First off I would like to state unequivocally that the Christian position is not to “Discriminate against the LGBTQ community”. As Christians we acknowledge that we are all sinners and that people who struggle with same sex attraction are as equally welcome as people who struggle with inner family attraction or alcoholism or gluttony. This only becomes a problem for the Christian life when someone who struggles with these problems decides to give into their temptations and ignore Scriptures teachings. Homosexual acts are sinful but it’s not sinful to have those attractions. Christ doesn’t discriminate if you do have those attraction but he calls you out of your sin to live according to God’s design.
This was my response to Richard Wiltshire Facebook post titled “REASONS WHY THE CHURCH SHOULD STOP DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THE LGBTQ+ COMMUNITY!”. I thought it was a good overview of the affirming case and that it would be good to respond to it.
//1. Historical Context of Biblical Passages
- Many passages often cited against homosexuality, such as those in Leviticus or Paul’s letters, must be understood in their historical and cultural contexts. For example, the term “homosexuality” as we understand it today didn’t exist in ancient languages or texts. The behaviors condemned in certain verses were often related to exploitative practices, such as pederasty, sexual violence, or temple prostitution, rather than committed, loving same-sex relationships.
- Biblical scholars often argue that translations have introduced biases, such as the term “homosexual” in modern Bible versions, which only started appearing in the 20th century. The original Greek and Hebrew words do not translate directly to our contemporary understanding of sexual orientation.//
My response: This is almost completely inaccurate. While it is true that pederasty is condemned, it’s not the only thing condemned. As Charles H. Talbert says in his commentary Reading Corinthians:
“Ancient Judaism was likewise uniformly negative toward homosexuality. Wis of Sol 14:26 speaks about idolatry producing evil results, such as disorder in marriage, adultery, and confusion of sex. Philo condemns pederasty in particular (On the Special Laws 3.37–39; Questions and Answers on Genesis 4.37–38) and homosexuality in general as a perversion akin to adultery (On Abraham 26.134–36). “Do not be a sodomite or an extortioner or a murderer,” exhorts the Sibylline Oracles (2.73). It later states that Jews do not hold unholy intercourse with boys as do Phoenicians, Egyptians, Latins, Greeks, and others (3.591–99), and it links idolatry with homosexual acts, prostitution, and incest (5.386–433). In his vision of the place of torment, Enoch is told it is for those “who dishonor God, who on earth practice sin against nature, which is child-corruption after the sodomitic fashion” (2 Enoch 10.4). Josephus refers to the unnatural vices rampant among the people of Elis and Thebes, incest and homosexuality, which were justified by the examples of the Greek gods (Against Apion 2.273–75). Pseudo-Phocylides says, “Do not give yourself over, against nature, to unpermitted love. Man’s love to man is even detested by animals” (109–10) and “Do not have illicit intercourse or stir up a passion for another male, or lay plots, or stain your hand with blood” (3–5). Although the homosexuality condemned by ancient Judaism included pederasty, it was by no means limited to the corruption of boys. Sifra on Lev 18:3, for example, condemns homosexual marriages, both male and female, among the Egyptians and Canaanites….
….Among the early Christian fathers two things may be noted. First, the apologists criticize Greco-Roman homosexuality (Aristides Apology 17 refers to both male and female activity; Justin 1 Apology 21, 25, 29; Athenagoras A Plea for the Christians 34; Clement of Alexandria Exhortation to the Heathen 2 claims that the pagan gods in their immorality did not abstain even from homosexuality). Second, there is a very similar note to that already sounded in the Old Testament, ancient Judaism, and the New Testament. The Didache says, “You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not corrupt boys” (2.1–2a). Polycarp asserts that those given to unnatural vice will not share in God’s kingdom (To the Philippians 5.3). Justin opposes exposing infants because most are reared for immoral purposes, including sodomy (1 Apology 27, 36). The Apocalypse of Peter’s vision of hell includes both male and female homosexuals. Clement of Alexandria says the sodomites burned with insane love for boys, so the city was destroyed (Instructor 3.8). Similar attitudes are found in Tertullian, the Apostolic Constitutions, Chrysostom, Basil, and Augustine (Bailey, 1955; Coleman, 1980)….
