Was it something we thought about?

Albert Mohler posted an extended response today to the fury ignited over his recent remarks on homosexuality ("Was it something I said?"). He devotes most of the article to two things: explaining what he actually did say, as opposed to what he was misquoted as saying; and developing a thoughtful (though yet brief) Biblical outline of thinking on the topic. He addresses responses to both Christians and homosexuals who disagreed with what he said, or what they thought he said.

The complaints he received remind me how very important it is just to think.

Harry Blamires, Mark Noll, J.P. Moreland, James Emery White, and Os Guinness have all written about the need to strengthen "the evangelical mind." This is not a uniquely Christian problem, although there was a period of anti-intellectualism among conservative Christians in the 20th century, rising out of a misguided fortress response to liberal modern theology. That situation is turning around, but we have some distance to go. The more complex the issues become, the more important it is to think well about them. Much as I hate to call further attention to it, though, there were believers who jumped on Albert Mohler--based on inadequate Biblical reflection.

One thing Dr. Mohler said that caught ire was that science might someday find a genetic basis underlying some persons' homosexual orientation. Them are fightin' words in some Christian quarters. But rather than jumping to a knee-jerk response, believers should reflect on two questions:

1. Is it really possible that science could discover such a thing? I don't know. I can't think of any reason to be absolutely certain it won't happen.
2. What would it mean if that happened?

Here's where the church needs to be thinking things through much more carefully.

We're awash in the message that biology is destiny. Our culture says that we are what we were born and nurtured to be, so we have very little responsibility for how we have turned out to be. In one sense that's true: we don't control our own genes or our own upbringings. Many personality and ability traits are correlated with genetics (identical twin studies are really fascinating on this), and childhood environment has powerful lifelong effects as well. So who we are as adults is largely the result of factors we didn't control.

So are we responsible for who we are? Are we responsible for what we do? Hold on a moment: "responsible" has at least two meanings. Suppose your 11-year-old son gets the crazy idea that with a little practice he could be a trapeze artist. The dining room chandelier is there for him to swing from, but of course it breaks. You come home and ask, "Were you responsible for this?" I think he could honestly answer, "No, I wasn't responsible at all." His actions certainly were not responsible. They could be attributed to youthful immaturity. But you were asking, technically, if he was the agent who made the deciding choice that resulted in the outcome you see. In that sense, of course, he was responsible.

Our culture tells us that if we're not responsible for ourselves in the one sense--being the agent that produced our personalities and inclinations--then we're probably not responsible in the sense that we can be called to account for what we do. (If you doubt that, read this, which I blogged on a few days ago in another context.) There's more than a hint of physical determinism in that perspective: the belief that we're programmed in a way that we can't break out of.

These are such easy conclusions to jump to--which is why we need to think. We ought to be informed enough to know there is a fallacy of equivocation, to recognize that "responsible" in one place may not mean the same as "responsible" in another. We ought to recognize the physicalist source of believing we can't escape our genetics and upbringing. You see, if you have a problem with Dr. Mohler's suggesting there might be some genetic basis for homosexuality, you just might have bought into the culture's views on choice and responsibility, not the Biblical view. It's a secular conclusion, not a Biblical one, that says homosexual behavior is not a sin just because it's not a choice.

What does a more Biblical perspective say? It challenges both parts of that conclusion: that behavior is not a choice, and that this makes it not a sin. The Bible says we are free persons in God's image, thus our behaviors are not determined by genetics and background, even though, to some extent, our dispositions are. The Bible further says that we all have a sin problem, and indeed for all of us it is inborn. We all have a genetic predisposition to sin. Predispositions are not sin, though, just as temptations are not sin (Jesus was tempted). Yet we are all responsible for what we do, in the sense of being free agents who make choices for which we are accountable. (Our freedom apart from Christ is limited: it takes the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit to enable us to grow in consistently doing what is right before God.)

Therefore, if science someday demonstrated a genetic basis for a homosexual orientation, that would only mean that the temptation to homosexual behavior is the same as any other temptation: it's based in our fallen human condition, our genes don't make it okay or right to accede to temptation, by God's grace through the Holy Spirit we can say no to sinful behaviors, and we're still responsible.

At this point I'm reminded of something N.T. Wright said: the danger of doing theology is that every time you speak you have to say everything you believe, or someone is going to accuse you of not believing it. I'm not going to have time here to say everything I believe about this issue. I can at least punt to Dr. Mohler: I agree with what he wrote. I especially agree that the Bible says clearly that homosexual practice is sin; but that the church has bungled its response to the homosexual community, and has not expressed God's grace as well as we should.

But that's not even my main point. While a current controversy over homosexuality was the occasion for my writing this post, it's not my main topic. (It's a timely illustration of my main point, and its emotionality makes it an especially good illustration.) If homosexuality were my chief concern this time, I probably would have just pointed a quick link to Dr. Mohler's article, because he said what needs to be said, and very graciously at that. Or if I were writing on it as the main topic, I would file it under "Life and Choices;" but I'm putting it under "Thinking Christianly" instead. That's what I really hope catches your attention, and in this I am and I have been speaking specifically to Christian readers. (I still expect to get the usual disagreements from others, regarding homosexual practice as sin. I don't suppose there's much I can do to head that off.)

Christians, let's get our minds in shape, so that when things get emotional, we're prepared to keep thinking. Oh, and by the way, let's try to respond to what a person like Dr. Mohler said, not what reporters say he said.

Posted: Fri - March 16, 2007 at 10:55 AM |

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson getCategoryName("<$CategoryUUID$>");

Was it something we thought about?

Thinking Christian by Tom Gilson