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?

Continue reading →