… Such a survey allows two conclusions that are relevant. First, it is not possible to reduce Mediterranean homosexuality to pederasty. Second, it is not possible to reduce early Christianity’s negative stance regarding homosexuality to its opposition to pederasty and prostitution. (Such conclusions run counter to the assertions of Robin Scroggs in The New Testament and Homosexuality). Homosexuals, like idolaters, adulterers, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers, are mentioned in the list of vices characteristic of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
One can see that while pederasty was certainly considered wrong, so were all other types of homosexuality by early Christians and Jews alike. The pederasty defense is nothing but an excuse made up to try to ignore the plain Biblical teaching.
Additionally, in leviticus 20:13, both parties to the act are punished which wouldn’t make sense in a case of non-consensual or pederastic relationships. The word for man “Zakar” typically just means male and theres nothing in the context to justify translating it “boy”. None of the other prohibitions in Leviticus 18 are limited to oppressive forms of those sexual relationships. To assert that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 prohibit only homosexual rape is like insisting that Leviticus 18:20 and 20:10 prohibit only coercive forms of adultery. So whether you try to use the pederasty excuse or the coercive excuse neither work in the exegetical context.
//2. Jesus’ Core Teachings on Love and Inclusion
- Jesus never condemned same-sex relationships, nor did he comment on sexual orientation. His teachings overwhelmingly emphasize love, compassion, and justice for all people, especially those marginalized by society. For example, the Greatest Commandment, to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31), can be seen as a mandate to treat all people with dignity and love, which directly opposes discrimination or exclusion.
- Jesus often stood against religious legalism, especially when it led to exclusion. He broke cultural norms to include people who were considered “unclean” or unworthy. By following his example, the church is called to welcome and love all people, including LGBTQ+ individuals.//
My response: While Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuality (in a culture where that wasn’t an issue as 1st century judaism seems to condemn it) he did define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman (Matthew 19:5).
In response to your quote about loving your neighbor I agree that’s the most important commandment but you should realize what he’s quoting from.
Leviticus 19:17-18
‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely REBUKE your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him.“’Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
Jesus is referencing this passage and rebuking your neighbor is clearly not seen as at odds with with loving your neighbor. In fact, it’s a necessary component. If you love your neighbor you will rebuke them so that they don’t fall into sin and are cast into eternal hell. It is not a necessary component of “dignity and love” to lie to someone and tell them that their sin is ok.
Lastly, it is true that Jesus helped outcasts but he didn’t tell them their sin was ok. Instead he said
In Matthew 9:10-17 Jesus ate dinner with tax collectors and sinners at Matthew’s house. The Pharisees asked Jesus’ disciples why he ate with them, and Jesus responded, “…I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance”(9:13). If Jesus met a homosexual he would affirm that as made in God’s image but he would rebuke their sin and call them to let the Holy Spirit transform them.
//3. The Problem of Selective Scriptural Application
- Churches that condemn homosexuality based on select passages often ignore other Old Testament laws that are no longer observed, such as dietary restrictions, clothing rules, or prohibitions on certain work practices. If these laws are not applied universally, it raises the question of why some are upheld while others are dismissed.
- Consistency in interpreting scripture requires understanding which laws were cultural and time-bound versus those meant to convey timeless principles. Arguments against homosexuality often involve cherry-picking passages without consistent hermeneutics.//
My response: First as Paul states in 2 Timothy 3:16 (NKJV) says “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”.We don’t casually cast off the OT Law and even those that are no longer applicable can be learned from. “Love your neighbor as yourself” is a quote from leviticus 19:18, as I already discussed, but surely that still applies as Jesus quoted it. Leviticus 18 also forbids incest, bestiality and sacrificing children to Moloch which surely all still apply today. We know from the New Testament that foods are declared clean (Acts 10:8-11:18, Rom 14:14), holy days are optional (Rom 14:5-6), Sacrifices ended (Heb 7-10). However, sexual immorality is still outlawed in the Council in Jerusalem(Acts 15:29), which was called to handle the question of the extent the old testament law still applies. Leviticus 18:24-30 says that the gentile nations were judged by God for the things in Leviticus 18 including homosexuality, whereas no pagan nation was ever condemned for not keeping food or sabbath laws. Also, homosexuality is condemned again in the New Testament in Romans 1:26-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-11.
