What are the theological implications of current scientific data suggesting sexual preference is a genetic trait?

By The Rev. Dr. John Maxwell Kerr, SOSc (Society of Ordained Scientists),

Episcopal Chaplain to the Faculty, Staff and Students of the College of William & Mary.

 

Science tells us about the way the natural world is, based on carefully-researched evidence.  Scientific understanding of sexual preference does have theological implications because all science provides raw material for Christian theology, which must take seriously what we learn of the world God has created.

The best current scientific evidence on sexual preference is based on several years of extensive peer-reviewed research principally carried out at McMaster University Medical School, the School of Biological and Chemical Sciences at Queen Mary College in the University of London, and the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm. It refutes two polar positions.

First, is the idea that sexual preference, unlike all other aspects of what it is to be human, is a matter of freely choosing to sin, and has no relationship to our genetic inheritance, or any other aspect of our physical selves. This view is wrong: genetically inherited brain structures correlate with sexual preference (and also with left-handedness, presumably also not a matter of sinful choice.)

The Bible, Sexual Orientation and Vacuum Cleaners

By The Rev. Ed Pickup

Rector, Emmanual, Franklin

 

People often ask, “what does the Bible say about sexual orientation?”  The correct answer is: “the same thing it says about vacuum cleaners.”

In 1869, the Austrian writer Karl‑Maria Kertbeny first coined the words heterosexual and homosexual.^[1]  Prior to that time, there was no idea that people had a sexual orientation. ^[2]

In the same year Chicago inventor Ives W. McGaffey obtained a patent for the first hand-pumped vacuum cleaner.  Named the “Whirlwind” it was manufactured by American Carpet Cleaning Company of Boston and cost $25.00. 

So the Bible doesn’t have much to say about either sexual orientation or vacuum cleaners, since neither concept was known at the time.

Well then, what was Paul writing about in Romans 1:26-27?  The answer is what Paul knew at the time: temple prostitution.  Beginning in verse 18, Paul condemns idolatry - the worship of pagan deities, images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.  

Whatever happened to celibacy?

by The Rev. Drew Foisie

Curate for Christian Formation, Old Donation, Virginia Beach

People today don’t have to look far for reasons to dislike celibacy and distance themselves from any endorsement of it. The tragic and appalling, wide-spread abuse perpetrated by an alarming and disturbing number of Roman Catholic priests is enough to make anybody want to cut celibacy from any equation of faithful living. In addition, the wider culture exudes a deep distaste and distrust for myriad forms of faithful living involving self-denial, abstinence and celibacy chief among them. The cultural subtext being that any ordering of one’s life that resembles self-denial is a form of “repression.” And yet despite its difficult and sometimes unpopular reputation, celibacy has been and remains a valuable and transformative source of life within the Christian tradition. It is a gift from God that the Apostle Paul and countless other saints have known. But many feel this gift to be far outside their sense of call or Christian vocation. And indeed, celibacy is not for everyone. Regarding celibacy Jesus said, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given.” It must then be granted that some are not given this gift, but also that some are indeed given this gift, and given the grace to live it out.

On the subject of sexuality, how does scripture inform our lives today?

 by the Rev. Eileen Walsh, Rector, St. Christopher's Portsmouth

There is no way to fully explore such a vast topic in a brief blog post, but I offer this as an introduction and hopefully a catalyst for readers to pursue the topic further.  First let’s look at a couple of passages that are frequently cited in most discussions of homosexuality. There is the attempted gang rape in Sodom (Genesis 19:1-29) and a similar account in Judges 19-21. These passages describe brutal behavior that has nothing to do with whether genuine love expressed between consenting adults of the same gender is legitimate or not. I would hope that in this discussion these passages would be rendered irrelevant. There are also several passages that are rather unclear as to whether the issue at hand is homosexuality alone or promiscuity. (1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10)

Aside from these there are two texts in the Hebrew Scriptures that undeniably condemn homosexual behavior. They are: 

Has the Church abdicated its responsibility for spiritual leadership?

by Steve Gallotta, St. Paul’s Church, Suffolk

(This photo of Steve shows him participating in a project at St. Paul's to remember the tenth anniversary of 9/11)

The Episcopal Church of America is currently engaged in an ongoing campaign to extend the benefits of church membership to homosexuals.  This effort goes beyond welcoming them into Churches as parishioners sharing in the dogma under God, to extending the sacrament of marriage to them.  This effort was highlighted by the election of Rev. Gene Robinson to bishop and has been a hot topic since. 

There has been little dialogue on the matter.  The response of the Church when Rev. Robinson was elected was that we should engage in prayerful consideration and conversation, with the end result being that we could collectively accept it.  That approach was not dialogue, it was an invitation for those who opposed the path of the Church to be convinced of the error of their ways and to return to the fold.    

One reason the Church is doing this might be that it is a topic of national secular consideration.  The homosexual lobby has for years been seeking acceptance for their lifestyles and choices, with varying degrees of success.  Many states now permit same-gender marriages – most without the approval of their populations – and the rights of homosexuals under law has been expanded greatly in the past decade.  In that regard, the homosexual community has been very successful.  The Church’s efforts then fit into that general pattern.  But, the Church is not society and, often Church communities seek to actually be separate from secular law.  After all, that is what the 1^st Amendment is all about.  So there is no actual requirement for the Church to accept and follow this secular trend.   

What shapes our values, beliefs?

by Deborah Quam, Eastern Shore Chapel, Virginia Beach

I grew up during the 1950’s and 60’s, the only child of a first class musician and public school choral teacher at Norview High School.  My mother was blessed with many friends but those who shared her passion for great music and dedication to teaching became especially close.  My home was filled with other choral and band teachers from the Tidewater area that supported each other and accomplished great things with high school students.

One friend was particularly close; the choral director at Princess Anne High School.  Mom often referred to him as her brother and they were as close as siblings.  They shared meals, vacations, teaching, music conferences and performances, stories, love of entertaining, recipes and life.  It occurs to me now he was a gay man living in a time of uncertainty and probably secrecy.  His sexuality was never discussed in my presence and I professed my undying love for him at age 6. He was accepted for who he was in my home.  My father and mother joined him for dinner parties and visited often.  When he found a life partner and they bought a home, they were careful to keep up the appearances of “roommate”.  But they were a couple, full of life.  

Beginning the Conversation

by The Very Rev. Keith Emerson, Chair of Living a Holy Life Task Force and rector of St. Paul's, Suffolk

In Lent 2010, the House of Bishops received a report titled Same-Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church.  It was prepared by eight theologians who, in the course of their work, split into two “affinity groups,” one conservative, the other liberal.  In the preface, the document’s editor acknowledged that the terms ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ have limitations, but still used them because people easily identify what each confers.  

I share this apprehension.  As we Episcopalians in the Diocese of Southern Virginia begin a twenty-five week electronic conversation, I worry that defining our positions as liberal and conservative will have negative consequences.  I fear it will encourage us to mirror the most unhelpful elements of our nation’s political discourse; incivility, narrowness, and “I’m right/you’re wrong” thinking.   

I wonder if there is a better way to frame our discussion.