Where is choice to be found?

One of my favorite films is a science fiction film called Gattaca. It takes place in the future when mankind has the ability to determine certain traits from a person's genes. Parents can look at a sampling of their eggs/sperm, and determine which ones are most likely to produce a child with specific characteristics. Elias Koteas plays Antonio, a man chosen by such a method. Ethan Hawke plays Vincent, who was conceived "the old fashioned way." Vincent's dream is to go to space with the Gattaca program. He cannot since he is "genetically inferior." He contrives a way in which he can use the genetic material of Jerome, played by Jude Law. Jerome was injured and unable to continue in the Gattaca program. This is a fascinating study of free will, determinism, and the human spirit. It was one of the best sci-fi films of the past decade.
Recently, it seems that this film may not be all that sci-fi. Al Mohler has a blog post discussing studies that seem to show animals, and possibly humans, are biologically predisposed toward a specific sexual orientation. Scientists are actively, intently looking for the alleged H-gene, that gene which predisposes someone toward homosexuality. Mohler has some great insights into this issue. Among other things, he insists that we "stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice.

We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation. We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation."

He also notes that homosexuality, in Biblical terms, is no worse than any other sin. All humans are "predisposed" to sin. Should it then be surprising that we find a biological connection?
Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds introduces an extended quote from David Powlison's book, Psychology and Christianity: Four Views. Powlison notes that these findings can strengthen Christianity's teachings.

The facts that “prove” the legitimacy of homosexual orientation – chiefly the experience of ongoing struggle and cases of recidivism among those who attempt to change – equally “prove” the legitimacy of the historic Christian view that homosexuality is a typical sin from which God progressively redeems his children.

But sin is an unsearchable morass of disposition, drift, willful choice, unwitting impulse, obsession, compulsion, seeming happenstance, the devil’s appetite for souls, the world’s shaping influence, and God’s hardening of hard hearts. Of course biological factors are at work: we are embodied sinners and saints. That some people may be more prone to homosexuality is no more significant that that some may be more prone to worry.

Christians need to be careful not to decry these studies too quickly. Seeing that our inclination to sin is more biologically "necessary" than we once thought can only strengthen in our minds the necessity of Grace. This re-emphasizes the fact that we truly cannot save ourselves.
This topic brings to my mind two questions for which I have not the answer.
1. Is homosexuality a matter of love or lust? Is it the search for commitment and intimacy, or is it merely a search for sexual satisfaction? Many people in our society confuse the two. The fact that two people lust for each other does not mean that they truly love each other (I don't know if unredeemed people are capable of true love). If homosexuality is simply a matter of lust, what makes it different than the sexual lust that all people posses? If person cares only for sexual gratification (and nearly all people want sexual gratification) then they might not care where that gratification comes from. We were not made to have sex without a relationship. Do people that have these homosexual cravings create feelings of love to complete the sexual picture? Powlison rightly points out that for many men, homosexuality is a search for satisfaction; for many women, however, lesbianism is a search for intimacy. This is no different than in heterosexual people. Man want sex, and women want security. What is it that makes homosexuals different from heterosexuals?
2. How do can we know that the biology causes the feelings, instead of the feelings causing the biology? We can safely assume that biology and emotions are intricately linked together. Studies have shown that biology can effect emotions, and vice versa. How are we to know which it is? Can we look at a homosexual person and know that his biology is causing his behavior instead of his behavior affecting his biology? Happiness is the best medicine. Laughing is good for you. Depression can cause ulcers. There are many examples of emotions affecting your physiology. Is it possible that those who choose homosexual behavior will see a change in their biology?
Whatever these findings reveal, they cannot reveal anything the Bible has not already taught us. All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. There is none righteous, no not one. We are sinners. We are born with a sin nature. It would be reasonable to discover that this sin nature has a biological equivalent. We are hopelessly sinful. We can do nothing good without God's grace. Glory be to God for His mercy on such a sinner as I.

