Biology, Homosexuality, and the Biblical Doctrine of Sin

By Sherwood O. Cole

[Sherwood O. Cole is Professor of Psychology at Rosemead School of Psychology, La Mirada, California, and Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.]

Biological arguments are offered by advocates of homosexuality as grounds for legislative and judicial initiatives that they desire.[1] The point is that if someone is born with a homosexual orientation resulting from genetic or intrauterine-hormonal influences over which he or she has no control, why should a homosexual lifestyle be condemned on moral grounds? Such biologically determined individuals, it is argued, should be accepted for who they are with the behavior that follows from it. The corollary of this argument among those who call themselves “gay Christians” simply becomes, “God made me this way, and He does not make mistakes. Therefore you must accept and affirm me and my behavior.”[2]

Advocates of this view have convinced many Christians that their argument is both morally reasonable and factually accurate. As will be pointed out subsequently, such an argument is neither reasonable nor factual, and as a result, it fails to be convincing. Moreover, the argument is problematic because it is suspiciously self-serving.

Using the biological argument to achieve legislative goals is untenable and potentially impacts the lives of everyone. The biological argument equates the situation of homosexuals with that of African Americans (as well as people possessing other minority-specific physical characteristics). They often have not had equal access to education, job opportunities, and medical services. It is only right morally to protect legally the civil rights of such individuals and to stop discriminatory practices that close the doors of social and economic opportunity to them. The civil rights legislation of the 1960s was a long-overdue step in the right direction and an attempt to correct serious social injustice.[3]

However, it is important to recognize that the biological features of disadvantaged groups (skin color, facial features, and so forth), in and of themselves, were not argued as the direct cause of social disadvantage. Rather, biological features were used to identify those individuals who were then targeted as objects of racism, which in turn led them into conditions of poverty and deprivation. It was racist attitudes that led to social and economic disadvantage. Indeed, on numerous occasions individuals with minority-specific biological features have been able to overcome impoverished conditions and become influential contributors to society.

The argument for homosexuals differs from the above situation in at least two specific ways. First, homosexuals argue that they have been socially disadvantaged by biological features (genetic and intrauterine-hormonal influences) that are unobservable, poorly defined, and result in behavioral traits, not identifiable physical characteristics. While one might debate the point as to whether homosexuals experience social injustice or are deprived of their civil rights under existing statutes, using a behavioral trait to press for privileges under the law is unique in the history of the United States. Also there is no clear indication that the influences underlying the behavioral traits are immutable or unchangeable, as is the case with physical characteristics associated with more traditional civil-rights defenses. The minimum requirement for using any characteristics (physical or behavioral) as an argument for civil-rights protection should, in the least, have the features of durability and permanence. Evaluations of homosexuality do not rest on morally neutral physical characteristics that are immutable but on characteristics and perceived moral behaviors that are not immutable.

Second, and of even greater importance, is the fact that giving extraordinary civil-rights protection for homosexuals is contrary to the normative moral tradition of biblical revelation (as well as Judeo-Christian standards) and constitutes a public condoning of sin. While civil-rights legislation of the past has been rooted in that very moral tradition, civil-rights legislation to protect homosexuality negates it. Furthermore it is not in the public interest because the practice of homosexuality undermines the critical role of the family as an institution and obliterates the biblical distinctiveness of the antithetical and complementary roles of man and woman.

The fact that homosexuals constitute a relatively small percentage of the population in this country (perhaps between 2 and 4 percent) does not permit laying aside God’s moral code for the sake of expediency, for His code has both a personal and a collective application. The growing attempt to provide a niche for the homosexual lifestyle in society is part of a much bigger problem that reflects the death of moral absolutes. While the argument for civil-rights protection of homosexuals may sound good at first, a deeper examination of the issue indicates that the argument sets a dangerous precedent.

Since biological arguments are used for both the “personal acceptance” and “civil-rights protection” defenses, they need to be addressed in more detail. The following section attempts to do this by pointing out the various types of biological influences and their relevance to the homosexual lifestyle. It is hoped that this will help clarify the contribution of biology to such behavior without buying the “biological excuse” defense of homosexual groups. The second section of this article attempts to demonstrate that the nature of biological influences on homosexual behavior is consistent with the biblical doctrine of sin in that the total being of humans (including biological characteristics) has been corrupted by sin.

