Subtitle: Highlighting the fallacy of the HSR attributing intersex and transgender to be a result of the fall rather than creational diversity.
By Dr. Loren Haarsma
.
Statement Against Heterosexual Marriages Only
Statement
Intersex is a person who is neither male nor female while transgender is someone who is not their biological gender.
The Human Sexuality Report says these are a result of fall. Haarsma disagrees with this, and states that both science and theology are important here. He claims that the report glosses over the fact that theology is not revelation, that it, too, can make mistakes. Theology is only our understanding of revelation.
Are powerful storms a result of the fall? Some islands require seeds blown by storms. Most DNA are copied exactly. Sometimes a mutation is experienced. “Occasional mutations are part of God’s plan for creation.” From chemistry and physics we learn that mutations are unusual, but they do happen with predictable frequency. If mutations were the result of the fall, if humanity had never sinned, God would always be stepping in to prevent mutations from occurring whenever they might naturally be occurring. Scripture teaches a well-functioning creation. The HSR claims intersex and transgender are results of the fall. One in particular: the report says Gen. 1 & 2 teach God created male and female. The HSR holds that is proscriptive: every creature fits into one of those two categories. Other theologians are open to the possibility that male and female is not proscriptive, most, but not necessarily everyone falls into those two categories. Instances of intersex are found in many animals. The claim here is that this matter of being intersex is a creational variant, not a result of the fall. Tall people are unusual but are part of God’s diversity. Downs Syndrome is a mutation.
.
Response
There is no definition to be found of what a creational variant is.
In the videos published by All One Body three people cite agreement with the concept of same-sex attraction being a creational variant rather than a result of sin. It has been said that the thought of a creational variant was first brought forward in the Agenda of 1973. It has been endorsed by Dr. Wolterstorff.
Dr. Naranjo-Huebl subscribes to the concept of a creational variant in her video. She states that the book Sex Difference in Christian Theology by Megan DeFranza advocates the concept of creational variant.
It has been said that the book When Did Sin Begin? teaches creational variants, too.
James Brownson published his 300-page book on same-sex marriage quite recently (2013). He did not mention gender variants, or creational variants at all. Is this concept of creational variant really relevant?
The challenge here is that none of the above three books actually contain the phrase, “creational variant.” Now, a concept can certainly be taught using a synonymous phrase, but it is also difficult to identify a synonymous label in the first two books. How can a concept be taught effectively, if that concept is not named? Is the concept implied in those two works?
.
Many difficult questions surround this concept.
What is the concept of creational variant, what features define it? In discussions of this matter it is stated that earthquakes are something that resulted from natural processes which came about from the creation of the earth. They appeared prior to any kind of sin committed by man. Some speak of it as a natural evil. Is it possible that earthquakes are a creational variant, that is, something that is good, something that predates sin and yet it is called an evil? Maybe that was a bad choice of terms? Perhaps we should refer to it rather as a natural phenomenon. The book When Did Sin Begin? mentions the earthquake that hit Lisbon in 1755 (page 70). It killed almost 50,000 people. Is it possible for something to be good, not be the result of the fall and kill nearly 50,000 people? Romans 8:22 speaks of the whole of creation groaning. This passage is in the context of the sin that burdens people and the promised redemption. Is it perhaps more appropriate to see earthquakes that kill people as one aspect of that groaning of creation?
It has been said that things such as Down’s Syndrome could also be creational variants. Is Down’s Syndrome a good thing? The question arises, if Down’s Syndrome is not good and same-sex attraction is, how do we know that one creational variant is not good and another is good? If they both originated before sin entered the world then they are both part of God’s good creation, not the result of sin. So how can one thing such as Down’s Syndrome be both good and bad?
On page 80 of When Did Sin Begin? it is said that something can be part of a system that is good, but not necessarily be good itself. This raises the question, for those who advocate same-sex marriage, how do we know, then, that same-sex marriage is good and not just a part of a very good system but itself not good? On page 81 it is said that some things are not to be considered good in and of themselves nor the result of the fall, but are things that are a natural part of creation and are to be subdued. Is that true of same-sex attraction? Can something be said to be fully good if it needs to be subdued?
There are many difficult questions that surround this concept.
.
In contrast to the vague concept of creational variant, I Cor. 6 is very explicit.
Let’s take a step back to be sure we keep our bearing on the big picture. The primary issue at hand with the Human Sexuality Report is the question of whether or not same-sex marriage is sinful. Some claim that same-sex attraction is a creational variant, and therefore it existed prior to the entrance of sin into the world it must be good and it must be sinless.
It would seem to make sense that it is at the least difficult to embrace a concept, an explanation, when that concept or explanation is not defined. In the same way, it seems it is not reasonable to reject something like the concept of creational variant if one does not have a definition of what that concept entails.
With that claim before us let’s take a look at I Cor. 6:9-10. The relevant portion reads, “Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral . . . nor men who practice homosexuality . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Some claim this passage only prohibits those who practice homosexuality in a violent manner. However, the Greek offers insights into this. Paul used two Greek words that in English are translated as “men who practice homosexuality.” They are arsenokoitai and malakai. Commentators point out that the first term is active in nature as it means “one who takes a man to bed.” The second term is passive in nature and is often translated a soft one, or an effeminate one. By using these two terms Paul provides the insight that not only one who is actively involved is guilty, but also the passive one is guilty as well. Therefore, this prohibition cannot be restricted only to those who force themselves on another, those who are violent or excessive in their act. Matter of fact, if it is significant, the second term is mentioned first in this passage.
By specifically identifying an active person and a passive person Paul indicates that all who engage in homosexual acts will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
As the Human Sexuality Report points out, Romans 1 also prohibits consensual acts: “This is confirmed by Paul’s reference in Romans 1:27 to men who have sex with other men who ‘were consumed with passion for one another.’ The phrase ‘for one another’ indicates that the apostle is referring to consensual sex and that he finds fault with both persons involved in the same-sex act . . .” (page 104).
What results here is that we have this possible concept of “creational variant” on the one hand, which is not defined anywhere raising many questions and involving many unknowns. On the other hand, we have substantial exegetical reasons to understand God’s Special Revelation as stating that all same-sex acts, pederastic and consensual, are prohibited. Being prohibited is the same as saying such acts are sinful. Is there then reason to conclude that same-sex acts originated prior to sin and are not sinful? Given the biblical statements concerning same-sex acts as being sinful, would it even matter if it could be shown that same-sex attraction existed prior to the fall?
.
Conclusion
If a person subscribes to this concept of creational variant and ignores the message of passages like I Cor. 6:9-10 and Rom. 1, is he or she turning entirely to science as one’s authority, not allowing the Bible any say in this matter? Given the fact that this concept of creational variant is not defined anywhere, would subscribing to it be a matter of blind faith? If not, why would that be the case?