Archive for the ‘Science’ category

unChristian Statistics

July 25th, 2008

My understanding of statistics is fairly limited. The one class I had in college did not go well.  However, if you ever need to calculate the statistical probability of pulling a blue marble from a bucket full of red marbles, then I am your man.  For everything else, you should really talk with Bradley Wright.   Dr. Wright is associate professor at the University of Connecticut where he studies the sociology of Christianity.

Brad has just finished an excellent 13 part series about the book unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity… and Why It Matters. The book is written by David Kinnaman who is the president of the George Barna Institute and Gabe Lyons of the Fermi Project. The book relies on research from the Barna Group and basically says the church has an image problem with young people. In the words of the publishers:

Do you want to reach the next generation for Christ? Ministry in America may never have been more confusing and complex – or have more opportunites. Yet, to connect young people to Jesus, you have to understand what they think and why. Based upon groundbreaking research among 16- to 29-year-olds, unChristian helps you understand their mindset, their skepticism and their experiences – as well as their points of spiritual openness.

Readers will learn why negative perceptions exist among young people, how to reverse them in Christlike ways, and read about practical examples of how Christians can positively contribute to culture.

You stand to be more effective in your ministry to the next generation by checking out unChristian.

This book fits into the trend established in a long series of books from Baran Group, like Revolution and Pagan Christianity, that use targeted statistics to paint a bleak picture of the church in America.  What I am beginning to wonder is, “how accurate are these statistics?”  In the case of unChristian, it is clear the authors had an opinion about what they would find before they did and research. This, for me, begs the question, “which came first, the conclusion or the statistics?” Brad puts it this way…

Frankly, I’m a little suspicious of someone “knowing” the answer to their research question before they even collect data, and then finding data the confirm their expectations. That almost never happens to me, for I am constantly surprised by what I find. Suppose that’s why I’m in the business.

As such, the emphasis of UnChristian is using data to illustrate ideas already held by the authors, and using these data to bring about useful change. Emphasis is on useful.

Thanks to Ray Fowler, here is a list of all 13 parts in the series.  This is a good read for everyone who has read unChristian or just wants a better understanding of how statistics can be used, or abused.

You may also be interested in a few other recent posts which discuss the use of statistics in popular books written by Christians.

  1. Revival, Rebuff, or Rebellion
  2. Rediscovering Church: Safe to Surrender 
  3. I Stopped Going to Church a Long Time Ago…
  4. 110% Confused (okay this one is just for fun after all that serious reading)
  • Share/Bookmark

1 comment »

Posted in Book Reviews, Ecclesiology, Emerging Church, Science

The Committed Leader Increases Momentum

June 20th, 2008


Movement will not happen if people do not move together in common mission
Erwin McManus

It is an unfortunate statement about our culture, but professional ball players are not known for their team play. Sometimes it seems the players only care about the money and the spotlight.  Rarely do players these days demonstrate a devotion to team above self.  All that changed this season with the Boston Celtics big three: Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett.  Paul Levine on SportsPlus shares this unique story of committed leadership.

After starring for the once-mighty Celtics for 10 seasons, Pierce didn’t know if the opportunity to hoist a Championship banner to the rafters would ever present itself in his career. However, with the acquisitions of proven superstars Kevin Garnett (from Minnesota) and Ray Allen (from Seattle), the Celtics won a league-best 66 games and went from worst to first, with an historical 42-victory turnaround in the victory column from the previous season.

Neither of Boston’s “Big Three” had ever won a Championship, but they vowed to each other and Celtics coach Doc Rivers to put their individual statistics aside for the sake of coming together in an effort to earn that elusive ring.

“We said no more excuses, that is what it is,” said Garnett, who collected 26 points and 14 rebounds in the game six clincher. “We’ve all talked about getting personnel on the team.

“We said from day one this is Paul’s team. Ray and I had no problem with that. Doc let us know that the three of us were going to have to sacrifice. I know it sounds old fashioned and cliche, but it’s just real talk.”