//4. Scientific Understanding of Sexual Orientation
- Modern psychology and biology have shown that sexual orientation is not a choice but an inherent aspect of a person’s identity. LGBTQ+ people have existed across cultures and history, and attempts to change sexual orientation have been deemed ineffective and psychologically harmful.
- God is believed to create people as they are, with unique traits, desires, and identities. If God created LGBTQ+ individuals, it would be contradictory to condemn their existence or their loving relationships.//
My response: This is actually very controversial and it’s far from proven that homosexuality is biological and “not a choice” but let’s suppose that it is for sake of argument. A straight man could say “my predisposition to want to sleep with alot of woman besides my wife isn’t a choice therefore it’s ok”. Another example would be people who are more genetically predisposed to addiction. Just because one finds some biologically driven desire to do something doesn’t mean they should do it. Self control is a Christian virtue.
I would be careful with your second point. Are people born without limbs, with horrible genetic diseases or deformities designed just the way God wanted them to be? Or are they atleast partially the product of a fallen world? I don’t think I would say that God designed a baby to die a week after its born due to deformities. Instead I would say God crafts our soul and maintains some sort of sovereignty over the physical process but not such that someone born crippled can blame God.
//5. The Fruit of Discrimination and the Call to Justice
- The Bible teaches that the “fruit” of our actions reveals their morality. The fruit of homophobia has been suffering, exclusion, mental health struggles, and even suicide among LGBTQ+ people. If actions lead to such harm, it is reasonable to question whether those actions reflect God’s love or human prejudice.
- The church is called to be a place of healing, not harm. As Christians are taught to seek justice, mercy, and love, the church has a moral obligation to end homophobic practices and advocate for the well-being of all people.//
My response: the bible does not teach that the fruit of your actions determines the morality. That just called consequentialism which is condemned by scripture (Romans 3:8). Instead Matthew 7:15-20, the passage that speaks about judging by fruit, is about judging false prophets by their fruit. As the ESV Expository Commentary on Matthew states:
“Good fruit springs from good trees, while diseased trees bear rotten fruit. False prophets can deceive at a distance, for a time, but their fruit eventually reveals their character. In his sustained comments on false leaders in 2 Timothy 2, Paul warns that false teachers cause quarrels (2:14), stimulate ungodly behavior (2:16), upset the faithful (2:18), and create controversy, quarrels, and division (2:23).”
Additionally, while I agree that the church is called to promote love and justice, they are also instructed to call people to repent from sins(Luke 13:3; Luke 13:5; Luke 15:10; Luke 24:47; Matthew 4:17; Matthew 11:20; Mark 1:15; Acts 5:31). And, “love does not rejoice in evil” (1 Corinthians 13:6).
//6. Theological Principles of Grace and Redemption
- Many Christians hold that salvation and grace are available to all people, regardless of personal circumstances or identity. No one is excluded from God’s love or presence based on who they are.
- The gospel message is that all people are made in the image of God and are recipients of God’s grace, which means that condemning individuals based on sexual orientation goes against the core message of Christianity.//
My response: the bible does not teach that everyone receives saving grace. Matthew 7:13 clearly teaches that the road is wide that leads to destruction and the road is narrow that leads to eternal life. It’s very easy to be led astray but Christ calls us to be ambassadors and lights to the world and to preach a Gospel of repentence.
//Conclusion
The argument against homophobia and the condemnation of homosexuality in the church centers on the church’s call to love, justice, and inclusion. When interpreted in context, the Bible’s teachings reveal a faith grounded in compassion and radical acceptance, which stands against the marginalization of any group. By embracing LGBTQ+ individuals as they are, the church can more fully embody the teachings of Christ and reflect the inclusivity of God’s love.//
My conclusion: We are called to love others and stand up for others, however we are also called to stand against sin. Pro-LGBTQ affirming theology is not consistent with scripture. Instead we are instructed to call people out of sin to be born again as Christs disciples. We are all called to deny ourselves and take up our cross and follow Christ. We all struggle with sin however the Christian thing to do is not to affirm people in their sin. Telling people they’re fine when they’re on a path of destruction is the opposite of loving.
Expositing Reality 