Somewhere in between sucking down coffee and attempting to roust my sons for the first morning swim practice of the season,
I managed to read this recent article, which details a recent study on the neurophysiology of homosexuality. Obviously, the researchers in question are interested in doing more research, and make no definitive claims about causality between orientation and brain structure. But that there is a seemingly meaningful correlation between gay male brains and heterosexual female brains is nonetheless fascinating. That a similar correlation exists between lesbian brain structure and the structure of heterosexual males just adds to the sense that there is in fact something real at work here.
As
my own denomination prepares to plunge once again into the fray over the ordination of gays and lesbians and the gay marriage issue, the continuing witness of objective neurobiological research like this makes the assertion that homosexuality itself is a choice seem more and more tenuous. On the radical left, there are many "queer" activists who are utterly unwilling to accept that homosexual orientation is not something chosen. On the fundamentalist right, homosexuality is declared a "lifestyle choice," something analogous to being drawn into a cult, and from which you can be deprogrammed.
Both of these perspectives don't seem to reflect the reality of homosexual orientation, and are instead rooted in an existing bias. The "choice" that gays and lesbians face has very little to do with orientation itself. It has more to do with the way that they respond to their orientation. Individuals who tend towards same-sex attraction have to find a way to respond to that orientation...and it is there that Christendom needs to determine what responses are permissible within a Christian moral framework.
If you've read my previous blogging on this issue, you'll know that I reject the two extreme positions. I reject the idea that any and all expressions of human sexuality are acceptable in the eyes of God. Here, I part ways with the radical left, which asserts that morality is contingent and essentially meaningless. Sexual behavior that is predatory or radically self-seeking is inherently sinful. It tears not just at the fabric of society, but also represents a radical violation of the love ethic, which is itself an expression of God's nature. I apply that standard evenly to heterosexuals and homosexuals. If you act sexually in ways that treat another child of God as an object, you sin, and God will hold you accountable.
I also reject the position that holds that homosexuality is inherently sociopathic, that any and all same-sex interactions are automatically evil. Here, I am explicitly rejecting the position of Biblical literalism. That does not mean that I reject Holy Scripture as the rule of life and faith, but that I understand it's authority in a
radically different way. From the core principles of scripture, I hold that either celibacy or covenant relationships are acceptable ways to set boundaries around our sexuality. As not all of us are called to celibacy, covenant relationship is a more viable approach. Those covenant relationships allow us to express our hardwired sexuality freely within their boundaries, and give us the moral basis for stepping away from destructive and disrespectful desire. That moral core is something that Christians should apply to all human relationships.
Comments (16)
I dunno. I don't think there's any real data from the scientific community that can make a final call either way. I think there are certainly factors that can predispose a person to homosexuality, but to say that homosexuality is caused by any one thing is to ignore at least half of the cases, wherein it might be caused by another, or a variety of circumstances and variables. If anything, this is data that should be relevant in transgendered studies more so than homosexual studies -- which is a whole 'nother, but related, can of worms.
Either way, we as people -- and especially we as Christians -- need to be willing to accept that God works in ways that aren't always clear to us. Our job is to be concerned about working out our own salvation and preaching the good news, and not much else.
"As not all of us are called to celibacy, covenant relationship is a more viable approach. Those covenant relationships allow us to express our hardwired sexuality freely within their boundaries, and give us the moral basis for stepping away from destructive and disrespectful desire. That moral core is something that Christians should apply to all human relationships."
..and the congregation said "Amen".
It's time to move on and get over it and do what we are commissioned to do.
I would liken the brain physiology that you describe as a vulnerability akin to that which makes a person particularly vulnerable to addiction to drugs or alcohol. Certainly, it's not their "fault" that they have that vulnerability. But it's a mistake to apply the inference that (1) because the brain physiology exists, (2) the behavior that is often a product of that physiology is free from moral opprobrium.
