Wednesday, October 14, 2009

POSSIBLE INFLUENCE OF GENETIC FACTORS ON SIN, SANCTIFICATION, AND THEOLOGY by Burton Webb and Keith Drury

An Abstract:
"Emerging evidence in both the scientific and medical literature seems to indicate that several addictive behaviors some Wesleyans traditionally have recognized as sinful may be linked to mutations in specific genetic sequences. Although this does not necessarily indicate a cause-effect relationship, it does raise interesting questions regarding the nature and inheritance patterns of these behaviors. Genetic predispositions toward alcoholism, smoking, drug abuse, and gambling have all been suggested. Schizophrenics are more likely to commit petty crimes and assault than the general population. Some research supporting a genetic link for homosexuality has been in the literature in the last several years. This paper will explore the theological implications of this genetic research by raising important questions for Wesleyan theologians to consider: To what extent is an individual culpable for sin influenced by genetic factors? Should genetic predispositions change the church’s view of sin? If we learn to manipulate genes, will "genetic sanctification" be possible?

For the full paper click here: http://didache.nts.edu/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=771&Itemid=


2 comments:

  1. I believe, as with anything, that we are accountable according to the light we have been given- per Wesley. Thus, these factors will be weighed in consideration of someone's real acceptance of Christ. We cannot, therefore, simply judge someone based on their addictions when we cannot judge the level of determinism in the presence of those addictions. I think an entire "no judging" stance is consistent with Christs teaching in the Gospels.

    Studies like this are important, as they take away the strength of simple and illogical arguments that disregard any form of scientific correllation between someone's addiction and their biological or sociological background.

    Dan.

    ReplyDelete
  2. well said dan....
    Caine

    ReplyDelete

Visitors