BIBLIOTHECA SACRA 154 (July-September 1997): 355-66

BIOLOGY, HOMOSEXUALITY,
AND MORAL CULPABILITY
Sherwood O. Cole
TD
m J iological explanations of behavior have important im-
plications for moral judgment and culpability. Nowhere is this
more apparent than in the case of homosexual behavior. If biology
explains homosexual behavior, it is assumed that individuals are
given little choice in the matter and thus cannot be held responsi-
ble for behavior they cannot control. Such an attribution pro-
scribes moral censure and the behavior ceases to be "sin." This
argument is being used by members of the gay and lesbian com-
munity to great political and social advantage. They argue that
being born that way entitles them to legal recognition and social
acceptance.
1
They argue that they should be accepted for what they
are and welcomed into the mainstream of society.
Public opinion of morality is also swayed by biological ex-
planations of homosexuality; in general, people are more accept-
ing of such behavior when biology is believed to be the cause.
2
It is
also possible that some Christians have difficulty attributing cul-
Sherwood O. Cole is Professor of Psychology, Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola
University, La Mirada, California, and Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Rutgers
University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
1
This argument is clearly reflected in the recent comments made by a psycholo-
gist at a major convention. He states that to assume a biological basis to sexual ori-
entation is the best track for convincing the legislature, judiciary, and public that
homosexuals should be treated like anyone else and protected against discrimina-
tion in public policy issues (Scott Sleek, "Research Lights Path to Policy Changes,"
APA [American Psychological Association] Monitor 17 [1996]: 54).
2
Kurt E. Ernulf, Sune M. limala, and Frederick L. Whitam, "Biological Explana-
tion, Psychological Explanation, and Tolerance of Homosexuals: A Cross-national
Analysis of Beliefs and Attitudes," Psychological Reports 65 (1989): 1003-10; and
Julie Piskur and Douglas Degelman, "Effect of Reading a Summary of Research
about Biological Bases of Homosexual Orientation on Attitudes toward Homosexu-
als,"Psychological Reports 71 (1992): 1212-25.
356 BIBUOTHECA SACRA / July-September 1997
pability to homosexual behavior when it is biologically based.
3
This may be due to the fact that the nature of biological influences
on homosexuality is misunderstood. As a result, many Chris-
tians are left with only two optionsone is to deny or minimize
biological contributions to homosexuality and the other is to alter
the interpretation of passages of Scripture associated with a clear
condemnation and prohibition of homosexual practices.
A resolution of the biological-moral issue of homosexual be-
havior rests on proper answers to a number of critical questions.
What is the nature of the biological explanation of homosexual-
ity? Does the explanation imply immutability and determine
one's destiny, or does it express itself in ways that still permit the
exercising of one's will? Thus the degree of biological influence
on homosexuality becomes critical to the discussion. It is also ap-
parent that one's basis of moral judgment and how one defines
morality have a profound effect on the discussion. Is morality to
be defined in terms of individual rights, conventional norms of
society (such as justice or fairness) or in terms of biblical princi-
ples? This article attempts to provide answers to these questions
and to demonstrate the superiority of the Christian perspective on
the issue of biological-moral culpability.
THE NATURE OF BIOLOGICAL I NFLUENCES
The fact that a biological basis to homosexual behavior exists is
documented by several recent reviews on the topic.
4
The nature of
the biological influence is multidimensional and probably in-
cludes genetic factors, intrauterine hormonal changes, as well as
possible differences in brain-structure development. These in-
fluences do not work independently but undoubtedly cooperate in
some final and global manifestation of biology's impact on be-
havior.
There is, however, considerable disagreement about the de-
gree of influence biology has on the development of homosexual
behavior. One view argues t hat all behavior is biologically
caused and thus no special weight should be given to the biological
6
This issue is briefly addressed in an article by Sherwood O. Cole, The Biologi-
cal Basis of Homosexuality: A Christian Assessment," Journal of Psychology and
Theology 23 (1995): 89-100.
