Great post. That's a solid stand for truth!
I'm still interested in the scientific evidence. I've been studying it for a while and I haven't seen anything close to "overwhelming evidence."
I think that an important element is being left out of this debate, which is what do we "choose" to do with the way we are. Maybe some people are "born" gay. Maybe some people are born alcoholics or pedophiles. No one is any of these things until he or she takes an action, which implies a choice. Or you could suppose that no one makes choices and simply acts out his genetic programming, which would make the entire discussion academic. Regardless of inherent dispositions, we make choices; the question is, do we believe that we are responsible for our choices, even the hard ones?
David -
I like your point that God requires us to be better than we are born. It's not enough to just be ourselves, we have to be perfected into the likeness of Christ. When people complain that if such-and-such were true, that would be hard and unfair, I wonder what sort of life they have lived. It's hardly fair that Americans are so much more comfortable and catered to than children in Haiti or India. It's hardly fair that we live in peace while others die around the world to keep that peace. I would think that the inequities (and iniquities) of the world would serve to point to this theological truth. I know that I have a lot of perfecting to go through, and it certainly has not been easy or enjoyable at the times I've been forced to grow, though I am certainly grateful for it in retrospect.
Do you not find it true that the vast majority of theological misunderstandings (or just plain error) stem from an inadequate understanding of man's condition? Without a solid understanding of original sin and its implications toward us, errors abound.
I haven't seen anything concrete to say that homosexuality is in the genetics. There are theories of those who want to see it that way, but I haven't seen any proof.
Jesus was God in human form. Jesus had the genetics to make him human. Jesus was also perfect. Jesus also had the choice per Satan's temptations, but Jesus chose to remain perfect irregardless of the human genes that He had.
I can't see choice being encoded into the genetics. The choice to sin or not to sin is a part of our soul and not in the physical genes.
I, too, haven't seen any compelling evidence to support a genetic tendency toward homosexuality. But, if heterosexuality is genetic, does it logically proceed that homosexuality would be, as well (even if "genetic" really means "abnormally genetic")?
I have no axe to grind here. I'm squarely behind David's thoughts regarding original sin, and individual choice and ultimate personal accountability before a sovereign, holy and gracious God. I'm just asking a question out of ignorance.
I do agree with Prof Heddle on the sin piece. That is good. I don't lean towards homosexuality being genetic.
Perhaps, I should ask this question. If homosexuality were genetic, wouldn't that have died off a long time ago as two men can't reproduce and neither can two women? By virtue of the "gene" not being passed, it would disappear from the gene pool.
So, for me, the theory of homosexuality being genetic is not proven nor can it be proven.
Again, Jesus came to us in human form with human genes. If "sin" is programmed into human genes, He overcame the genetics with His choice to be perfect. We should strive for the same, too. We can't relinquish our responsibilities and blame it on genetics.
Here is my question. Why do we presume that sin is programmed into the genes anyway?
Adam and Eve had the genetics before the original sin. Jesus who is God in the flesh should not be marred with sin, therefore, I do not think that sin is programmed into the genes.
I can't explain what the sinful nature is from our birth except that it is a part of our soul that gets washed away when we have Jesus as our Savior.
Well, David, you're almost right.
Yeah, they're probably "born that way." Even if they're not, their "orientation" is most likely the result of environmental factors (absent father, sexual abuse, whatever) over which they had no more control than they did over their genes. And yes, their orientation is, one way or the other, a manifestation of original sin.
But God did not make them that way, and He does not punish them for who and what they are. Like all of us, they are captive to Satan, and it is his malice, not God's creative power, that has led them (and all of us) to be damaged goods. God does not condemn; He rescues.
I'm having some troubles with postings so, I hope I am not showing up multiple times with the same questions.
I think Prof Heddle is good with respect to the sin. I am not sold on the homosexuality being in the genetics bit.
If two men can't reproduce nor two women, those homosexual genes would be lost from gene pool a long time ago.
Adam and Eve had human genetics before the original sin. Jesus had human genetics. If Jesus is God in the flesh and can't be marred by sin, the sin is not in the genes.
Anyway, why presume that sin is in the genetics? We also have a soul that could have the sinful nature that is washed clean when we die by accepting Jesus as our Saviour.
On another note, I feel that people who blame genetics for their sinful problems are not taking responsibility for their actions. Their sinful actions are a result of their choice that has to be accounted for. This is why we must have Jesus.
On top of all that is said, the Bible does speak about homosexuality as if it were a choice in both Old and New Testaments. To sin or not to sin. There is no question about it else one would be saying the Bible is wrong.
