Blaming God for the sin of Homosexuality?
Image via WikipediaHomosexuals today commonly claim that they cannot help being homosexual. Homosexuality, they argue, is innate: perhaps genetically determined, in any case inescapable. It is what they are. God made them that way. Therefore, they conclude, church and society should accept their homosexuality as natural and normal.
Similar questions arise in other areas. Some years ago, it was learned that an abnormally high proportion of men with a “double y” (XYY) chromosome engage in anti-social or criminal behavior. Later came the discovery that a certain gene is associated with a relatively high percentage of alcoholics. And still more recently, Simon LeVay, a gay activist and neuroscientist, argued that there are some significant differences between the brains of exclusive homosexuals and those of presumed heterosexuals. Does this research imply that homosexuality is an innate condition rather than a choice? Can it not be helped, and therefore accepted as normal?
I believe there were some flaws in LeVay’s research, and in any case he fails to rule out the possibility that sexual behavior affects the relevant brain tissue rather than the other way around. But let’s assume that there is an innate physical basis for homosexuality, and for alcoholism, and indeed in some cases for general criminality. What ethical conclusions should we draw?
For one thing, we certainly should not draw the conclusion that gay activists want to draw, namely that such conditions must be accepted as natural and normal. Diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Sickle-Cell Anemia are genetic, but nobody considers them normal. Nor do we consider alcoholism or anti-social behavior to be normal. Rather, we do all we can to fight them. Genetic discoveries, indeed, open up more possible weapons for this fight. Some have even suggested that the discovery of a “gay gene” would give us the opportunity of eliminating such homosexuality, or at least one impulse toward it. That is precisely what gay activists don’t want to hear.
Further, we must keep these discoveries in perspective. Not everyone who has a certain gene becomes a criminal, and not everyone with a genetic risk factor for alcoholism actually becomes an alcoholic. Similarly, a “gay gene,” should it exist, would not actually determine people to be homosexual. Half of all identical twin brothers of homosexuals are heterosexual. These data suggest some genetic influence on homosexuality, but far less than genetic determinism. Indeed, they suggest that it is possible for someone to resist patterns of behavior to which he or she is genetically predisposed. Genes do determine eye color, sex, blood type, and so on; but patterns of behavior, although influenced by genetic make-up, do not seem to be controlled by it. Genes may impel, but they don’t compel.
Indeed, other sorts of influences are more compelling than genetic inheritance. An unsigned editorial in National Review (Aug. 9, 1993, p. 17) points out that “the effects of childhood brutalization can restrict one’s freedom far more than does a physiological preference for sweets; and many purely biological impulses pale in strength before the smoker’s need of a cigarette.” If we excuse homosexuality on the basis of genetic predisposition, we should equally excuse all acts resulting from environmental influence and from bad choices in the past. Therefore, whether a compulsion has a genetic basis is ethically irrelevant.
Certainly one who has a genetic propensity to alcoholism cannot excuse his alcoholism on that basis; nor can a man with the XYY chromosone excuse his criminality. These conditions do not force people to do anything contrary to their desires. In that sense, they do not compromise moral freedom. They do create moral challenges, though. But that too should be seen in perspective: all of us have areas where we are especially vulnerable to the Devil’s enticements. Sometimes these are influenced by heredity, environment, experiences, past decisions, so we are not all challenged in the same way. None of these challenges are entirely under our control. For all of us, this world is a spiritually dangerous place. Truly, “your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour” (1 Pet. 5:8). But those of us know God’s grace in Jesus can “resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings” (v. 9).
Would a genetic basis for homosexuality eliminate the element of “choice?” Certainly not. A person with a genetic propensity for alcoholism still makes a choice when he decides to take a drink, and then another, and then another. Same with an XYY male who decides to punch somebody in the nose. Those with a gay gene would face greater temptation to homosexuality than do others. But those who succumb to this temptation choose to do so, as do all of us when we succumb to our own besetting temptations.
Is it possible for a homosexual to repent of his sin and, by God’s grace, to become heterosexual? Certainly God can deliver homosexuals from their patterns of sin. There is always a “way of escape” (1 Cor. 10:13). Christian ministries to homosexuals claim that this is possible and that it has happened, though they admit that homosexuality is a particularly difficult sin to deal with. Sexual orientation is something that goes very deeply into human personality, and we instinctually keep it very private. That instinct is a good one, but it does make counseling in this area especially difficult.
Gay activists claim that such radical change is impossible. They dispute alleged “ex-gay” testimonies. Indeed, some people who have professed deliverance from homosexuality have later returned to homosexual relationships. And many “ex-gays” have candidly admitted that they continue to experience homosexual attraction, which they now perceive as a moral and spiritual challenge. Pro-gay advocates argue that this lingering homosexual temptation proves that homosexuality is ineradicable.
But such continuing temptation exists as well for other sinners saved by grace. Former sins continue to tempt many recovering alcoholics, and those struggling with hot tempers, drugs, or heterosexual promiscuity. Recurrent temptation is a problem for all of us, and will be until glory.
Consider a still broader perspective: In one important sense, all sin is inherited. We are guilty of Adam’s transgression, and through Adam we inherit sinful natures. If a genetic predisposition excuses homosexuality, then our inheritance from Adam excuses all sin! But in fact God excuses none of it (Rom. 3:23).
Is that fair? Remember that Adam, our representative before God, contained all the genetic potentialities of all of us and lived in a perfect environment save one source of temptation. None of us could or would have done any better. God has made the human race to be a single body, and He has the right to judge it as a single entity. In the final analysis, we are His creations. He has the right to do as He pleases with the work of His hands (Rom. 9).
In this broad context, then, the argument that one sin should be declared normal because it is “genetic” or otherwise “inevitable” is patently self-serving and entirely unpersuasive. Dare any of us say any such thing in the face of Almighty God? The clay has no right to talk back to the Potter, asking “Why did you make me like this?” (Rom. 9:20). When God’s Word accuses us of sin, we have no choice but to fall down before God and plead for His mercy. God sees our hearts, and He judges us rightly. But where sin abounds, grace abounds much more (Eph. 2:8–10). God promises forgiveness, healing, and new life to all those who cast their sins on Jesus.