Types of Biological Influences

Contrary to popular belief, biological influences on behavior are normally not deterministic or immutable. Rather, they tend to impact behavior in a variety of ways and to varying degrees.

Animal Behavior and Biological Influences

There is no question that animal behavior is much more dependent on biological factors than is human behavior.[4] This is particularly true when it comes to the role of hormones in regulating sexual behavior. For example castrating a male rat (and thus eliminating the production of the critical hormone testosterone) totally destroys all sexual drive and performance in the presence of an estrous female rat. Moreover, the male rat’s performance can be completely restored by subsequently injecting testosterone into the castrated rat. Much the same thing can be demonstrated in the female rat. That is to say, removing the ovaries of a female rat will destroy its sexual receptivity to a normal male rat, but receptivity can be reestablished by an injection of replacement hormones (estrogen and progesterone in this case). Such a clear-cut demonstration of the close relationship between the expression of sexual behavior and the presence of hormonal action is impressive and stresses the critical role of biological factors. Unfortunately such evidence is frequently extrapolated to the human level with little or no qualification.

However, if one examines additional animal data, a clearer picture of biology’s contribution emerges.[5] For example, while rats and mice are almost totally dependent on hormones for the expression of sexual behavior, cats and dogs (successively more complex forms of animal life) are increasingly less dependent on such biological influences for the expression of sexual behavior. Castration or ovariectomy of cats and dogs only partially destroys the expression of sexual behavior, with such behavior also receiving a sizable contribution from learning and experience. Subhuman primates (such as monkeys and apes) depend even less on levels of sex hormones than do cats and dogs, although results may differ from one species to another.[6]

The dependency of sexual behavior on hormone levels is least of all in humans, although an effect is certainly demonstrable.[7] For example sexual excitement is generally highest in male humans when testosterone levels are highest (between the ages of fifteen and twenty-five). Unfortunately much of the animal data cited in support of the biological basis of human homosexuality are findings with rats. In light of the decreased dependency of sexual behavior on hormone levels with more complex species, it is easy to see that one could misappropriate animal findings in an explanation of human behavior.

Human Behavior and Biological Influences

Discussing biological influences on human behavior raises the proverbial problem of the relative contribution of nature versus nurture. Biological influences are subsumed under the contribution of nature, while experience and subsequent learning (nurture) further shapes a person from birth. Most people are willing to accept such a broad distinction and have no difficulty in recognizing that both nature and nurture contribute to a person’s development. The problem comes when an attempt is made to assign relative weights to the contribution of these two influences and the resulting freedom humans have in choosing their actions. Biology is important and its influence needs to be recognized; however, it is not the entire picture by any means. With this basic qualification in mind, it is hoped that the following different views of biological influences will be helpful.

Organizing versus activating effects of biology. Some biological influences occur during the stage of prenatal development and produce permanent results. Such effects are called organizing effects because of the powerful impact they have on sexual development.[8] For example the action of testosterone during the second trimester of prenatal development in both males and females will determine the development of the human gonads and brain. If the proper amount of testosterone is present in the male, the gonads and brain will develop according to the typical male pattern. If insufficient amounts are present at this critical stage of prenatal development, the gonads and brain will not develop the male pattern and may even show some features of feminization. Such atypical development may contribute to the development of homosexuality in males, although the exact nature of the contribution is still debatable.[9] If females have excessive testosterone activity during the same critical period of prenatal development, they may demonstrate masculinizing features, which might contribute to a different sexual orientation. In the absence of an overabundance of testosterone during the critical period of prenatal development, the human female will develop normal gonads and brain.

The prenatal organizing effects of testosterone are powerful and have a tremendous impact on behavior and social outlook. However, one must be extremely careful in using such organizing effects as an explanation for homosexual behavior. While they are likely to make some contribution to such behavior, the nature and extent of such contributions are still very much in question. Quite possibly the organizing effects contribute to “sexual orientation” (thoughts and fantasies) more than they do to the practice of homosexual behavior.

In contrast to organizing effects, activating effects of hormones take place later in life (usually after puberty) and are transitory (short-lived) in nature.[10] For example hormone levels in both males and females (testosterone and estrogen, respectively) may temporarily result in sexual arousal and facilitate sexual performance. While these effects are real, they seem to be relatively small in humans. Furthermore these findings have no specific relevance to a biological explanation of homosexual behavior since they are transitory.