These three men wanted their team to win, but they were coming out of one of the worst seasons in Celtics history.  Players wanted to quit.  The coach was ready to be fired.  The team was stagnant.  So how is it that 3 guys can change the destiny of an entire team?

Let me explain it to you this way.  I enjoyed my physics classes in college because they taught me a lot about the way life works.  One of the key equations for understanding the physical universe come from Newton who first stated that Momentum is equal to the Mass of an object times its Velocity squared.  
P=MV2
So here is what we can learn about leading with commitment from the Boston Celtics and the laws of physics.

1. It’s not the number of men, or women, on your team that determines your future–what matters most is how “big” those people are.  Guess what, every basketball team has the same number of players.  Numbers (mass) is not what makes a winning team, I learned this lesson well in planting Reunion Church.  Being mega or micro is not what changes the momentum of a church.  There are large churches that are in decline and small churches that are booming with life.  The difference between success and failure in life is the leaders with whom you partner: people who sacrifice for one another, people who are led by the Spirit, people who are made big by God give you the mass you need to succeed.  YHWH taught Gideon that same lesson.

Judges 7:2 2 The Lord said to Gideon, “You have too many men for me to hand Midian over to you. Israel might brag, ‘Our own strength has delivered us.’ (NET)

2. It does not matter how fast you are going, if you are heading in the wrong direction.  Velocity is made up of two things: speed and direction. If either of these parts is missing, you will not go anywhere.  Pierce, Garnett, and Allen were all mega stars heading to the NBA hall of fame but, until this year, none of them had ever won a championship.  Each man was moving fast, but not in the right direction.  When they came together and discovered that leadership was a commitment to selfless play, their speed was targeted and each individual discovered how to win together.  

If your momentum is taking you to the wrong destination, you need the mass that comes from committed leaders.  Committed leadership knows that setting course in the direction and moving forward full speed is the only way to achieve momentum toward the prize.
Go back to the DNA of Commitment
  • Share/Bookmark

No comments »

Posted in Leadership, Science, Spiritual Formation, Sports

The Earth is Flat and the Globe is Warming

May 18th, 2008

According to Al Gore, the science is absolute and there is no doubt that Global Warming is 100% the fault of Human activity and we can reverse Global warming with various governmental policies.  To deny man-made Global Warming, according to Gore, is to the equivalent of saying the Earth is flat.

 
Yet scientists, as reported in the London Telegraph, are now reporting that natural trends in global cooling are at work.

Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a “lull” for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

IFM Geomar reports that

With this additional information, natural decadal climate variations, which are superimposed on the long-term anthropogenic warming trend, can be predicted. The improved predictions suggest that global warming will weaken slightly during the following 10 years.

To be clear, these scientists are not saying there is no Global Warming, but they are suggesting that the trend will change over the next decade of cooling.  The important part of the study is that Nature, on her own, is making a way to counter the trend in warming.  Some scientists are suggesting that these trends are natural and Man has little to no effect on warming or cooling trends. No one can say to what degree Man has influenced our recent, and predicted, warming trends.   However, if nature can, in the short run, overcome the influence of human activity, is it possible that nature can overcome it in the long run?


