LGBTQ and the Bible

The Question: 'How should a Christian approach the LGBTQ Movement?'

To answer, we need to ask, 'What does the Creator have to say on the subject?' To answer this we go to the Bible, not our feelings or cultural morals. Many Christians stake their answer upon the secular belief that sexual deviations from the established norm (heterosexuality) is okay. Secularism teaches that human beings are nothing more than 'enlightened animals' (whatever that means), and thus we are beholden to no moral framework beyond 'live and let live' (though from whence even that moral framework comes, who can say?). Secularism teaches us that because there are no moral standards for sexual behavior - excluding, one might say, coerced sexual acts, despite such things being common in the animal kingdom (though not appropriate for 'enlightened' animals, I suppose) - then there is no such thing as moral sexual deviation. Those lifestyles, orientations, and what-have-you promoted by the LGBTQ+ Movement are, top-to-bottom, deviations from heterosexual orientation and practice. While the Bible doesn't address every 'orientation' advocated by the movement (for 'orientation' itself is a concept foreign to the Bible, and even if it weren't, most of the 'orientations' now embraced didn't exist until five minutes ago), the Bible does address deviation from the created order for human sexuality. Homosexual activity, incest, and bestiality are all deviations from God's created order for how men and women embrace sexuality; what holds true for one deviation thus holds true for all deviations. Here we will look at what the Bible says on homosexual activity, for it is perhaps the most common sexual deviation of the LGBTQ movement and, as a deviation, is representative of them all; also, it was commonly enough practiced in the ancient world to be addressed in the Bible. Whether deviations should be embraced or rejected comes down to the authority by which you judge; for Christians, it means, 'By whose authority do we determine how to approach sexual deviations?' If the animal kingdom is the highest authority, then we will answer according to its rules. If culture is the highest authority, then we will answer by its rules. And if God is the highest authority, we must answer by His rules.

The Bible, which Christians understand to by God's holy and revealed Word, reveals that human sexuality is a good thing to be nurtured, cherished, celebrated, and engaged. However, human sexuality is to be practiced in the right way. In God's created order - the way He established things to operate, and in which things find true freedom and full expression - sexual practices are to be confined to certain parameters. When these parameters are breached, the result is chaos and brokenness (as the sad story of American culture makes clear). In God's created order, the way things are to be, a man is to live as a man and enjoy sex with his female wife; conversely, a woman is to live as a woman and enjoy sex with her male husband. Deviations from this standard - from the created order - are condemned across the board. The Bible reveals that homosexual activity - along with a host of other sexual perversions, such as bestiality and incest - are not only sinful but also 'abominable.' That last word comes from the Hebrew to-ebah, which carries the image of vomiting and gives us the unpleasant picture of God throwing up in His mouth at the very sight of these sinful activities. Sexual perversions of all stripes make God want to vomit; they're that detestable. The prophet Isaiah, in laying charges against the ungodly people of Judah, laments a number of 'societal sins' in the early part of his book, and he gives us a hallmark of a society opposed to God: they call evil good and good evil, they call darkness light and light darkness, and they call bitter sweet and sweet bitter. Our society mocks God's standards and laws, and some Christians have gone along with it by supporting those who do such things - despite the fact that in Romans 1, Paul says to even support such things is to be party to them. In Ephesians 5 Paul instructs God's people to expose sins, including those that infect culture, and the contemporary western belief that LGBTQ lifestyles and practices aren't only okay but also worthy of praise - something to take 'pride' in, as it were - is a blatant revolt against God's designs for men and women. 

In this first installment of a four-part series on the Christian approach to LGBTQ and its ilk, we'll examine some major biblical texts that specifically address the sin of homosexual activity (noting, of course, that what holds true for this sexual deviation holds true for them all). In the next installment we will focus in on Romans 1, paying particular attention to how Paul is building off of Greek philosophy and how that philosophy, entrenched in the western classical tradition, informs our view of men, women, and morality. In the third installment we will examine the Enlightenment-era rejection of classical western philosophy, examining why it was rejected, what was put in its place, and we will trace how modern philosophy has led us to where we're at and how modern philosophy will eventually burn itself out, for it has cut off the very branch upon which it sits. In the fourth installment we will pivot from sexually-oriented lifestyles to the modern concept of gender and gender identity and how a Christian should approach the current morass of gender politics. As we begin, note that I have made an attempt - at times failing, perhaps - to emphasize sexual activity over sexual orientation; this is because, in biblical times, there was no concept of 'sexual orientation.' The Bible condemns deviant sexual behaviors, not temptations towards deviant behaviors, and the Bible affirms that our sinful natures can lead us to do all sorts of weird stuff and swing every which way. As we examine the texts below, beginning in the Old Testament and then delving into the New, we will look at common objections against them. The last part of this first installment will look at some of the more popular objections (though in no way exhaustive) raised against the biblical approach to deviant sexual activity. We begin in the Old Testament.

