A searchable, downloadable PDF of the original review appears below. Howard Mcllveen is a chaplain at three long-term care facilities in the Vancouver, B.C. area.

Trojan Horse. Donald L. Faris, Welch Publishing Co.: Burlington, Ontario.

In the summer of 1988, the General Council of the United Church of Canada met in Victoria, B.C. and issued a “Statement” that any member of the United Church could be ordained regardless of sexual orientation. This effectively opened the door of the ordained ministry to homosexuals, practising as well as celibate. Those who favoured such a move were relieved, even exultant. Many others left the denomination over the issue — all told, about 100,000. Some who were opposed to the church’s action remained. One of these is Dr. Donald L. Faris. In 1989, his book, Trojan Horse was published.

The subtitle is “the Homosexual Ideology and the Christian Church” and it is that ideology which Faris pictures as the hidden enemy which when released from the Horse will capture and fundamentally change the unsuspecting city/church.

The implications for other denominations are obvious. However, the book is, firstly, for and about the United Church. Part III is specifically about the theological tradition of the United Church. A key pronouncement in Part V is from the United Church. More implicitly, the book reflects the pain and peril felt by many within that body.

In that the author’s focus is on a wrong way of thinking, much of the book is taken up with refutation of that thinking. Part I sets out the five basic premises of the homosexual ideology and proceeds to challenge and rebut them. These are the five:

  • homosexuality is genetically determined and therefore amoral;
  • 10% of the population is homosexual — large numbers demand acceptability;
  • no one is hurt through it;
  • homosexuals are not greater abusers statistically than heterosexuals;
  • homosexual orientation is impossible to change.

Part II has to do with biblical interpretation. Although the titles of Parts IV and V refer to the healing and care of the homosexual, they are also touched with the polemical character of the work.

The book is short. That is both strength and weakness. The compactness makes it more accessible to readers than a thicker volume. The brevity, however, means that controversial issues and questions are dealt with in a summary way. By contrast, a book by the U.S. Presbyterian theologian Richard Lovelace, Homosexuality and the Church seems to take time to consider carefully the arguments of homosexual proponents. He grants them their due, then indicates where the gaps are in their research or reasoning. What Dr. Faris accomplished in 69 pages is impressive, but that size of book has to limit the scope of treatment.

It is readable and well-reasoned. The treatment of issue is not overly technical. The author writes well.

An antidote to the brevity of the book is the use of sources — patristic, classical Reformed, contemporary, biblical and from the humanities. The modem sources include both those for and against the homosexual ideology. The former include D.S. Bailey, James Nelson, Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Mollenkott. The latter include the Dutch psychotherapist Gerard van den Aardweg, psychologist Elizabeth Moberly, Elizabeth Achtemeier the theologian, Ruth T. Bamhouse, Lovelace and Leanne Payne. Faris’s book is not a call to dialogue. It’s much more an alarm. However, people in other denominations do have opportunity for fruitful dialogue, as we would hope for the United Church. The bibliography at the end of the book provides a number of worthy titles that could help that dialogue. On the whole one finds that many who subscribe to the homosexual ideology have reacted in anger and contempt towards homophobia and know nothing of a “third stream” — namely the reasoned, compassionate, biblical, scientifically worthy writings of such as the second group of authors listed above.

It is a book that is unapologetically polemic. If Faris’s analysis is correct, that polemic is understandable. Richard Lovelace dedicated his book on the subject to his fellow committee members, the majority of whom disagreed with Lovelace’s biblical position. In the dedication, he refers to their relationship as “iron sharpening iron.” His book is much more irenic than Dr. Faris’s. The Trojan Horse is a call to face urgent danger to the church and is tinged with a sense of betrayal. There is a great deal of pain and poison in relationships involving present and former United Church members. The reviewer has a United Church minister friend, usually liberal and compassionate, whose reaction to those who have left the United Church, was a bald “Good riddance.” One does not sense such hostility in Dr. Faris. He has correctly identified the foe, not as groups of people, but as ideology. It is loose, shoddy and misguided thinking that he attacks — both in the social sciences and as it relates to our Christian moorings.

I want to mention some of the content for which I was especially grateful. First there are three of the fallacies that he challenged:

1. that homosexuality is genetically determined (usually with the non sequitur that that makes it acceptable). Faris points out that there is a large body of psychological thought that sees homosexuality as a psycho-social phenomenon. It uses phrases such as “same-sex ambivalence” and “addictive self-pity neurosis” to try to describe it. There may be some homosexuals whose orientation is genetically caused. There may be some proof of this that will emerge. Recently some scientists, with an acknowledged bias in favour of homosexuality, reported finding that they considered supportive of the theory of genetic source. They have however drawn conclusions which their data do not support (see “Born Gay” Christianity Today, June 22,1991). There is significant evidence to support an understanding of homosexuality as coming out of one’s primary family relationships. Simply repeating “genetic causality” as if the repetition of it makes it obligatory to accept, will not do. One ought not to be intimidated by the repetition.

2. that homosexual orientation can’t be changed. Faris cites numerous therapists, counsellors and groups whose experience indicates that change, at least for some (30 to 50%) is possible. One covets for people on both sides of this divide, exposure to the writing of Leanne Payne (The Broken Image and Crisis in Masculinity are two of her books). It describes the beautiful amalgam of compassion, psychological insight, the gifts of the Spirit, prayer and the healing presence of Christ. Out of these, numerous people have experienced forgiveness, repentance and the re-ordering of their lives.

3. Homosexuals like blacks, women and the poor can nestle under the blanket of Liberation Theology. A key distinction is this, that being black, being a woman or being poor are not condemned in Scripture. Homosexual behaviour is condemned. Consequently “gay lib” is in a quite different category than any racial, gender or economic group one could mention where it touches biblical liberation.

Finally, there is the matter of biblical interpretation and a pastoral challenge.

4. The response to Scripture is, to borrow another phrase from Greek mythology, the Achilles heal of the homosexual ideology. Dr. Faris points out its tendency to try to treat the negative biblical data about homosexuality apart from the positive biblical material about heterosexual marriage and sexual relations. The author rightly holds the prohibitions against homosexuality together with the Creation accounts of male and female togetherness which are reiterated by Christ in the New Covenant. Homosexual advocates are presented as treating Scripture selectively, trivializing and discounting it, and twisting it to make it agree with their ideology.

Some have attempted to subvert passages like Leviticus 18 and 20, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1, to a higher biblical principal like love. Dr. Faris points out the connection between love and obedience, a connection made by Jesus himself.

5. Finally, there is the acknowledgement of the sin of homophobia in the church and the plea to care pastorally for those who have only fear and anger towards homosexuals. It’s interesting that there’s a fair bit written about homosexuals being changed. One may have to search long and hard to find narratives about people who repented of their homophobia and were healed. Perhaps a worthy response to Faris’s book would be the development of strategies to heal the homophobic.

Further, there is need, among those who uphold a traditional Christian understanding of homosexuality, to do more than lip service regarding the homosexual’s civil rights. Are there biblical conservatives who are actively defending homosexuals from the terrorizing and ostracism that has been their constant experience? What limits on their civil rights are in order — as the Vatican has recently set forth, e.g., employment involving the care of children.

Dr. Faris’s book is a crucial one for the United Church. It provides a vital warning for the rest of us as well. It calls for responses of an apologetic and pastoral nature that must not be delayed.