Lefty Side of the Dial

if we discovered that another behavior which we define as sinful was genetic, would we consider it less sinful? as an example, there are studies that point to genetic connections to alcoholism. drunkenness is considered sinful.

i also am troubled by some of the implications of genetic manipulation.

This whole problem goes away if you reject the notion of sin. I know that's trite and all, but it's a pretty simple solution in my mind.

I don't understand this focus on homosexuality (though I have my ideas) out of all the other sins. Are proponents of this idea also keen on the idea that, were it possible, we could mix some hormones into the water of, say a Muslim region that would make their babies into infidels? I mean, worshiping other gods is number one on the big ten whereas, homosexuality can only be tossed in by inferring from adultry at number seven.

First off, I was thrilled that this guy managed to tick off BOTH sides of the issue, those who think homosexuality is nature as opposed to nuture, and those who are troubled (as I am) by the absolutely unnecessary genetic manupulation that smacks of Big Brother. Let's get rid of redheads and (shudder) left-handed people. On a practical matter, messing with the gene pool will undoubtedly have unintended consequences.

First of all, I want to resist the dichotomy that in this world there are only two types of people, homophobes and homophilias (one's who accept homosexuality). I am bothered by this dichotomy because it shuts down discussion of this issue. Most people don’t want to be deemed intolerant or “a hater” and so, when there are those who may not accept homosexuality, or who at least question it, they will not enter into the debate for fear of being branded. Contrary to this, in the Xian tradition God is represented as one who deeply loves those whose behavior, and motives, he often deeply detests. What this leaves for Xians, in the way of an example, is that you do not have to agree with or deem acceptable everything about a person whom you love. I know you know this Chris, but you have implied this dichotomy before and you imply it again in your post.

Now, to get into the issue itself- The basic teaching of Christian orthodoxy is that the world (the whole order of creation, natural and supernatural) has become subject to the fall. Consequently, we cannot look at how things are to tell us how they ought to be. The creation no longer reveals God’s original design nor does it reveal his plan for humankind or any other aspect of his creation. This means that if a “homosexual” gene was to be discovered it would not prove that homosexuality is acceptable according to God’s plan for creation. Rather, such a gene could be seen as evidence of the fall. To elaborate further, such a gene could be an expression of the corruption that entered into the world as a result of Adam’s sin. The consistent testimony of Scripture is that when Adam sinned, death entered into the world, which could legitimately be understood as a power that undermines and blights the integrity of God’s creation. So, the question then becomes, is homosexuality an original part of God’s plan for his creation, or is it an expression of the fall? To answer this question it would be absurd to look back to the world as a source of authority, since the status of the world is the very thing that is problematic. It is for this reason that Christians throughout the ages have proclaimed our need to read the Scriptures to get an understanding from a perspective outside of the fallen world, to get an understanding from God’s perspective.

As far as turning to the Scriptures for a source of authority is concerned, let me just say that I am aware of a wide variety of hermeneutic and epistemological issues that make interpreting it problematic. One of them being that our intellectual powers have been affected by the fall, and thus our understanding of Scripture is likely to be tainted. In response to this there have been a variety of teachings within Christendom that seeks to explain how God works through his Spirit both upon individual believers and upon the Church as a whole in leading them to the Truth. Add to this the fact that the nature of the Scriptures themselves is an issue of controversy. Even among people like myself who believe it is God’s word, there is debate about the relationship between its divine and human aspects. (For example, I personally resist terms like “inerrant” and “infallible” and I am very open to using various critical methodologies to help us understand the Scriptures, but in the midst of this openness I resist conclusions that the Scriptures are only a human document and that consequently we can dismiss parts that don’t fit well with our values or attitudes.) Because of the complex and problematic nature of Biblical interpretation I often turn to what has been referred to as “The Christian Tradition”, which can be understood as a consensus of belief based upon a history Scriptural interpretation that has been passed down through the ages. In short, this consensus of belief (throughout the ages) has also been referred to as “Orthodoxy”. The implication of orthodoxy is that though the Church may have new insights into the will of God, nothing new can contradict that which came before. All of this leads up to the point where I say that the Church’s clear teaching throughout the ages is that homosexuality is not a part of God’s plan for creation, that it is a symptom of corruption. Now, when I speak like this, let me be clear by saying that this corruption has blighted all of us in different ways, and that consequently I cannot sit in judgment (neither do I desire to do so) upon homosexuals. Rather, I am called as a Christian to embrace them even as I resist the idea that their homosexuality is essential to who they are as God’s beloved creature.

