BiBLiOTHECA SACRA 157 (July-September 2000): 348-61

BIOLOGY, HOMOSEXUALITY, AND

THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF SIN
Sherwood O. Cole

IOLOGICAL 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 intrauterinehormonal 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 t h a t 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 t h a t
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 t h a t of
African Americans (as well as people possessing other minoritySherwood 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.
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.

Biology, Homosexuality, and the Biblical Doctrine of Sin 349

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 t h a t 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 minorityspecific 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 t h a t they
have been socially disadvantaged by biological features (genetic
and intrauterine-hormonal influences) t h a t 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 t h a t 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 t h a t are not
immutable.
Second, and of even greater importance, is the fact t h a t 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

See Daniel Callahan, "Minimalist Ethics," Hasting Center Report, October 1981,
19-25 The relationship between law and morality is, however, a shaky one

350 BiBLiOTHECA SACRA / July-September 2000

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 t h a t 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.
T Y P E S 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

See J a m e s W Kalat, Biological

Brooks/Cole, 1995), 393-96

Psychology,

5th ed (Pacific Grove, CA

Biology, Homosexuality, and the Biblical Doctrine of Sin 351

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 h u m a n s
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.

Ibid

Ibid

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

352 BiBLiOTHECA SACRA / July-September 2000

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 t h a t
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 h u m a n s 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 h u m a n 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 testos-

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 S t a t u s 9 Homosexual Gender Identity and Psychoneuroendocnnology," 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

Biology, Homosexuality, and the Biblical Doctrine of Sin 353

terone 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. 1 0 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, t h a t person will automatically blink.
These reflexes are built-in biological responses t h a t demonstrate
unintentional cause-and-effect connections. Such simple stimulusresponse features are interesting and are designed to protect the
body. It is extremely dangerous to apply these paradigms to complex h u m a n situations t h a t 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
10

See Kalat, Biological Psychology, 393-97

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

354 BiBLiOTHECA SACRA / July-September 2000

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.
Obhgatwe 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). 1 3 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 t h a t biology is
result Behavior is still influenced by many other factors such as experience, circumstances, and values
John Money, Gay, Straight, and In-between
(Oxford Oxford University Press, 1988)

The Sexology of Erotic

Orientation

13
Money, "Sin, Sickness, or S t a t u s 9 Homosexual Gender Identity and Psychoneuroendocnnology," 384-99

See Cole, "The Biological Basis of Homosexuality A Christian Assessment,"

89-100, and Sherwood O Cole, "Biology, Homosexuality, and Moral Culpability,"
Bibhotheca Sacra 154 (July-September 1997) 355-66

Biology, Homosexuality, and the Biblical Doctrine of Sin 355

important, but they also recognize t h a t biology is only one of sev

eral important contributors to a chosen lifestyle. Psychological, so
cial, 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 homosexual
ity and permit the exercising of choice.
IMPLICIT DANGERS OF BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS

While biological explanations of behavior are valuable when prop

erly qualified, they are frequently taken to the extreme in the form
of biological reductiomsm. Nowhere is this more blatantly demon
strated t h a n 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 t h a n the be
havior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and the associated mole
cules." 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 docu
mented and is something the reductionists would do well to recog
nize. For example the deleterious effect of behavioral stress on a
person's immune system and susceptibility to infectious disease is
well established. 1 6
In still other instances it may be difficult or virtually impossi
ble 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, t h e
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 r a t h e r to have a flexible
17
attitude about the role of biology in influencing behavior. This

Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis

(New York Simon & Schuster, 1994)
16

17

The Scientific

Search for the Soul

John Pinel, Bwpsychology, 3d ed (Boston Allyn and Bacon, 1997), 450-54

For a discussion of the interrelationship between reductionism and determin

ism, see Sherwood O Cole, "Reflections on Integrations by a Biopsychologist," Jour
nal of Psychology and Theology 24 (1996) 292-300

356 BiBLiOTHECA SACRA / July-September 2000

seems particularly true in the case of biological influences on homosexuality.

BIOLOGY AND THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF S I N

The biblical doctrine of sin states that everyone is a sinner and

every person's whole being has been corrupted by an inborn, inherited sin nature from Adam's original sin. 18 Furthermore the
doctrine of sin is essential to the acceptance of the gospel in t h a t
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 n a t u r e s (1 Thess. 5:23). 20 The use of the biblical word
"heart" may well reflect the manner in which these various natures
are integrated. 2 1 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)
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 Augustiman views) are consistent with scriptural teachings
Ian Hamer, "Pastor, the Gene Made Me Do It'" Concordia
1997, 18-26

Journal,

January

A "trichotomous" view of human naturethat humans are physical, psychological, and spiritualis adopted in this article for purposes of making certain critical
distinctions in h u m a n experience The "dichotomous" viewmaterial and
nonmaterialseems 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)
See Hamer, "Pastor, the Gene Made Me Do It'" 18-26

Biology, Homosexuality, and the Biblical Doctrine of Sin 357

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, t h a t 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 t h a t God has ordained such a lifestyle based on biological influences is inconsistent
with the biblical teaching t h a t 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 h u m a n
race and by separation from God the Father, it was also fully
physical and human. 2 2 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 t h a t physical bodies (and biological processes) reflect
humanity's fallen nature, as do also their spiritual and psychological natures. 2 3 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 recogni

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.
See Hamer, "Pastor, the Gene Made Me Do It!" 18-26.

358 BiBLiOTHECA SACRA / July-September 2000

tion 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 personbody, 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 t h a t 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 t h a t biological influences on homosexuality are predisposing, t h a t 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. 2 5 The fact t h a t the

24
5

Ibid

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

Biology, Homosexuality, and the Biblical Doctrine of Sin 359

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 t h a t 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 t h a t
homosexuals cannot change their lifestyle, 26 the Bible states t h a t
such change is not only possible but also is necessary. Since the
Bible shows t h a t sin has corrupted humankind's biological nature
as well as their spiritual and psychological natures, to deny t h a t
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 isbody, 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.
Daniel A Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality
cisco Alamo Square, 1994)

(San Fran-

6
Neither the American Psychiatric Association nor the American Psychological
Association consider homosexuality a pathological disorder, t h u s 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

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 Homosexual
ity New Freedom for Men and Women (Downers Grove, IL InterVarsity, 1993), and
Joseph Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuals (Northvale, N J Aronson,
1991)

360 BlBLiOTHECA SACRA / July-September 2000

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 t h a t h u m a n 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 there-

J a m e s 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
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
See Hamer, "Pastor, the Gene Made Me Do It'" 18-26

Biology, Homosexuality, and the Biblical Doctrine of Sin 361

fore 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 t h a t of the secular world and needs to be
strongly reinforced in the Christian community.

^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.