Is the Rev. Albert Mohler trying to pull the wool over the eyes of believers?
In a recent blog posting, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary referenced a study showing homosexual behavior in 7-10 percent of rams. The new study conducted by U.S. Sheep Experiment Station supports some earlier studies that indicate a genetic link to homosexual behavior. As Mohler notes:
"The general trend of the research points to at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender identity, and sexual orientation." – Rev. Albert Mohler, March 2, 2007.
Such factors do not mitigate however the Biblical prohibition against such behavior, Mohler says:
"The biblical condemnation of all homosexual behaviors would not be compromised or mitigated in the least by such a discovery. The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible's moral verdict on homosexual behavior." – Rev. Albert Mohler, March 2, 2007.
But conservative Christians have argued for years that homosexual behavior is wrong precisely because it does not occur in nature. As evidence continues to mount that such behavior is natural that argument carries less and less weight.
Conservative Christians base their concern about homosexuality on their understanding of a few passages of Scripture. But centuries ago Saint Augustine of Hippo outlined some general rules for determining the actual meaning of a particular passage. First of all, the passage should be given a reading for the main and plain reading of what the words say. But if that main and plain reading does not line up with what we know from science, the Scripture reader must then consider alternate interpretations so that he or she may correctly carry the Bible's message.
"If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'" – Saint Augustine of Hippo
Earlier in his blog, Mohler puts forth the following scenario: Suppose the parents of an unborn child knew from prenatal test that their child would be sexually attracted to people of his or her gender? Wouldn't those parents choose to have the trait removed via hormone therapy? Mohler is careful to distinguish between hormone therapy and outright genetic manipulation, but it's unclear whether or not the hormone therapy would wind up altering the genetic makeup of the unborn child. Given the precautions expectant mothers are expected to take during pregnancy because some drugs and foods can affect the fetus, it seems at least possible that some changes would occur.
And at this point Mohler places parents in a position of being able to usurp God's design for a particular human being. If the Creator intended that someone should be born with particular physical characteristics and we removed those characteristics out personal vanity, are we not then playing God? There are many people who have reported seeing examples of the innocence and joy we are supposed to experience as Christians in the lives of those people society has labeled disabled. Some of the happiest and most content people I've ever met have slight mental retardation or Down's syndrome. Taking away those characteristics before birth might prevent some individual from sharing his faith with others.
In effect, someone's witness could be killed through this (so far) hypothetical therapy.
And there is an underlying bias to Mohler's scenario. He considers homosexual behavior to be a flaw or disease. But what if it is not? What if it is only another way for two people to express love in a way that is unfamiliar to most of us?
And I think Mohler has unwittingly given the "sin" of homosexuality more weight than it deserves. I cannot think of another sin, except for the original sin, that we are all born with that takes root before birth. Since the alcoholic is not necessarily a sinner but someone suffering from a disease. But there is no reason to necessarily consider homosexuality a disease either. It would be better for all concerned just to think of it as a part of God's design that we do not understand.
The comparison between alcoholism and homosexuality falls short in one major regard: It is possible to live quite happily without consuming alcohol. It is considerably more difficult to live without a sexual identity. Sexual identity is so much of what we are as a person that we would be reduced to being a cipher without.
Given that scientific evidence doesn't back him up and that the church has taught that alternate interpretations of scripture are permissible in the wake of scientific advancement, you'd think Mohler would be at least a little, well, sheepish about his views on homosexuality.
Instead, it seems he'd rather ram his opinion down our throats.