I just read an article on MSN about Southern Baptist Seminary president, Rev. Albert Mohler, Jr., who wrote an article on how homosexuality is likely to have a genetic basis and then raises the question of whether or not it would be right, if it were possible, to treat the babies with hormones to change their sexual orientation back to heterosexual. A provocative thought, to say the least. He's managed to anger both conservative Christians, who think homosexuality is a choice, AND gay rights, by suggesting a "treatment." I didn't read what Mohler actually wrote but it seemed like he merely wanted to dialog about it. I would like to address why I think a genetic cause for homosexuality does not mean that homosexuality is moral.
Do I believe homosexuality has a genetic component? Yes. Current research strongly supports this position. (Actually, research supports the finding that homosexuality has a biological basis - more likely to be associated with hormones than genes... but that can get confusing to the average layperson) Does that make homosexual behavior moral? No.
If morality is simply dictated by our biological makeup, then we have surrendered any belief in personal agency. It is each person's responsibility to do the most with their life that they can. Alcoholism is perhaps the simplest example, if there is a gene for alcoholism does that make it okay to be an alcoholic? Of course not. If there was a gene for pedophilia, would we excuse it? Absolutely not.
Now I would hate to insult homosexuals by equating them with pedophiles so let me make it clear that that is not my goal. I simply want to illustrate that genes = moral is a fallacy. It is unfortunate that both gay rights advocates and conservative Christians have fallen for this simplistic thinking. So how do we judge if homosexuality is immoral or not? If we cannot appeal to the "natural order" (whatever that is) then to what or to whom do we appeal? I cannot answer that question [for those who do not follow Christ (added 3/16)], all I can do is show you that we cannot appeal to science. Science is not ultimate truth.
Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment...
4 comments:
Here's the link to Mohler's article
The way I see it, there is nothing controversial about what he is saying, except for the part about giving hormonal treatment for babies who would otherwise be born homosexual. That's a sticky one. But he really explores the issue well and does it quite thoughtfully and compassionately in my opinion.
"So how do we judge if homosexuality is immoral or not? If we cannot appeal to the "natural order" (whatever that is) then to what or to whom do we appeal? I cannot answer that question, all I can do is show you that we cannot appeal to science. "
Are you serious, Brother? You can't answer that question? You're right: science is not the ultimate truth. God's word is.
John 17:17
I apologize for being a bit unclear. I guess I meant I can't answer that question for others who may not believe the Bible is God's word. I will edit the post for clarity. For those people, I cannot give them a clear reason why they should believe homosexuality is immoral. I guess that's where things get sticky in trying to argue for a ban on gay marriage, why should Christians expect others to live by their moral views when they are based solely on Scripture? I was alluding to that problem with my statement, but you were right in pointing out that for Christians there is an obvious answer.
Thanks for clarifying, Curt. The answer to that problem may not be as difficult as some may think.
We cannot argue that homosexuality, or any sin, is wrong from a sociological perspective, that it violates nature, or that it just does not satisfy our personal criteria for morality. We can only argue that anything is right or wrong based on how it squares with God's holy character as defined within sacred scripture. Were it not for God's word, how else can we establish that homosexuality is wrong?
As Christians we should be more concerned with proclaiming God's truth, patiently and graciously, rather than convincing someone of our perspective. Besides, if God's word cannot convince them, I certainly won't be able to. Employing this approach requires trust in God, trust in His word, and it requires courage – courage to be laughed at or scoffed at when we are considered simple because we are willing to base our worldview on something as out-of-date as God's word.
But the Bible is not antiquated, and we are being perfectly reasonable when we allow its truth to transform the way we think (Rom 12:2). We should openly and humbly cite it as the source of our beliefs. Our Savior not only endorsed the power of God's word (Mt 5:18), He went so far as to only speak that which God the Father commanded Him to speak! "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak." (John 12:49)
If Christ Himself only spoke what God commanded Him, how much more should Christians speak only that which has been disclosed within the cannon of sacred scripture to justify their moral positions?
Post a Comment