Gay Babies? Whatever...

Today, class, will be a lesson in not necessarily believing what the mainstream media says is true; it is always wise when something sounds not quite right to check the source. It would seem that the media does tend to take conservatives--especially religious conservatives--to task. And I realize that this is not an especially profound or insightful observation, and yet I'm always a little surprised at the audacity of some to twist the words of others and how quickly the public is willing to accept the "he said/she said" accounts they read or watch.

Today during a break at work, I decided to check my AOL account for e-mails. Of course en route to accessing my mail, I saw the day's major headlines flashing before my eyes. As I skimmed through the list, I saw this headline: "Furor Over Baptist's 'Gay Baby' Article." A little surprised to see the words "Baptist," "gay," and "baby" all in the same headline, I decided to look a little further. I learned from the article that Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Seminary, "has incurred sharp attacks from both the left and the right by suggesting that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven, and that prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation would be biblically justified." I was a bit intrigued, because I don't know a lot about Dr. Mohler, but I do know that he has been instrumental in spearheading the Founders' Movement among Southern Baptists, in an effort to return this church to its roots as expressed in the London Confession. I also know that he was one of the leaders named last fall in a Christianity Today article who is now making it "cool" to be a Calvinist. (I've always known that was cool.) And now AP reporter David Crary is saying he has written a "Gay Baby" article.

Apparently the religious community is upset with Mohler for saying that scientifc research "points to some level of biological causation" for homosexuality because this leads to the thinking that homosexuals have no moral choice about being homosexual. Gay-rights groups are upset because Mohler says that even if there is a biological basis for homosexuality, it is still sinful. They even claim that he supports medical treatment for babies before they are born that would alter their sexual orientation if it is determined that they are homosexual. Some gay-rights blogs are comparing Mohler to Josef Mengele, the Nazi doctor famous for death-camp experimentation.

My first thought was, Oh, great, another evangelical leader has shot off his mouth again, and now it's one who has even been labeled "Reformed". And then I realized, This is the information age. I bet I can access Dr. Mohler's article and find out if he really is guilty of reckless thinking.

Not only did I read Dr. Mohler's article, but I added his blog to my favorites. The newspaper article was referring to a blog posting on March 2 entitled "Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something about It?" Note that "Gay Babies" is nowhere in the title. Also note that the tone of the article from the start is hypothetical. (The use of the word "if" and the question marks are dead giveaways.) Mohler goes on to report in his blog that scientists who have been researching whether there is a genetic disposition to homosexuality are finding some evidence "that biological factors may at least contribute to sexual orientation."
These scientists are basing their findings on research conducted on sheep.

Mohler also reports:

What makes the sheep "sexual partner preference testing" research so interesting is that the same scientists who are documenting the rather surprising sexual behaviors of male sheep think they can also change the sexual orientation of the animals. In other words, finding a biological causation for homosexuality may also lead to the discovery of a "cure" for the same phenomenon.

To the right: Note that Mohler himself is not making any assertions about whether homosexuality is biologically based. He simply is reporting about and even quoting the scientists who are conducting a study. In fact, in his conclusion Mohler points out that there is no widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists. He says that given the effects of the fall, it wouldn't be surprising to learn this is true but that the Bible still condemns homosexuality, and the discovery of a "gay gene" would not overturn that moral verdict. In fact, Mohler explains, having this knowledge, if it were true, would enable pastors and churches to more effectively help those struggling with this sexual temptation.

To the left: Mohler reminds us that all humans are made in God's image. "All persons . . . are equally made in the image of God." Again, he carefully couches his ideas about prenatal treatment in a series of hypotheticals, and, in fact, he's basing his speculations on suggestions from the scientists conducting the study: "If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin" (emphasis added). Sounds a little different than the writer of the AP article put it. And a little more compassionate than Josef Mengele.

So I came away from this experience with a high regard for Dr. Mohler. His article is well written, well reasoned from Scripture, and highly respectful without compromising biblical principle. I would highly recommend that those readers of this blog who enjoy reading the writings of thinking Christians check out Dr. Mohler's blog.

If I could so easily locate Dr. Mohler's on-line article, read and comprehend it, and then quote it accurately here, why couldn't the paid, experienced AP reporter do it?

Find Dr. Mohler's article here: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog