Recent arguments for and against recognizing homosexual ordination have become a double-edged sword in the realm of science that end up undercutting both sides of the theological debate. One side supports the allowance for homosexual ordination on the basis of genetics. As George Hunsinger has argued, if the Apostle Paul had known about modern medical findings that homosexuality is not a voluntary choice but essentially a genetic predisposition, the apostle would most likely not have considered homosexuality to be a sin. The other side has rejected the possibility of a gay gene based on the same assumption that choice is foundational to any definition of sin. As John MacArthur has stated:
LARRY KING: Even if you didn’t choose it, even if it was shown to you that it was genes? No? You wouldn’t buy it.
JOHN MACARTHUR: It’s not genetic, you choose it.
KING: How do you know?
MACARTHUR: Because it’s a sin. It’s categorized by God himself.
KING: So you have an answer that medical science doesn’t know? Still being studied?
MACARTHUR: If medical science says it’s genetic, then they need to read what the scripture says.
But what if science not only found a gay gene but could “correct” it in utero and make the gay fetus straight? Hunsinger’s hypothetical fails to consider this possibility and thus fails to ask the deeper question: if the Apostle Paul knew about modern medical ways of changing sexual orientation, would he have affirmed using them to make gays straight? MacArthur’s rejection of the possibility of a gay gene because that would contradict his interpretation of Scripture reminds one of the Roman Catholic censure of Galileo’s findings which had run contrary to the Church’s understanding of an earth-centered universe “according to Scripture.” Besides undermining Scripture’s credibility, MacArthur’s blind devotion to Scripture rejects out of hand the possibility of science to do what he would presumably find Scripture in favor of doing.