Causing (forcing) versus enabling effects of biology. A few biological factors force a particular behavior to occur, with the individual having little control over the situation. At the level of human experience, such situations are rare and have no relevance to such critical social issues as the homosexual lifestyle. For example, if someone taps a person’s knee in the right place (on the patella tendon), the leg will jerk forward. Or if someone shines a bright light into a person’s eye, that person will automatically blink. These reflexes are built-in biological responses that demonstrate unintentional cause-and-effect connections. Such simple stimulus-response features are interesting and are designed to protect the body. It is extremely dangerous to apply these paradigms to complex human situations that involve intentional action and have strong moral overtones. Homosexual behavior is not a reflex response to biological influences, and any attempt to deal with this issue in such a simplistic manner is totally inappropriate.

Other biological effects might more properly be labeled enabling effects, since they make behavior possible but do not require the behavior to occur.[11] These effects may facilitate behavior but do not cause it. Such effects are much more likely to describe the biological influences on homosexual behavior and will be distinguished more clearly from caused or forced effects in the next two sections.

Obligative versus facultative effects of biology. In an attempt to identify the nature of biological influences on sexual orientation, Money has made an important distinction.[12] Obligative effects of biology include those instances in which a stimulus and a response are inextricably bound together. The presence of a particular stimulus automatically assures a biological reaction, usually designed to protect the individual. Such effects are indistinguishable from those previously identified as caused or forced. In contrast, facultative effects of biology permit and even facilitate certain behaviors while not forcing their occurrence.

This kind of effect is particularly relevant to a consideration of biological influences on homosexual development. For example the potential facilitating role of genetic and prenatal-intrauterine hormonal influences in the development of a homosexual lifestyle might be called facultative. However, such factors alone are not enough, for they are further acted on by postnatal experience (socialization and learning).[13] When both prenatal influences and postnatal experiences contribute to a homosexual lifestyle, such behavior has a higher probability of occurrence. In those instances where postnatal experience runs counter to prenatal influences, behavior is less predictable. However, in either case, facultative effects of biology, in contrast to obligative effects, provide a context within which choice of lifestyle is still possible.

Determining versus predisposing effects of biology. In an attempt to make a distinction in the degree to which biological antecedents influence homosexual behavior, the present writer has identified a difference between determining and predisposing effects.[14] Determining effects are similar to those identified by Money as obligative and are viewed as immutable and preordained in nature. Predisposing biological influences assume that biology is important, but they also recognize that biology is only one of several important contributors to a chosen lifestyle. Psychological, social, and spiritual factors interact with biological influences and must be considered as part of the formula. As is true with Money’s facultative effects of biology, predisposing biological influences are those most likely to be present in the development of homosexuality and permit the exercising of choice.

Implicit Dangers of Biological Explanations

While biological explanations of behavior are valuable when properly qualified, they are frequently taken to the extreme in the form of biological reductionism. Nowhere is this more blatantly demonstrated than in the following claim by Crick. “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and the associated molecules.”[15]

To some people such reductionism might be seen to be good science, since it supports the principle of determinism. However, biological reductionism is only one form of scientific inquiry. In some instances biological action may be the effect, not the cause. The influence of behavior on biological functions is well documented and is something the reductionists would do well to recognize. For example the deleterious effect of behavioral stress on a person’s immune system and susceptibility to infectious disease is well established.[16]

In still other instances it may be difficult or virtually impossible to determine whether biological factors are the cause or effect of behavior. In such instances it might be more appropriate simply to identify them as biological correlates. While the interrelationship between such correlates and behavior may not be known, the regularity of their occurrence may still have some meaning in the broader picture. In any event it is important not to fall into the mode of reductionistic explanations, but rather to have a flexible attitude about the role of biology in influencing behavior.[17] This seems particularly true in the case of biological influences on homosexuality.

Biology and the Biblical Doctrine of Sin

The biblical doctrine of sin states that everyone is a sinner and every person’s whole being has been corrupted by an inborn, in-herited sin nature from Adam’s original sin.[18] Furthermore the doctrine of sin is essential to the acceptance of the gospel in that justification by faith makes no sense without it.[19] If people do not have a sin nature (and thus have not sinned), they have no need for forgiveness and justification, and the atoning death of Christ is a historically moot point.

