment, so we have to exercise faith in something bigger than ourselves.

In that sense, everyone has “faith.” The simplest things demand faith. When we speak, we have faith that the sounds we utter at the beginning of the sentence still have the same meaning by the time we have finished it. When we cross the street, we have faith that a green light means the same thing today that it did yesterday, and that brakes on cars work just as they did yesterday. Because we do not control the elements of the world we live in, we exercise faith constantly in this “bigger than us” system. This is our practical “worldview.” The place (or lack of place) of God in that worldview is essential. Those who put together a world without God are called “atheists.” Those not sure if there’s a God are called “agnostics.” Those who believe the world is full of spirits or a multitude of gods or that everything has a piece of the divine within are called “pan- theists.” Those who believe that God created everything are called “theists.” I like to make it even more simple, following the apostle Paul (Romans 1:25), who said that there are only two religions: “worship of creation” (which I call Oneism); and “worship of the Creator” (which I call Twoism).

Atheists, agnostics and pantheists are all Oneists because they have one major thing in common: they all explain the world without reference to anything outside the world. Theism (Twoism) is the only religious system that bases its worldview on something outside the world. So, as I said, we really only have two worldview choices:

1. The world is self-creating and self-explanatory, and everything is made up of the same stuff, whether matter, spirit or a mixture. There is one basic kind of self-creating existence. This worldview celebrates one-ness. This is Oneism.

2. The world is the work of an external Creator who caringly made it but is separate and different from it. There are two kinds of existence— the Creator who is uncreated, and everything else, which is created. This worldview celebrates two-ness. This is Twoism.

The spiritual version of Oneism (God is every thing, or is in everything) has won out in our day over atheism and agnosticism. “Ok,” you are saying, “But where on earth are you going with all this, and what does it have to do with my homo- sexuality?”

Please hang in, because the two worldviews affect sexuality. There’s an earth-based, Oneist oriented worldview and a God-based, Twoist oriented worldview. These two can’t be mixed, and which one we believe affects all our choices, including our sexual choices.

God and sex are fundamentally related. If you think spirituality and sexuality have nothing in common, or if you think your decision to engage in homosexual activity is only an exercise of your democratic, individual right to choose, and that it has no implications for your spiritual life, I invite you to come with me on a “magical mystery tour” of these two spirituality options so you can make an informed decision about the direction of your life.

In the last generation we have lived through two earth-shaking events: 1. the revival of Oneist religion, and 2. the Cultural Revolution (including the “liberation of sex”). These two events are related, both in the timing of their appearance and in their fundamental commitments.

The Revival of Oneist Religion: All Is One

You are much younger than I, but my experience might be useful. I grew up in Liverpool, where John Lennon and I shared a desk in middle school and part of high school. (We even played music together.) The two religious options in England then were Christianity or skepticism. Christianity was present in all expressions of British culture, from the Queen (Defender of the Faith) to my headmaster at Quarry Bank (state) High School (leader of daily Bible-reading and prayer). Religious skeptics, few in number, were intellectual atheists. But everything changed in the 1960s, including spirituality and sexuality. In his prophetic song, “The Times They Are A ’Changin,” Dylan warned us that something big was coming:

And don’t speak too soon

For the wheel’s still in spin

And there’s no tellin’ who that it’s namin’. For the loser now will be later to win… The order is rapidly fadin’.

And the first one now Will later be last

For the times they are a-changin’.

Dylan was so right! Since that time, pantheistic religions have flooded mainstream Western culture, sweeping away the traditional cultural dominance of Christianity. Harvard professor Diana Eck says, in her book, A New Religious America: “The United States has become the most religiously diverse nation on earth…This is an astonishing new reality. We have never been here before.”¹ James Herrick concludes in his book The New Spirituality² that a “new religious synthesis” had “already eclipsed the Judeo-Christian culture” by the beginning of twenty-first century.

This new religious America no longer accepts the Twoist worldview that governed Western thinking for most of its history, including its views on sexuality. Interfaith America believes that all religions are the same and that God is in everything.

