In the advances and refinements of physical science man now knows considerably more than he knew just a few years ago – even since the recent twentieth century. This development has been especially dramatic in genetic studies, the measurements of DNA, and the like. Controversy arises not from the discoveries, but from interpretation of their meaning and influence. For example, if some unit is found to be influential in the sexual orientation of an individual, does that information mean the individual is cast irrevocably in a pattern over which there is no recourse to change? There seems to be little controversy that there is within the individual physical influences that give direction to that person. What if some influences are negative? Is it to be believed that because there is some biological computer directive that will predict conduct preferences that, perforce, such a directive is to be accepted? We know that intelligent persons may think differently, act differently, interpret truth differently, but not all reasoned conclusions are acceptable. Is the mind dictated by genetics? The public is asked to accept homosexuality because the genuine homosexual has a physical predilection that motivates him or her into that lifestyle. At the same time both the heterosexual and the homosexual resist the drive of the child molester who claims he/she is driven similarly. A nephew of mine has gone through ordeals of having been driven by desire for child intimacy. After decades in prison and only after years of counsel and medication, he has adjusted to the social belief that the orientation is objectionable. Released from prison, he checked himself back in when he felt driven to pursue the old drive. All along, he has been a good fellow in other matters except for this factor in his life that indicates incarceration so to protect children. Society is not well instructed about these kinds of issues.
Concepts of Christianity provide many answers we seek. In the influence of sin over the human race, there is no reason to believe that genetic make-up is immune from negative influence over man, and all that man is. Recovery, the Christian believes, is redemptive experience. By this shift, in what Jesus told Nicodemus is a born again experience, the main issues of life may be addressed – even in the force of genetic influences. Anyone keeping the law of the land that honors and protects the freedom of all persons should be given the right to live out his or her life with dignity. This does not mean that all conduct is morally right, even if made legal. The concern of the Christian is to act as any citizen should act, no matter what the religious belief may be, but to note also that God has another dimension to be addressed related to his plan for mankind, which, if violated, creates a moral issue that begs ultimate judgment (evaluation consequences) from God. Scripture declares simply that some judgment will be for deeds done in the body. The affirmation of Scripture has two entities of human duty. One is the society that ought to provide human rights for all, and can do so in an even handed way by applying law fairly. God judges the morality of every individual, and that judgment does not force the secular kingdom, except that violation of the public good is seen as a sin to God’s order concept inviting ultimate interpretation. The real problem relates to human nature. This is what Jesus addressed, and it continues to be a concern. It has its own solution in personal redemption and promise relating to morality. It is effective so that there is no excuse from righteousness – even no excuse found in genetics’ powerful influence. Many effective counselors make clear that genetics informs us, not determines us without recourse. There ought to be clarity that Christians need understanding to wisdom and consistency for such human issues. At this writing the societies, including some Christian, are fumbling about in regards to morality. Life affirmation is lost. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020