|
|
|
Chapter One: The Seeming Dilemma
The God of the Bible is No Respecter of Persons One of the things that the Lord has taught us through His Holy Word is that He is "no respecter of persons." To be sure, this is a commonly-used phrase in the King James Version of the Bible. (See Acts 10:34; 2 Samuel 14:14; 2 Chronicles 19:7; Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9; and 1 Peter 1:17.) Other translations render that phrase as God does "not show favoritism" or that He has "no partiality." In other words, the Godhead is not impressed by our outer human appearance. Really, the Creator is not even impressed by our individual human personalities. As a trained biologist, I can attest that much of human personality is biochemically inclined, physiologically predisposed, and endocrinologically predetermined. Indeed, genetically determined hormone levels impinge upon our brain and cause it to act and react the way it does. That is one of the reasons children are so very much like their parents relative to personality and temperament. More often than not, adult children display virtually the same animated behavioral profile, or lack thereof, as their parents. Regardless, in the final analysis, there should be no value judgment associated with whether someone has an "animated" or a "low key" personality. God really does not care. He understands that much of the human personality is genetically predetermined and not chosen. Instead, what God cares most about is what is within our individual hearts. We find this as a good object lesson in 1 Samuel 16:1-13. As recorded there, the prophet Samuel is evaluating the sons of Jesse relative to whom God is going to choose as the second king of the children of Israel. As the first son, Eliab, passes by, Samuel looks at him and says, "My, this is an impressive individual. Surely, this is the one whom the Lord is going to choose! Surely, this must be the one!" (1 Samuel 16:6) However, the Lord responds to Samuel by instructing him that He is no respecter of persons, and that He does not evaluate outward expression as human beings evaluate it:
In other words, the Lord looks at the inner core of an individual and the intent of his or her heart. According to God, the true stature --- or, measure --- of a person is determined by how much love is in his or her heart. It is very important for us to understand that our human person is merely an outward expression that may not reflect our inner core, attitude, or intent accurately. That is why God is not impressed by our outward expression, and that is why He shows no favoritism based on it. Indeed, our physical appearance is not impressive to God. Our personality is not impressive to Him. Additionally, our sexual orientation is not impressive to Him either. He does not really care about any of these things, unless, of course, we are acting in an ungodly manner in relation to them, or we are not acting in keeping with what it is that He would have us to do relative to them. To be sure, abuses related to our physicality --- such as vanity, self-loathing, deception (i.e., presenting ourselves as other than who or what we are), and sexual addictions --- are repugnant to the Lord. Human personhood includes outward expression, physical appearance, genetic makeup, personality, and sexuality (i.e., sexual identity, sexual orientation and, in the case of bisexuals, sexual preference). Spiritually speaking, true man is really the expression, or person, of God and the body of His Christ. What I mean by the last statement is that, though we are not God and can never be the Creator, when we invite Him into our lives, and when He lives within us and we do His Will, then He really is our true self. In other words, our true being and only real identity come from Him. As the Apostle Paul clearly stated, it is in God that "we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17:28 NIV) And, as John the Baptist declared when he saw Jesus, "He must increase, but I must decrease." (John 3:30 KJV) It is in losing ourselves to Him that we indeed find ourselves.