The Sexual Revolution: Make Love, not War

When I was growing up in Liverpool, I had never heard of homosexuality. Even as a grad student at Harvard in the late Sixties, when Love Story was in the theaters and “free love” was on everybody’s lips, sexual liberation meant that you didn’t have to stick to one girl, or get stuck with her as a wife. I didn’t realize that all the walls of sexual restraint were crumbling. But in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969, a series of violent demonstrations against a police raid took place at the Stonewall  Inn, a  gay hang-out in Greenwich Village, New York. This event was the first public gay protest in America, and is considered the beginning of the gay rights movement. The Sixties Sexual Revolution extended rights from pre-marital and extra-marital heterosexuality to homosexuality and eventually to pansexuality. In the religious domain interfaith and spiritual blending were becoming the norm, while the free-sex movement was moving us toward our 21st century “omnigendered” society. The public expression of sexual diversity is now accepted and legally protected.

Were these changes inspired only by a notion of freedom? “Free religion” and “free sex” are more deeply linked than you might suppose. The new spirituality I mentioned intends not only to save the planet but to deliver a new, liberating sexuality. Pan-theism leads to pan-sexuality. When we reconstruct God, we also reconstruct sexuality.

Sexuality and Spirituality

Homosexuality has existed throughout human history. The story of Lot in Sodom occurs very early in the biblical narrative (Genesis 18), and a similar incident in Israel is recounted in Judges 19. Non-biblical history also documents many periods of free homosexual practice. Alexander the Great was openly bi-sexual and Plato thought homosexuality was normal. Less obvious is the consistent connection between homosexuality and pagan (earth-based) religion.

The contemporary homosexual movement in which you are now involved says something profound about our own time. Homosexuality is not simply a personal choice that must be protected by democratic rights, nor is it an unfortunate social or moral deviation that religious people pray will pass. The “new sexuality” (particularly in its homosexual expression)³ is a cutting-edge component of a Oneist religious worldview that is opposed to the Twoist worldview of biblical faith.

Your cry for acceptance and recognition is that of an image-bearer, the longing of a beautiful human being made to reflect the transcendent Creator. Whatever led you into homosexuality, you need to know that its roots go deep into pagan religious thinking and take you miles away from your God and Creator. A glimpse at religious history shows us that through time and across the planet, in unrelated places and cultures, the pagan shaman or priest is often a homosexual.

Throughout History

In the Sumerian age (1800 BC)⁴ in Mesopotamia, bi-sexual or trans-sexual (androgynous) priests were associated with the worship of the goddess Istar. Their condition was due to their “devotion to Istar, who herself had ‘transformed their masculinity  into femininity.’”⁵ They functioned as occult shamans who released the sick from the power of demons just as (according to myth) they had saved Istar from the devil’s lair. The Canaanite goddess Anat preserves many of the characteristics of Istar.⁶ She is young and marriageable but also a bearded soldier.⁷ She symbolizes the mystical union celebrated by her worship- ers as a ritual enactment of the sacred spiritual marriage.⁸ At the beginning of the fifth century AD the cult of the goddess Cybele was served by homosexual priests called galloi.⁹

Across Space

I don’t want to burden you with too much academic research, but we see the same phenomenon in a variety of geographical areas today. The Siberian shamans, known as Chukchi, and the shamans of Central Asia engage in ecstatic rituals and dress as androgynes.¹⁰ Among a pagan people-group in the dense bush of southern Borneo, the basir, “asexual priest-shamans… true hermaphrodites,  dressing  and behaving like women,” have a priestly function.¹¹ This behavior characterizes Amazonian shamans, celtic priests (ancient and modern), and Indian hijras.¹² In Hindu Tantric Yoga, androgyny is the goal, be- cause two contrary principles of Shiva and Shakti are joined as one.¹³ The yogin, through powerful techniques of sexual-spiritual meditation, is thus transformed “into a kind of androgyne.”¹⁴