There is so much more I could say about this complex and emotionally difficult issue, but since I have already given a small dissertation, I will stop here. The floor is now open to whoever else wants to respond.

OK, So I lied. I did not address the issue of genetic manipulation. Let me just say briefly (honestly I do mean briefly) that I have moral reservations about this kind of human intervention. For me it does smack a bit of fascism. In the end, I think that grace is greater than nature (defects and all) and that the redemption God freely gives need not be assissted by humanities' technological prowess. In fact, I think that when humans try to get involved in this way it often ironically produces some pretty twisted results.

Anthony, being that man is part of creation as you define it, would not the church, the bible, and all things religious fall into the same category that you put science in? As you say here:

Consequently, we cannot look at how things are to tell us how they ought to be.

How is it that you can decide the bible and the church are conveying god's message but scientists discovering a genetic marker, can't possibly be god's message?

Anthony-

Very well stated. That said, I'm going to disagree. The "orthodoxy" of Christianity has allowed for The Word to be limited to the leadership, support of slavery, the limitations on women, anti-Semitism (see the Pope's apology only relatively recently), etc.

My sense of homosexuality is that it is one of God's gifts (yes, I'm nature in the nature vs. nuture conversation) and that our understanding is constantly evolving with regard to what God has in store for us.

As someone else has already noted, I'm not quite sure why the homosexuality issue still holds sway while other Biblical prohibitions (divorce and blue laws immediately come to mind) are appropriately (I believe) re-envisioned.

Adam, Your questions are good ones. First of all, let me begin by saying the reason I made a distinction between religion and science and why I gave religion a privileged place regarding knowledge of God’s will is that science makes no direct claims to tell us about the divine. Many religions, by contrast, do make this claim. Of course, the fact that they make this claim does not mean they do indeed tell us anything about God. That said, however, if I am seeking a source of authority to tell me about God, I am going to first of all choose one that makes such a claim, and secondly I am going to look at how those who make this claim support it. Of those religions who do make this claim, the way they generally seek to support it is through a further claim that they have received revelation from God. Stated another way, their knowledge of God is the product of God’s own self-communication, and thus it is from a source that is beyond the fallen context that prompted me to say, “we cannot look at how things are to tell us how they ought to be.” Science, by contrast, being based upon empirical investigation relies upon the faculties and authority of man and makes no claim of transcendent knowledge. With all this said, I realize that I am still left with the central question: how do I know if those who make the claim to have received revelation from God have indeed received this revelation? Honestly, the answer to this is I don’t know in such a way that I can prove it. However, I would assert that many things that are accepted as true cannot be absolutely proven. To illustrate this, I am going to look at science, the bedrock of empirical certitude.

Sir Isaac Newton constructed many theories about the laws of motion that were accepted for the longest time as true. The reason they were accepted as true is that they provided powerful explanations for people’s experience of motion in the world, experience obtained both through casual observation and laboratory experiment. There were, however, some problems with his theories, there were anomalies that some of his theories couldn’t account for. Consequently, another brilliant mind, Albert Einstein, constructed the theory of General Relativity to address the anomalies and account for large-scale motion in the universe. The problem with Einstein’s theory, however, is that though it explained large-scale motion, it seemingly contradicted the theories of Quantum Mechanics, which is able to explain how motion works at the subatomic level. In response to this contradiction, another group of scientists are working on a theory, called String theory, which seeks to resolve the tension between these two powerful theories.

Please know, that in pointing all of this out, I am not seeking to undermine the enterprise of science, but as mentioned, I only want to illustrate that proving something is a tenuous affair. In fact, science is the discipline that factors this reality into its very endeavor, for ideally it is not driven by proof, but by falsifiability. Science is supposed to be a self-correcting discipline that relies on the possibility of being disproven as a part of its endeavor to understand the world around us. Of course, what makes science so potent is not that falsifiability is worked into its endeavors, but that it creates theories that provides great explanatory power, and it is this notion of explanatory power where I find connection to my convictions regarding the testimony of Scripture and the teachings expressed in the Xian tradition.

