For what it's worth, Holsinger's 1991 paper *isn't* a scientific work. At most, it's a very brief overview written for a non-scientific audience to support the idea that homosexuality is physically abnormal, with the presumed implication that homosexual activity subverts God's intentions for human beings.

Now, when he says the paper does not represent his "current views," it's not clear exactly what he means. Does he mean he no longer thinks homosexuality is physically abnormal? Or does he think that abnormality is inconsequential?

It's hard to say whether his change in views represents a sacrificing of principle to gain position, or whether he really has changed his mind over the past 16 years. (Though, to me, the latter isn't much better than the former.)

The fate of the United Methodist Church may hang in the balance, but it doesn't hang on the issue of homosexuality. In history it has often been both convenient and mean-spirited to place the blame or burden on a despised group, when the real issues are far broader. To the extent that the issue is ideology, it is true that often more conservative UMC's thrive over more liberal ones. Some liberals are rather far out in theology, either downplaying or not recognizing Biblical authority. On the other hand, many conservatives falsely claim that they don't interpret Scripture and treat Scripture as the Word of God rather than Jesus Christ. While it is through Scripture that we gain our primary understanding of Christ and the resultant faith, faith in Christ existed before Scripture was canonized and even before God inspired it.

I've never met a single person who doesn't interpret. Also, going from Hebrew to English or Greek to English is of itself an interpretation.

Further, many liberals are unpopular not because of ideology per se but because they have stood for many ideals that some conservatives have traditionally opposed, such as integration or environmentalism, particularly where threats to the status quo of the local community are concerned.

One of those real issues isn't based on either liberal or conservative theology but on our abandonment, well over a century ago, of a movement founded in covenant discipleship and accountability and toward a gathering based significantly in social gatherings and networking. Now that there are many other opportunities for social gatherings, folks are too narrowly pointing toward ideolgy.

The decline in commitment to Bible study, Sunday school and hands-on-mission work beyond the four walls is a greater cause of our dilemna. Frankly, I consider the majority of folks outside the denomination to be signifcantly ignorant about what happens inside.

Those who often ridicule the confusion of "correlation" and "cause-and-effect" (e.g. the recent story that diet pop drinkers are more likely to be overweight and to have blood sugar problems than drinkers of sugared beverages) with regard to scientific or medical stories will often jump on an uninformed bandwagon with respect to making that same distinction about the decline of the UMC.

Has anyone noticed that the growth of the Southern Baptist Convention has slowed? Is that ideology, theology or internal structural matters?

Holsinger was a board member of the IRD and was during his tenure with judicial matters in the UMC.

This story was broken by Frank Lockwood, a religion reporter in Arkansas.

While media have focused on Holsingers UMC paper, there were other issues, including his time in VA administration.

Eric; Box Turtle Bulletin has an excellent analysis of Dr. Holsinger's paper, his views and presentation were and are consistant with IRD policy.