4
Chandler Burr, A Separate Creation (New York: Hyperion, 1996), 21-36; Cole,
"The Biological Basis of Homosexuality: A Christian Assessment," 89-100; Heather
Looy, "Born Gay? A Critical Review of Biological Research on Homosexuality,"
Journal of Psychology and Christianity 14 (1995): 197-214; and Thomas E. Schmidt,
Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexual Debate
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995), 137-42.
Biology, Homosexuality, and Moral Culpability 357
basis of homosexuality.
5
Whether biology influences other behav-
iors is a moot point. The fact remains that special weight is given
to biological causation in the homosexual debate and that this
weight cannot simply be brushed aside by such a general state-
ment. While other authors may differ in the degree of weight they
are willing to give to biological influences, there is agreement
that such influences must be addressed, not simply ignored.
6
One way of interpreting the biological influences on homo-
sexual behavior is to suggest t hat these influences are
"predisposing" rather than "determining" in nature.
7
This dis-
tinction clearly recognizes the importance and reality of biologi-
cal influences on homosexual behavior without assuming that
such behavior is preordained in any way by biological influ-
ences. This view is similar to that of Money's contrast between
"facultative" and "obligative" homosexuality, with the latter but
not the former lacking the ability of choice.
8
In his view permis-
sion to choose one's lifestyle (homosexual, bisexual, or heterosex-
ual) would be possible with "facultative" influences, as is also the
case with "predisposing" influences.
Assuming that biological influences on homosexuality are
"predisposing" rather than "determining" also allows one to
make some additional important distinctions. For example "pre-
disposing" influences are much more likely to influence one's
orientation (desires, attitudes, preferences, attractions, and fan-
tasies) than one's behavior. While these influences are not to be
treated lightly, it may or may not result in the overt expression of
homosexual behavior. Since the Bible's condemnation and prohi-
bition of homosexuality (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor.
6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10) address behavioral practices, not orientation,
this distinction is important to the debate. The individual who, in
spite of a homosexual orientation, refrains from the practice of
this lifestyle is to be commended, not condemned. The Christian
community has not always distinguished between "orientation"
and "practice" and as a result has alienated many Christians
who have managed to refrain from homosexual practices while
struggling with homosexual desires. Other Christians should be
0
Aaron S. Greenberg and J. Michael Bailey, "Do Biological Explanations of Ho-
mosexuality Have Moral, Legal or Policy Implications?" Journal of Sex Research 30
(1993): 245-51.
6
Cole, "The Biological Basis of Homosexuality: A Christian Assessment," 89-100;
Looy, "Born Gay?" 197-214; Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? 137-42.
7
Cole, "The Biological Basis of Homosexuality: A Christian Assessment," 89-100.
Q
John Money, Gay, Straight, and In-between: The Sexology of Erotic Orientation
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988).
358 BIBUOTHECA SACRA / July-September 1997
reaching out to these individuals with love, support, and prayer
while welcoming them into the fellowship of believers. By dis-
tancing themselves from those individuals, others may drive
them into the homosexual community where they will be accepted.
While the Bible addresses the moral nature of homosexual
behavior, it is not, however, appropriate to consider sexual orien-
tation as morally neutral.
9
Christ made this clear when He said,
"But I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for
her has committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt.
5:28). Based on this teaching, is a person with homosexual desires
condemned for his or her orientation? That is a tough question to
answer, but a rule of thumb would suggest that orientation should
not be judged as harshly or by the same criteria as behavior.
10
Mental activity is probably best described as a continuum, rang-
ing all the way from fleeting, uninvited thoughts to habitual
mental exercises. Only the more persistent and enduring mental
features probably qualify as orientation. However, individuals
do not have the same degree of control over their mental activity
(including orientation) as they do over their behavior. God works
differently in people's lives in the struggle to bring their thought
processes under His control. While proper consideration needs to
be given to the topic of orientation, it would seem that moral ques-
tions have to do, basically, with the Tightness or wrongness of be-
havior. God offers a homosexual individual the power to over-
come the practice of such behavior; however, He may or may not
choose to bring about a change in orientation at the same time or
in the same way.