An Enlightened View of Gender We need to come to a better understanding --- or, an enlightened view --- of gender, which includes understanding these two verses from the Bible:
Ultimately, God does not evaluate us in terms of our physical reality. To be sure, He is aware of who and what we are, but He does not evaluate us on the basis of features or characteristics that have neutral value. He does evaluate us in terms of our reactions to our environment and earthly circumstances. More importantly, however, as Christians the Lord looks at the righteousness that has been imparted to us through the blood of His Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. As attested to by Mark 12:25 (previously quoted), when we go to heaven, we are not going to be gendered males or females. Rather, we will be "like the angels in heaven." Often, this boggles the mind, because we have a tendency as human beings to think only in terms of images and allusions that relate to human referents --- or, in other words, in terms that relate to what we now see and with which we are currently familiar. Of course, such thinking is understandable, but we really do need to elevate our thinking by focusing on things supernal:
In the reality of God, let me ask this of you: Are we spiritual beings? Or, are we physical beings? In 1 Corinthians 15:49-50, we read:
To be sure, the testimony of the whole Bible is that human beings are both spiritual and physical. However, we now wear, as it were, a corruptible body, --- a body that perishes. But, one day we will have a new body, --- a body that is incorruptible and that does not perish. And, that body will be glorious, for we shall be wearing the glory, or brightness, of God! I believe very strongly in the triune nature of God: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. As I have searched the Scriptures, I find everything that points to that particular doctrine being sound as well as providing a solid foundation for understanding the Godhead. I also believe that there is a triune nature to His created (i.e., we are "His created" collectively and individually), and that the triune nature for each individual consists of "spirit, soul, and body." (1 Thessalonians 5:23 NIV) Thomas L. Constable, Professor of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary, defines this threefold nature as follows:
So, the body is the form in which the individual takes shape --- that is, its appearance. Now, we know what shape we are in right now (i.e., how we presently appear), but we do not yet know what we will look like in heaven. In response to the question of our heavenly appearance, the Apostle John wrote:
In other words, one day we will have a glorious body or form, just as our Lord and Savior has a glorious form or body. In this way, we await the redemption of our bodies:
A few verses further on, Scripture states that God's servants are "predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son." (Romans 8:29) That is exciting! Praise the Lord! Praise God that we have this to look forward to!
Organized Religion To date, organized religion has really served as a stumbling block, hindering many homosexuals from coming to terms with the Creator as well as coming to an understanding of who the Creator is as Father through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. This stumbling block exists in contemporary Christianity, in particular, but also in Judaism as well, though it has been less difficult for many Jews to reconcile their religion with homosexuality. For example, in the December, 1993 issue of Bible Review, Rabbi Jacob Milgrom provides us with one Judaic perspective of the prohibition of same-sex activity, as recorded in Leviticus 18:22, in his article entitled, "Does the Bible Prohibit Homosexuality?"
Rabbi Milgrom adds this footnote to his work:
To be sure, Rabbi Milgrom does not take into consideration the Christian perspective that grace fulfills as well as supersedes the law of Moses, nor does he take into account the role that male temple cult prostitution played in causing the Lord God Almighty to originally institute the Levitical prohibition against same-sex behavior. (Male temple cult prostitution, Levitical law and grace will be treated in Chapters Two and Three.) Additionally, keep in mind that in Judaism there are Orthodox and Conservative perspectives as well as Reform perspectives, and that I do not mean to suggest that all three are capsulized by Rabbi Milgrom's comments. Concerning Christian perspectives, the Roman Catholic Church has historically taken the hard-line stance that sexuality is for procreation and procreation alone. Thus, the Roman Catholic Church has been opposed to masturbation, birth control, and homosexual acts, because they do not serve a reproductive purpose or process. In the 1986 document, "On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states that the homosexual "inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder" (in contradistinction to the prevailing psychiatric and psychologic view). Nevertheless, in a 1975 document, entitled "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics," the Congregation earlier put forth the idea that for some individuals homosexuality is an "innate instinct." I find it very curious that those two words are specifically used in that document, and that, despite their use, homosexuality is still condemned, since, if one takes "innate instinct" to its logical conclusion, one should recognize that God would not condemn people for a condition with which they have been born. Indeed, such a position is contradictory as well as illogical. Although in many ways Roman Catholicism has distanced itself from homosexuals, and many homosexuals have felt unwelcome in its churches, it really has not been responsible for the extreme activism against homosexuality that has been demonstrated by many Protestant sects and denominations, especially through so-called evangelical fundamentalists. Now, I consider myself a fundamentalist in many ways. And, I consider myself an evangelical. However, the word fundamentalism has taken on such a negative connotation relative to the Religious Right, and its insistence on certain exclusionary views, that I often prefer the word foundationalism over fundamentalism. To me, a Christian foundationalist is someone who has the foundation for his or her faith in the Bible, believing it to be the inspired word of God, and acting as such, but who is also able to hold the whole Bible and its entire message while simultaneously attending to its various parts. To be sure, this holistic approach must be taken to discern the truths necessary for building church doctrine. Although Roman Catholicism may view homosexuals as incurably disordered, many fundamentalists would view homosexuals as depraved heterosexuals (i.e., perverted versions of God's standard) who can be cured. Since they do not quite understand us as homosexuals, they end up thinking that our basic nature is heterosexual and, for that reason, needing to be cured. When you think about the so-called Ex-gay movement, it really was not born out of Judaism or Roman Catholicism but, rather, out of Protestantism. Those who have bought into the notion of our heterosexual conversion think that they can fix us or make us "whole" through such things as aversion therapy, prayer, and reeducation as well as special opportunities for parental figure nurturing and bonding. Obviously, heterosexuals who view us as perverted versions of God's standard have not walked in our shoes. The overwhelming majority of homosexuals would tell them (if they would only ask us) that as we were developing, maturing, and "growing up," we would have given anything to be like them. Why? Because no one would actually choose to be despised or looked at as depraved and perverted. Nobody wants to be rejected by the majority of society. And, even though other people have been oppressed and rejected, I believe that there is an extra burden for homosexuals, because, for example, though ethnic and racial minorities can experience rejection from a dominant group, they can generally turn to their own families to nurture and support them. For many homosexuals, such support is simply not available. To be sure, many --- if not most --- homosexuals have been rejected even by their own family members. My own family rejected me, and I am certainly not an exception. And, so, the advice I share with those of you who may have homosexual family members is that you need to accept them for who and what they are, continue to love them, and serve as a support system for them. Without the support of family-of-origin members, many homosexuals have taken their own lives, because they could not bear the emotional and mental pain from the rejection of those they loved as well as those whose love they desired and needed. I am fifty-two years of age at the time of this writing (2000), and I have been socialized by gay and lesbian society (I am not saying "lifestyle" but "society"). I have known gay and lesbian people for over 35 years. Unfortunately, I have known several people who have taken their own lives, especially those who found the rejection by family members to be much too great to endure or bear. Certainly, I believe that there is individual responsibility for such acts of desperation, but I also believe there is societal and familial responsibility as well. And, I believe that many people will be asked by our Lord and Savior, "Why did you keep these people from Me? Why did you hinder them from approaching My cross? Why did you not share the Gospel with them in a nonjudgmental, noncondemning, and loving way?" I think it will be very difficult for those who hear such questions at God's judgment seat to answer in a way with which they themselves will be pleased, let alone our Lord. Previously, Christian gays and lesbians who wanted to attend church had only two options: Either they could go to a church that accepted them because it watered down Scripture due to theological liberalism; or, they could go to a church which threatened expulsion if they were honest about who they really are. Today, Christian gays and lesbians need to attend churches whose spiritual culture and climate is conducive to personal growth without compromising the gospel message. I am hopeful that such communities of faith will develop during this third millennium after the birth of Jesus Christ.
The Need for Healing Homophobia Homophobia is the fear and/or hatred of homosexuals. Sometimes homophobia is based on ignorance. Sometimes it is based on malice. And sometimes it is based on inner fears of being gay and not being willing to be identified as such. What follows is a short quiz for homosexuals that might help them to determine if they themselves are homophobic (Figure One).
Figure One
It is no wonder that homosexuals become self-loathing due to societal homophobia. To be sure, it is all right for one to not want to suffer the emotional pain from rejection, victimization, harassment and persecution because of one's sexual orientation. However, it is not all right --- from the standpoint of one's own personal emotional health and well-being --- to wish not to be homosexual when one is. We should not desire to change a trait that should be viewed as blameless as skin color or as neutral as right- or left-handedness. In fact, homosexuals should celebrate that their sexual orientation contributes to their uniqueness, since God foreknew what they would be:
With regard to additional possible causes, homophobia is sometimes manufactured as a means for going along with the crowd, or --- in the case of certain televangelists and politicians --- as a rationale for asking for money from the crowd. Yes, homophobia has become a political agenda, because it is a money-maker. From World War II up through most of the 1980s, two of the biggest money-making issues that drew huge financial support, especially for the ministries of many televangelists, were communism and homosexuality. As communism fell, televangelists lost one way to pull in money from viewing audiences, who were made to fear communism's potential encroachment, terror, and threat looming on the horizon. However, after the fall of communism, the issue of homosexuality still remained, and that became a convenient agenda for many public figures who wanted to enlarge their power base and increase their financial resources. I would submit to you that some people understand and even accept homosexuality and, yet, would speak out against it pretentiously, because speaking out furthers their own personal political agendas and increases their public support. People who fear and/or hate homosexuals need to understand that sexual behavior (i.e., the sexual act) does not determine who is straight or gay. Not all people who have had a sexual experience with the opposite sex are straight. Not all people who have had a sexual experience with the same sex are gay. Not all people who are straight have had a heterosexual experience. And not all people who are gay have had a homosexual experience. Behavior does not make a person gay, just as it does not make a person straight. Just as one could be a heterosexual and remain celibate, so also could one be a homosexual and never act on his or her sexual orientation. Indeed, one could even be involved in same-sex behaviors and still be heterosexual. For example, some individuals in prison are involved in same-sex behaviors though they are definitely not homosexual. Also, many homosexuals --- especially from my generation --- got married in order to help avoid the emotional pain from the social stigmatization of being homosexual. Even though they lived as heterosexuals, they certainly were not heterosexuals. It is my hope that, eventually, society comes to understand that homosexual does not mean "one who engages in same-sex behaviors." To be sure, the perspective I share is in agreement with that expressed by the American Psychological Association, which states: "Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors." (8) Overall, "sexual orientation" is a better phrase to describe homosexuality than "sexual preference." "Sexual preference" connotes choice and, for most homosexuals, there is no choice concerning their particular orientation. The only time a same-sex relationship is a choice is when a bisexual decides to actively, and exclusively, seek a companion of the same sex. For people who are gay, and not bisexual, the only choice involved in their sexual orientation is whether or not to act on their natural desires. And, seeking same-sex companionship for gay people is just a natural as seeking opposite-sex companionship is for straight people. In a publication from the Oregon Psychological Association (also published and distributed by the Arizona Psychological Association), the following statement is made in response to the question, "Is the homosexual orientation a choice?"
True heterosexuals would not think of changing their sexual orientation, because they cannot. So, too, true homosexuals should not think of changing their sexual orientation. Unfortunately, however, because of the prejudices and biases of a society whose majority is heterosexual, many homosexuals end up closeting themselves and pretending (and even longing) to be heterosexual. It is unfortunate that many homosexuals have accepted the shame and guilt assigned to them by society. This shame and guilt causes them to feel less than whole and often act in terms of a split-consciousness. Homosexual people need to have more positive gay role models after whom they might pattern their thinking, feeling, and behavior. As long as society enforces so-called "don't ask, don't tell, don't-be-yourself" policies, gay people will continue to suffer, and even die, needlessly. Unfortunately, the victims of homophobia are not only gay people. They also include homophobes as well. Hate is an insidious thing that --- regardless of the outward damage it may do to others --- helps to kill the inner self of those who permit it access to their hearts, minds and souls. In the final analysis, it is somewhat queer to me that so many have abandoned the foundational Christian principle of love in order to judge and condemn others based on traits and characteristics about which they know so little. Perhaps one way that homophobia proves that some people are not yet really born of God is through the hate and fear from the homophobes themselves. Unfortunately, homophobia often reproduces itself. Fortunately, it can be cured.
