Here you are for part 4…
(If you have not read parts 1-3, then you probably should before reading this one)
Creation and Science
If I have achieved anything thus far, it is to argue the case that the Bible does not, in fact, talk about what we understand as homosexuality, and that it requires, what I would consider, an unjustifiable leap to make these passages mean what the “traditionalists” claim. However, this is all irrelevant if the creation account can be shown to unequivocally state that heterosexual marriage is the only permissible coupling, which, on the face of it, is exactly what it does say. However, I want to explore this more carefully, in the context of recent scientific findings and, while I absolutely agree with Goddard’s assertion that, “scientific findings alone cannot determine Christian moral teaching,”[1] I also think that science can explain things that the Bible does not and thus cause us to question some assumptions. For example, very few Christians would argue that the earth is flat and is supported by pillars to stop us from falling into the waters, or that the sky is a hammered dome with doors to let rain through, and yet this is precisely what Genesis 1 describes. Scientific discoveries have shown us that the Ancient Near East view of the cosmos is not correct. Does this in any way diminish Genesis 1? Not at all, because the purpose is to show the place of YHWH in all of this and the place of humanity in the order of things, and the writer has done so using the contemporary description of how the world was understood.
If science brings into question the ANE worldview assumptions of Genesis 2, then this does not nullify or reduce the power of the scriptures or the point that they make. The writer is ascribing divine meaning to what he sees around him – the role of humanity and the fact that the nature of YHWH is reflected in both male and female. However, advances in science mean that genetic studies have revealed that this is not as straightforward as it seems and that “1-2% of people do not fit into this dichotomy” and that “a certain % of children are born with ambiguous genitalia,”[2] as a result of “genetic variation or chance development.”[3]
In response, Goddard makes the assertion that “there are two sexes… to say otherwise has no basis in Scripture or Christian tradition,”[4] but I would respond by saying that there is no Scriptural basis for the earth being spherical, but it is still true. It does not in any way diminish the point of Genesis 2 (or 1). We are all created in the image of God who loves us and who is reflected in humanity as a whole. Male and female are not meant to survive in isolation from one another, but at the same time, we cannot limit ourselves to the western view of the nuclear family with 2.4 children, when throughout history and throughout the world family is a broad collection of generations living in community together, male and female and communally reflecting God.
We cannot dogmatically claim that the ANE view of humanity that we see framing the Bible is correct and modern science is wrong. We have to see science as shining a light onto the cultural context of the scriptures and readjust our assumptions accordingly and, as such, we also cannot ignore that science is increasingly identifying the genetic influences on sexuality,[5] and the, “evidence that sexual orientation is not a ‘lifestyle choice.’”[6] While many (in what I consider a misguided attempt to ‘defend’ the Bible) are tempted to claim that, “gene finding efforts have issues,” the reality is that, “these are technical and not catastrophic.”[7] Is the real issue that we, as Christians are fearful of readjusting our understanding of scripture because we are discovering that some of what we had assumed was divine was, in fact, cultural assumptions?[8] This is, of course, precisely what happened with Christians’ perspective on slavery and the treatment of the Jews.
The last thing that is healthy is for us to declare open season on the Bible but we must recognise that, while science should not inform moral teaching, it can and must help us to recognise cultural influences in the writing of the scriptures and thus better inform exegesis. In the light of all of this, can we still view Genesis 2 as the last word on the subject? We certainly must view it through the filter that not all humans are created in neat categories and therefore we can see that, while it describes the norm for humanity, it is not necessarily the only way.[9] Again, I cannot see any conflict with the meaning of the scripture as it changes nothing of our value or relationship with God, which I argue is the thrust of the passage.
Next time, what does Jesus say and what can we conclude..?
[1] Goddard, Homosexuality, 17. I would like to suggest here that the current “traditionalist” view was entirely shaped by science. It was psychology that shaped the understanding of people having a sexual orientation in the mid-19th century and thus changed the entire ethical debate (see footnote 6).
[2] Nadia Nongzai, “Scientifically how many sexes/genders are there?,” Quora, 20 Sept 2016, <https://www.quora.com/Scientifically-how-many-sexes-genders-are-there> (5 June 2018).
[3] Claire Ainsworth, “Sex Redefined,” Nature, 18 Feb 2015, <https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943> (5 June 2018).
[4] Goddard, Homosexuality, 21.
[5] Gary W. Beecham et al Alan R. Sanders, “Genome-Wide Association Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” Nature, 7 Dec 2017, <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15736-4> (5 June 2018).
[6] Andy Coghlan, “What do the new “gay genes” tell us about sexual orientation?,” New Scientist, 7 dec 2017, <https://www.newscientist.com/article/2155810-what-do-the-new-gay-genes-tell-us-about-sexual-orientation/> (5 June 2018), quoting Dean Hamer at the US National Institute for Health.
[7] Qazi Rahman, “’Gay Genes’: Science is on the right track, we’re born this way. Let’s deal with it.,” The Guardian, 24 July 2015, <https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/jul/24/gay-genes-science-is-on-the-right-track-were-born-this-way-lets-deal-with-it> (5 June 2018).
[9] Dr Brad Jersak, in an email to me (15th November 2017), suggests that, “minority variants express God’s/creation’s love for variety… That is, in creation, a variant is not de facto deviant or a perversion of God’s good created order / design.”
0 Comments