Stand to Reason Blog

Radio Sunday

Greg is live on the air Sunday - three hours of clear-thinking Christian talk radio.  All commentary and open calls with you this Sunday 2-5 p.m. PT

Listen live on the air or stream it on the STR app or online. Follow us on Twitter @STRtweets #STRtalk.

 

Was Hitler a Christian? No, He Was a Propagandist

Eric Metaxas' biography of Bohoeffer was very informative - not only about the main subject, but about how the Nazis manipulated the state church for the purposes.  Bonhoeffer, as a pastor, had to maneuver in that environment, and finally take a stand as the state church was overtaken for propaganda purposes.  Hitler was not a Christian, evidenced by his own writings, and the Nazis leverage religion for their own cynical purposes to mislead people. 

Metaxas explains in this interview.

Are Homosexuals Born that Way?

Lady Gaga’s mega-hit song “Born this Way” sold millions of copies affirming what many people believe: homosexuality is hardwired. In fact, people think that’s as axiomatic as saying the earth revolves around the sun. No rational person rejects the idea. The only hold-outs, it is said, are either ignorant of science, homophobic, or bigots (read: Christians). But before I explain why this view is beset with problems, let me make a tactical suggestion.

Many Christians get defensive when someone says homosexuality is inborn. I understand the temptation to argue against this claim. But it’s a mistake to try to show it’s false, at least initially. That’s because the claim is not an argument. It’s just an opinion and, therefore, not necessarily true. In order for their claim to become a bona fide argument, it must be supported with evidence or reasons.

So, instead of defending your convictions, make them defend their claim. Simply ask, “What evidence do you have that homosexuals are born that way?” Then wait and listen. This is totally appropriate and not just a rhetorical trick. It’s how the burden of proof works. Whoever makes the claim bears the burden to show it’s true. Since they’ve made the claim, it’s their job to back it up, not your job to prove them wrong.

If they don’t have evidence for their claim, then it’s fair to graciously explain that their view is unreasonable – that they don’t hold their view for good reason. If they do offer evidence for their view, only then is it appropriate to respond with a counter-argument.

With that tactic in mind, let’s look at three problems with the born-that-way theory. The first is the most egregious. A simple scientific fact-check demonstrates that no study has proven that homosexuality is biologically determined.

Decades of research to discover a “gay gene” have been unsuccessful. It’s now uncommon for scientists to think that homosexuality is solely genetic. Perhaps the most powerful line of evidence is found in twin studies. Since identical twins have identical genetics, it would follow that if one twin was homosexual, the other would also have to be homosexual 100% of the time. But both twins are homosexual in less than 15% of the cases.^[1]

Not only is the genetic effect extremely low, but it also accounts for shared environmental factors. In other words, even saying that the genetic contribution to homosexuality is 15% is not accurate because identical twins are usually raised together and share a similar environment. In order to isolate the contribution of genetics, one would have to study identical twins raised apart. That way you eliminate the effect of their environment.

It was also speculated that homosexuality had a biological basis. But research that correlates brain anatomy/physiology with homosexual behavior doesn’t prove causation. In other words, even if the brains of homosexuals have structural differences from those of heterosexuals, that might suggest their behavior changes their brain, not necessarily the other way around. This is possible due to neuroplasticity – the lifelong ability of the brain to change in response to the environment, behavior, brain injury, or even acquiring knowledge. For example, blind people’s brains have a different neurologic structure because reading braille using fingers is a different behavior than using eyes to read.

What’s surprising is that pro-gay researchers and organizations acknowledge the dearth of evidence for a biological cause to homosexuality. The American Psychological Association (APA), for example, once held the position in 1998 that, there is “evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.” However, a decade of scientific research debunked this idea and caused the APA to revise their view in 2009. Their new position reads: “Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors”^[2] [emphasis mine]. A pro-gay group like the APA wouldn’t revise their statement unless there was overwhelming evidence that necessitated a position change.

A second problem with the born-that-way theory is that even if true, it wouldn’t prove that homosexual behavior is moral. Consider that scientific research has discovered genes they believe contribute to alcoholism, unfaithfulness, violence, and even many diseases. Are we to believe that because there is a genetic contribution to these behaviors (or even if they were genetically determined) that they should be regarded as morally appropriate? Of course not. So, proving homosexual behavior is appropriate by appealing to a genetic determinant is equally spurious.