Deviations from the Norm On a number of occasions, I have heard the following statement uttered by so-called Christian fundamentalists to combat the possible social acceptance of homosexuality: "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." The ignorance of that statement astounds me both as a Christian and as a biologist. Because it is simplistic and reductionist, the statement fails to take into consideration the multivariate nature of this world. It fails to take into consideration that there might be a third kind or gender, not neuter but "gay." Many unusual phenomena related to sexual identity occur within the natural world. For example: 1) Certain avians and fish undergo spontaneous sex reversals and are even capable of reproduction in their newfound gender. 2) Various unfertilized insect eggs develop into males. 3) The females of specific flying insects possess "XY" sex chromosomes and the males possess "XX." 4) An all-female species of fish has been discovered, the Amazon molly, whose eggs develop through parthenogenesis (stimulation of ova without the customary fusion of male and female cells). And, most importantly, 5) a wide range of human intersexuality exists that fits on a continuum between normal male and female sexual identities (normal used here in the sense of "population normed," or "that which occurs most frequently"). The issue of human sex identity is a complex one. There are many legitimate questions regarding the genetic (or, chromosome) status, phenotypic (or, anatomic) status, psychological (or, gender identification) status, and sociological (or, society assigned) status of sex identity. In humans, sex identity may be determined by chromosome composition (generally, XX for female and XY for male). However, genetic testing is not always the best indicator of sex. Why? There are a fair number of individuals who fall into intersex categories. For instance: 1) those with abnormal chromosome composition or genetic code variances; 2) genetic males who differentiate into anatomic females due to androgen inaction or insensitivity; and, 3) genetic females who differentiate into anatomic males because of exposure to abnormally high amounts of androgens either in utero from their mothers' hyperactive adrenal glands or post partum from their own hyperactive adrenal glands. (See Appendix A for a more detailed classification of intersexuality.) Perhaps you have heard or read that the basic human form is female. That is not entirely true or accurate. What is true is that it is virtually impossible to determine the sex of a developing human embryo five weeks after conception. At that stage, external genitals include an undifferentiated glans area that will eventually become the penis in a male or the clitoris in a female. Undifferentiated labioscrotal swellings on either side of a general opening known as a urethral groove will either eventually fuse on the midline to form the scrotum in a male or remain separate as they develop into the labia majora ("outer lips") in a female. At five weeks after conception, internal genitalia include undifferentiated sex glands (gonads) that will develop into testes in a male or ovaries in a female. In the case of an anatomic male, the testes usually make their descent into the scrotal sac from one to three months before birth. Internal genitals in the five-week-old developing XX or XY embryo also include two sets of tubes: 1) the paramesonephric or MŸllerian ducts and 2) the mesonephric or Wolffian ducts. In the case of most developing males, the paramesonephric ducts degenerate and the mesonephric ducts develop into the vasa deferentia (s. vas deferens) or ducti deferentia (s. ductus deferens), the major sperm-carrying tubes that connect the testicles to the urethra. In the case of most developing females, the mesonephric ducts degenerate and the paramesonephric ducts develop into the Fallopian tubes (oviducts or uterine tubes) as well as the uterus. The external and internal changes described in the previous paragraphs are all mediated by various genes which trigger the release and/or inhibition of various sex steroid hormones and enzymes that convert inactive sex steroid hormone forms into active forms. In developing males, one of the most important regulating genes in the processes described is known as the SRY gene, --- the so-called Sex-determining Region of the Y chromosome. (10) In developing males, this gene triggers a cascade of events between the fourth and seventh weeks after conception that results in the production of testosterone by the sex glands as they begin to differentiate into testes. Without the production of testosterone, or its conversion into a special active form known as dihydrotestosterone, internal and external genitals simply would not virilize --- which is to say, they would remain somewhat ambiguous, resulting in indeterminate primary and secondary sexual characteristics. (Primary sexual characteristics are those with which you are born, and secondary sexual characteristics are those that you begin developing at the onset of puberty). Generally, the SRY gene is found on the short arm of the Y chromosome in a developing Y sperm. However, sometimes it translocates (fragments and moves) and ends up spliced to an X chromosome in a developing X sperm. When it is missing from the Y chromosome of a sperm that has fertilized an egg, the resulting XY individual generally develops a feminine anatomic form. When it has translocated and is on the X chromosome of a sperm that has fertilized an egg, the resulting XX individual usually develops a male anatomic form (provided succeeding events, which the SRY gene initiates, proceed as they normally