In American Indian religious practice homosexual transvestite males—berdaches—have always functioned as shamans.¹⁵ Among the Navajo, the nadle, a feminized male serves as reconciler of conflict. According to Navajo myth, the original hermaphrodite went to the underworld to be associated with the dead and the devils of the lower world.¹⁶ Among the Zuñi, Awonawilona (“he- she”) is a powerful, positive mythological figure.¹⁷ Similar figures are to be found in African, and in Australian Aboriginal cultic practice.¹⁸ “Some African societies,” observes an ethnographer, “have developed intermediary genders of men-women and women-men who, like their Native American counterparts, are seen as sacred and as spiritually powerful individuals.”¹⁹ A recent book traces the history of homosexual male spirituality: “gender- variant men have fulfilled a sacred role throughout the millennia.”²⁰

The Explanation

Why is homosexuality or androgyny associated with pagan spirituality? The answer provides us with a key to understanding the connection between worldview and sexuality. These different religious expressions had little or no contact with one another, so we have to assume that the practice flows directly from pagan spirituality itself. Modern homosexual leaders provide one element of our answer. A homosexual leader at a Pagan Spirit Gathering in 1985 made the spiritual claim: “We feel there is a power in our sexuality…^[a] queer energy that most cultures consider magical. It is practically a requirement for certain kinds of medicine and magic.”²¹ Another homo sexual pagan confirms the spiritual dynamic: “It is simply easier to blend with a nature spirit, or the spirit of a plant or an animal, if you are not concerned with a gender-specific role.”²²

This statement shows the goal of pagan religion: to blend everything, dismissing created distinctions between male and female, animals and humans, right and wrong, God and creation. The goal of this spirituality is full-blown, Oneist union. “Blending” is one way of speaking of spiritual union with the All. This celebration of oneness by eliminating God the Creator and the distinctions he places in the world is the essence of pagan spirituality. One pagan writer even calls androgyny (joining male and female in one person) the “sacrament of monism.”²³ Homosexuality and androgyny, which make male and female into one principle, flow logically from Oneist spirituality.

Twoist Sexuality

Our post-modern world says “good riddance!” to monogamous heterosexuality. It is seen as a throw-back to an age of repressive, patriarchal dominance that began with the Bible and ended towards the end of the 20th century. Maybe that’s how you see it. The truth is more complex. Androgyny and homosexuality have existed throughout the ages, so it’s not a matter of “new” vs. “old-fashioned.” Throughout history, people have made a choice between Oneist and Twoist spirituality.

The Twoist view of sex follows logically from a Twoist view of existence. God and the world are different, and so, to respect God, that difference must be maintained. It is there at the beginning in the Bible: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1); it is there at the end when the twenty-four elders in the eternal, heavenly city, say forever: “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created” (Revelation 4:11).

If God is always Creator, then we are always creatures, and that good distinction will remain forever. So the new heavens and earth are marked by distinction, not the absorption of everything into divine oneness.

Oneness and Separation

According to the first lines of the founding text of the Bible (Genesis 1), separation is the principle by which God turned unformed matter or chaos into an ordered world or cosmos.

• “God separated the light from the darkness” (1:4);

• “And God said, ‘Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters’”(1:6);

• “And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse” (1:7);

• “And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night …to separate the light from the darkness” (1:16–18).

Repeated four times in a few short verses, this verb, “to separate” clearly has a programmatic function. Another form of separation is noted in reference to different “kinds”:

• “And God said, ‘Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind’”(1:11);

• “And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth ac- cording to their kinds’” (1:24).

The principle God uses to turn the original “chaos” into an ordered cosmos is “separation” or “distinction.” That principle also determines the relationship between Man and the animals. Human beings are qualitatively different from animals because they are made in God’s image and given “dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (1:28). This principle is also operative in the case of human sexuality: “God created man in his own image… male  and  female  he  created  them”  (1:27).  To confirm that this arrangement of separation was what God intended, the text concludes: “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (1:31).