Living a moral life

Living the Christian life is not a matter of following a specific list of rules. Living the Christian life is not taking the specific path that all Christians must take. Living the Christian life is about making moral choices. It is an individual path. All paths follow the cross and biblical teaching, but my path will not look exactly like yours. Within our path we should develop individual convictions and follow those convictions. No one can make those choices and develop those convictions for anyone else. We will all stand before God based on what we as an individual have done. We all need to make these choices for ourselves.
There are, however, several spheres of influence at our disposal for determining right from wrong. These can help us develop our Biblical convictions. The wise man will take advantage of these influences. The foolish man builds his life upon the sand of his arrogant conceits.
The innermost sphere is that of Biblical authority. Anything that violates clear Biblical teaching is clearly wrong. This is were all morality, all convictions must start.
The next sphere is that of authority. For the child, it is parental authority. Whether or not a child feels the rule is justified, and most often they will not, it is their duty to obey their parents. When a child leaves home, he still is responsible to honor his parents, but their convictions are no longer his convictions. He should seek advice from his parents, but his parents no longer have authority over him. For the grown person, the authority is their political authority. Once again, it is not a matter of our agreement with the laws. There are many laws we do not like. Our appreciation of a law is not the prerequisite for our obedience to the law. We must do what our authority tells us to do.
Please note that these spheres are concentric spheres. We should always look to the innermost sphere first. If an outer sphere conflicts with an inner sphere, we should follow in the inner one. We do what God commands no matter what our parents or the government says. If what government requires is not in conflict with what the Bible says, then we follow the law.
The third sphere is that of expediency. We should do only those things that will benefit us spiritually. Some things may not be wrong in the Biblical sense, but they may not be beneficial to us. I cannot find a clear command in Scripture for avoiding wine in all situations. In most situations, though, it is probably not beneficial to our Christian walk to engage in "social drinking."
The absolute last and widest sphere is that of personal preference. When we have gone beyond every other sphere, we look to that which suits our tastes. We may not find any objection to a type of music in any of the other spheres, but we may find it objectionable to our taste. This sphere is not solely about right and wrong. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean it is wrong. It may just mean it is wrong for me. The other spheres are very dogmatic. We can be sure that is wrong to violate Scripture, to dishonor your parents, and to break the law of the land. My tastes, however, are not divinely inspired. If I have no basis in the other spheres, I shouldn't be condemning someone for their tastes.

Where is morality to be found?

Many of the kids in society today have very little sense of right and wrong, at least, a proper sense of right and wrong. Few of these kids know any effective method of determining right from wrong. A great example of this deficiency is the proliferation of pirated music amongst teenagers. Tim Challies notes that this type of theft is prominent even with Christian teenagers. I myself have noted that many teenagers at Christian high schools will not think twice about pirating music and software. Many of those that do have no clue that it is illegal. Even the ones that know it is illegal don't seem to care. Most of the perpetrators I have spoken with try to justify it in someway. The main reason, though, why they do it is that it is easy. The technology is available to them, so they use it. They like their friend's music , so they copy it. Few of them stop to think about the morality of their actions. Much of their morality is based on self-satisfaction. This is a decidedly un-Christian worldview. This is very disconcerting to me.
Tim states:

People who commit music piracy are, at some place in their lives, forsaking a Christian view of the world, a Christian way of seeing life. They are thinking like the world rather than thinking like Christ. Most of them know this, but continually violate their consciences and continually thumb their noses at what they know to be right.

Even in Evangelical circles children are not being taught the proper worldview, and the proper way to implement that worldview into their lives. In most of the cases I have seen, the fault lies squarely on the parents. Either they do not know what their kids are doing, or they know but they do nothing. Whichever the case, the parents are failing in their responsibility. Until the child leaves the nest, their morality must come from the parents. A lack of proper morality in the child is due in great measure to some delinquency of the parents.
My eldest son is only 4 right now, so I don't have many serious problems with him, unless you consider throwing a fit when he isn't allowed to play with a certain toy a serious problem (it would be a problem if he did this when he is 15, like some of the kids at my school). I know that problems will come, and that handling them will not be easy. I also know that, as a parent, my responsibility is to be the discernment my child lacks. I am to give him knowledge about what is right and wrong. Furthermore, I am to help him determine for himself what is right and wrong. Many parents, I fear, do not themselves know how to determine this, much less teach their kids to do this. We are living in an era of a serious morality crisis. Parents need to take careful stock of the worldview they are inculcating in their children, for every parent, whether intentionally or not, passes to their progeny a moral blueprint.

With what blessing?

