I read an interesting piece by Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Seminary, that addresses the high probability that sexual orientation is genetic and the possible moral and theological issues that this might raise in the future. I found it stimulating for conversation for both the bio-ethical issues it raises and for the multiple twists and turns in logic that the argument seems to demonstrate.

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891

In one part he clearly states, “The development of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis [PDG] is one of the greatest threats to human dignity in our times.” And this is in the context of genetic trait engineering and the potential that lends to abortion.

However, just below, he argues, “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.”

Therefore trait engineering is a threat to human dignity unless that human dignity happens to have a homosexual orientation. Certainly fascinating for discussion on theological grounds for how we define human dignity and the human person in a theological-anthropological sense and human dignity versus sin. Would Mohler posit some sort of “sin” gene as a result? If we found the source of sinful behavior, would it, according to his logic, be ethical to root that gene out? If so, would we then be ignoring the forgiveness the resurrection offers us? Seems to collude or confuse sanctification with eugenics!

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought our primary duty as Christians was to love our neighbor and witness to the Cross of Christ. The issue that this raises goes back to some of the reasons for the Reformation and secession from the Medieval Catholic Church. A major issue there was that tradition was trumping the absolute sovereignty of God alone to forgive us through Christ. Saying that part of our duty is to alter our genetic code in order to select out what may or may not not be “sinful” genes or other biological processes stands next to anyone who believes that human works trump the action of God alone to heal our sinfulness. Any Baptist, or any Christian, should take issue with that. Even if you are in the camp that says homosexuality is a sin, this should raise a big red flag since it is the first step among possibly many others that Mohler clearly indicates into tricking ourselves into believing that genetics can take the place of God’s forgiveness. Sad to see such poor theological argument from a President of a seminary.

Just fascinating to ponder…