Guidelines for the Upcoming Debate 
As we move forward as a country, and across the globe, it is important we we develop some ethical guidelines.  Certainly my list is not exhaustive, but it is a good starting place for the discussion of what values will dominate our response to the scientific exploration.
  • Clearly some folks have a political agenda and are using fears of Global Warming to gain power and wealth.  These people should not be trusted to lead the way on this important topic.
  • Let’s not stifle intelligent scientific discussion and remain open to reasoned disagreement of the data.  I have noticed that many of the scientists who differ on the issue of Global Warming come from different fields of study.  Be aware of this scientific in-fighting,  and give each groups fair consideration.
  • Human life must be valued above all else.  I oppose any proposal that endangers people now living on our Earth or solutions that increase poverty and hunger.
  • Both animals and humans are valuable and worth protecting, but human life must always be preserved above that of animal life.
  • Even if man has 0% impact on Global Warming/Cooling, we should care for the Earth God created for us and leave it cleaner for the generations to come.  As God instructed us in Genesis, we need to subdue the earth and make it habitable so all people can prosper.
  • Change for the sake of change is of no use.  Change should not be used to placate feeling or pacify alarmists.  Every change will have consequences, and we must be sure that the changes we make do not have consequences more destructive than the problem we seek to solve.
Books to Read
I have not yet read these books, but I have heard both of the authors on the radio discussing their research.  Both of these books offer any thinking person a good counter-perspective on the science of Global Warming.  Are they right?  I cannot say, but if we only listen to the voices on one side we are going to run headlong into disaster.  Any person afraid of dissent and debate about Global Warming is not to be trusted.
“Climate Confusion:How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor“
From the Publishers: If you listen to the media, you would think that man-made environmental catastrophe was about to engulf the world and imperil civilization. From Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth to nightly jeremiads about CO2 emissions and carbon footprints, we are bombarded around the clock with alarmist reports that disasterous global warming is on the rise and that it’s our fault. In Climate Confusion, noted climatologist Roy Spencer shows that fears about global warming are vastly exaggerated and are driven by politics, not truth. He shows that a global superstorm has already arrived-but it is a storm of hype and hysteria. Climate Confusion is a ground-breaking book that combines impeccable scientific authority with great wit and literary panache to expose the hysteria surrounding the myths of global warming and climate change. Spencer shows that the earth is far more resilient than exopessimists pretend and that increasing wealth and technology ingenuity, far from being the enemies of the environment, are the only means we possess to solve environmental problems as they arise.

From the Author: I wrote Climate Confusion for several reasons. In contrast to other works, I wanted it to be an entertaining and easily understood primer on how weather and climate works, showing why manmade global warming is unlikely to be a serious problem for humanity. Furthermore, I wanted to explore the political, philosophical, and religious underpinnings of beliefs in catastrophic global warming, helping the reader to better appreciate why scientific research in this area has become tainted and untrustworthy. Finally, and possibly most importantly, by using basic economic concepts I wanted to counter currently proposed policy “solutions” to global warming that will have devastating effects on the world’s poor. (See sample pages from the book and more on his website on Weather Questions.)

“The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud–And those who are too fearful to do so” by Lawrence Solomon

From the Publisher: This is the one book that PROVES the science is NOT settled. The scientists profiled are too eminent and their research too devastating to allow simplistic views of global warming–like Al Gore’s–to survive. Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.

Guess he never met these guys
Dr. Edward Wegman–former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences–demolishes the famous “hockey stick” graph that launched the global warming panic.
Dr. David Bromwich–president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology–says “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.”
Prof. Paul Reiter–Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute–says “no major scientist with any long record in this field” accepts Al Gore’s claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
Prof. Hendrik Tennekes–director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute–states “there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies” used for global warming forecasts.
Dr. Christopher Landsea–past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones–says “there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.”
Dr. Antonino Zichichi–one of the world’s foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter–calls global warming models “incoherent and invalid.”
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research–says the U.N. “based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.”
Prof. Tom V. Segalstad–head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo–says “most leading geologists” know the U.N.’s views “of Earth processes are implausible.”
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu–founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the “1,000 Most Cited Scientists,” says much “Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change.”
Dr. Claude Allegre–member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”
Dr. Richard Lindzen–Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists “are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right.”
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov–head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s Astrometria project says “the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.”
Dr. Richard Tol–Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time “preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent.”
Dr. Sami Solanki–director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun’s state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: “The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.”
Prof. Freeman Dyson–one of the world’s most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are “full of fudge factors” and “do not begin to describe the real world.”
Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen–director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun’s behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon’s devastating new book, The Deniers.