While biological influences on the development of sexuality
are typically quite predictable, there are exceptions. These special
biological irregularities are collectively known as intersexual-
ity or hermaphroditism and are characterized by a discordance
among the criteria for sex determination (genetic sex versus
physical appearance).
11
For example the genetic male who is an-
drogen insensitive has the physical appearance of a female; his
body lacks the mechanism that enables androgens to bind to
genes in the cell bodies. Also a genetic male with Klinefelter's
syndrome (the presence of an extra female chroinosome pattern)
has the physical appearance of a female. In both of these cases the
genetic males may (after minor corrective surgery) develop a
fully normal female gender identity and, while not able to con-
y
Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? 164-65.
10
Ibid.
11
John Money, "Sin, Sickness, or Status? Homosexual Gender Identity and Psy-
choneuroendocrinology," American Psychologist 42 (1987): 384-99.
Biology, Homosexuality, and Moral Culpability 359
ceive, may live a relatively normal life as a female. In yet an-
other example, a genetic female with congenital adrenal hyper-
phasia (in which the body lacks an enzyme that normally shuts
off the production of a masculinizing hormone) may look more
like a male than a female. The condition begins during fetal de-
velopment and continues thereafter, unless corrected. How is
homosexuality to be defined in these casesgenetically, or on the
basis of physical appearance? Apparently the only acceptable an-
swer is that homosexuality is the sexual/erotic expression be-
tween two people with the same external genital anatomy and
physical appearance, not with the same genetic makeup.
12
While
Scripture is silent on matters related to these biological irregu-
larities, such a view would nevertheless seem to be clearly im-
plied by scriptural teachings. For example why would a man be
instructed not to lie with another man as one lies with a woman
(Lev. 18:22) but for the genital anatomy associated with a differ-
ence in the sexes?
Excluding the rare biological irregularities mentioned
above, what can be concluded about the biological basis of homo-
sexuality? While biological influences on homosexual behavior
are real and must be recognized for what they are, they still per-
mit the realistic possibility of a change in behavior. While
change may not be easy, its reality is well documented in the per-
sonal accounts of many former homosexuals.
13
Unfortunately
evidence for such change is covered up by the popular media in
order to mislead the public into believing that a change in sexual
behavior is not possible. Furthermore the clinical debate on the
appropriateness of trying to change homosexual behavior is a
heated one, to say the least.
14
The premise that homosexuality is a
treatable disorder is in conflict with the position of both the Amer-
ican Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological
Association on sexual orientation.
15
Thus the possibility of
12
Ibid.
JO
10
See Andrew Comisky, Pursuing Sexual Wholeness: How Jesus Heals the Ho-
mosexual (Lake Mary, FL: Creation, 1989); Bob Davies and Lori Rentzel, Coming
Out of Homosexuality: New Freedom for Men and Women (Downers Grove, IL: In-
terVarsity, 1993); and Jeffrey Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 179-209.
1 4
See Mark J. Blechner, "Societal Prejudice, Psychodiagnosis and Treatment
Aims: Response to Tabin," Round Robin 11 (1995): 9-12; Joseph Nicolosi, Repara-
tive Therapy of Male Homosexuals (Northvale, NJ: Aronson, 1991); and Johanna K.
Tabin, "A Note on Homosexuality," Round Robin 11 (1995): 3-8.
15
Neither the American Psychiatric Association nor the American Psychological
Association consider homosexuality a pathological disorder; thus they say therapy
should not be directed at changing such an orientation or lifestyle. For a discus-
sion of this issue, see Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, 31-37.