A part of the reason that I believe the Scriptures are the product of God’s revelation, and why I believe in a central core of interpretation that I referred to as orthodoxy, is that it provides for me a powerful explanatory framework by which I am enabled to make sense of who I am and the world around me. Through orthodox Christianity I am able to make sense of why there is war, injustice, oppression, pestilence, and famine. Moreover I am enabled to account for why basically good people do bad things, or why I, who strive to be good, do bad things, or why people hurt those they love. Beyond this, I am also given a sense of meaning and purpose that accounts for deep longings and promptings in my psyche. It explains why I, and many others I know, feel like a fish out of water even though the world is supposedly our natural habitat and all things are supposedly as they should be. I mean, if there is no God and there is no fall, then why wouldn’t the given conditions feel all right? I suppose for some they do, but not for me. Of all the explanations I have read regarding the human condition, Christian orthodoxy is the one that is most potent. As I have indicated, however, I realize that my position and beliefs are not without problems, but as far as I know, there is no position, ideology, belief, or theoretical construct that doesn’t have its own set of problems. They all can be criticized for weaknesses and errors, and Xianity does no worse than other positions people adopt to make sense of the world. Even in those instances where people adopt nothing they still are subject to the same problems.

Finally, I must acknowledge a fideistic element to my convictions, which is to say that I believe for reasons that go beyond reason. Ultimately, I think that I subscribe to Xian orthodoxy because the Spirit of Christ has worked upon my heart, mind and imagination to come to the place to do so. Why I have responded this way to God’s Spirit and others haven’t, or how it is that God’s Spirit is working in other people’s lives I cannot give an account for. And, I realize that for many this is intellectually unsatisfactory. All I can say is that in the end I don’t think anyone stands in a place that is not without unsatisfactory elements, and that ultimately I don’t want to stand in a place that can be completely accounted for within the limits of the human mind.

Roger, Thanks for the compliment on my writing. You raise some issues that of course are problematic. I will see what I can do to respond to them.

Undeniably and unfortunately there have been contradictions throughout Xian history, some of which have been unconscionable, others of which are just basic human foibles. Of course, in Xianity the tension comes from the fact that it claims to be a religion based upon the work of God and yet it appears all to human in its practices and to some degree its beliefs. In response to this I think of Jesus’ parable about the wheat and the tares, the point of which is that there will be in the Church some who profess Christ, but don’t actually trust him and rely upon his Spirit to restore them to the glory. Along with this, those who are being restored, can at times look pretty ugly throughout the process of restoration, to the point that it is not possible to determine whose faith is genuine and who is living ultimately in falsehood. This is what I think Christ meant by his prohibitions against judgment. He did not mean that behavior or actions are not subject to judgment, but that no one in this present age is able to sit in judgment upon the state of another person’s soul.

To respond to your criticisms of “orthodoxy”, I think it is necessary that I begin by clarifying what I mean when I use this term. By “orthodoxy” I do not mean the doctrines of any particular denomination (Presbyterian, Baptist, etc) or tradition (Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholic, Protestant) rather I mean the affirmations and creeds that emerged from the first seven ecumenical councils of the Church prior to the great schism of the 10th century. During this time, when the Church was institutionally unified, a central core of belief was articulated that emerged from the whole Church’s reflection and interpretation of Scripture. My conviction is that this core articulation is a non-negotiable part of what it means to be genuinely Christian. The implication of this is that though Xianity may develop, particularly in response to interactions with new cultures, it cannot do so in a way that undermines this central core.

With my definition of “orthodoxy” in place I will now address the issues you raised regarding its effects throughout history (support of slavery, limitation women, anti-Semitism). First I would say that though Christians (individuals and groups) have defended these sorts of things, none of these things were ever a part of “orthodoxy”. For example, I am quite certain you cannot find in early Church doctrine an endorsement of the institution of slavery, a statement that women are of lower status than men, or that the Jews are to be derided because they didn’t recognize the Messiah. Beginning with the issue of slavery, I am aware that Paul did not condemn it, but this lack of condemnation should not be read as an endorsement that later needed to be corrected when the Church developed and became more enlightened about such affairs. Moreover, Paul, in his theology of redemption laid the groundwork by which slavery upon further reflection would eventually be overturned.

