Brains, biology, sheep, and Christian ethics

In my Christianity Today daily e-mail news update, there was a short article entitled "Re-engineering Temptation" about the controversies resulting from the blog entry by Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, on possible Christian responses to ideas of preventing homosexuality through hormonal therapies that prevent prenatal homosexuality or negate the sexual temptation for one's own sex in adulthood.

This short article dealt with the Christian ethics if a true biological component is confirmed in the establishment of a homosexual orientation (not preference).

In the article, the author mentioned a five years study being conducted at the Oregon Health and Science University by Dr. Charles Roselli. This paragraph really caught my attention, for one reason that the author of the article didn't attempt to refute it.

"The story begins at the Oregon Health and Science University, where Charles Roselli studies homosexual sheep (about 8 percent of rams are gay). His research, now more than five years old, has confirmed a link between brain chemistry and sexual preference. But his data does not indicate whether chemistry or preference comes first."

At least this seems to suggest that if we look to nature for signs of right theological definitions and concepts, then we will need to conclude that within nature, homosexuality is present and a normal part, even if in small percentages.

So, here are two links to press releases by the university concerning the research of Roselli:

BIOLOGY BEHIND HOMOSEXUALITY IN SHEEP, STUDY CONFIRMS

BRAIN DIFFERENCES IN SHEEP LINKED TO SEXUAL PARTNER PREFERENCE

If science is done well, it will tell us what is observably and verifiable factual. What we choose to do with that information, those theories, those facts, is the realm of ethics and theology.

Alan Chambers, president of the ex-gay umbrella group "Exodus International" commented in the article:

"People like me who struggled with it and found freedom are more than sufficient proof that we can overcome our genetics," he said. "Science will never trump the Word of God."

Frankly, I agree with him, with a caveat. Science and theology deal with two different realms of knowing. Each, rightly construed, should inform one another, not conflict. After all, good science will help us understand what God has wrought. Good theology will help us understand what to do with the knowledge.

Science will never trump Scripture, but Scripture rightly understood will never contradict good science. This was the thought of those ancient Christian monks who developed the beginnings of our modern understanding of science and the observation of the world as it is.

What science may well do is help us understand whether we have rightly interpreted and understood the Word of God! In this case, if science gives us reliable and verifiable evidence that there is in fact a biological determinate concerning homosexuality, then the way we approach, understand, and apply the Word of God concerning this issue may well need to change - not because God changes or the Word of God changes, but because we are wrong in our traditional understanding and application of the Word of God.

After the science, then theology comes into play. What shall we then do?

e-mail me

What is, is

Most of the opposition to same-sex relationships these days centers around "behavior." Most of those who oppose same-sex relationships will admit that there is a difference between "being something" and "acting in some way." There still are, of course, those who insist that homosexuality does not really exist and those who self-identify as "homosexual" or more pointedly "gay" are really heterosexuals with a problem (thus the creation of "Same-Sex Attraction Disorder, or "SSAD," by Joseph Nicolosi's NARTH) or who know they are heterosexual and have gay-sex anyway.

The problem with simply focusing on behavior is that a false "being" is created. If you do not engage in certain behaviors, you are not in your "being" this thing. If a person is homosexual and never acts sexually, that person is still a homosexual. Most ex-gay ministries and the anti-gay “therapeutic” community often deny the reality of this “being”.

They will say that our "being" is determined by how we identify the self. If we do not identify as "homosexual," or more particularly "gay," then we are not, despite what sexual temptations we may face or how our emotional attractions seem to be ordered. Currently, the whole "ex-gay" tag is generally defined by a person simply not claiming to be "gay” any longer, again, regardless of how they feel or to whom they are affectually or sexually attracted.

If they want to base the anti-gay arguments on behavior, then I can easily say that same-sex relationships that do not engage in certain behaviors are absolutely permitted. If I don't do this, or this, or that, then there is no problem. Of course, what "this" or "that" behavior actually is or what the behavior(s) comprise is another issue. What anti-gay groups want to happen is an end to self-identification as homosexual or gay, and in so doing they will change their "being." The not doing of certain behaviors will not be enough; anything short of an end to self-identification (or honesty about how one actually feels and knows himself/herself to "be") as gay will not be tolerated.

If the behaviors were removed from the equation, they would then say that you simply have a very good friendship - buddies, palls, and the like. This ignores the whole affectual domain. That deep attraction, love, devotion, etc. for the beloved that exists between to heterosexuals, that is sometimes expressed through sexual behavior, is also present for homosexuals. This aspect of "being" is all too often ignored among the arguments against same-sex relationships.

Heterosexuals don't stop being heterosexuals in their "being" if they do not engage in sex, and a married couple does not stop being a loving heterosexual couple if for whatever reason they are unable or unwilling to engage in certain behaviors.

If is very difficult, at least with regard to the current language and tactics used by the anti-gay/ex-gay camp, to deny same-sex relationships if those relationships simply happened to not include certain behaviors.

As a Christian I cannot deny reality! I cannot create or demand in my own "image" what is or isn't, what sense of "being" is or is not. Honesty is a huge issue, and reveals itself in the overwhelming failure over time of the ex-gay persona and message. The "being" they demand and want cannot be sustained by the vast majority of people - even those who are highly motivated.

I have much more respect of the U.S. Roman Catholic organization “Courage” than most Evangelical ex-gay ministries - Exodus. Courage has traditionally focused on helping gay Catholics maintain celibacy, despite what they feel. It is not a denial of their very “being,” but rather an emphasis on how they believe they need to behave regardless of who or what they are. This is a different emphasis and understanding of the “being” of homosexual people that one finds in most Christian anti-gay/anti-same-sex relationship groups.

comments? e-mail me