@Laserlawyer - I find the idea that you equate homosexuality with substance abuse absurd. That's akin to viewing homosexuality as some form of psychopathology, as some inherent defect in the person's brain. From what I read, it was relayed that there is a link between brain structure females and homosexual men (and lesbians and heterosexual men), no where did defects or pathology come into the discussion. Nor were (any) morals explicitly, or implicitly, appealed to. Your allusion to a relation in brain structures between homosexuals and drug addicts is not only outside the scope of any of the data presented, it simply makes no sense. If a homosexual man has a similar brain structure to a heterosexual female and, like you assert, his alleged predisposition toward homosexuality is actually an indicator of pathology then could not it be argued that the heterosexual female is not also predisposed for some pathology?
I applaud Beloved_Spear's stance on the issue. It is proof that Christians can reconcile homosexuality within their religious world view. Though I would like to know your (Beloved_Spear) stance on gay marriage. If you don't mind answering.
@Altered_Sight - Not a problem. You are entitled to your opinion. But the same point could be made about any sexual behavior outside of marriage -- whether it is among heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transexuals, or those who prefer bestiality.
Biblically speaking, everyone is vulnerable to sin. One way that this vulnerability is especially exploited is by getting the person to believe that what he or she is doing is not a sin in the first place. The mere fact that correlative evidence of brain physiology may support the idea that "I was made this way," does not even begin to answer the question of whether the way you were made legitimizes your behavior. I could just as well say, I was born a sinner, and then use that to justify every sin I've ever committed.
@Laserlawyer - You're entitled to your opinion as well. But understanding "sin" as something that goes beyond lists of things the Bible contains injunctions against is rather important...'cause otherwise, we Jesus people must all must be orthodox Torah-keepers. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Ahem. The issue, to put it in the Biblical terms Paul himself uses, is whether or not homosexuality is a kata sarka orientation of the will towards the self...and thus sin, or if it is an articulation of a phusicen kreisin, a "natural function" that is part of the God-given nature of a human. Sin...meaning concupiscience, if we're to be orthodox about it...involves a violation of the other, a predatory objectification of the the other. Homosexual orientation does not, of itself, necessarily fit under that orthodox understanding. It can be expressed in a sinful way, of course, as can many expressions of heterosexual behavior. But it ain't necessarily so. It is only under the rubric of a legalistic literalism that one is compelled to make that assertion.
In your response to my post, it is worthy of note that I am not suggesting that all naturally occurring urges are exempt from moral judgment...in fact, quite the contrary.
@Altered_Sight - I see no reason it should be discouraged, particularly given the theological framework I'm expressing here. It poses no rationally justifiable threat to heterosexual marriage. It also poses no threat to religious freedom, as officiating over such events would remain entirely up to individual denominations and churches. Meaning, even if the state recognizes it, you ain't gonna see many gay marriages at the Liberty University Chapel.
@Beloved_Spear - If homosexual behavior is a "natural function" that is part of the God-given nature of a human, then why are there so many passages in God's word that condemn it, and why -- when so many passages in the bible talk about sex -- are there zero passages in the bible applauding the possibility of the non-sinful expression of homosexual behavior?
@Laserlawyer - I tend to read Romans 13:8-10 that way. And James 2:8-13. Sure, it's not quite the Bible two-by-four applied directly to the forehead that would be required to change the minds of my dear fundy brethren. But then, I approach scripture in a very different way than you do, my friend.
@Beloved_Spear - Is it loving to tell your neighbor that what he is doing is right, when in fact it is demonstrably wrong?
@Laserlawyer - So demonstrate it. Tell me why a gay couple who commit to support and care for each other, and covenant to it, and remain faithful to that covenant to one another are "demonstrably wrong."
I know the texts you'll go to in scripture as well as you, but the issue here from a Christian moral framework...not a fundamentalist moral framework...is this: How does this violate the ethic established by the Royal Law? That's the heart of our faith, my friend, and the bright line between sin and righteousness.
@Beloved_Spear - First, I would suggest that there are precious few homosexual couples who "commit to support and care for each other, and covenant to it, and remain faithful to that covenant to one another." Sadly, I readily admit that there are also fewer and fewer heterosexual couples who meet that standard. Perhaps we all need to simply drop to our knees and ask for forgiveness.
