Pastor’s Column

Rev. Byron Snapp

Rev. Snapp holds a B.A. from King College and an M.Div. from Reformed Theological Seminary. He is assistant pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church and principal of Covenant Christian School in Cedar Bluff, Virginia.

The information surfaced only briefly in the sea of media attention before it sank out of sight and out of thought. You may remember the reported research on the brain cells of heterosexual males and those of homosexual males. A California scientist claimed “the cluster of brain cells that may guide the sex drive of men is twice as large in heterosexual males as it is in homosexual males, suggesting to him that homosexuality could be a matter of biological destiny.

In microscopic examinations of the brains of 41 men and women, including 19 homosexual men, Simon LeVay of the Salk Institute for Biological studies, San Diego, California, said he found that a specific cluster of cells was always larger for heterosexual males than the other specimens.” (Homosexuals Weigh Research News; Could Be Good, Bad”, World, Sept. 7, 1991, p. 12)

No matter the results, the scientist used a very small test base of 41 people. However, let us suppose for a moment that his results are right. What is the response of the church to be?

First, the church must continue to set forth in its ministry the clear teaching of Scripture. The Bible repeatedly states that homosexuality is a sin. In Leviticus 22:18 we read, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination.” Here God explains that homosexuality is one way the seventh commandment is broken. In Romans 1:26, 27, Paul points out that homosexuality is a result in a society that has “changed the truth of God into a lie.” As we think of Sodom’s destruction we know that God will not put up with such activity. In our day particularly the church must stand against societal trends towards downplaying the awfulness of sin. In so doing, we are testifying to the validity of Scripture and its relevance to every issue.

Secondly, we must remember that we do not all have the same weakness to the same sin. Peter is a good example. We never read that he got drunk or that he was a homosexual. Peter’s problem was his tongue. He was impulsive in its use at times. He did not always think before he spoke. He who said he would die rather than deny Christ also told Christ “Thou shalt never wash my feet.” (John 13:8a) Neither Paul nor Barnabas would give an inch in their controversy over whether or not John Mark ought to accompany them. The two leaders parted their ways, one taking Silas, the other taking John Mark. Thankfully, later Paul writes favorably of John Mark. Thus through God’s grace the rift was apparently healed.

In the Old Testament we remember Jacob’s proneness to deception. Samson loved the Is a minute part of the brain shaped differently if one easily becomes uncontrollably angry? Within one’s brain is there a difference between one who gets drunk and one who does not? I cannot say. Yet, one thing is true. Deception, unfaithfulness, unrighteous anger, drunkennes, etc., are sins. They are sins because God says so. The Bible nowhere treats them as illnesses although the practice of these and other sins can result in physical effects on the body.

Society’s desire to deny God leads to a denial of sin. After all, if God does not exist He has no law that can be broken. Man then redefines these Biblical sins as illnesses. They have no other suitable term.

The Church must faithfully proclaim the truth of God’s Word. We must not accept society’s attempts to redefine that which God has clearly defined in His Word.

[ JBEM Index / Volume 5 / Number 4 ]