360 BIBUOTHECA SACRA / July-September 1997
change in the lifestyle of homosexuals is not likely to be given a
fair hearing so long as professional organizations continue to
deny the evidence for and the desirability of change. Ultimately
the question is not primarily one of biological influence but
rather one of desirability or need for change. The answer to this
question depends on the source and definitions of one's morality
and is addressed in the following section.
THE SOURCE AND NATURE OF MORAL J UDGMENT
The basis on which one defines morality and makes moral
judgments is critical because different assumptions give rise to
different scenarios. Several bases on which moral judgment
might be rendered will be considered here in order to demonstrate
the effect each has on one's view of homosexual behavior.
THE "MINIMALIST ETHICS" VIEW
In speaking about the moral and legal questions of homosexual-
ity, Greenberg and Bailey suggest that blame for such behavior
should be assessed "only when there is something to be blamed
for, that is, only when the conduct at issue is harmful."
16
In their
viewpoint homosexual behavior harms only those who take of-
fense at it (a statement that could certainly be challenged) and
therefore is entitled to moral acceptance. It seems that the only ba-
sis for moral judgment, then, is the violation of a mutually con-
sensual relationship between two members of the same sex. This
particular view of morality is "minimalist ethics" and stresses
the transcendence of the individual over society and the auton-
omy of the self, and sees the voluntary informed consent agree-
ment as the model of human relationships.
17
If this minimal
standard is met, there is no further basis on which moral judg-
ment can be made.
The frightening thing about a minimalist view is that it mis-
leads society into believing that a sharp distinction can be made
between private and public morality, and that the private version
is the essential obligation. However, it is clear that without com-
munity agreement and enforcement of certain moral standards,
a society will collapse. The tremendous push for the acceptance of
homosexuality as a morally neutral, alternative lifestyle and the
proscribing of legal sanctions by society against homosexual
10
Greenberg and Bailey, "Do Biological Explanations of Homosexuality Have
Moral, Legal, or Policy Implications?" 245-51.
*' Daniel Callahan, "Minimalist Ethics," Hastings Center Report, October 1981,
19-25.
Biology, Homosexuality, and Moral Culpability 361
practices is the inevitable outcome of this morally deprived basic
premise. This view is not new; it is in the historical moral tradi-
tion of "liberal individualism."
18
Liberal individualism creates
a moral space for the individual to live according to various in-
dividually chosen notions of what is good and sees interference
with such practices as constraints on basic human rights. This
moral tradition undercuts the common good of society and pro-
vides no basis for a sense of collective morality.
"MORALLY HORRIBLE" VERSUS WRONG CONDUCT
In a somewhat related vein Adams has made a distinction be-
tween certain offenses that are "morally horrible" and those that
are wrong and even repulsive but not "horrible."
19
The basis on
which an offense is defined as "morally horrible" is the violation
of an individual, who is sacred because of his reflection of the
image of God. He views such offenses as rape, torture, brain-
washing, and possibly cannibalism as "morally horrible." How-
ever, same-sex relationships between consenting adults are not
"morally horrible" since they do not attack or violate the persons
involved. This moral perspective on homosexuality is a modified
version of the "consenting adult" model. That is to say, the con-
senting nature of the relationship excludes homosexuality from
the "morally horrible" category, while still possibly permitting
some moral judgment about the appropriateness or acceptability
of the behavior. The behavior might still be wrong but it does not
deserve the harshness of judgment typically levied at it. How-
ever, a prioritizing of moral judgment about a particular behav-
ior gives rise to moral qualification and compromise. Either the
behavior violates the basic teachings of Scripture or it does not. In
the case of homosexuality it clearly does violate Scripture, and
therefore to suggest that it is a lesser sin than other violations of
God's Word solves nothing, though it may soothe the conscience of
some. In fact this approach only serves the purpose of those who
are looking for an excuse to condone their homosexual behavior
while retaining some facade of Christian morality.