Second, as I said above, it is not loving to tell your neighbor that what he is doing is right, when it is not. We can disagree about the epistemology of what tools one should use for determining what is right and what is wrong, but it is disingenuous to begin the discussion by ruling out all of the scripture that contradicts your position, and insisting that the only valid biblical standard is "love thy neighbor," and that the only way to properly interpret that standard is in such a way that the loving, covenanted homosexual couples whom you describe are viewed as somehow doing what pleases God.
Respectfully, I disagree. It strikes me as an argument that is working way too hard to conform biblical standards to the culture of our day, when the reverse should be happening.
Now, on the flip side. What should the church do with respect to homosexuals? What would be some practical ways to actually DO what Romans 13 and James 2 talk about? Well, first off, I think being neighbors would be a good start. That means getting to know them, and having them get to know us. If my experience is any guide, I would guess that the church has so disengaged from the culture for so long that it has lost alot of its ability to relate to people who are "other." Second, I think it would be helpful to demonstrate love toward them -- which means identifying needs and helping to meet them, instead of just preaching at them all day.
That's all for now.
@Laserlawyer - I intentionally precluded another scripture-lobbing festival not to be disingenuous, though I love that word dearly, and I'm glad to have given you the opportunity to pull the pin on it and lob it at me.
Rather, I did so because...well...you know my position already on those texts and their interpretation, and I know yours. You also know, from our past jousting, that I do not claim that to be the only valid biblical standard. Just the highest and most radically defining.
Valuing and judging existing cultural norms through the lens of the governing principle of our faith does not mean abandoning that faith. It is also not "working hard" at all. It is pretty simple.
I do appreciate the elegance and gracefulness of your evasion of my direct question, however. A brilliant retraite!
@Beloved_Spear - Okay, without lobbing any scriptures, let me answer your question directly then. Let's assume that your hypothetical homosexual couple consists of two men. Their sexual behavior is demonstrably wrong because: (1) God says so; (2) God's design for human sexuality is male and female, not male and male; (3) some of God's multiple purposes for human sexuality simply can never be properly fulfilled through homosexual behavior (reproduction and family stability across generations); and (4) to put it bluntly, God designed the male penis to penetrate the female vagina and not the rectum.
Thanks, by the way, for the fencing compliment. touche!
@Laserlawyer - Then again, 1) God the Son never bothers to even mention it, and were it of any import, one might think our Lord and Savior would have brought it up; 2) God's design for human sexuality must by necessity include homosexuality, unless there are elements of creation over which God does not exert authority. Is He not sovereign?; 3) Though sexuality clearly serves a reproductive purpose, it also serves other good purposes for humankind, and they're pretty darn good, dagnabbit; and 4) Being heterosexual, I'd rather not think about it, but thank you for sharing. While we're on the subject, would you care to speak to the Divine Intent behind the design of hands and tongues? Or...perhaps we shouldn't go there.
Again, though, the question has been evaded. Painfully overextending the fencing references, I will return with a coup droit: How does this violate the ethic established by the Royal Law? Scripture gives us a clear and overarching definition of sin and righteousness that derives itself from God's very nature. If homosexual orientation violates this highest principle, it should be clearly demonstrable.
@Beloved_Spear - You keep asking "How does this (homosexual conduct) violate the ethic established by the Royal Law?" and I keep answering -- It violates the Royal Law because engaging in sinful sexual practices is not loving your neighbor (or your homosexual lover) as yourself. Loving your neighbor as yourself would involve at least refraining from sinful sexual practices of all kinds, including homosexuality.
I know this is getting incredibly pedantic. Perhaps we just need to stop the discussion here, and shift gears to see how well each one of us can bring the message of Christ to every homosexual person we know. Now that would be fulfilling the Royal Law.
I'll report back in a week. How about you?
@Laserlawyer - Pedantic is not quite the word I'd use, but I agree that the discussion does need to conclude. I ask repeatedly...and you do repeatedly give an answer of sorts, just not one that addresses the first order nature of the query. C'est la vie.
Whichever way, your suggestion to go and show the grace of Christ is probably the closest thing we'll get to a resolution here. Entertaining as always, my friend!