Territorial Bloggings
A Cogent Mélange of Lutheran & Pop-Culture Punditry
Strawmen Always Get Blown Away
Not to look like I’m simply drafting off of good Pastor Snyder (of Ask The Pastor fame), but he’s just gone & done another great job in answering a timely, topical, and (unfortunately) contentious question.
Sadly, a strawman of genetics has been constructed in order to try and get around the Biblical prohibition against homosexual activities. The pseudo-intellectual, but actually emotions-driven appeal usually runs something like this… “Science is/has proving/proven that homosexuality is actually a genetic trait — i.e., it’s something you’re born with, not something you choose. Thus, God really couldn’t mean that it’s wrong; after all, He made them that way!”
Now, I think it’s pretty obvious that this is a rather weaselly, if not outright intellectually bankrupt, way of looking a things. It’s been applied to other sins, most notably alcoholism, but not to the current degree. God did not make people sinful. Adam & Eve did that, when they exercised their free will & chose sin. God’s perfect creation was spoiled after said creation, not during. (Sin was an aftermarket add-on, not a factory-installed option! ;-))
Sin is sin is sin. That it is genetic (if/when that happens to be true) matters not, in any objective way. Such a condition is a cross to bear, or, as St. Paul might say, a “thorn of/in the flesh.” It cannot, indeed it must not, be minimized and/or explained away. Emotional appeals notwithstanding (and I would agree that it’s sad, if not even unfair [at least to our human perception & logic] for such genetic thorns to exist…) it’s still sin. It still must be confessed, true repentance must be exhibited, absolution must be received, and it must always be prayerfully resisted/avoided. It cannot be “loved” away through rationalizations & relativistic and/or revisionistic theological gymnastics. Such is the way that folks are “loved” straight to Hell!
The weak, tired old strawman will always be blown away. It must be marked & avoided, not embraced & propped-up.
-ghp
2 Comments so far ...
A distinction is necessary, however, in talking about all of these things. The failure to make this distinction is an equally serious problem among confessional Lutherans, whether in Missouri or elsewhere. In fact, it’s a problem in most of conservative Christianity.
Alcoholism is not a sin. But alcohol abuse is. There is a reason why those who repent of the chronic sin of alcohol abuse resulting from a medical/genetic/psychological condition called “alcoholism” don’t call themselves “ex-alcoholics,” but “recovering alcoholics.” Having the condition is not a sin; giving in to it is.
Similarly, there is no real doubt that there is a hereditary component in homosexuality. Having the psychological and physiological twist which makes members of the same sex sexually attractive to one is not a sin. Yielding to it- in behavior or even in lust- is. And before someone sites Paul’s observation that “such were some of you,” remember that there is no Greek word for homosexuality as a condition,
but only as a behavior.
Despair is a sin; depression is not. Doubt is a sin; Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is not. All of these are doubtless the result of sin- original sin- but in themselves they are crosses which must be borne by people who may very well be faithful Christians. By confusing the involuntary condition with the voluntary (to varying degrees) behavior in which it manifests itself, we do an extreme disservice to valiant brothers and sisters in the Lord who daily struggle with great piety and determination against burdens most of us cannot even imagine having to bear.
Remember Walther’s warning: Woe to him who proclaims the Law to one whom it has already broken!
We are all of us recovering sinners!
Comment on July 14, 2005 03:14 pmPoints well taken, Bob. Your distinctions are well-founded and, I think, quite accurate.
The unfortunate thing in all of this (the discussion, that is) is that the relativists/revisionists do not make the careful distinction you do WRT the condition/predisposition and the behavior/abuse. For them, if the condition can be (for lack of a better word at this moment) excused, then so must the behavior be equally excused.
For them, hating the sin is the exact same thing as hating the sinner, and loving the sinner, thus, requires loving the sin!
I look forward to the time when the Lord calls me home, that I might be fully recovered from all my ills!
Comment on July 14, 2005 03:36 pm-ghp