Turning to the limitation of women, I admit that there are many scriptures that limit them, however, there are also many scriptures that clearly affirm the equality of women with men. When I look at the limitations that orthodoxy places upon women, it usually has to do with women’s roles in Church leadership and to be honest I am constantly wondering how to negotiate this limitation with the gifts and talents that I clearly see women possessing. For example, Billy Graham’s daughter, Anne, is gifted more like her dad than is her brother Franklin, but it is Franklin that is being groomed to take his father’s mantle. If talent and gifts were the only factors to consider regarding whether women should be in such a position of leadership, then clearly there is an injustice happening in Graham’s ministry, but I am not sure that gifts and talents are the only things to consider when making such decisions. I am going to put all my cards on the table and just say outright that I don’t have any other criteria by which to defend such decisions. However, there are two things that I want to assert along with my lack of defense. First, I do believe that it is possible that beyond my understanding there are reasons why men are given access to certain positions of leadership within the Church that women are denied. Secondly, I don’t think that equality has to be affirmed through sameness. In other words, I don’t think that men and women have to be able to do the same things in order for them to be equal. It could be that each has a different but equally valuable role to play in the overall economy of God. I realize that asserting this possibility is not without its problems. I can see how this idea can be used as a tool of oppression, but this does not mean that it is an inherently oppressive idea. Many good things are abused and put toward evil ends, which is exactly the meaning of the Church’s teaching regarding the fall.

As far as anti-Semitism is concerned, it is a sad component of Church history, but it is not an official doctrine of orthodoxy. In fact, orthodoxy would affirm that Jesus is a Jew, that he is the fulfillment of the history of Israel, and that the Jews factor into God’s plan for salvation in a way that no one fully understands. From an orthodox perspective, Jews are to be respected as the spiritual ancestors of Christians, and if anything, prayed for, but not persecuted. The point is that anti-Semitism is a departure from orthodoxy, not an expression of it. Consequently, the fact that most Churches don’t currently espouse anti-Semitism is not because they have developed and become more enlightened, but rather, if anything, they have repented of an aberration and embraced the original truth.

Finally, regarding divorce and Blue Laws, the Church has not really had a change in conviction about these things. Divorce is still considered a sin by those who embrace orthodoxy. The Church, even those who are orthodox may be more lax about their response to such matters, but they don’t hold that divorce is acceptable. There is forgiveness, as there always has been, but true forgiveness does not excuse sin. Rather, it proclaims that beyond the moral consequences that are deserved for an evil committed, there is pardon and a new hope because of what Christ has done on the cross. Regarding Blue Laws, the Church still believes that believers should have a day of rest. Sure, such conviction is no longer enforced by law, but that is because there is a separation between Church and State (thank God), not because it is no longer a Christian (orthodox) conviction.

Finally, finally, if I understood correctly, your criticism of my initial statement was that orthodoxy has been responsible for a lot of things that Xians currently hold as wrong or immoral. Moreover, as the Church has come to a different understanding of what “God has in store for us” it has changed its mind about things that were originally espoused by orthodoxy as God’s will. As I have tried to demonstrate above, however, I don’t think the Church really has changed its mind. Though there have been instances where some in the Church went astray, or where nascent ideas have developed and created change in practice, or where things have become lax, or where society once codified Xian conviction, none of this means a change in the Church’s central and core beliefs. In light of this, the reason why homosexuality still holds sway is not because it is the last piece of dogmatism that refuses to give in as the Church’s other convictions have. Rather, homosexuality remains an issue because the whole of orthodoxy still stands and it is a contradiction to its basic beliefs. According to orthodoxy, homosexuality does not express God’s design in creation and in redemption, rather it is part of the whole creation that currently groans in its subjection to the fall and awaits the liberation of God’s children.

Strangely this also raises questions for the liberal left,that they are in the main ignoring.
This women's call for manipulation of a foetus-whilst I think hypocritical-raises the issue of the rights of the unborn.Which are none.The doctrine of the women's right to choose is a mantra of the left.
The woman's right to choose would extend to the right to abort a gay foetus,not just adjustment.Hence the outcry when research is done in this area,to isolate a gay gene.Strangely the arguements of morality in science are raised.
Whereas tests for Down's Syndrome and the termination of the disabled is acceptable.

The right of choice must by logical extension extend to this.

Brian