As I woke up the other morning, I looked at myself in the mirror and thought, "God has truly blessed me. Just look at that luscious, full head of hair. God has been so good to me. What astounding, rippling biceps He has given me. Every beautiful square inch of golden tan skin on my finely chiseled physique is a testament to God's goodness to me."
What does hair, and muscles, and tanned skin have to do with God's blessing? No more than any fiduciary fitness we may experience. God's blessings cannot be contained in material goods. God's blessings go far beyond the worldly. Most evangelicals know this. No evangelical that I know of would deny this. Yet many evangelicals, even pastors, see to place a high premium on material goods. Tim Challies notes that tax time is a good time to see in numerical form how God has blessed him. What difference does it make if we have any financial goods? Is the person who sees on his 1040 that he made only $5000 in the year any less blessed than the person who made $500,000? How is any material estimate an indication of Christ's blessings? A friend of mine recently pointed me to a quote by C.S. Lewis. He says, "The man who has Christ and everything has no more than the man who has Christ and nothing." Evangelicals know this, but do they talk like this? I hear many pastors speaking frequently on blessings in terms of finances. What good do finances do us? How are they a blessing? A full bank account can be as much as blessing as a burden. God's blessings are not measurable, they are not quantifiable. God's blessings simply are. He that is in Christ has everything. God has given us in Christ everything necessary for life and godliness. Why need we speak of blessing in any other form?
Fred Sanders has an excellent post on Ephesians 1. No other book of the Bible more effectively enumerates the blessing God has given us. Not once in that entire passage does one see a material qualification. Would anyone claim that a nice house or car exceeds the inheritance we have in Christ? Why are we so earthly minded, that our perspective stays chained to the things of this orb?
Most certainly God gives us everything we have. Most certainly God takes from us everything we loose. Where we are is where God placed us, be it Malibu or Morgantown. We ought to thank God for the dirt and as well as the dough. More importantly, we ought to realize that the blessings God has given to all His children are transcendent, immaterial blessings. Anything else would be far less.

On teaching

It took me several years to teaching to realize what Paul Spears discusses in this post. Even now this idea is not predominate in my daily routine. Teaching, especially on the grade school and high school level, is not about expounding details, but about encouraging desire. The art of teaching lies not in producing the learned, but in developing the learner. If all I do as a teacher is to produce students that know many facts, I have fallen short. As I teacher, I should seek to produce students who desire to know God and His world more each day. As we often hear, learning is a lifetime activity. People are always learning new ideas, but they are not always learning worthy ideas. A true learner seeks not just knowledge, but good knowledge. He seeks this knowledge so that he may better serve His Savior. He seeks this knowledge so that he may better fulfill his commission. Education is merely a starting point. If we as teachers cannot see beyond the quizzes and tests, then we cannot really see.
May God help us educators to see the lives these kids will one day live, not just the lives they live in our classrooms.

Family-first

Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost has a tremendous post on "Family-First Conservatism." His manifesto very accurately details the significance of the family and its essential role in society. For centuries people-groups have placed the family as the center of society. People groups that have moved the center of society to another source have experienced trouble. Many modern Oprahfied liberals seem to want to replace the family with something else. They will acknowledge that community is important to society. Yet, they do not recognize this community begins with the family. Instead of the family, the begin with the individual. They place the individual at the center of society. This seems to be backwards. The strength of the family is what gives the individual his worth. Having intrinsic worth means that you as a person play an important role in something. It means that you are a valuable part of a whole. Though we might say it, and attempt to convince ourselves of it, no one is autonomous. No one can survive without a connection to someone and something else. We all greatly desire to be a part of something outside of ourselves. The family satisfies this desire. The family provides the connections we so desperately desire. Nothing can make as feel as valuable as a solid family structure. Nearly all types of social organizations at some level resemble the family. This can be seen explicitly in street gangs. Many of the kids that join street gangs are looking for the belonging and support that they don't receive from their families. Much of the community that Oprahites crave is patterned after the familial structure that is often absent in their lives. In attempting to replace that which is missing, they are destroying that which is missing. People flock to things to replace the family because their family doesn't provide the support they desire. Yet, by running to these other groups, they are forsaking the one thing which they really need. No one can give us the support and unconditional love our families can. That is one of the main themes of last-year's film Little Miss Sunshine--no matter how dysfunctional a family is, and no matter how many troubles cross their paths, they can survive if they support each other. Family is what makes this life livable. Seeking the familial structure in places other than the family is like drinking soda when you are dehydrated--it may temporarily quench your thirst, but it will not solve the problem.