MORAL STANDARDS DETERMINED BY LAWS
Another view of morality having a bearing on homosexual prac-
tices confuses moral principles with the legal standards of soci-
10
John P. Reeder Jr., "Three Moral Traditions," Journal of Religious Ethics 22
(1994): 75-92. Reeder discusses three historical moral traditions: liberal individu-
alism, neo-Aristotelianism, and an ethics of caring or love.
^ Robert M. Adams, "Moral Horror and the Sacred," Journal of Religious Ethics
23 (1995): 201-24.
362 BIBUOTHECA SACRA / July-September 1997
ety. On certain occasions the law can have a powerful and posi-
tive effect on society.
20
This is certainly the case with civil rights
legislation in the 1960s, which helped change discriminating
practices and moral attitudes related to racial discrimination.
However, the relationship between the law and morality has been
a shaky one and in many instances different perspectives have
arisen. The push for civil rights protection under the law by ho-
mosexuals is a case in point. While homosexuals believe they are
entitled to legal protection against discrimination by society, to
make those laws the basis of moral judgment is contrary to the in-
dividual's right of free expression and to scriptural teachings.
21
If such laws go into effect, Christians who have moral convictions
will not be able to make public statements about the moral inac-
ceptability of homosexual practices. This development is already
occurring, for any public statement against homosexuality is in-
creasingly being (inappropriately) labeled as "homophobia." If
need be, public laws will increasingly fill the moral vacuum in
Western society. There is no question that determining the proper
relationship of morality to the law requires a delicate balancing
act.
22
This is particularly true for Christians, who must exercise
moral judgment in a democratic, pluralistic society.
In general, a legal definition of morality is similar to a so-
cial morality based on shared meaning.
23
This type of morality
is communal (rather than personal) and in many ways charac-
terizes the polyethnic, multicultural, democratic setting of the
United States. All groups (African Americans, Latinos, homo-
sexuals, and others) speak out of their own experience, and others
are encouraged to listen to them. Supposedly values specific to
minorities are incorporated into the shared meaning of the larger
society. The critical question becomes, "How inclusive can a so-
ciety like ours become and still maintain any meaningful con-
M
Callahan, "Minimalist Ethics," 19-25.
Unfortunately the homosexual community is frequently seeking favoritism un-
der the law, not simply protection against discrimination. For example the U.S.
Supreme Court's rejection of Amendment 2 to the Colorado constitution by a six-to-
three vote was based on the majority view that the amendment was "mean spirited,"
when in fact the amendment simply endorsed a "no special protection status" based
on sexual orientation. The gay community saw this leveling measure as discrimina-
tion, while in fact the amendment provided for equal opportunity without prefer-
ential treatment.
Ort
^ Marie A. Failinger, "Can Wrongs Be Rights? Why a 'Conservative' Might Sup-
port Legal Protections for Gay and Lesbian People," Word and World 14 (1994): 270-
79.
** Michael Walzer, "Shared Meanings in a Polyethnic Democratic Setting," Jour-
nal of Religious Ethics 22 (1994): 401-5.
Biology, Homosexuality, and Moral Culpability 363
cept of collective morality?" Will the Christian view on homosex-
uality continue to be included in the shared meaning of the larger
society? The shared-meaning proponents of morality do not give
the Christian view a particularly high priority nor do they even
take it into consideration.
A CHRISTIAN-MORAL PERSPECTIVE
From the Christian perspective three features should characterize
moral judgment:
24
the ability to exercise one's will, the ability to
sense moral guilt or shame at failure, and the presence of conse-
quences for violation of the specified moral code.
The ability to exercise one's will has already been addressed
in the section on the biological basis of homosexuality. While bio-
logical influences on sexual orientation are real, they do not pre-
clude the ability to make a choice regarding behavior. While
choice may be more difficult than it would be in the total absence
of biological influences, one is still responsible for exercising it
properly in light of scriptural teachings.