This mistake in thinking is known as the naturalistic fallacy. You can’t get an “ought” from an “is.” Even if homosexuality is natural, it doesn’t prove it ought to be. And scientists who are attempting to prove homosexuality is inborn agree. Harvard geneticist Dean Hamer, himself a homosexual, says, “Biology is amoral; it offers no help in distinguishing between right and wrong. Only people guided by their values and beliefs can decide what is moral and what is not.”^[3] Simon LeVay, a Harvard trained neuroscientist and also openly gay, concurs: “First, science itself cannot render judgments about human worth or about what constitutes normality or disease. These are value judgments that individuals must make for themselves, while taking scientific findings into account.”^[4]

A third problem stems from the mere existence of the “ex-gay” community. If homosexuality is, as many pro-gay advocates state, as inescapable as eye color, then how do they explain former homosexuals? Eye color is genetic, something that one is born with and can’t change. But sexual orientation is fluid, as evidenced by the changed lives of thousands of men and women.

There are women who have had long-term, lesbian relationships with other women and then changed and became attracted to men. There are also men who have had same-sex attractions since puberty, spent a decade in gay relationships, and then developed attractions to the opposite sex. Many of these people have gone through some form of counseling or therapy, but many have not.

The fact that even one person has changed is evidence that homosexuality is not hard-wired. But that there are thousands of individuals who share this experience is significant counter-evidence against the born-that-way theory. I know many of these people. They can’t all be lying about their life.

Instead, what they offer is hope. Since many people are dissatisfied with their same-sex attractions, these changed lives represent an opposing voice to the cultural chorus that claims homosexuals are born that way.

 

This post is part of a Thursday series where Alan Shlemon responds to common challenges pertaining to homosexuality. You can read Alan's previous posts here.

---

[1] Bailey JM, Dunne MP, Martin NG. 2000. Genetic and Environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78:524-36. The figure is the pairwise concordance, not probandwise concordance.

[2] Retrieved on February 2, 2012, from http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

[3] Hamer, Dean & Copeland, P. (1994). The Science of Desire (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994), 214.

[4] LeVay, Simon, “Sexual Orientation:  The Science and its Social Impact,” in Reverso, 2000, p. 12.

Ash Wednesday: Return to the Lord Your God with All Your Heart

What is Ash Wednesday and why recognize it?

Some history and purpose to observing Lent.

On Ash Wednesday, we set our face with Jesus toward the cross in Jerusalem.

We make our pilgrimage with Him by the way of repentance, and thus return to the dying and rising of Holy Baptism. For Christ Jesus, “who knew no sin,” became our sin, so that by His death we are released from sin, and in His resurrection we “become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21).

Since God has thereby reconciled the world to Himself in Christ, “now is the favorable time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2). He summons you to return to Him with all your heart because He is “gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love” (Joel 2:13). Do so in faith and confidence before Him, and pray to Him as your Father. (LCMS)

Dealing with Primary Questions First and Secondary Questions Second

Tim Keller has a really nice way in his preaching of dealing briefly with an apologetic issue.  In something I was listening to recently, he offered a great response to an objection to the Bible that really amounts to a red herring - diverting from the real issue.

He said that when someone tells him that they can't believe the Bible because it's regressive on sex and gender, he asks them if that means that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.  That's the real question.

While the objection is probably a sincere one, it is a secondary question.  If you don't believe Jesus rose from the dead, then you're not going to consider the Bible an authority on moral issues.  If Jesus did rise from the dead, then you'll need to cope with His authority and the authority of His Word over all matters of our lives.

Don't be diverted.  Make the primary issues primary, and leave the secondary ones for later.

There is very reasonable evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.

Basically Good?

How do you deal with someone who says, "I'm basically a good person"? Here's one response.

Try this calculation with them. If you sinned only ten times a day from your tenth birthday to your sixtieth--and keep in mind we're not just talking about rape, pillage, and murder, but the full range of human moral failing, including heart attitudes and motives--only, ten sins a day, what would your rap sheet look like? You would have amassed 182,500 infractions of the law. What judge in his right mind would turn you loose with a record like that?

Whenever you're tempted to trust in your own ability, take a good look at the standard, God's Law, then look at your own score card. To use Paul's words, the law has each of us "shut up under sin" (Gal. 3:22), it's closed our mouths, and we all have become accountable to God (Romans 3:19). Saved by our own goodness? The Law gives us no hope.  Only the Gospel and the righteousness of Jesus Christ can offer us hope of pleasing God.

