A battle of wits between me and R. Albert Mohler Jr. would be tantamount to Dr. Mohler attacking an unarmed man. He would fire off his “Big Bertha” brain and me my popgun intellect. By the time the smoke cleared from Mohler’s cannon blast there would be nothing left of me but a greasy spot. This explains why it is with great trepidation that I take pen in hand to write this article. While I greatly respect Dr. Mohler as one of Christianity’s best ambassadors to a fallen world within which our faith is often misrepresented, I cannot agree with his recent comments at the Southern Baptist Convention on the subject of homosexuality.

According to Mohler, us Southern Baptists have “not done well on [this] issue” and have been guilty of telling half-truths, as well as practicing a “certain form of homophobia.” Mohler’s recent convention comments obviously reflect the same sentiments expressed in a past controversial article within which he suggested the possibility of science one day finding biological factors in correlation with or in causation of homosexual behavior.

All Christians understand that the Fall of Man has resulted in all abnormalities in the world today. This is not to say that every deformity is caused by individual sin, but that all deformities are traceable to the Fall. In other words, if man had never sinned in the garden, no abnormalities or deformities would exist in the world today. Still, before we assign blame for all of our present woes to our original parents, let’s remember Paul’s insistence that it is not only the sin of Adam and Eve, but also the sin of all men ever since that is to blame for the sorry state of today’s fallen world (Romans 5:12).

That human beings born into this sin-stained world are not born in an ideal state as God originally intended is a given in Christian theology. Furthermore, inborn biological factors, both good and bad, may contribute to men’s susceptibility to certain temptations. For instance, a man born blind is less susceptible to pornography than a man born with sight. Yet, there is no scientific correlation between pornography and 20/20 vision, nor can pornographers justify their sin by blaming it on the fact that they were born with good eyes.

Although physical factors may contribute to our susceptibility to certain temptations, they do not justify us falling to temptation. Our proneness to sin, though heightened or lessened by physical factors, is a result of our sinful nature, not our biological makeup. It is a spiritual problem brought on by our separation from God, not a physical problem caused by the way God forms us in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5). To suggest otherwise not only makes Christ the author of our sin, but also makes Christ comparable to Allah, the god of Islam, whom the Koran says causes men to sin because he wants to destroy them.

The Bible teaches that we are all sinners by birth (Psalm 51:5), by nature (Jeremiah 17:9), and by choice (Isaiah 53:6). No one forces us to sin; we choose to do so of our own volition. The moment we do so; that is, the moment we “know to do good, and do it not” (James 4:17), we become accountable to God for our sin. Once we’ve reached this age of accountability—the place in our lives where we know right from wrong but deliberately choose to do wrong—our immortal soul is imperiled and henceforth we stand in desperate need of a Savior.

Granted, up to this point, there may be little disagreement between Dr. Mohler and I. Where the two of us part company, however, is in his contention that science may ultimately prove certain biological factors to be connected to homosexual behavior. While certain biological factors may make one more susceptible to homosexual temptations, they cannot be seen in correlation with or in causation of homosexuality any more than good eyesight can be seen in correlation with or in causation of pornography, as earlier argued.

Are there biological factors that make some men more feminine and some women more masculine? Sure; but these biological factors do not hot-wire individuals for homosexual behavior. Instead, they may denote one’s potential for special service to God. The Apostle Paul, as gifted a Christian as ever lived, possessed the gift of celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:1-9). Thanks to this fact, Paul, unlike the vast majority of other men, had no need for a wife. Consequently, he was able to devote himself entirely to the service of Christ (1 Corinthians 7:32-35). When you add to his gift of celibacy his extraordinary gifting, it is easy to see why God told Ananias that Paul was “a chosen vessel unto [Him], to bear [His] name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel” (Acts 9:15).

In today’s twisted world, Paul’s gift of celibacy would most likely be misinterpreted as homosexual tendencies. Those exhibiting such “tendencies” are frequently poked fun at by their peers. Often a gifted boy is an embarrassment to his father because he prefers playing the piccolo in the school band rather than middle linebacker on the football team. Likewise, many a mother has been embarrassed by a tomboy daughter who prefers rebuilding corroborators to baking cupcakes. And even in the church, we often find ourselves struggling with how to deal with these atypical adolescents.

In the end, these exceptional youth are often persuaded by peers, parents and the church that something is wrong with them. Feeling like outcasts they turn to the one community willing to receive them with open arms; namely, the homosexual community. Once embraced by homosexuals as one of their own, these extraordinary young people are indoctrinated into the homosexual lifestyle, which is always chosen and learned, never natural and intuitive.

There are two things about today’s homosexual community that have always intrigued me. First, it is a very affluent community made-up of extraordinarily gifted people. Homosexuals are often very creative. They are frequently found among our finest artists and academics. Second, almost every homosexual admits that there first homosexual encounters were distasteful, if not down right disgusting. Still, falsely believing themselves to be homosexuals they persist in their perversion until their consciences are seared and their sinful behavior dismissed as their natural sexual orientation.

It is a no-brainer to predict that biological factors may be misinterpreted in the near future by today’s scientists as being in correlation with or in causation of homosexuality. Indeed, many so-called scientists are already making such assertions. Some even claim to have traced adulterous behavior to adulterers’ genes and conservatism to a brain disorder. Why then should we be surprised when some lab coat clad scientist announces to the world that he has proven in a test tube that homosexuality is innate?

Regardless of what present or future assertions today’s so-called science is making or will make, homosexuality is obviously unnatural (Romans 1:26-27). The design of the human body, in particularly our reproductive system, is proof positive of the abnormality of homosexuality. Far from proving homosexuality to be an innate sexual orientation, biological factors actually prove it to be a perversion of what is natural, a sinful choice, and a learned lifestyle. Human beings are simply not biologically designed for such relationships; therefore, such relationships are obviously perverted and unnatural.

In the end, it appears that Dr. Mohler and I really disagree over whether or not modern-day scientists should be allowed to define this debate. While science may interpret some biological factors as hot-wiring individuals for sexual perversion, I believe what they interpret as a predisposition for perversion may well be a predisposition for extraordinary service to God. Unfortunately, those so predisposed are not being told of their spiritual potential; instead, they’re being pushed by parents, peers and parish into the arms of today’s homosexual community, where they are brainwashed into believing that what God meant for good was really meant for evil.

A well known secular commentator commended Dr. Mohler for his past controversial article, praising him for his willingness to struggle with an archaic faith being contradicted by modern-science. Although I’m sure he would take great exception to this commentator’s comments, Dr. Mohler did suggest in his article that Christians may someday be forced to struggle with and adjust to the discovery of “a biological basis for sexual orientation.” Despite Dr. Mohler’s warning, I don’t anticipate struggling with my faith over contradictory claims made by modern-science. Instead, I’ll struggle with the “science,” testing its trustworthiness by God’s Word, not the truthfulness of God’s Word by it. Why should I allow the word of modern-day scientists to replace the Word of God as my criterion for truth?