Final Thought
As a final note, I would personally like to see more discussion about the potential value of Global Warming.  As our earth changes, animal life will continue to adapt and evolve. Even our efforts to clean the earth can have consequences for human and animal life alike.  Take for example the recent case of “reverse-evolution” here in Washington state.   
SEATTLE – Evolution is supposed to inch forward over eons, but sometimes, at least in the case of a little fish called the threespine stickleback, the process can go in relative warp-speed reverse, according to a study led by researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and published online ahead of print in the May 20 issue of Current Biology (Cell Press)

“There are not many documented examples of reverse evolution in nature,” said senior author Catherine “Katie” Peichel, Ph.D., “but perhaps that’s just because people haven’t really looked.”

Peichel and colleagues turned their gaze to the sticklebacks that live in Lake Washington, the largest of three major lakes in the Seattle area. Five decades ago, the lake was, quite literally, a cesspool, murky with an overgrowth of blue-green algae that thrived on the 20 million gallons of phosphorus-rich sewage pumped into its waters each day. Thanks to a $140 million cleanup effort in the mid-‘60s – at the time considered the most costly pollution-control effort in the nation – today the lake and its waterfront are a pristine playground for boaters and billionaires.

It’s precisely that cleanup effort that sparked the reverse evolution, Peichel and colleagues surmise. Back when the lake was polluted, the transparency of its water was low, affording a range of vision only about 30 inches deep. The tainted, mucky water provided the sticklebacks with an opaque blanket of security against predators such as cutthroat trout, and so the fish needed little bony armor to keep them from being eaten by the trout.

In 1968, after the cleanup was complete, the lake’s transparency reached a depth of 10 feet. Today, the water’s clarity approaches 25 feet. Lacking the cover of darkness they once enjoyed, over the past 40 years about half of Lake Washington sticklebacks have evolved to become fully armored, with bony plates protecting their bodies from head to tail. For example, in the late ‘60s, only 6 percent of sticklebacks in Lake Washington were completely plated. Today, 49 percent are fully plated and 35 percent are partially plated, with about half of their bodies shielded in bony armor. This rapid, dramatic adaptation is actually an example of evolution in reverse, because the normal evolutionary tendency for freshwater sticklebacks runs toward less armor plating, not more.

“We propose that the most likely cause of this reverse evolution in the sticklebacks is from the higher levels of trout predation after the sudden increase in water transparency,” said Peichel, whose Hutchinson Center lab has established the stickleback as a new model for studying complex genetic traits. By examining multifaceted traits in the fish, such as body type and behavior, Peichel and colleagues shed light on the genetic networks at play in other complex traits, such as cancer and other common human diseases.

No matter what Man does to pollute or clean up, some animals may die out, but others will also grow stronger.  Is that not part of the natural life-cycle; the adaptation of nature?  As we examine the scientific viability of Global Warming,  increased growth of plant life in some regions may be a benefit to a warmer Earth.  Larger and more abundant plant life could mean more food for starving people and larger feeding grounds for some animals.  In this case, Global Warming could be of benefit to our earth and these consequences should also be weighted in whatever actions we take.
  • Share/Bookmark

1 comment »

Posted in Book Reviews, Science

Homosexuality: Is it in the Jeans or in the Genes?

May 13th, 2008

Introduction
ABC’s 20/20 recently aired a program entitled, “Is there a ‘gay gene’?”   Their conclusion is going to cause a lot of controversy.

“It’s a medical mystery, one of the biggest debates of our time: Is there a gene that determines whether you’re gay or straight? Some scientists think so, saying sexual identity is mostly biological. Others say it’s a learned behaviour. Not that kids need science to confirm what they already know.”

While emphasizing the complexity of this issue, reporters, Lynn Sherr & David Diamond, leave their viewers with the clear impression that researchers, like the ones at GayBros.Com, will confirm this genetic link, but even if it does not, the men who are gay know they were born gay. No matter what this report says, there will be others who will continue to emphasize that gayness is a choice that can be changed like an old pair of shoes.

“The Wall Street Journal reported on August 12, 1993, that to suggest that current biological-cause theories are unsubstantiated is to risk one’s career. New York psychiatrist William Byne said, “I’m told my criticism is not politically correct…What they are saying, therefore, is that I should subjugate scientific rigor to political expediency.”

However, as Aldous Huxley said, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” The fact is that no scientifically accepted, replicable studies presently exist that clearly demonstrate that homosexuality is genetic.

Studies do exist, however, showing that homosexuals who desire to change can do so. These studies have not received the same level of media coverage as the flawed studies.”

Any view that does not meet with the “scientific” agenda espoused by 20/20 will be met with increasing vitriol.  Take for example the recent story of Crystal Dixon.  Ms. Dixon was the Vice President of Human Resources at the University of Toledo until she dared to question the schools agenda.  Ms. Dixon, a black woman, wrote the following.
As a Black womao who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo’s Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are “civil rights victims.” Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few. Frequently, the individuals report that the impetus to their change of heart and lifestyle was a transformative experience with God; a realization that their choice of same-sex practices wreaked havoc in their psychological and physical lives. Charlene E. Cothran, publisher of Venus Magazine, was an aggressive, strategic supporter of gay rights and a practicing lesbian for 29 years, before she renounced her sexuality and gave Jesus Christ stewardship of her life.

The response from the University of Toledo was to fire Ms. Dixon. According to a statement, reported in the Toledo Free Press, UT spokesman Lawrence J. Burns, said there was “just cause” to fire Dixon.

The public position Ms. Dixon took in the Toledo Free Press is in direct contradiction to University policies and procedures, as well as the institutional core values as defined in our strategic plan, and called into question her continued ability to lead a critical function within the administration as personnel actions or decisions taken in her capacity as associate vice president for human resources could be challenged or placed at risk.

Did you catch it?  Ms. Dixon’s view does not match the core values and therefore, her viewpoint, no matter how factually correct, will not be tolerated.   Debates and fights of this kind reflect a world system that is broken.  This clash of “rights” will only get worse as the reason of the culture becomes far more unreasonable and science becomes far more political.   As Christians, we cannot fix the world, but we still have to know how we should talk to gays without ignoring the “science” of homosexuality. 

The Approach
First, it is important that we stop treating Homosexuality as some kind of uber-sin. The Scripture speaks of many sexual sins, and this particular one is no better or worse (Romans 3:23). The church must do a better job of loving gays and ministering the grace of Jesus Christ.

Second, I am willing to concede that there is a genetic link to homosexual desire. Not because the science is convincing, but because families like the ones in the ABC report, and Universities like UT, will always believe people were born gay and had no choice in the matter. They will still argue, “I was born this way” So, for the sake of getting past the science and to the Gospel I would rather concede there is a genetic connection to the gay desire and then discuss the behavior in light of Christ.

Finally, before I move on, let me provide two key definitions to explain the title of this article: “Homosexuality; Is it in the Jeans or in the Genes?”

The Jeans refers to the desires and passions of the soul (both the spiritual and intellectual influences).
The Genes refer to the physical body of flesh (both the genetic and biological influences).

The Cause
People, both religious and secular, seem to be stuck in two camps. The Gay advocates are determined to prove that all homosexual desire and action is rooted in the Genes. Advocates for change are determined to prove that all homosexual behavior and desire is a matter of moral choice.

I, like the reporters for ABC’s 20/20, contend that the causes are much more complicated then folks on either side want to admit. So let me explore some of the possible causes.

Possible Roots of Homosexuality
Influences from the Jeans
  • Cultural/Social: There is a mounting social pressure, rooted in our Western/American culture that encourages kids to experiment with gay sex. TV, Movies, and Schools are all promoting the acceptance and pleasure of gayness. I would connect this to the “mob mentality” we see in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
  • Experience: There is evidence that some men, and women, “become” gay because of very traumatic childhood experiences, such as rape and abuse, which leads to sexual confusion.
  • Emotions: In an increasingly pluralistic and divided society, many young kids are unable to process the emotional vicissitudes of life. These emotions, if not properly directed, have led many people, young and old, to use sexual experimentation as an outlet.