Order of the Books of the Bible (Video)

What is the significance of the Bible's order of books?

LDS Church Apologizes for Baptisms

I find this story to be so odd:

Leaders of the Mormon Church have apologized to the family of the Holocaust survivor and Jewish rights advocate Simon Wiesenthal after his parents were posthumously baptized in a Mormon ritual last month. Helen Radkey, a Salt Lake City researcher, found documentation of the baptism while conducting regular checks of a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints genealogical database last week. Mormons believe that posthumous baptism by proxy allows people to receive the Gospel in the afterlife. The baptism of Holocaust victims was supposed to be barred by a 1995 agreement between the church and Jews, although some submissions continue by church members. Church officials say the person who entered the names into the database has been disciplined.

If you're Jewish, then don't you believe that LDS baptisms for the dead are nothing and mean nothing? Not even Mormons believe a posthumous baptism will accomplish anything if the person being baptized by proxy refuses it. They're merely making the baptism available to the person, not declaring them to be Mormon.

And if you're Mormon, don't you believe that baptisms for the dead are absolutely essential to make it to the celestial kingdom, and that if a person is not provided with a Mormon baptism, he or she will be stuck forever in a less worthy kingdom?

The LDS Church said:

We sincerely regret that the actions of an individual member of the church led to the inappropriate submission of these names. These submissions were clearly against the policy of the church. We consider this a serious breach of our protocol and we have suspended indefinitely this person's ability to access our genealogy records.

Why, if you're Mormon, would you agree to bar Holocaust victims from the celestial kingdom? Why would you actually discipline someone who tried to help them?

The dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center said:

We are outraged that such insensitive actions continue in the Mormon temples.

The posthumous baptisms change nothing. If you're Jewish, why not recognize these baptisms by Mormons for what they are—misguided, yet enacted in love—and then go about your day?

Oddly, the Jews in this situation are acting as if the baptisms are efficacious, and the Mormons are acting as if they aren't. Granted, I'm not a relative of a Holocaust victim, so I know there are emotional issues involved in this situation that I won't ever understand. But still, I find both reactions a little odd.

When Statistics Lie

Have 98% of all Catholic women used birth control?  That's the number that's been bandied about in the last week to neutralize the Roman Catholic church's conscientious objection to being mandated to provide birth control through their insurance plans. 

First, the statistic doesn't have anything logically to do with the church's moral objection.  Second, the statistic is just wrong. A few people have taken a close look at the study used for that claim, and the methodology seems designed to get the results it got.  It excluded groups of Catholic women who would not have used birth control and selected women who would.  The results were baked into the study from the start.

The Washington Post

Get Religion

Does the Bible Condone Slavery?

A cursory reading of Ephesians 6:5 has left some with the impression that the Bible condones slavery.  The introduction to this message ("Our Work and Our Character") by Timothy J. Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City provides some great historical context crucial to understanding what Paul is actually saying in this passage.

Keller points out that we're on the other side of slavery in the western world that inevitably influences how we understand that word.  But the slavery referred to in the Bible was a fundamentally different practice.  Some translations try to indicate this by using the word "bondservant."

Biblical "slavery" was not race-based.  It wasn't motivated by racism.  It wasn't kidnapping and selling, treating human beings as property.  Most "slaves" at that time were captives from war; others voluntarily became slaves to pay off debts.  Neither were permanent situations.  Freedom was an almost inevitable outcome for "slaves."

Further, in the Greco-Roman world, slaves had rights.  They were not property.  Slaves could appeal to the magistrate if their rights were violated.  There were laws governing how they were to be treated.

That's not to say the practice of slavery in Biblical times was good or easy.  It's simply not the same as what we think of.  It's important to understand Paul in an accurate historical context.  He doesn't condone slavery, i.e. capturing and owning people as property.

Keller points out that Paul is not condoning any cultural practice, but instructing Christians how to lead God-pleasing lives in the world they found themselves in.  Paul's teaching doesn't condone any form of slavery.  His purpose in this passage isn't cultural revolution, but personal revolution under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  And what Paul teaches about respecting one another sowed the seeds for cultural change.

The Bible doesn't condone slavery.  The historical institution was radically different than what was practiced in the western world.  Paul's goal was personal conduct, not cultural change.  And what the Bible teaches about human beings would eventually lead to cultural change.  The abolitionists of the last centuries applied what the Bible teaches about human beings to bring about the eradication of an evil practice.