|
By John M. Frame
Homosexuals today commonly claim that they cannot help being
homosexual. Homosexuality, they argue, is innate: perhaps
genetically determined, in any case so deeply ingrained in their
very being that it is, for them, an inescapable condition.
Therefore, they conclude, church and society should accept
homosexuality as natural and normal. Surely, they insist, it is
unfair to condemn people for what they cannot help doing.
Indeed, those homosexuals who want recognition as Christians
interpret the "inescapability" of their condition theistically: "God
made me this way." How can Christians, then, condemn a condition
that God himself created?
This question comes up in many areas of discussion other than
homosexuality.
The rapid progress of genetic science has led to lively discussions
concerning whether some behavior patterns are innate. Some years
ago, it was learned that an abnormally high proportion of boys with
a double "y" chromosome engages in anti-social or criminal behavior.
Does this discovery imply that criminality, in some cases, at least,
is an innate and inescapable condition? What then? Should we abort
children who have this genetic combination? Should we test children
early for this condition and take special pains to steer xyy boys
into constructive paths? Should we seek ways to change the genetic
makeup of such children?
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, published a paper in
Science
(253:1034-1037) arguing that there are some minute but statistically
significant differences between heterosexual and homosexual men in
the size of the "INAH-3" region of the anterior hypothalmus, part of
the brain. Some have argued that this discovery tends to establish
what gay activists have long been saying, namely that homosexuality
is an innate condition rather than a "choice," that it cannot be
helped, and therefore it should be accepted as normal.
I am not competent to evaluate LeVay's research. I do think that we
are wise to suspend judgment until LeVay's work is corroborated by
others who are more objective on the question. However, we should
note as others have that there is an unanswered "chicken and egg"
problem here: how do we know that this condition (or perhaps the
larger unexplored physical basis for it) is the cause, and not the
result, of homosexual thought and behavior?
And of course we must also remember that these discoveries were made
through studies of the brains of people who were exclusively
homosexual, compared with brains of people who were presumed to be
exclusively heterosexual. But there is a wide spectrum between these
two extremes. The exclusively homosexual population seems to be
between 1% and 3% of the population (the widely used Kinsey figure
of 10% is now largely discredited). But many more people have
bisexual inclinations, and still others are largely heterosexual but
willing to enter homosexual relationships under certain
circumstances (experimentation, prison, etc.) Is there a genetic
basis for these rather complicated patterns of behavior? Neither
LeVay nor anyone else has offered data suggesting that.
But let's assume that there is an innate physical basis for
homosexuality, and for alcoholism, and indeed for general
criminality. I suspect that as genetic science develops over the
years there will be more and more correlations made between genetics
and behavior, and that will be scientific progress. What ethical
conclusions should we draw?
For one thing, we certainly should not draw the conclusion that gay
activists want to draw, namely that any "innate" condition must
therefore be accepted as natural and normal. Innateness has nothing
to do with normality. Many diseases, for example, are genetically
determined. But we don't consider Tay-Sachs or Sickle-Cell Anemia to
be "normal" or desirable conditions, let alone to possess some
ethical virtue. Nor do we consider alcoholism or "xyy" anti social
behavior to be normal and natural. Rather, we do all we can to fight
them. Genetic discoveries, indeed, open up more possible weapons for
this fight. Some have suggested, indeed, that the discovery of a
"gay gene" would give us the opportunity, through abortion or
genetic manipulation, of eliminating homosexuality (or at least one
impulse toward homosexuality) from society altogether. That is
precisely what gay activists don't want to hear.
Further, we must keep these discoveries in perspective. Not everyone
who has the xyy gene becomes a criminal, and not everyone with a
genetic risk factor for alcoholism actually becomes an alcoholic.
Similarly, it is quite unlikely that a "gay gene," should it exist,
would actually determine
people to be homosexual. Although studies of twins do show a
correlation between genetics and homosexuality, half of all twin
brothers of homosexuals are heterosexual. So the data suggest
something less than genetic
determinism. Indeed, they suggest that it is possible
for someone to resist patterns of behavior to which he 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. The
typical behavioral differences between males and females, for
example, have a genetic basis; but (as feminists are quick to point
out) that genetic basis does not exhaustively determine how we will
behave in every situation. Women sometimes behave in ways more
typical of men, and vice versa. Genes may impel, but they don't
compel.