In most instances the biblical doctrine of sin has been applied to humankind’s spiritual (and perhaps psychological) fallenness. While this is most certainly part of the doctrine, it represents an incomplete picture. Two additional conditions are taught in Scripture: (a) Humans are embodied beings (not just spiritual and psychological) and thus are subject to all the influences encompassed by biology; and (b) their bodies and biological nature did not escape the tragedy of Adam’s sin any more than did their spiritual or psychological nature.

With regard to the first of these conditions, the Bible teaches that people are physical (biological) beings and that their physical nature is inextricably interrelated with their spiritual and psychological natures (1 Thess. 5:23).[20] The use of the biblical word “heart” may well reflect the manner in which these various natures are integrated.[21] For example in the Bible the “heart” is associated with feelings, desires, emotions, intellectual activity, and decisions. One can see how biology (e.g., activity of the brain and hormones) is an integral part of such experiences along with spiritual and psychological components. Until one’s physical body (and biological functions) becomes separated from the spirit or soul at the time of death (2 Cor. 5:8), there is no escape from biological influences in the present state.

The Bible also teaches that each believer’s body is a temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16). This teaching should have a sobering effect and should cause believers to be greatly concerned about how they treat their bodies. If one subjects his or her body to ungodly practices, that believer is desecrating the temple of God. Such desecration results in God’s promise of destruction to the guilty party (1 Cor. 3:17). While unnatural and unhealthy sexual practices among homosexuals is a major contributor to HIV infection and AIDS, few in the “gay Christian” community see their practices in such a light. For anyone to argue that God has ordained such a lifestyle based on biological influences is inconsistent with the biblical teaching that the believer’s physical body is the temple of God.

When Jesus was on earth, He too experienced the limitations of biological constraints. While He was fully God, He was also fully man and knew the meaning of physical hunger and thirst (Mark 2:16; Luke 24:41–42) and tiredness (Matt. 8:25; John 4:6), and He experienced the full range of human emotions (Mark 11:15; Luke 19:41; John 11:3, 35). Although at the time of His crucifixion His suffering was augmented by the burden of the sins of the human race and by separation from God the Father, it was also fully physical and human.[22] The amount of physical (biological) detail given in Scripture about the life of Jesus indicates His humanness and His ability to identify with the experiences of others.

With regard to the second of the above conditions, the Bible also teaches that physical bodies (and biological processes) reflect humanity’s fallen nature, as do also their spiritual and psychological natures.[23] When Adam and Eve disobeyed God (thereby committing the first sin), they immediately were ashamed of their bodies and wanted to hide (Gen. 3:7–10). But before they sinned they were not ashamed of their bodies because they lived in a sinless and perfect relationship with God (2:25). Apparently a recognition of their physical nature (and its potential for sin) was highlighted as a result of their disobedience and became an integral part of a changed relationship with God. The Fall corrupted the entire person—body, soul, and spirit; biological aspects did not escape the disastrous effects of sin.[24] Biological corruption resulting from Adam’s sin also undoubtedly set the stage for the biological consequences of sickness, degeneration, and death.

Sin inherited from Adam leads to biological corruption and bodily inclination to sin along with its impact on other aspects of one’s being. This fact is supported by passages that refer to strife related to sins of the flesh (Rom. 7:15–25), the need to keep one’s body under subjection (1 Cor. 9:27), and “lowly bodies” (Phil. 3:21, NIV). The good news is that sin-prone bodies of believers will one day be transformed and will be like Christ’s glorified body.

The biblical teaching of the propensity to sin with the body (and thus biologically) is highly consistent with the point made previously that biological influences on homosexuality are predisposing, that is, influential but not immutable or deterministic. Of course biological propensities also have important implications for a much broader picture of sin, not just homosexuality. For example biological influences are involved in heterosexual sin (e.g., adultery) as well as in other forms of deviant sexual practices (such as pedophilia and rape). Supposedly such biological influences vary in degree in different individuals, which might very well explain why some people have a greater or lesser propensity to sin with their bodies than do others. When Christians attempt to resolve the homosexual problem by ignoring the real potential for biological influences, they ignore the fallen nature of the individual’s total being.