would). Hence, intersexuality includes XY females and XX males as well as individuals with ambiguous external and/or internal genitalia. Since as many as 0.1% of the population fall into intersex status categories, (11) there may be more than six million people on earth whose sexual identities are in question using one basis for classification or another. Since these people are not "real" Adams or "real" Eves (the definition of "real" here left in question), are we to assume that intersex individuals were not created by God? No. We should never use: 1) the presence, absence, or size of external genitalia; 2) numbers and kinds of chromosomes; 3) sex hormone blood levels; or, 4) muscle dimensions to classify "real" men and "real" women. Though sex identity is not equivocal to sexual preference (however, from a statistical standpoint, the two are positively correlated), the point I am trying to make is that not all things are as black and white as some Christian fundamentalists would like them to be. Today, within the biological community there is legitimate debate about the biological basis of homosexuality in the light of recent scientific work: 1) that correlates sexual orientation in males to a locus on the X chromosome; (12) 2) that links brain morphology and sexual orientation; (13) and, 3) that demonstrates statistical significance in favor of a genetic contribution to sexual orientation using identical and fraternal twins. (14) Thus, it is more than likely that some seemingly unnatural and sinful behaviors ("unnatural" and "sinful" from the standpoint of Christian Fundamentalism) are actually part of nature. Can we assume that God made only some people and not others? Are we to assume that "God made Adam and Eve but not Adam and Steve nor Ada and Eve?" No, simply stated, God created all of humanity. In our discussion of what is natural (i.e., what occurs in nature), I will digress a little and share this anecdote with you: My grandmother had a chicken farm and, on that farm, as a child, I noted that once in a while there was a rooster who wanted to be a brooding hen. What he would do was bother the hens, trying to steal their eggs so he could sit on them. Because the hens usually would not allow that to happen, he would end up finding a nice smooth stone somewhere and sitting on that. Also, I noted within the coop that, once in a great while, there would be a hen that was transformed into a rooster. Later, in my biological studies I came to understand that, though every hen has two gonads (i.e., the two sex glands that are specialized as ovaries in most female animals), only the right gonad in the hen is differentiated into an ovary while the left gonad remains undifferentiated. Later on in the hen's life, if the right gonad is destroyed by a disease process, then the left gonad can either develop into an ovary or a testis. If it develops into a testis, the hen becomes transformed into a fully-functioning rooster, even capable of fertilizing eggs that are produced by the other chickens who were born hens. In order to be a hermaphrodite from a human standpoint, one must have at least some functioning testicular tissue as well as some functioning ovarian tissue. It does not matter what other body parts the individual has, or does not have; as long as these two criteria are met, then the person is considered a true hermaphrodite. Additionally, there are individuals who might appear to be hermaphrodites but are actually pseudohermaphrodites. Interestingly, there is one group of pseudohermaphrodites (known as guevodoces in Spanish), who, because they are born appearing as if they are females anatomically, are raised and socialized as females; however, at the time of puberty, testosterone surges within them, eventually transforming them into males. Perhaps the most curious thing is that, although these individuals have been socialized as females, many of them end up functioning as males within society and fathering children. Again, the point I am trying to make is that sexual identity is not as simple as many people would like us to believe. There really is no good legal definition of gender. Certainly, one cannot define a male as someone having two testes. Does that person stop being a male if he must have a bilateral orchiectomy (both testes removed) because of cancer? Should that person no longer be considered a male? No, I think you see how ridiculous that would be. Does a woman who has had a total hysterectomy stop being female? No, from a biological standpoint, maleness or femaleness is first and foremost a state of mind. So much of who we are, and what we are, is provided to us by the brain. Indeed, this particular organ is actually the primary sexual organ. Naturally, sexual differences exist within the brain as a result of varying hormone levels. And hormones impinge upon both the structural and functional development of the brain. For example, it is well known within the scientific world that a high concentration of androgens (which category of hormones includes both testosterone and dihydrotestosterone) tends to suppress the development of the left cortex of the brain during embryonic and fetal development in males, contributing to population differences between males and females in languaging abilities and spatial conceptualization. (15) Surprisingly, even the so-called "male" and "female" hormone categories are misnomers, because both males and females produce both androgens and estrogens. It is the relative proportions of these two categories of hormones that differ and not so much the hormone categories themselves. Generally speaking, in the adult human population, 90% of the sex steroids in males are androgens and 10% are