What about the ability of homosexuals to experience a sense of
guilt or shame for their behavior? Obviously Scripture provides
the basis for meeting this requirement, and it is hoped that homo-
sexuals will be brought by the convicting power of the Holy Spirit
to recognize the sinful nature of their behavior and want to
change. If they do not experience guilt or shame for their behav-
ior, it is unlikely that any meaningful change will take place.
This is undoubtedly a difficult hurdle for many homosexuals and
is the acid test of the genuineness of their desire for change. It is
also important to note that the growing acceptance of a monoga-
mous, loving, and faithful same-sex relationship within the
Christian community and the work of the "revisionists" in alter-
ing the exegesis or denying the contemporary relevance of criti-
cal scriptural passages seriously clouds the issue of guilt and
shame.
25
As a result many Christians struggling with the prob-
J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1987), 124. While the present author applies the characterization of
moral judgment to an entirely different topic than Moreland does, an attempt has
been made to retain the essential features of such judgment as closely as possible.
&
For a discussion of the place of a monogamous, loving, and faithful same-sex re-
lationship within the Christian community, see Jeffrey S. Siker, "How to Decide:
Homosexual Christians, the Bible and Gentile Inclusion," Theology Today 51 (1994):
219-34. For examples of the strategy of "revisionists" in reinterpreting scriptural
passages used in the argument against homosexual practices see John Boswell,
Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1980), and Daniel A. Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says about
Homosexuality (San Francisco: Alamo Square, 1994).
364 BIBUOTHECA SACRA / July-September 1997
lems of homosexuality are duped into believing there is no need
for negative experiences, and that God accepts them for what they
are. The failure of the Christian community to present a uniform
scriptural view on the practice of homosexuality has markedly
reduced its effectiveness in dealing with moral issues and stands
as a serious indictment of its failed policies.
What about the third element in the biblical perspective on
moralitythe presence of consequences for violating God's
moral code? For those homosexual individuals who experience
genuine guilt or shame and truly repent of their sin, the spiritual
consequences of their behavior have already been paid for by the
sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. Homosexuality is not a
greater sin than other sins (1 Cor. 6:9-10) and requires no special
treatment in God's plan of forgiveness. In some instances the de-
livery from homosexuality may be immediate and total, while in
other instances the delivery from bondage may be more gradual
and extremely difficult.
26
Spiritual delivery from homosexuality
does not, however, automatically cancel out the physical conse-
quences of such a lifestyle (HIV virus, AIDS, etc.). Unfortunately
many individuals (Christians as well as non-Christians) will
continue to reap serious physical consequences from a homosex-
ual lifestyle.
The Christian view of morality is based on belief in the bibli-
cal God and finds its source in the "divine commands" of this
God. Accordingly moral Tightness and wrongness consist in
agreement and disagreement, respectively, with the will and
command of this loving God.
27
This view of morality claims that
good and right are above humankind and that individuals should
not yield to human values or to their own thinking. The fact that
believers love God, who first loved them (1 John 4:19), serves as
the motivation for complying with His commands and is the ba-
sis of the believer's fellowship with Him. Of equal importance is
the fact that God's moral mandates as revealed in Jesus Christ
are issued from a position of authority to various segments and

Dottie Ludwig, "On Being Christian and Homosexual: Set Free in Christ," Word
and World 14 (1994): 338, 340. While release from the bondage of homosexuality was
apparently immediate in the case discussed in Ludwig's article, it may be long and
painful in others. In any event the suddenness of release from such bondage should
not be used as a measure of spiritual sincerity.
2 7
This view of morality is commonly referred to as the "divine command" theory
of ethics and is clearly reflected in the writings of Robert M. Adams ("Divine Com-
mand Metaethics Modified Again," Journal of Religious Ethics 7 [1979]: 66-79; and
"Prospects for a Metaethical Argument for Theism: A Response to Stephen J. Sulli-
van," Journal of Religious Ethics 21 [1993]: 313-18).