Indeed, other sorts of influences are often more compelling than
genetic inheritance. A 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."
So 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. Whether a
compulsion has a genetic basis is ethically irrelevant.
Nor do we in other cases excuse acts committed on the basis of
genetic predispositions. One who has a genetic propensity to
alcoholism cannot excuse
his alcoholism on that basis; nor can an xyy man 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, venues for moral
temptation. But that too should be seen in perspective: all of us
have moral "weak spots," areas where we are especially vulnerable to
the Devil's enticements. These areas of temptation have many
sources; heredity among them. Others would be environment,
experiences, and our own past decisions. Thus some have a particular
problem with temptation to alcohol abuse; others, because of their
early training, personal taste, or social attachments, are not often
tempted to commit that particular sin. But these will certainly have
other areas of temptation. This is true even for those who are most
mature in the Christian faith: such maturity opens one to the
temptation of spiritual pride. Thus the person whose special moral
challenges have a genetic component is not in a totally unique
situation. We all face such challenges; they are never 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" (I Pet. 5:8). But
thanks to God's grace, we may "resist him, standing firm in the
faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are
undergoing the same kind of sufferings" (verse 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. If we assume the existence of a genetic
propensity for homosexuality, it is true as we said that those with
that makeup face greater temptation in this area than others. But
those who succumb to the temptation do choose to do so, as do all of
us when we succumb to our own besetting temptations. Homosexuals
certainly choose not to remain celibate, and they choose to have
sexual relations. They are not forced to do this by their genes or
by anything contrary to their own desires.
Is it possible for a homosexual to repent of his sin and, by God's
grace, to become heterosexual? Christian ministries to homosexuals
claim that this is possible and that it has happened, though they
admit that this is a particularly difficult sin to deal with.
(Sexual orientation is something that goes very deeply into human
personality, and we have an instinct to keep it relatively private.
That instinct is a good one, but it does make counseling in this
area especially difficult.) Gay activists claim that this is
impossible, and 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, 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.
I believe on faith that God can deliver homosexuals, because
Scripture teaches that His grace can deliver his people from all
sin. (See especially 1 Cor. 6:9-11.) I haven't done first-hand
research on the results of various ministries to homosexuals. It
would certainly not surprise me to learn that many people who
struggle by God's grace to overcome their homosexuality still
experience homosexual temptations. People who have been addicted to
alcohol often face continuing temptations in this area long after
they have stopped drinking to excess. Similarly those who have
overcome the impulses of hot tempers, drugs, or heterosexual
promiscuity. If that were true in regard to repentant homosexuals,
it would not cast the slightest doubt on the power of God's grace to
heal such people. Recurrent temptation is a problem for all of us,
and will be until glory. One may not judge the fruits of Christian
ministries on a perfectionist criterion, namely the assumption that
deliverance from sin must remove all temptation toward that sin in
this life.
The bottom line is that the genetic element in sin does not excuse
it. To see that, it is important to put the issue into an even wider
perspective. Christianity forces us again and again to widen our
angle of vision, for it calls us to see everything from the
perspective of a transcendent God and from the standpoint of
eternity. Such perspective helps us to see our trials as "light and
momentary" (II Cor. 4:17) and our sins as greater than we normally
admit. From a biblical perspective, the difficult fact is that in
one sense all sin is
inherited. From Adam comes both our sin and our misery.
We are guilty of Adam's transgression, and through Adam we ourselves
inherit sinful natures. If a genetic predisposition excuses sodomy,
then our inheritance from Adam excuses all sin! But that is clearly
not the case. Of course, Reformed theology construes our
relationship to Adam as representative, rather than
merely genetic, and
that is important. But Adam represents all who are descended from
him "by natural generation;" so there is also an inevitable genetic
element in human sin.
Is that fair? Consider that Adam 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. And, American individualism to the contrary notwithstanding,
the human race is
one in important senses, and God is right to judge it as a single
entity. The bottom line, of course, is that we are His creations. He
defines what is "fair," and he has the right to do as he pleases
with the work of his hands.
In this broad context, however, the argument that one sin should be
declared normal on the basis of its genetic component or because of
some other kind of "inevitability" is entirely self-serving.
|
