Re: An interesting essay for evangelicals

From: John Burgeson (
Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 11:45:27 EST

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "Re: An interesting essay for evangelicals"

    Terry posted some sound comments; I reply in part:

    >>Why? Does the existence of a genetic or physical-chemical basis for some
    >>sinful behavior excuse it? >>

    Good point, Terry. Absolutely not.

    >>If our fallenness extends to our genomes then there's really nothing
    >>surprising about finding a genetic or physical-chemical basis for
    >>homosexual tendencies or any other tendencies that might be deemed sinful.
    >>If someone has a particular disposition toward some sin for whatever
    >>reason--genetic, upbringing, hormonal imbalances, abusive past, etc.--they
    >>simply must take greater care in resisting that particular sin.>>

    As an expansion of your first sentence, again, I agree.

    >>I think it's a big mistake to define "normal" as "whatever is in the
    >>genome". For the Christian, normal is what scripture, rightly interpreted,
    >>says. >>

    Again, I agree.

    So where does this leave us? The question of where homosexual orientation
    arises in an individual can be answered in three ways, nature, nurture or
    choice. What I perceive through my own studies and from knowing a fair
    number of Christians who are practicing homosexuals -- all within a two
    person long term relationship, is that "choice" is not the causative agent
    in the vast majority of cases, and that "nurture" is probably not the
    causative agent in most cases.

    Now if "choice" WERE a causative agent, I think a case against homosexual
    activity might be made. Maybe. But it is not.

    Terry observes that the issue, therefore MUST come down to what we, as
    Christians, perceive to be the will of God on the matter. And I agree 100%
    with that statement.

    Where some Christians disagree with one another is, of course, on what God's
    will necessarily is. We might, for example, agree on the exegesis of Romans
    1 but disagree on the heurmenutics (sp?) of Romans 1. And other scriptures
    too, of course.

    John W. Burgeson (Burgy)

    MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jan 22 2003 - 11:46:46 EST