The “separation” by which created life is organized is not for mere efficiency. Since the ultimate calling of the world is to bear witness to God its Creator, its structure reminds creatures of the one great defining separation between the Creator and the creature. Of course, the Bible tells us that creation is not now what it was or will be. But even in a fallen, partly spoiled world, utopia and salvation are never presented as a blending of the Creator and the creature. Instead, salvation brings reconciliation with the Creator. Sinful creatures can become “one” with a holy Creator not by eliminating separation but through the atoning work of Jesus. In Jesus Christ, we can have true communion and unity with God, but God is God and we are still and always will be creatures.

As you consider these arguments you may see that the Christian’s opposition to homosexuality comes not from personal animosity, hate, phobia, moralism, judgmentalism or a rejection of democratic principles but (like pro-homosexual belief) from a consistent understanding of worldview. In addition to this worldview logic may I make two observations regarding the significance of monogamous heterosexuality.

In the first place, heterosexuality is certainly supported by human anatomy as the “natural” form of sexual expression. Men and women are physically structured and anatomically equipped for heterosexuality. Homosexuality in that sense, as the apostle Paul says, is “unnatural” (Romans 1:26), employing body parts for activities for which they were not intended.

In the second place, there is a deep sense of satisfaction in knowing that one’s sexual life affirms the Twoist structure of the cosmos and honors the wisdom of God, the personal Creator. This, after all, is the point of human existence, to live for the glory of God. Ultimately, there is nothing else that justifies our short lives. Eternity is forever. But heterosexuality also shows us some- thing astonishing.

Marriage as Spiritual Picture

I mentioned that androgyny is seen by Oneists as a symbol of their spirituality. Since everything is one, they live that out in the “oneness” of sexuality, trying as best they can to eradicate the created sexual difference between men and women. Twoist sexuality also offers a picture. In marriage, a man and a woman, though different, find unity and communion without losing their differences. They come together in a fruitful relationship as separate individuals who complement each other physically and in the roles they fill. The love they express together also fulfills God’s design for them to be fruitful and multiply.

God knit this physical, sexual structure into the world and into our human nature to give us an amazing picture of something much better—a relationship that is infinitely better than the most intimate marriage. That relationship is the marriage between Jesus and his bride—the church, between the Lord and his people. When a Christian is united to God in Christ, he or she becomes a part of a family. Christians have a mysterious and deep love for each other as brothers and sisters. That love alone satisfies much of the deep longing every person has for friendship, affection, tenderness and intimacy. Deep same-sex friend- ships are common among Christians, though they are not sexual in nature.

An even deeper relationship exists between a Christian husband and wife, who express intimacy on a physical and sexual level, in addition to the “brotherly” love they have in common as Christians. The marriage relationship is the apex of human love, but it is only a temporary picture of the love and fellowship that we have with God himself. God says that if we are united to Christ by faith, we are his bride and he is our husband. He invites us to a wedding celebration in heaven with him. Husbands and wives will no longer need to depend for deep joy and satisfaction on the relationship they have with each other because the real relationship will have started—the marriage of the church to its husband, Jesus Christ.

So, heterosexuality not only reflects the Creator/Creature distinction, but also the Redeemer/Redeemed distinction. It’s not only good for us physically; it is also good for us spiritually. God the Creator and God the Redeemer are both reflected in heterosexual marriage. Paul calls this “a mystery,” that is, a profound truth about existence, revealed by the Creator of life.

Conclusion and Consequences

In seeking to help you understand the theological and spiritual implications of your homo- sexual life style, I must square with you. Your chosen sexuality is deeply tied to a pagan religious agenda that denies the Creator and sees no need for salvation. Neither neo-paganism nor publicly- endorsed homosexuality will disappear any time soon. The homosexual movement will no doubt be the great opponent of orthodox biblical Christianity in the years to come. “Gay marriage” carries with it a cultural and spiritual agenda. Western civilization will never be the same.

I don’t mean that every homosexual is a Oneist or a pagan. I only mean that just as Twoism leads to heterosexuality by its very nature, so Oneism leads to homosexuality by its very nature.