Influence from the Genes (as noted in the 20/20 report)

  • Psychology: The influences of the subconscious may play a part in a persons sexual identity.
  • Biology: Some scientists will argue that conditions in the womb, such as hormone balance, drugs use, temperature, etc… can influence the sexual orientation of the baby.
  • Genetic: Studies like the one mentioned above, are seeking the link within the DNA that determines sexual choice.
I am willing to concede that all of these influences, both from the Jeans and the Genes, play a part in the gayness of an individual. Some may be influenced by only one factor, others by many. Jesus mentions that there are eunuchs by birth and some by choice (Matthew 19:12), so it should not be a shock to think that some people are gay by choice and others are gay by birth. I am willing to make this concession, even if there is no real evidence, because ultimately I don’t think it matters.

The Key to Understanding
Any viable answer must meet the following criteria:

  • All solutions must deal with the whole person.  Everything that makes us human is rooted in the whole being. We cannot divide the soul, from the spirit, from the Body…
  • Genetic makeup is not stronger than our moral compass. Man is not a simple animal, we have the capacity to overcome our baser instincts.
  • All solutions must deal with the sin nature.  The only reason I am willing to concede that gayness may be in the Genes, is simply because I believe we are all sinners in the image of Adam. The Genesis account is clear, the sin of Adam has corrupted not just our moral state, but also our physical bodies. Religious advocates of the gay Gene argue that homosexuals are designed that way and therefore God cannot be wrong in his design. Advocates of an evolutionary model, feel that the presence of a gay Gene means that nature has chosen these people to be gay. In response to both I would argue that to hold this view is folly. Downs Syndrome and other genetic diseases are not designed by God;nor is it an indication of evolutionary progress? The crux of the difference is found in our view of sin and the impact of sin in both our Genes and our Jeans. 
  • Free Choice does not mean Free Will.  Al Mohler makes the point that 

“We must stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice. We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation. We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation.”

Taking each of these keys into account, I am left with only one solution to the question of gayness in the genes or the jeans–Jesus heals!

Jesus Heals (1 Cor 15:1-58)
Jesus died and was raised so that we can experience the life of His resurrection power. Jesus can heal emotional, physical, and spiritual sickness of any kind. I believe the Scriptures teach that Man was created as a unity; body, mind, soul, spirit–or any way one chooses to define it. There is no way to separate one from the other. The Hebraic concept o man is that we are one being. I think in the case of sin, it impacts our whole being, not just flesh, not just spirit, not just mind, but all of who we are. So if “science” could “prove” there was a gay gene, it would not impact God’s declaration of sin. There are already scientists who argue that alchahol addiction is genetic, sexual addiction is genetic, morality is genetic, and the list goes on.

Modern “science” seeks to divide the flesh from the Spirit and say that the flesh is all-powerful. The root cause of all sin is sin. Science has no capacity to determine the cause, Science can only tell us what factors of the flesh play a part. Christians are also falling into a trap by trying to play on turf of modern “science.” We need to stop arguing against the wisdom of the world and give them the wisdom of God’s revelation. Therefore, it matters not what science can prove or disprove, it does not change the Word of God or his design for Man.

Ultimately, the degree to which gayness is in the Genes or in the Jeans is not a core theological issue and something we can hold loosely. We can agree to disagree on the source of “sin” and still be faithful followers of Jesus. What we should agree upon is that nothing in our Jeans or the Genes can limit the shed blood of Jesus Christ–Jesus heals!

  • Share/Bookmark

18 comments »

Posted in Anthropology, Christology, Culture, Evangelism, Hamartology, Science, Soteriology