estrogens; concomitantly, 90% of the sex steroids in females are estrogens and 10% are androgens. (Just as "androgen" is a category of sex steroid hormones, so, too, is "estrogen" a category, including §-estradiol, estrone, and estriol.) Substantial scientific investigation has been conducted to elucidate the complex differences between males and females relative to hormones and brain functioning. Yes, hormones act upon our development. Beginning the fourth week after conception and continuing through the seventh week, a cascade of hormones kicks in, causing a rather unisex-looking little embryo to begin manifestly changing from the fifth through eighth weeks either into the male anatomic form or continuing on in what might appear to some as the female anatomic form. However, not only is the appearance of external genitals determined hormonally, brain morphology (i.e., brain structure) is also determined by the presence or absence of the same sex steroids and their varying levels as well as relative proportions. And, because these hormones greatly impact on our mental and emotional development, they influence the development of gender identity and sexual orientation during embryonic and fetal life. The evidence leads one to conclude that how we view ourselves and how we evaluate others as potential sexual partners and spousal companions is biologically predetermined through hormones. In a recent issue of Development Psychology, one article states that for some women who took diethylstilbistrol (DES), a synthetic form of estrogen that was once used to help stabilize pregnancy, there is a greater incidence of lesbianism within their daughters. (16) That is not to say that all lesbianism is the result of DES. Rather, there may be some contributing factors to sexual identity and sexual orientation relative to even maternal hormones that are being produced or artificially administered during pregnancy. The authors emphasize:
Despite some recent scientific breakthroughs, we still live in a medieval world and scientific explanations for the causes of sexual identity and sexual orientation will not be worked out easily or quickly. Personally, I believe that what happened in my own development is that certain hormones kicked in during embryonic and fetal life, which hormones contributed not only to my outward appearance but also to the anatomy and physiology of my brain --- which, in turn, contributed to the formation of my own personal gender identity and sexual orientation grids. (Such neuranatomic brain fabrics, or "grids," determine how we view others as well as ourselves.) Consequently, I am homosexual. Interestingly, though I did not have the terminology to describe my innermost feelings then, I viewed myself as homosexual as a prepubescent child even as early as six or seven. What makes you personally heterosexual or homosexual, I do not know. I think it is possible that the cause may vary for different individuals. Perhaps there are some cases that are environmentally-caused, some psychologically-caused, others genetically- and/or hormonally-caused. However, with some psychotherapeutic exceptions, I do not think that the cause should really matter. Rather, what I do think should matter is that no one become enslaved to sexuality or to fears concerning it. So, there still remains a dilemma, then, for many people who are Christian, who would like to be Christian, or who would like to continue in their Christianity, relative to the issue of homosexuality. To them, our anomalous condition (i.e., homosexuality) is considered sinful, perverted, and disgusting. Additionally, they believe that our condition is considered an abomination by the Lord God Almighty. To help understand anomalous conditions in general, from the biological standpoint I think that we can look to intersexuality to serve, by extension, as a neutral model (or prototype) for homosexuality. Did God not create intersexuals (i.e., people for whom biologic sexual identity is somewhat hazy)? Of course He created them! Do others have the right to determine for individual intersexuals which sexual intimacies are normal for them or to whom they should look for a normal sexual partner or spousal companion? Indeed not! They neither have the right nor the knowledge to do so. Though some people might say, "Intersexuality is a direct result of the Adamic Fall (i.e., iniquity and sin), and that is why intersexuals exist," I would point them to the passage in the Bible where the Apostles turned to Jesus and asked, "'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?'" (John 9:2 NIV) You see, in the Apostles' minds, only a direct link with sin could explain the man's blind condition. Our Lord clearly answered them by saying, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the glory of God might be made manifest in his life." (John 9:3) In other words, Jesus was saying that there are anomalous conditions that are neither due to intergenerational nor individual sin. To be sure, there are those who would argue that because Jesus went on to heal the blind man so, too, will he heal homosexuals of their homosexuality. The answer to the question of whether or not homosexuals need to be healed of their homosexuality will be carefully considered based on Scripture in the chapters to follow. In bringing this chapter to a close, I would like to add that just as most people consider vision the ideal condition in contrast to blindness, so too do most consider heterosexuality the ideal condition in contrast to homosexuality. However, some blind people actually consider their blindness a gift from God. Likewise, so do some homosexuals consider their sexual orientation a gift from Him as well. |