However, it is important to add that, while the Bible recognizes biological struggles (including homosexual propensities in some individuals), it does not excuse such behavior. The Bible clearly condemns and forbids homosexual practices (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 6:9) and expects Christians to keep their bodies under subjection (9:27). Contemporary revisionists who deny these teachings by applying a different exegesis or who argue for a social-cultural irrelevancy do so at great risk and generally have a low view of scriptural authority.[25] The fact that the Bible indicates Jesus was tempted in all ways as we are (Heb. 4:15) suggests that such temptations included those related to biological influences. This should give believers great encouragement in their struggles against sinful inclinations that have their roots in biology; He has been there and is able to help with those struggles (v. 16). The one difference is that, while Jesus was tempted in all ways as humans are, He was without sin (v. 15). This latter point is particularly critical, since it indicates that He is the perfect Savior.

In spite of the fact that biological drives and motivations have been tainted by sin, the Bible does not teach that such factors should rule people’s lives or be the most important aspect of their being. We have been given the promise of power over indwelling sin, including biological influences (Rom. 6:11–13). Death to self and the resurrection of Christ serve as the foundation of this power and, by the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer, one can become alive to righteous living. While many people teach that homosexuals cannot change their lifestyle,[26] the Bible states that such change is not only possible but also is necessary. Since the Bible shows that sin has corrupted humankind’s biological nature as well as their spiritual and psychological natures, to deny that there is a solution to biologically rooted sinful inclinations would suggest that God’s Holy Spirit is limited in His ability to free people from sin (6:2, 11). Such a conclusion is foolish, of course, and does not describe the God of the Bible. Deliverance from sin encompasses all a person is—body, soul, and spirit. Certainly God is able to deliver people from sin.

While God is able to deliver individuals from a sinful homosexual lifestyle, the manner and timing of such deliverance is in His hands. God is certainly able to deliver someone immediately or instantly from such sin,[27] but in other instances He may deliver someone from the homosexual lifestyle through a series of stages.

While such a process may be painful and prolonged, God is still able to accomplish His will in His good time. While the most desirable form of deliverance, from a social perspective, may be a change from a homosexual to a heterosexual lifestyle and marriage, celibacy may be the answer for some.[28] God may deliver someone from a homosexual lifestyle without necessarily removing the homosexual orientation. In such a case the struggle may continue, but by God’s grace one is able to overcome participating in the homosexual lifestyle.[29]

Regardless of the scenario, individuals wrestling with homosexuality must ultimately trust God and believe that He is able to bring about deliverance. In this context the church needs to come alongside individuals struggling with homosexuality and express the compassion of Christ for sinners without compromising biblical teachings on the subject.

Summary

While biological predispositions (genetic and intrauterine) may contribute to the development of the homosexual lifestyle, biological factors are not the central, most important, or determining influence on existence and behavior. Any attempt to reduce people to genetic or biological entities distorts human identity from a biblical perspective.[30] However, any attempt to deny that human identity includes a biological component along with spiritual and psychological components is equally guilty of distortion.

Humans are biological beings and biologically based influences are part of their fallen nature inherited from Adam. This fact is consistent with the acceptance of predisposing biological influences contributing to the development of homosexual behavior. Such influences are not immutable or preordained but rather are subject to additional influences that can cause behavior to change. Choice of lifestyle, something most homosexuals deny is possible, is therefore a realistic scenario of such collective influences. Furthermore evidence for a biological contribution to homosexuality does not undermine the biblical doctrine of sin; rather, it confirms the point that all human beings are corrupt in all aspects of their being.

While the Bible clearly teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful, it also provides a way of forgiveness and deliverance. Thus from a biblical perspective biology does not provide an acceptable excuse for homosexual behavior. Rather, it indicates the need for deliverance from biologically inclined sinful acts. This view stands in sharp contrast with that of the secular world and needs to be strongly reinforced in the Christian community.

