Without Prejudice?

There is a new show airing on cable and satellite tonight called "Without Prejudice?" The byline for the program reads, "A panel decides which of five contestants deserves a prize of $25,000. " Seems innocent enough. However, a commercial for this program on the radio this morning revealed that one of the people the panel will "judge," presumably without prejudice in order to win the prize, is described as "a gay white evangelical."

This description provides an ethical dilemma for those involved in "judging" this individual. The dilemma begins by defining what prejudice really is. Is it based upon truth or upon one's preferences? Does disagreeing with another's views necessarily infringe on one's "rights"? Will the panel deciding which of the contestants is "without prejudice" all have views that are "without prejudice"? You see the dilemma.

Concerning the individual mentioned above, let me offer my "without prejudice" viewpoint. There is only one of the adjectives describing this man that is totally outside of his control and/or choice. That is his race - white. That is determined genetically before birth by his biological parents. The fact that he is male is also determined genetically.

However, there is no "gay" gene. There is no gene of this nature that naturally or physically predisposes one toward a homosexual orientation. For those who adhere to this fallacy, I would like to ask a few questions: 1) If there were such a gene proven scientifically (which to date there is not) then has there ever been an instance of one who has the gene to go against the genetic makeup? In other words, can one have the gene and not be gay? 2) Has there been any documentation concerning one who does not have this presumed gene and is yet gay?

Further, there is no "god" gene either. Yes, every human (and I might mention humanity alone) is created in the image of God with an innate desire to worship something. But that is not a gene that determines one's religious leanings. This man is described as an evangelical. While I might disagree with one's definition of evangelical, the point still remains that one's religious conviction, evangelical or otherwise, is a choice. The difference in the two choices is that in one who is homosexual, their choice, if they choose to remain in what the Scripture plainly calls "sin," comes from a heart that is at enmity with God. The choice of one to be truly evangelical, born by the Spirit of God according to Scripture alone by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone for the glory of God alone, comes from a heart that has been reconciled to God.

Given these truths, we see the dilemma that faces those who will judge this man "without prejudice." Of course, I realize that I would be deemed a bigot by the panel. But my eternal judge is more important than $25,000!