Leviticus 18.22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20.13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

In the Book of Leviticus, God gave the Israelites His laws. These laws fall into three categories: ceremonial, cultural, and moral. Ceremonial laws dealt with making sure one is appropriately clean before entering the tabernacle, where God dwells with the Ark of the Covenant. Cultural laws dealt with making sure the Israelites remained culturally distinct from their neighbors; to this end God gave them some weird laws to make sure they didn't blend in with the surrounding culture. Moral laws included those which deal with what is morally right and wrong; they dealt with actual moral sin and uprightness. In these moral laws, God revealed His standard for ethical human living; violations of that standard are considered perversions, or deviations from His created order. The prohibition on homosexual activity - a man lying with a man as he lies with a woman (and, conversely inherent, a woman doing the same with another woman) - falls into the category of moral law. To do is a perversion, since it is a deviation from the created order, which refers to the way God has designed human beings to function; this deviation is not only a perversion but also an abomination, in that it is so detestable that it makes God want to puke. 

A common objection to the Levitical prohibition on homosexual activity goes like this: 'Jesus came to fulfill the Law, and Christians no longer live under Mosaic Law; therefore, the prohibition against homosexual activity is no longer binding. Those who want Leviticus 18 and 20 to remain binding need to be consistent and be bound by the rest of Leviticus, so no more pork or shellfish for you!' A Christian response to this challenge is twofold. First, Jesus did fulfill the Law in that the Law pointed to him, and in Christ we are no longer bound by the ceremonial and cultural laws of Leviticus. The ceremonial laws dealt with making sure those going to the tabernacle - and, later, the Temple - were fit to be in God's presence; Christ's atonement accomplishes our cleansing in a way that Levitical laws never could so that we can come boldly before God without having to undergo ritual purification (this is what the New Testament Book of Hebrews is all about). The cultural laws that served to keep Israel distinct from the nations are no longer binding because the purpose of those laws was to keep Israel culturally distinct for the coming of Christ; with Christ now come and reigning, those laws have served their purpose and are no longer binding. Moral law, however, such as what we find in Leviticus 18 and the Ten Commandments, remains binding. Right and wrong haven't changed with the coming of Christ, and that's why the New Testament echoes the moral laws of the Old Testament. Thus those who argue that Christians are being inconsistent in applying Leviticus 18 while eating 'forbidden foods' are really showcasing their ignorance: they don't understand what Christians actually believe and why we believe it, but nor do they have any desire to learn. They condemn us for inconsistency, but they are inconsistent as well: if the prohibition against homosexual activity is no longer binding, and such activities are to be accepted and praised, how long until one not only accepts but also praises incest, child abuse, and bestiality, which Leviticus condemns in the same breath? Sadly, some godless people are cozying up to these things as 'nothing bad at all,' for that is directly where modern philosophy takes them.

The New Testament isn't shy about denouncing homosexual activity, but nor does it harp upon it. We will look first at two texts in which the Apostle Paul uses a Greek word he coined, arsenokoites, to refer to homosexual activity; we will then examine Jude 6-7, which highlights the egregious sin for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

1 Timothy 1.8-10 - But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

1 Corinthians 6.8-10 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

In 1 Timothy Paul says the Mosaic Law is good, adding that it was made for the unrighteous, not for the righteous. He means that the Law serves to show fallen man the moral law of God, and in the Law we see where we fall short and need redemption. The Law condemns all sorts of sins, 'homosexuality' among them. The English word 'homosexuality' is used to translate the Greek word arsenokoites, which Paul also uses in 1 Corinthians 6 (here it is translated 'homosexuals'). Though both 'homosexuality' and 'homosexuals' in the English versions imply a deviant sexual orientation, we must bear in mind that Paul couldn't have been thinking of orientation for the simple reason that it's a modern concept. What he is addressing is actual homosexual behavior, saying in 1 Timothy that the Law is made for the arsenokoites and in 1 Corinthians that the arsenokoites cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Given the note made just a few sentences earlier, it's important to understand that Paul isn't talking about those having a 'homosexual orientation' but of those who persistently and willfully engage in homosexual activity. In the same vein, it isn't the one who wrestles against the urge to steal whom Paul speaks of but the one who makes a living off thievery; it isn't the recovering alcoholic who may trip up every now and again whom Paul has in mind but the willful drunk who delights in being a drunkard and persists in his sin. Paul goes on to say in 1 Corinthians 6 that the Christians of Corinth were once these very sort of people - Paul, knowing the backstory of the Corinthian Christians, likely mentioned specific sins that he knew had been present in the lives of the converts - but that they were washed and cleansed and set on the path of obedience. 