Just to be clear--I am not suggesting that there is no choice involved as to whether or not one commits the sin of homosexuality. I am saying that it is a sin, regardless of whether you were born that way. And that the same reasoning applies to all sin. Clearly I accept the basic principle that through God you can, in fact, overcome the sin, though it may be a lifelong struggle.
I don't think that original sin could be encoded in genes, but then that gets back to a debate we've had several times before. I think that for us to be truly culpable for original sin it has to involve a moral failing, through our co-participation in the sin of Adam.
Evan
In a way it doesn't matter whether we are "culpable." That is, if we are damaged in such a way that we are no longer fit for communion with God, we need to be fixed, whether the damage was due to our own fault or due to some outside agency (viz. Satan). To put it another way, whether we've entered Satan's service voluntarily or we were abducted into it, we're still trapped and we still need to be rescued.
Luckily Jesus Christ has come in the flesh to do just that - no matter how we got that way.
David,
I agree with you completely. There are many diseases and physical disabilites that are genetic in nature. Yet no one suggests that say, a Down's Syndrome child, is normal and requires no special intervention to enable him to overcome the effects of his genetic make-up. Such problems are ultimately a result of the fallen condition of the creation. If homosexuality has a genetic base, then this is merely another genetic disorder to be corrected by whatever medical means available. That it also contains a moral element is not to be denied, even if it does have a genetic element. People can still choose what to do with what they are born with.
Alan
People can still choose what to do with what they are born with.
How right this is. I'm reminded of something the Eastern Orthodox theologian Alexander Schmemann once said: "The whole of the spiritual life consists of dealing with whatever cards you've been dealt."
Again, the presumption is that homosexuality is encoded in the genes. Why?
That's like saying those who like to steal have a gene that tells them to steal things.
Downs Syndrome is not a sin. It is a defect but it is not sin. It's not a good comparison.
Anyway, once we start to blame genetics for sins, then we start the process of alleviating personal responsibility and accountability. Can you imagine facing God one day and trying to say, "It's the genes You gave me that caused me to sin."
Good post — thanks David.
I think that those of us who believe in the Reformed doctrine of total depravity are more equipped to deal with the reality of homosexuality. We do not start with man's capabilities, but with God's righteous demands. The fact that man is incapable of fulfilling these apart from Christ does not make him innocent.
The reality of bondage to sin should also cause us to rethink our approach to homosexuality. Many people, presuming that homosexuality is a choice made by a 'natureless' man, believe that bare condemnation should be our response. However, someone in bondage cannot be saved by condemnation, only by the deliverance found in the gospel.
All this said, I do have some problems with genetic 'excuses' for homosexuality. I might actually post something on the subject on my blog this evening (I posted something else on homosexuality about a week ago).
"Who will render to every man according to his deeds" (Romans 2:6)
It was impressed on my thinking recently that God's judgement here is said to be according to deeds, not nature. It is indifferent to what nature is.
David,
Good post. I think I agree with you, but still don't agree with Dean. I believe there is a difference between 'sin' and 'Sin,' the one being a singular misdeed and the other the state of fallenness that all are in.
I think many Christians heap more judgments on homosexuals than they do on, say, those who rob from their employers by taking long lunch breaks. I am also convinced that, were Jesus walking among us today instead of 2000 years ago, He would be spending much quality time with the homosexual community, as He did with Samaritans, tax collectors and prostitutes. (What other subculture draws the ire of the religious elites as it did back then?)
So, yes, homosexuals were born in the same depraved state as me, Clinton and Billy Graham. I have no issue calling it a genetic encoding, although that terminology is metaphysical at best.
The secular genetic debate, though, is grounded not in theology, but in a desire to normalize sexual deviancy. The effect is meant to remove the homosexual from guilt, while our perspective reveals guilt.
Dean's comment, "...if God had thought homosexuality was a sin, he would not have created gay people," is especially misguided, for all of us were born with sin. It does, however, reveal an important theological ramification: Why did God create Judas, Nebuchadnezzar, the Pharaoh of the exodus, etc.? These men were designed with a specific, God-ordained purpose, yet similarly fell under harsh judgment for their actions and are not treated kindly in Scripture. Why would God create someone, knowing they would spend their entire lives opposing Him and persecuting His people as a part of God's plan, yet still hold them accountable? It's an old debate but still a good one.
Your thougthts?
I don't think anyone in this string is against the person involved in homosexuality or any other sin. It is the sin that is confronted. Love the person, but hate the sin.
We don't hang around bank robbers and accept their behavior and let them be. They go to jail for their actions. We may witness to bank robbers to try to turn them around. The same for any other sin including homosexuality.
