Thought of the Day 06.17.08

Every discussion of homosexuality these days includes some mention of the idea that people are “born gay.” For the sake of argument, let’s just grant that this might be the case. Even so, so what? The idea that people have innate dispositions to do inappropriate things isn’t unique to gays. In fact, it’s so far from unique to them that it’s one of the cornerstone premises of Christian theology.

Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants all agree about this one concept: mankind suffers from original sin, a polluted condition that causes every one of us to do things we shouldn’t do from our birth. Thus, in a very real sense, we might say that we’re all born gay, although historically we’ve preferred the wording that we are all born sinners: a condition that necessitated a Savior but must never be alleged to have been part of God’s intended design.

We may be born gay, but that certainly doesn’t mean it was God who made us that way.
Posted by at

3 comments:

Elizabeth said...

But the transfer of the sin of our fathers through our birth would have to be attributed to God's design would it not? Free will and an inclination to sin are not the same as original sin.

June 17, 2008 at 6:20 AM
Andrew Tallman said...

I would say that the design capacity for sin to be inheritable must surely be attributed to God. Who else would get the credit, right? But that doesn't mean that the particular sort of sinful inclination inherited through this mechanism may be attributed to God's design. The flavor of my inherited sinfulness is certainly different from the flavor of someone else's, for instance the homosexual, but both of us go wrong when we claim that God made us to live out the behaviors that the peculiar flavor of our own sinfulness tempts us into.

But I may be missing the thrust of your point. You seem to be disputing my use of the term "original sin" for what I meant as the innate nature we all have as sinners and also the tendency to be tempted toward particular sinful behaviors. You seem to be saying that original sin is form without content, but particular sinful inclination is what illustrates the person's original sinfulness.

The interesting question here is not whose term is best, but the question of whether particular sinful tendencies are inherited. I find that a fascinating question, and I tend to think 96+% yes. When I sin in novel ways, I pollute my "downstream" offspring along with myself unless and until that pollution is removed from me prior to transmittal.

Though I'm reluctant to embrace the notion of a "gay gene," for instance (much as I'm reluctant to embrace the idea of an "adultery gene" or even an "alcoholism gene" for that matter), I'm almost convinced that there must be some sort of "gay soul" (for lack of a better term)(perhaps some would say particular demonic access) or "adulterous soul" or "alcoholic soul" element that at least can be passed on. Whether that is automatic is another fascinating question. Can sin tendencies be recessive and dominant like genes? Again, I find all of this extremely fascinating and, of course, can't say for sure.

But, as in the thought, the one thing I can be sure of is that having an inclination from birth cannot excuse behavior in line with that inclination on the inference that God has made us with such inclinations and therefore endorses behaving upon them.

June 17, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Elizabeth said...

While I am admittedly undereducated on the exact theological principle, I understand original sin to be a very specific inherited sin, as opposed to a general inclination to sin. The concept of original sin leads very well into this idea of generally inheritable sin; a concept I know I've heard elsewhere, (again distinct from the inclination).

The body of Christ was once explained to me as a flower. Each sinner plucks his own petal from the flower. Perhaps glue, tape, or wire could appear to put the petal back in place, but no work of man can reconnect the petal to the flower in the way it was originally connected, this can only be accomplished by God. And even when one petal is reconnected to the flower, the flower is still not whole until every petal is back in it's place. So, my remaining sinful effects more than just myself, as the entire flower suffers for not being made whole.

I like how these two ideas tie together to stress the effect of an individual's sins on others and the importance of the redemption of every soul; a beautiful design indeed.

I also like your concept of the particular nature of a man's sin affecting the particular nature of his progeny's inclination to sin. Can I improve my progeny's chances in life by seeking as much soul cleansing prior to conception as possible? Does this then render selfish the rush into parenting in order to enjoy them longer? Or give one more reason not to wait, since I'm just as likely to pile on more sins as to turn away from them?

June 18, 2008 at 8:21 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)