Biology, Homosexuality, and Moral Culpability 365
levels of society, which in turn have authority over individuals.
28
Thus it is the only view of morality that is both personal and
communal and is able to unite and impact different segments of
society (church, family culture, and government). The Christian
view of morality, while clearly superior to other views, does, how-
ever, require the highest standards of conformity to God's Word.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
Homosexual behavioral practices may differ markedly in their
timing (childhood experiences versus adult patterns) and their
frequency of occurrence (once, occasionally, or regularly). In
fact most researchers in this field say sexual practices (as well as
the underlying orientation) exist on a continuum and that terms
such as homosexual and heterosexual do not describe two discrete
populations.
29
If this is true, it would be equally justifiable to sug-
gest that the degree of biological influences on homosexual orien-
tation and behavior might also differ markedly from individual
to individual. In fact evidence suggests that this is the case. How-
ever, one seldom hears mention of any evidence for such vari-
ability by gay or lesbian activists because that would weaken
their biological argument for special treatment.
If the biological distinctiveness of homosexuality is, as has
been implied, so cloudy, why is the biological explanation so popu-
lar with the gay and lesbian community and so much more ac-
ceptable to the general public? Undoubtedly the answer lies in the
fact that a biological explanation of homosexuality identifies with
the medical (organic disease) model of behavior. Such a model
has the full backing of the medical profession and provides pro-
tection from blame, since no one would certainly be blamed for
having a disease. While homosexuals would not be willing to say
they have an organic disease, they still enjoy the benefits of a
medical model of thinking. The problem is that this thinking
also has the potential of backfiring on the homosexual's parade.
The history of medicine has not only reinforced the disease
model of behavior, but has also typically sought treatment and
remedy for diseases. Does this mean that researchers might talk
in the near future about the need for "gene zapping" or "brain
rewiring" in homosexuals? This writer, for one, certainly hopes

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 281-97.
^ Lee Ellis, Donald Burke, and M. Ashley Ames, "Sexual Orientation as a Contin-
uous Variable: A Comparison between the Sexes," Archives of Sexual Behavior 16
(1987): 523-29. However, this characterization of homosexual orientation has been
recently challenged by Burr (A Separate Creation, 167-68).
366 BIBUOTHECA SACRA / July-September 1997
not! However, the thought does give a certain sense of urgency to
the need for both homosexual groups and the public to put biologi-
cal influences in their proper perspective and to give reasonable
consideration to other potential influences on the development of
behavior.
30
An attempt has been made to demonstrate that, in spite of
varying degrees of biological influences on homosexual orienta-
tion, these influences do not negate moral responsibility or alter
culpability for a homosexual lifestyle. In fact accepting a biologi-
cal predisposition to homosexuality no more excuses such behav-
ior than an overdose of male sex hormones excuses a heterosex-
ual sex offender of his behavior. There is considerable evidence
for a biological predisposition in the latter case as well, and yet
society uniformly condemns such practices.
31
Christians tend to think primarily in spiritual (and possible
psychological) terms and to minimize the contribution of biology
to behavior. However, it must be remembered that the physical
(biological) nature is as real as the spiritual and psychological
natures (1 Thess. 5:23). Yet to err in the opposite direction and see
biology as the only or most important factor in determining be-
havior is equally wrong. Biological explanations need to be put in
their proper perspective by recognizing their contribution to orien-
tation and behavior (homosexual as well as other types) without
using these explanations as excuses for failing to meet God's re-
quirements for living.
* Satinover, Homosexuality, and the Politics of Truth, 93-108; and Schmidt,
Straight and Narrow? 150-53. Both of these authors give a good perspective on the
possible influence of other factors in the development of homosexuality.
*" Sherwood O. Cole, "Reflections on Integration by a Biopsychologist," Journal of
Psychology and Theology 24 (1996): 292-300.
^ 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.