Notes

1. This argument is reflected in comments made about strategy by a psychologist at a major convention (Scott Sleek, “Research Lights Path to Policy Changes,” APA [American Psychological Association] Monitor 17 [1966]: 54). Also see Lydia Saad, “Americans Growing More Tolerant of Gays,” Gallup Poll Monthly, December 1996, 12–14.
2. See, for example, Mel White, Stranger at the Gate (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994). The author implies that homosexuality is ordained and created by God.
3. See Daniel Callahan, “Minimalist Ethics,” Hasting Center Report, October 1981, 19–25. The relationship between law and morality is, however, a shaky one.
4. See James W. Kalat, Biological Psychology, 5th ed. (Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1995), 393–96.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. See Jackson Beatty, Principles of Behavioral Neuroscience (Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark, 1995), 374. While the effects of hormones on the sexual behavior of human males is subtle, the sexual behavior of human females appears to be even less dependent on hormones than does that of males.
8. See Kalat, Biological Psychology, 388–92, for an interesting discussion of the organizing effects of hormones on the gonads and hypothalamus of the brain. In this context the effects of testosterone on the human brain appear to be particularly relevant to the issue of homosexuality.
9. For discussions on the potential role of prenatal intrauterine hormone action on the development of homosexual behavior see reviews by John Money, “Sin, Sickness, or Status? Homosexual Gender Identity and Psychoneuroendocrinology,” American Psychologist 42 (1987): 384-99; and by Sherwood O. Cole, “The Biological Basis of Homosexuality: A Christian Assessment,” Journal of Psychology and Theology 23 (1995): 89-100.
10. See Kalat, Biological Psychology, 393–97.
11. Ibid., 9. For example an increase in hormone levels in circulation might increase sexual motivation, but this does not automatically mean that sexual behavior will result. Behavior is still influenced by many other factors such as experience, circumstances, and values.
12. John Money, Gay, Straight, and In-between: The Sexology of Erotic Orientation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988).
13. Money, “Sin, Sickness, or Status? Homosexual Gender Identity and Psychoneuroendocrinology,” 384–99.
14. See Cole, “The Biological Basis of Homosexuality: A Christian Assessment,” 89–100; and Sherwood O. Cole, “Biology, Homosexuality, and Moral Culpability,” Bibliotheca Sacra 154 (July-September 1997): 355-66.
15. Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994).
16. John P. Pinel, Biopsychology, 3d ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997), 450–54.
17. For a discussion of the interrelationship between reductionism and determinism, see Sherwood O. Cole, “Reflections on Integrations by a Biopsychologist,” Journal of Psychology and Theology 24 (1996): 292-300.
18. The basic scriptural support for the doctrine of sin is found in Romans 5:12. Various views on the imputation of sin to the human race derived from Adam are presented in Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1989), 311–13. Those views emphasizing the total depravity of mankind (Federal and Augustinian views) are consistent with scriptural teachings.
19. Ian Hamer, “Pastor, the Gene Made Me Do It!” Concordia Journal, January 1997, 18–26.
20. A “trichotomous” view of human nature—that humans are physical, psychological, and spiritual—is adopted in this article for purposes of making certain critical distinctions in human experience. The “dichotomous” view—material and nonmaterial—seems more difficult to maintain. While both views might be argued from Scripture, Paul emphasizes three parts in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 (Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, 307).
21. See Hamer, “Pastor, the Gene Made Me Do It!” 18–26.
22. While evangelicals recognize the physical suffering of Christ on the cross, they tend to overemphasize the spiritual agony and suffering of Christ associated with assuming humankind’s sin burden and the resulting separation from God the Father. However, Christ’s physical suffering is what most clearly revealed His identity with humanity.
23. See Hamer, “Pastor, the Gene Made Me Do It!” 18–26.
24. Ibid.
25. Prominent writings by revisionists include John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); and Daniel A. Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality (San Francisco: Alamo Square, 1994).
26. Neither the American Psychiatric Association nor the American Psychological Association consider homosexuality a pathological disorder; thus they say therapy should not be directed at changing a person’s orientation or lifestyle. For a response to this view see Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 179–209.
27. See the testimony of Dottie Ludwig, “On Being Christian and Homosexual: Set Free in Christ,” Word and World 14 (1994): 338, 340. While the release from homosexual bondage was apparently immediate in this case, it may be the exception, not the rule. For example see Bob Davies and Lori Rentzel, Coming Out of Homosexuality: New Freedom for Men and Women (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993); and Joseph Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuals (Northvale, NJ: Aronson, 1991).
28. James R. Beck suggests that Christians have allowed the world’s agenda regarding sexual expression to become their own and that they need to reactivate the theology of celibacy (“Evangelicals, Homosexuals, and Social Science,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 [1997]: 83-97.
29. The distinction between homosexual orientation and practice has both practical and theoretical importance. The Bible condemns the practice of homosexuality, but says nothing specific about homosexual orientation (mental propensities). However, this distinction does not imply that homosexual orientation is unimportant or morally neutral.
30. See Hamer, “Pastor, the Gene Made Me Do It!” 18–26.