The problem was that it was appearing like the sin of homosexuality was getting justified because there is a community who thinks it's OK, because they believe they are "born that way" such as Dean.
Ed, with all respect, I suggest you spend some serious time in the scriptures, because your thinking seems to stem from rationalizations and sloganized systematics ("hate the sin, love the sinner".) Check out Psalm 5, 7, and 11. God hates unrepentant evil doers, He sharpens His sword and feels indignation everyday. No one seeks God. No one does good.
I don't think we have adequate revelation in the Bible to describe just *how* sin is transferred from Adam and Even to the rest of humanity. This we do know, apart from regeneration, our thoughts are carried out without faith in God, and only evil all the time, continually (Genesis 6:5, Romans 14:last verse). Like a lepord who can't remove himself of his spots, we can't simply remove our sinful nature, from which flows all the hostility toward God in thoughts and deeds.
”[A] man without the Spirit of God does not do evil against his will, under pressure, as though he were taken by the scruff of the neck and dragged into it, like a thief . . . being dragged off against his will to punishment; but he does it . . . voluntarily. And this willingness of volition is something which he cannot in his own strength eliminate, restrain, or alter. He goes on willing and desiring to do evil; and if external pressure forces him to act otherwise, nevertheless his will remains averse to so doing and chafes under such constraint and opposition.” -Martin Luther
I was born with an unquenchable predisposition to hate God with all the emnity that I can possibly have. If God were any less holy, the natural man would hate him less.
WWJD - Jesus loved the sinner but hated the sin. Jesus told the woman at the well - "Go and sin no more." He did not hate her and tell her to go away. He had compassion for her but not her sin.
When we are commanded by Jesus to "love God with all our heart and soul" and "love our neighbors as ourselves," no conditions are given on what kind of neighbors. Our neighbors are all sinners as ourselves. There is only one thought - love the person but hate the sin.
Repentence is between the sinner and God, not between us sinners. So, we do not know who is repentent or not. Nor, is it our job to do the judging of whether someone is repentent or not. We can only do as God says for us to do and tell the Gospel to all the world. It is not for us to hate another person (even though we do at one time or another).
It's not slogans developed to distract Christians.
Enjoy.
I'll have to split with you on the evidence for a genetic component. I posted a contrary view here:
http://www.postmodernclog.com/
ar...tch.html#000424
That said, I think it's likely that there IS a genetic component. If we accept that the Fall ruined man comprehensively, how does that exempt his genetics? It's a bit like that little core of unspoiled reason that Arminians see glowing inside each person. It doesn't exist, and neither does pristine genetics. If the Creation itself was subject to futility, how much more the bodies of the people responsible for the Fall?
And you're right. The entire reason Evangelicals deny it is because they've projected egalitarian notions of fairness on to the Almighty God.
1. In response to Evan: the fundamental issue in original sin is that we are in Adam, and his trespass became death for us. The very fact that we are subject to sin and death demonstrates that Adam's sin was imputed to us apart from and prior to any action on our part.
2. A couple months ago, I made a similar point on my own blog: given original sin, and given differing personalities, it is certain that different people will have varying predispositions to various sins in various degrees. Some people will have a greater predisposition to lie than will others, some will have a greater predisposition to heterosexual lust etc. Thus there is no problem suggesting that some people have greater predispositions in the direction of homosexual sin.
3. But it is wrong to suggest that we can blame God for such predispositions, any more than we can blame God for evil in general. All sin exists due to original sin. Original corruption is a result of original guilt, and thus wicked predispositions are themselves a form of judgment upon the wickedness in which we already shared.
Whether such predispositions are "genetic" is beyond my capacity to judge. But David is thoroughly correct: we are accountable for the sins we commit, regardless of whether we have greater predispositions toward them than others.
Ed,
Firstly, I didn't promote the hatred of other human beings by ourselves. Jesus commanded us to love them. Although I don't think it's as cut and dry as the popular slogan puts it, because David clearly hates others ( with a 'perfect hate') in the imprecatory Psalms.
If anything, we *can't* simplify God to loving the sinner and hating the sin. He hates all unrepentant sinners. He rains on the just and unjust. He has patience and kindness toward those who hate Him. He hated Esau without regard to Esau's foreseen behavior or willing. Did you read the Psalms I recommended?
Secondly,
> "So, we do not know who is
> repentent or not. Nor, is it
> our job to do the judging of
> whether someone is repentent or not.
Then you might want to throw 1 Corinthians 5 out of the New Testament, especially the last couple of verses!
The main thing I'd want to communicate to you, Ed, is that we're all born sinners in passionate emnity toward God. He hate Him before He does an Ephesians 2 (or a Lazarus) on us.