Many modern interpreters resist interpreting arsenokoites as referring to homosexual activity and, instead, advocate other interpretations of the word: perhaps Paul was referring to male temple prostitutes or perhaps, even, pedophilia. Their argument is founded on two realities: first, arsenokoites isn't found in stock Greek vocabulary and is a word that Paul seems to have coined on his own; second, if Paul was referring to homosexual activity, he would've used the Greek word androkoites, which specifically addresses homosexual activity. Because Paul coined a word rather than using the standard Greek word for homosexual activity, he must be speaking of something else (or so the argument goes). This argument seems logical on the front, but it's rooted in a straightforward assumption: 'We don't know what arsenokoites means!' However, upon closer examination, we find that we do know what arsenokoites means: we know how he coined it and why he coined it. The term he coins come directly from the two Greek words used in the Greek translation of Leviticus 18 in which homosexual activity is condemned; Paul 'coined' the compound word, but it didn't come from a vacuum. The Septuagint's translation of the Levitical passage says, in effect, 'Don't bed [koite] a man [arseno] like you would a woman.' Hence, arsenokoites is a man who beds a man like he would bed a woman. Paul coins the word so that his readers, steeped in Old Testament teaching (despite being predominantly Gentile, their holy scripture was the Old Testament), would know precisely what he was talking about. 

Jude 6-7 - And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

Jude references two episodes in Old Testament history: the 'judgment' of rebellious elohim - the Sons of God in Genesis 6 - who committed sexually deviant acts and propagated false teachings; and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah since they, in the same manner as the sons of God, committed sexually deviant acts. Jude says that what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah - their destruction by fire and brimstone - is an example to us of the punishment awaiting those who rebel against God. According to Jude, the sins for which these cities were destroyed was 'gross immorality' and going after 'strange flesh.' In the biblical account in Genesis 18-19, Lot gives shelter to two angels, and the men of Sodom demand he hand them over so they can rape them. The obvious sin here isn't merely violation of cultural hospitality rules - as some have lately argued - but the sin of homosexual activity. Sodom was, apparently, a bastion of gay living; for this reason, the term 'sodomy' - the act of one man penetrating another - was born. Such penetration was stock living for Sodom's men. Some interpreters, bowing to culture's softening towards sexual perversion, have argued that Sodom's sin was attempting rape, haughtiness, or egoism. Because our culture doesn't see any problem with one man penetrating another, they try to rework the Sodom and Gomorrah story, but in doing so they ignore Jude 7, which blatantly states that it was Sodom's gross immorality and desire for 'strange flesh' (in other words, deviant sexual activity) that damned them. Our culture glories in Sodom's ancient rites, and that's troubling, for we know how God deals with such cultures. Deviations from the sexual norm - whether of the homosexual variety, as we see in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, or of any other variety, as seen in the story of the Sons of God - are detestable and procure God's wrath. 

One of the most prominent New Testament texts against homosexual activity is found in Romans 1, where Paul condemns sexual activity as being 'against nature'. We'll examine that text next week, deciphering what he means and why it's important. But before we wrap up, let's look at some common objections raised against the Bible's prohibition of homosexual activity (and, in tandem, all other deviant sexual activity). 

Objection #1: 'Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexual activity, so how come Christians - who follow Jesus - condemn it?' This objection assumes that Jesus covered anything and everything during his ministry; it also assumes the gospels record every little thing he said and did (which they do not); it further assumes that the rest of the New Testament isn't inspired by God. All these assumptions aside, while Jesus didn't, as far as we know, address homosexual activity specifically, he did affirm the created order: in other words, he affirmed that God made mankind male and female and expects them to live as men and women are to live. Deviations from the created order are perversions, and some of these perversions - such as homosexual activity - are abominations. Jesus affirms the created order and doesn't oppose the Jewish perspectives on that created order, implying that he affirmed it all the way through. 

