MondayMorningInsight - Leadership & Encouragement for Church Leaders

Southern Baptist Leader: Gay Gene Should Be Manipulated, if Possible

Posted by: Todd
Posted on: Mon, March 12, 2007
Viewed 41
(8) comments so far

“If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin,” Mohler wrote in advice for Christians.

Mohler’s view, in some ways, could signal a shift away from traditional evangelical thinking on homosexuality, from a condition that is changeable to one that is actually determined by genetics. Mohler said there is “no incontovertible or widely accepted proof” that sexual orientation is based in biology, yet “the direction of the research points in this direction.”

In addition, the idea of genetically altering a fetus—and which characteristics to alter—raises deep ethical and theological questions about Christian parents’ ability to change a baby they believe was created by God.

Even though such treatments—if ever developed—could be years away, they are not out of the realm of possibility, said Nigel M. Cameron, president of the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future in Chicago.

“Certainly interventions of this kind are going to be possible,” Cameron said. “This is certainly the time to have the conversation of what we’re going to do with them.”

Mohler’s comments cited recent articles in Radar, a pop culture magazine, and the London Sunday Times that suggested the potential for such hormone patches for pregnant women. The Times story was retracted, and a researcher involved in sexuality studies of sheep told The Oregonian newspaper that it was “the most ludicrous thing I’ve heard of.”

Mohler could not be immediately reached for further comment. He noted on his blog that he opposes aborting fetuses or embryos who “are identified as homosexual in orientation,” but said advancement on determining a biological basis for such orientation should be used “for the greater glory of God.”

Read the entire article here at Belief.net...

The president of a prominent Southern Baptist seminary says he would support medical treatment, if it were available, to change the sexual orientation of a fetus inside its mother's womb from homosexual to heterosexual. The idea was floated by the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., on his blog, http://www.almohler.com...

Comments

if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.

Pat Taylor on Mon, March 12, 2007

Well, this ought to open a lot of doors to the gay community. Let’s all go out and try to build relationships (purely plutonic ones, of course:-) with them now that Professor Mohler has opened the door of evangelism for us.
Daniel (a different Daniel) on Mon, March 12, 2007

Isn’t genetic manipulation and purification of the race what a lot of Nazi research was aimed at?

Rev. Mohler has long proclaimed that there is no biological basis of homosexuality, now he is in favor of manipulating genes to determine sexual orientation if we can manage it. What’s next? Determining the sex of a fetus, like they do in some parts of the world thru abortions? Enhancing the IQ of a fetus, for those who could afford it? Determining the physical appearance of our children, so we’re all raising blue-eyed, blonde-haired little Aryans?

I’m sorry, I hope my sarcasm isn’t offending anyone. I’ve had this type of discussion when my nephew was born with a genetic defect and it is a slippery slope when you want to start genetic modifications of our children.

The lack of ethics in his comments is demonstrative of, well just that, a lack of ethics.
Kirk Longhofer on Mon, March 12, 2007

Hmmm.

So that would mean that God made a mistake, and we need to fix it?

And sexual orientation is the same as, say, a club foot or dwarfism?

Hmmmm.
Rusty on Mon, March 12, 2007

>So that would mean that God made a mistake, and we need to fix it?

No. That’s a non-argument. Every Christian believes that there are things in the world that we need to “fix”. Ever since the fall, we’ve been toiling against the effects of the curse. Disease, sickness, pestilence, these are all things that are not “mistakes” by God but are not things that he called “good” in the garden. Mohler is arguing that if there is a genetic basis for homosexual attraction, and the science is there to “fix” it (as historic, orthodox Christians will affirm that homosexual sexual relations are outside the creation that God originally called “good” and are a result of the fall) then we should do so. The same argument would be made about gene therapy for those with a genetic predisposition toward alcoholism. Shoot, if they can screw with my genes to make me less greedy and narcisistic, I’m all for that! This is different than some sort of cosmetic genetic selection.
DanielR (a different Daniel) on Tue, March 13, 2007

So, who gets to decide if something is wrong and needs to be “fixed”?

Rev. Mohler wants to “fix” sexual orientation, what about parents who want to determine the sex of a child? What if a gay couple wants to have a child, would we force them to have the fetus tested and would we force them to have the genetics “fixed” so the child didn’t grow up like them?

Who gets to decide what we will fix and what we won’t? Who decides the ethics and morality questions?
Daniel on Tue, March 13, 2007

Why, the people in power of course. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/grin.gif Hence the importance of electing good conservative Christians to power. (*tongue firmly planted in cheek*)

And that is the problem isn’t it? Once we say we should intervene, and we make a distinction between harmful mutations (which we fix) and harmless ones (which we don’t), there needs to be a set standard the differentiate the two. And that standard will be set by the powers that be.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be so eager to do this kind of fixing? Perhaps, as Christians, we should be people who learn to groan with and struggle with all kinds of infirmities, relying not on our technical prowess, but on the grace of God?

My two cents.

-Daniel-
Camey on Tue, March 13, 2007

<shaking my head and keeping my tongue from lashing at Mohler>

Daniel: Great to see you back! We may not always see eye-to-eye on things but you’re missed when not here adding your two cents.

My poor desk…
Wendi on Tue, March 13, 2007

Rusty –

I’m curious about your response to both Daniel’s questions. Who decides?

I love this statement Daniel: [Perhaps, as Christians, we should be people who learn to groan with and struggle with all kinds of infirmities, relying not on our technical prowess, but on the grace of God?]

And the other question I’d like to ask Mohler is this: If you are acknowledging that homosexuality comes about, to any degree, because of something physical (genetics, DNA), doesn’t it become less “a choice” to the same degree?

Similarly Rusty, if my greed and narcissism is influenced by something genetic which can be scientifically or medically manipulated, then why do I need willingly submit to the transforming and restorative work of the Holy Spirit?

Wendi