I hope a study of this will increasing your knowledge of God's immeasurable love in Christ for us.
Grace and peace and kindness in our Potter,
Aaron
Correction: "We hate him...", not "He hate Him"
"Increase", not "Increasing"
Aaron, sounds like you repeat what I say in different words (semantics). You are trying to get me to "argue" about sin. I think that arguing the topic and using the Bible against itself (you pick your verses, I pick mine, and someone else picks theirs) is not a good thing to do.
I already stated that I agree with David Heddle's writing about everyone sins and needs Jesus.
My split with the posting is the theory of homosexuality being encoded in the genes.
enjoy,
Mr. Yong I think your logic on why homosexulity can't be genetic is faulty. This is because the same logic would apply to ANY genetic disease. We should not have Tay-Sachs, haemophilia, inherited breast cancer or any inheritable disease. And before you say, "But those aren't sinful" consider Alchoholism. The genetic component there is VERY strongly proven, but still Paul warns about drunkeness. All this wrongness is a consequence of the Fall, which ruined not just Adam and Eve but their whole line (i.e. us).
My own suspicion there is a genetic component to homosexuality, but that
there is also an environmental one as well as choice. This would also explain that people can change back to heterosexual as well as why it didn't just disappear through selection pressure.
In any case Mr. Heddle has the theology right, whether its wholly genetic, or wholly choice, or somewhere in between it is still sin and must be resisted by the person who feels it. This is just like the achoholic who must resist the temptation to give into drunkeness and the consequences of that action.
Mr Comeford, real "disease" such as hemophelia, cancer, are not sins. The faulty logic is lumping them into the same category as sinful behavior and actions (eg homosexuality). There are many reformed homosexuals whose testimonies about their sinful choice and not something they are born with, but alas, this is not thrust into the main stage. Many people still dwell on finding an excuse other than a sinful choice.
Show me the real proof of homosexuality in the genes instead of hearsay. I appreciate trying to understand where sin comes from. In my opinion, it started with the fall of Satan who then conned Eve to eat the fruit with Adam, introducing the human race to sin.
Sinful behavior may be a part of us and some of us have a harder time with it than others. But, to lump it with "the genes made me do it excuse" is a difficult pill for me to swallow.
Anyway, aside from where sin comes from, it is refreshing to know that Jesus looks beyond our sin to have compassion for us.
John 3:16 is a hard thing to comprehend for many - For God so LOVED the world that He gave His only begotten Son that WHOSOEVER believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. (No conditions are given on who is loved and who can believe).
Jesus had compassion for all (not a select few) including those responsible for His getting cruxified. "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." In my opionion, Jesus didn't automatically save them from Hell, but gave them a chance for Heaven. Jesus pleaded for God not to destroy them right on the spot, but give them a chance to accept Jesus.
Anyway, people may question my thinking, but that is how I read it from the Bible. I don't claim to be a Bible scholar. Just what the words mean to me.
And alcoholism is then not a sin, Ed?
Let's not lose common sense either. Does one not have the choice to make with alcohol?
Be not drunk with wine, the Bible states. Doesn't forbid drinking, but does forbid drunkeness.
Again, show me the proof. Why assume that it is true that homosexuality is genetic without the proof?
I have many weaknesses, but I don't blame genetics for my sinful behavior. I have choices to make and I am not a robot that has a pre-program within my DNA that tells me that I have no choice in sin. When I slip and sin in my actions, it is by my faulty selfish choice. I have to repent of my sins to Jesus. I do not pass the buck on genetics.
So not getting into this with ya'll, but I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this. If you get a chacne, check out my blog at the above address and go thru the archives...(there are not many). I started with ranting and raving about the ACLU, and ended up arguing homosexuality with another "Christian". I'm sure he and I could have gone round and round, but I am not a debator. Great job on your blog, David, and I will be by again and again!
God bless you always!! And you are right, HE LIVES!!!! Hallelujah!
I think he has a good arguement, however his analogies have a tendencty to break down in two ways as i see it. First On the matter of gravity for instance: yes that is a program written by God, but the planets have no choice in the matter. They must move according to the laws. If applied to our genetic coding that WOULD put God in the precarious position of creating an evil (through genetic coding) and then judging that creation as wicked and damned to eternal serparation. Unlike the planets we always have a choice. Which brings us to the second breakdown in this analogy, the fact that original sin is most likely not encoded in our genes for the simple fact that Jesus is the author of LIFE not original sin, and that when he created man on the sixth day it was GOOD! The original sin we inherit has a deeper root i think, not so easily explained in sugars and bases. But that is a question for another blog. 
Commenting by HaloScan
