Science and Sexuality

Science is not an objective authority or body of knowledge. Science is not God. What is science? Science is people. A very small group of people. These people use theories that they developed, categories that they thought up, instruments that they manufactured, and they claim that there are things such as molecules, germs, genes, etc., and they claim that they are this and that, and that they determine this and that. Science is just a pretty name to sum up all this, well, to hide all this, because the truth is that it is as weak as it sounds once you expand on what it is. So I cannot accept this as an authority to tell me about the nature of reality or as a basis of ethics.

If we cannot agree on the above, then the issue changes first to the nature and reliability of science, and AIS (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) becomes meaningless until we settle this. But if we can agree on the above, then science becomes irrelevant to the spiritual and ethical aspects of AIS. That is, even if there are indeed such things as chromosomes, and even if it is true that men and women have different genetic makeup, there is no way to jump from this to the conclusion that chromosomes determine rather than merely correlate with gender. It is logically impossible to jump from one to the other. It has to be accepted by an act of decision without reason. But if I do not accept it, since there is no reason to accept it, then the relevance disappears. Thus on this point I might agree with the person who said that before genetics, the person might have been regarded as an infertile female, because physically, this person would be able to become “one flesh” with a male. The person might marry someone and never discover the condition.

Whatever the reason for the infertility, this is a physical defect. As with the case of homosexuality, which some scientists regard as genetically determined (Is homosexuality even physical? We are assuming many things that science claims for now without agreeing or disagreeing, but just so we can have this discussion), it is a consequence of sin (not necessarily particular sins, but the fall of man). Jesus came to save us from sin, and to destroy the works of the devil. He has come to save the whole man. There are some benefits that are explicitly delayed until after this life, such as our resurrection body. However, there are other benefits that are explicitly established for this life, such as healing, both spiritual and physical. Healing is meaningless after this life, because then we will receive a resurrection body, and that is transformation, not healing. If you are getting any healing at all, you are getting it now. Whatever the reason for the defect, God can heal it. If there are indeed such things as chromosomes, and if they indeed determine gender, and if they indeed determine that one is male genetically even if the person is female in other aspects, God can change the genes to match. Likewise, if there are indeed such things as genes, and if genes indeed determine sexual orientation, God can change the genes. Even if the science is true, and if God does not heal, the person can remain single for life. But science does not know what is true, and God indeed heals.[1]

This is no different than if someone comes into God’s kingdom crippled, or blind, or sick with cancer. “Himself took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses” (Matthew 8:17), just like he bore our sins. Healing is part of redemption, just as much as forgiveness, because the basis is the same. To deny this is to preach a different gospel, and to trample on the blood of Jesus as a common and ineffectual thing. In fact, there is so much healing for the church, for “the children,” that Christians can dispense it to the outsiders (“the dogs”) as the “crumbs” that fall from the children’s table (Matthew 15:27). As Jesus said, “They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover” (Mark 16:18).[2] Since cessationists reject the atonement in this sense, they cannot offer biblical counseling on this matter (imagine counseling against sin when one’s theology rejects atonement for sin). They cannot offer any proposal that solves the problem. They will probably resort to nonsense about the sovereignty of God (who in his sovereignty sent Jesus to bear away our sicknesses), suffering as a blessing (a blessing that Jesus spent much of his time to eliminate, Acts 10:38), suffering with or for Christ (when he suffered some things so we would not have to), that this is still a fallen world (when Christ has overcome the world), and then hand this person over to almighty “science” (which means that small group of people, mostly unbelievers and evolutionists, who are scientists). None of this is of the gospel, but of unbelief, that is, of the devil.

As long as there is confusion, and as long as there is no change, and if there is unbelief when it comes to healing, why not just put gender and sex out of the picture, become a “eunuch,” and dedicate one’s life to the gospel (Matthew 19:12)? Jesus said that some are born eunuchs, some are made eunuchs by men, and some renounce marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. If one does it with joy and faith (though apparently lacking faith for healing), and not grudgingly, he can still have a wonderful and productive life through Jesus Christ.

Again, I would insist that the biblical solution is miracle healing, and that biblical counseling should not begin by making backup plans against the biblical solution. But if there is so much unbelief, then the first backup plan is celibacy, if not for life, then at least while destroying the unbelief. If the unbelief is simply regarded as acceptable, then I would have no more counsel because I do not think any course of action would make a difference any longer. The person does not care what God says, and might as well do whatever he/she/it wants.

* * *

[1] God almost always heals the condition and the symptom, as if one corresponds to the other. But he does not have to, and sometimes he does not. I heard about someone who fell from an oil rig. He almost died, and by some accounts, he did die. Christians prayed for him, and he recovered. Among other things, the bones in one of his arms were shattered. As he returned to work, the x-rays still showed that the bones were shattered, but he could use the arm and the doctors cleared him. The insurance company insisted on paying him anyway because they followed the medical report, even though the man went to their office and showed that he could use his arm. My point is that even if everything science says about genes is correct, God can change the effect or the symptom without changing the genes, although he usually changes everything to correspond.

[2] There should be too much healing among Christians, so that we should be looking for non-Christians to dump it on. Once I took leadership of some Christians and introduced healing to them. People were getting healed and it was good to have demonstrations. But after two weeks, everybody was healed. I continued to teach about it, since there is so much to say on this subject that I could talk about it endlessly, but for a while there were no more demonstrations. No more sick people. So we had to work harder to invite the sick to come, and someone started to drive me around town to visit the sick. This was the beginning of the period when I distributed the work such that I prayed only for incurable cases (not always terminal), and the other Christians prayed for the rest. The children should have too much healing. Healing should be falling off the table. They should be stuffed with healing, and still have enough leftovers to feed the dogs.

From: email