Thinking Deeper: Part 3 1
Thinking Deeper: Part 3 – Research and Biblical Teachings
Janice M. Barnes
Department of Psychology, Liberty University
Thinking Deeper: Part 3 2
David G. Myers employs the levels-of-explanation view to give his stance on
homosexuality and its contribution to the relationship between psychology and Christianity.
Specifically, he employs a multilayered approach to explore different perspectives on human
attitudes, faith, and perceptions of homosexuality and how this aspect influences their
psychological perceptions. Nevertheless, Staunton L. Jones uses the integration view to respond
to different assertions made by Myer’s levels-of-explanation approach on homosexuality
concerning the Christian faith. He interconnects humans’ individual and collective
unconsciousness about their personalities as far as homosexuality is concerned. The two authors
give differing conclusions on the relationship between homosexuality, research, and biblical
teachings because they differ on the moral significance of homosexuality.
Firstly, Myers denies a concrete relationship between homosexuality and parental aspects.
He stipulates that parental and psychological influence have no contribution to sexual
orientation. (Johnson, 2010). In this regard, Myers argues that child abuse, overprotective
mothering, poor fathering, and gay parenting do not contribute to homosexuality (Johnson,
2010). He postulates that sexual orientation is more natural that induced or regulated among the
victims. Therefore, homosexuality should not be perceived as immoral or a consequence of
parental or psychological irresponsibility (Johnson, 2010). However, Myers acknowledges that
he is clueless about the possible influence that parents and psychology can have on the sexual
orientation of young ones.
Nevertheless, Staunton opposes Myers’ consent on the relationship between psychology
and parenting and homosexuality by pointing out the immorality of sexual orientation. He sides
with the Bible’s assertion that homosexuality is carnal and hence sinful (“King James Bible,”
Thinking Deeper: Part 3 3
2022, 1st Tim. 1:10). Essentially, he differentiates psychology from biblical assertion on
homosexuality by emphasizing that Christianity does not delve deeper into the psychological and
biological causations of homosexual affiliation (Johnson, 2010). As a result, Staunton claims that
Myers does not account for the consequences of these causations on homosexuality and their
relationship with Christianity (Johnson, 2010). He also emphasizes that Myers does consider the
established comprehensive research on the more profound contribution of familial socialization
and instability to homosexuality (Johnson, 2010). Therefore, he sums up that the desire for
homosexual intimacy violates God’s will for humans.
In my opinion, the two authors differ in their views on the psychological and parental
impact on homosexuality due to their different stances on biblical teachings on the role of
psychology in sexual orientation. Myers directly denies Paul’s assertion that parents should raise
their children in the ways of the Lord (“King James Bible,” 2022, Eph. 6:4). This verse and other
diverse illustrations prove that parents have a more substantial influence on the children’s
upbringing. One of the ways of the Lord, in this case, is overcoming homosexuality. To a more
considerable extent, Staunton feels that Myers opposes the Biblical postulations on the parental
impact on children. He also feels that Myers’ research is incomprehensive since this assertion is
backed by unconvincing evidence. These reasons suggest why Staunton gives a different
concluding angle from Myers’ stance.
Secondly, Myers outlines that sexual orientation, such as homosexuality, is more natural
and should not be perceived as a moral choice. Prenatal influences and brain differences are the
leading causes in this perspective (Johnson, 2010). People with similar brain differences have
higher chances of sharing gay traits. For example, siblings of gay persons have higher chances of
Thinking Deeper: Part 3 4
being gay than persons unrelated to these victims (Johnson, 2010). In this regard, Myers
instigates that Christians should not blame homosexuals for their sexual orientation since it is
part of their nature that results from their physical development. Staunton concludes by differing
with this aspect. He promulgates that researchers and psychologists exaggerate the contribution
of biological variables to homosexuality (Johnson, 2010). Many identical twins do not share
traits attributed to homosexuality (Johnson, 2010). Therefore, Staunton argues that Christians
should not perceive homosexuality as natural and related to biological variables.
Myers and Staunton differ on the realistic perspective of homosexuality due to their
different stances on Christianity’s perception of homosexuality as immoral. Paul firmly asserts
that homosexuality is immoral and sinful, and homosexuals will not inherit God’s kingdom
(“King James Bible,” 2022, 1st Cor. 6:9). However, Paul’s sentiment that Christians are
sanctified and justified in God’s name proves that homosexuality is not natural (“King James
Bible,” 2022, 1st Cor. 6:10). In essence, the Bible holds that none was born with homosexual
traits and that this behavior emanates from embracing sin and giving in to the devil’s
temptations. Therefore, homosexuals are responsible for their evil behavior. However, Myers
directly opposes this stance by claiming that homosexuality is natural; hence homosexuals
should not be perceived as immoral but as usual, just like heterosexuality. Staunton does not give
a convincing argument against Myers’ assertion. However, he strongly favors biblical faith that
homosexuality is immoral and should not be justified as natural.
Furthermore, Myers and Staunton disagree on the success of the efforts embraced to alter
an individual’s sexual orientation. Myers holds that these efforts usually fail. Homosexuals may
willingly choose to become celibate or turn away from this behavior (Johnson, 2010). However,
Thinking Deeper: Part 3 5
if forced to change their homosexual behavior and join heterosexual marriages, they may give in
but against their will. Myers notes that such marriages and more prone to divorce. He also
affirms that previous efforts embraced to help homosexuals overcome their feelings and fantasies
have failed on most occasions (Johnson, 2010). Therefore, Myer holds that it is difficult to
transform one from homosexual behavior (Johnson, 2010). In this regard, he opposes the Biblical
assertion of the possibility of overcoming homosexual behaviors.
Nonetheless, Staunton concludes that there is a need to embrace God’s truth in integrating
psychology and science (Johnson, 2010). According to Staunton, Myers fails to provide concrete
evidence on the biological causations of sexual orientation (Johnson, 2010). Therefore, Myer
cannot affirm his conclusion that transforming homosexual behaviors is impossible.
In my opinion, Myers and Staunton differ on the success and failure of homosexuality
due to their differing views of the Biblical assertion on overcoming homosexuality. The Bible
promulgates that God answers prayers through prayer and fasting. Additionally, having faith in
God is a vital pillar every Christian should possess for their needs to be answered. In this regard,
the Bible indirectly justifies that homosexuals should have faith in God so that He can help them
overcome this trait. This belief must be accompanied by persistent prayer and fasting. Although
Myers partially agrees with the Biblical scriptures that homosexuals can willingly choose to
overcome this trait, he holds that it is impossible to convict a homosexual to change their
behavior. He also says that those who willingly opt to change their homosexual traits do not
completely overcome them. In this regard, Myers directly undermines the power of faith, prayer,
and fasting in helping homosexuals completely overcome this sexual orientation. He also
diminishes the role of spiritual leaders in influencing homosexuals to transform to
Thinking Deeper: Part 3 6
heterosexuality. These may probably be why Staunton opposes Myers’ sentiments by stressing
embracing God’s truth in relating psychology and science. He believes that it is possible to
overcome homosexuality.
Generally, Myers seems to view homosexuality from a realistic secular perspective
compared to Staunton, who analyzes homosexuality from religious psychology. Myers
appreciates the significance of Christianity in explaining the purpose of human existence and the
source and end of their life (Johnson, 2010). However, he inclines more towards psychology in
expounding on the realistic nature of homosexuality. Myers intentionally ignores the biblical
assertions on homosexuality. Essentially, inclining more towards psychology compels one to
oppose stances since most psychologists diminish religion in crediting reality for different
aspects. In trying to justify the realistic nature and the morality of homosexuality, Myers directly
opposes the religious stances on this sexual orientation. However, Staunton seems more inclined
towards the Christian truth than making realistic assumptions that justify homosexuality and
diminish Christianity. According to Staunton, homosexuality is immoral and should not be
justified by unclear stances (Johnson, 2010). This assertion relates to Krull’s (2017) emphasis
that homosexuality should be perceived as sinful and victims reprimanded with love. Victims can
only be reprimanded if psychology is perceived as immoral. Due to these reasons, he directly
opposes Myers’ perceptions of the morality of homosexuality.
Staunton also concludes differently from Myers’ postulations on homosexuality since he
feels that Myers backs his arguments with incomprehensive evidence. He mentions that Myers’
research is limited and does not embody different views of other psychologists on the nature of
homosexuality and its impact on victims (Johnson, 2010). Staunton also feels that Myers’
Thinking Deeper: Part 3 7
assertions employ the integration approach more than the levels-of-explanation perspectives.
These reasons make him directly oppose Myers’ claims.
In conclusion, Myers and Staunton differ in their conclusions on homosexuality and its
relationship to psychology and research due to several reasons. The general reason is that Myers
views homosexuality as moral while Staunton holds that Psychology is immoral. Notably, Myers
holds that homosexuality has no relationship to psychological and parental influence, hence
should not be regarded as immoral, while Staunton opposes this perspective. Staunton also
opposes Myers’ postulation that psychology is natural. Moreover, Staunton resists Myers’
assertion that homosexuals cannot change their sexual orientation. Essentially, Staunton opposes
Myers’ views since they directly oppose the biblical truth on homosexuality. He also holds that
Myers’ sentiments lack concrete evidence from previous research and embrace integration
approaches more than the levels-of-education perspectives.
References
Thinking Deeper: Part 3 8
Johnson, E. (2010). Psychology and Christianity: Five Views (2nd Ed.). Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity
King James Bible . . (2022). King James Bible Online https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/
(Original work published 1769)
Krull, D. S. (2017). On Hating the Sin but Loving the Sinner: Judgments About Homosexuality
and Religiosity. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 36(2), 99-109.
http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com
%2Fscholarly-journals%2Fon-hating-sin-loving-sinner-judgments-about%2Fdocview
%2F1925072864%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D12085