Objection #2: 'Why does God care what we do in our bedrooms?' This question assumes that God is akin to the CEO of Company Earth: why should the CEO care what we do on our own time behind closed doors? But God is not just 'the boss' (though He is that); God is the creator, and the creator gets to decide how is creation functions. If you create a line of code, and that code becomes corrupted, operating out-of-bounds of the script, the code is thus defective. It's failing to operate how the creator intends is to operate. The creator has every right to determine how the code operates and to define what is 'normative' and 'right' for the code. In the same way, God as the creator of human beings has every right to define what is 'normative' and 'right' for human beings. Any deviation from the intended 'order of operations' for human beings (what we call 'the created order') is an affront to the creator and must be dealt with. This objection is, ultimately, rooted in our fallen desire for autonomy and self-rule; the very thought that we are beholden to a higher authority, and that we are expected to conform to rules and patterns that we did not decide for ourselves, chafes against our autonomous proclivities. 

Objection #3: 'Paul was just talking about non-consensual, or coerced, homosexual activity, not that activity between two loving or consensual adults.' This argument is popular today, and it's based on 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 where Paul uses the word arsenokoites. Ignoring the context of where that word comes from - Leviticus 18 - they insist that Paul's word has to do with homosexual temple prostitution or the Greco-Roman practice of pedophilia between grown men and boys; but Paul doesn't confine his prohibition to temple prostitution, or to pedophilia, and we wouldn't argue that bestiality,  incest, murdering a child, or adultery is permissible outside religious contexts so long as it's consensual (though, ironically, these are things which our culture has consistently embraced under the authority of secular philosophy, indicating, again, the depth of our society's depravity). In regards to pedophilia, because such a practice happened in the Greco-world (though not to extent they would have you believe), they argue that Paul is condemning, particularly, grown men forcing young boys to have sex with them. However, Paul doesn't confine the act to coerced sexual activity; and if this same interpretation is applied to Leviticus 18, then we must be consistent: incest, the murder of a child, adultery, and bestiality are permissible as long as they are uncoerced (though how to get permission from a goat is beyond me)! This obviously doesn't make sense. Also, in Romans 1.26-27, Paul's condemnation of homosexual activity does not depend on the translation of a word coined by Paul in his other writings. In the Romans passage, Paul lists men and women abandoning the natural sexual act (heterosexual sex) for what is unnatural (homosexual sex) as an example of man's abominations resulting from abandoning the truth of God in exchange for a lie. The New Testament condemns homosexual activity across the board, regardless if it's between consenting adults, a form of temple prostitution, or pedophilia.

Objection #4: 'If people are born gay, then God is unfair in condemning for their desires!' This line of reasoning assumes that we are all born the way God wants us to be and ignores the biblical teaching that we are born sinful and depraved. This depravity affects our flesh particularly and our sexual proclivities especially. Sexual deviations from God's created order are so normal and widespread because sin's infections run deep and twist us up in all sorts of ways. The Bible teaches that we are born sinful, and we are held responsible for the sinful choices we make. The idea that some people are 'born gay' rather than being nurtured into homosexuality or even choosing it is used to oppose the Bible's prohibition: if someone is born, regardless of choice, with certain inclinations, should they be condemned for those inclinations? Let us assume that some people are indeed 'born gay,' destined to desire sexual activity and romance with members of the same sex. What is the Christian response to their dilemma? It is twofold: first, we acknowledge that everyone has a bend towards particular 'besetting' sins with which we struggle on a regular basis. For some this may be homosexual lust; for others it may be anger, or heterosexual lust, or pride, or love of money, or stealing. Everyone's got something. We are all born depraved with sinful natures. Second, we are held responsible for what we do, not what tempts us. God doesn't condemn us for being tempted by sin; Jesus was tempted and never sinned. What condemns us is when we choose the sin that tempts us. A person isn't condemned for being born with a disposition towards drunkenness and alcoholism; he is condemned for getting drunk and becoming a drunkard. Likewise, a person isn't condemned for being born with a disposition towards homosexual activity; he is condemned for engaging in sexual activity with members of the same sex. This is an important distinction: the Bible doesn't condemn he who is tempted by sinful desires but he who commits them.

A Parting Shot: 'How should we as Christians treat those who are sexually attracted to the same sex?' We are to treat them the same way we treat everyone else, for we are all sinful and inclined towards things which God detests. We are to be loving and graceful, not excusing their sin but not treating them as pariahs. They are made in the image of God, same as anyone else; they are worthy of the same dignity as one who is heterosexual; and God loves them no more or less than he loves the most upright among us. That being said, to love them doesn't mean to excuse their sin, tell them it's okay, or to celebrate it alongside them. Just as we wouldn't celebrate adultery, or unlawful divorce, or outbursts of anger or love for money, so we shouldn't celebrate homosexual activity.