If you do not believe in an “all is one” religious system, then I ask you to consider the issues I’ve raised. If you believe in a God who created you, or think you might be able to believe in such a God, if you could be sure he would “come through with the goods,” would you have the courage to go against your own inclinations, against the present flow of cultural and religious history and seek a relationship with a God who offers to be your eternal lover?

I can’t pretend that I have struggled with the choices you have faced. I feel humbly grateful for a marriage that has lasted since 1971; for seven wonderful children and numerous grandchildren. My wife and I are far from perfect! There’s a lot we don’t understand about being married, even after all these years, but these life choices, made in obedience to the God of creation and redemption, have brought us a deep sense of value and significance. We’re not to be lauded for such choices—our marriage is a gift from God, that’s all. I believe that, deep down, you probably long for truth and freedom from what may have become a life of self-serving and empty physical pleasure. All I can do is invite you to a wedding— your own to Jesus Christ. Here’s how some of the last verses of the Bible put it:

“The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come!’ and let him who hears say, ‘Come!’ Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.”

So, do come to him and quench your spiritual thirst. You won’t be disappointed.

1. Diana L. Eck, A New Religious America: How a “Christian Country” Has Become the World’s Most Reli- giously Diverse Nation (HarperSanFrancisco, 2002), 4–5.
2. James A. Herrick, The Making of the New Spiritual- ity (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003). See also Peter Jones, Spirit Wars: Pagan Revival in Christian America (Mukilteo, WA: WinePress, 1997).
3. See Jones, Spirit Wars, 177–96.
4. Martti Nissinen and Kirsi Stjerna, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 28.
5. Ibid., 30.
6. Neal H. Walls, The Goddess Anat in Ugaritic Myth: SBL Dissertation Series 135 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992), 83.
7. Ibid., 86.
8. Nicholas Wyatt, “The c Anat Stela from Ugarit and Its Ramifications,” Ugarit Forschungen 16 (1984): 331.
9. “They were seen yesterday, their hair moist, their faces covered in make-up, their limbs flaccid, their walk effeminate, wandering through the squares and streets of Carthage, demanding from the public the means to subsidize their shameful life.” Ibid., cited in Robert Turcan, The Cults of the Roman Empire (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996),
10. Mircea Eliade, Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy (Princeton University Press, 1972), 125. See also Nissinen and Stjerna, Homoeroticism, 34.
11. Eliade, Shamanism, 352.
12. See Serena Nanda, Neither Man Nor Woman: The Hijras of India (Belmont, CA: 1990), xv.
13. Eliade, The Two and the One (New York: HarperTorchbooks,1965), 118.
14. Ibid.
15. Robert M. Baum, “The Traditional Religions of theAmericas and Africa,” in Arlene Swidler, ed., Homosexuality and World Religions (Philadelphia: Trinity Press Int’l., 1993), 1–46, which provides a systematic, well-documented discussion of this phenomenon and a useful, specialized bibliography, 32. Though the data for Africa is less abundant, Baum looked at fifty different African societies.
16. Eliade, The Two and the One, 277.
17. Ibid.
18. See Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, Women, Androgynes and Other Mythical Beasts (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980), 285–89.  See Baum, “The Traditional Religions,” 19.
19. Baum, “Traditional Religions,” 21.
20. Ibid., 15. See also Edward Carpenter, “On the Connection between Homosexuality and Divination, and the Importance of the Intermediate Sexes Generally in Early Civilizations,” Revue d’ethnographie et de sociologie, 11/12 (1910): 310–16, and Intermediate Types among Primitive Folk: A Study in Social Evolution (London: George Allen, 1914); Walter Williams, The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Culture (Boston: Beacon Press, 1986).
21. Cited in George Otis, The Twilight Labyrinth (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 180.
22. Ibid.
23. June Singer, Androgyny: Towards a New Theory of Sexuality (London: Routledge and Kegan, 1977).

Dr. Peter Jones is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Director of truthXchange.