invitation without expectation
refining the theology towards lgbtq+ individuals such as myself
Too much of the existing theology towards gay individuals like me is one of coercion and expectation. Yet, these expectations are inconsistent and different in the eyes of different people (and sometimes outright impossible). Plus, there are no equivalents to this when it comes to heterosexuals – and that, at best, is simply unfair. Never did I expect that living with my sexuality would be more complicated, not because of myself, but because of the opinions of others.
In cutting down on the noise, I have perhaps cut down too much. That is not my own assessment, but may be the assessment of others. I think my ultimate effort is to make my theology workable for people such as myself who struggle with something that, in its very essence, is neither good nor bad. However, it is worth admitting that sexuality is often tainted for both homosexual and heterosexual individuals alike, due to our sinful human nature.
While once again, others may disagree with my views, I’m striving for the balance between reality and respect for Scripture in all of this. I’ll admit, I’m not in the business of making everyone happy. I’ve already upset some for admitting the facts – that I am gay, and do reckon with the effects of it in my life. With that, I must express the reality that I truly do have little control over this aspect of my life, and that is not up for debate.
First of all, all sides have to contend with the difficulty of the Biblical passages commonly used to condemn some or all same-sex behaviors. I think it would be disingenuous for us to claim that all “intimate” behaviors between members of the same sex or gender are off limits, since this would disallow close relationships between all individuals of the same sex, regardless of sexual orientation. We have to remember that even behaviors we see as being romantic are purely platonic in other cultures and throughout antiquity (ex. greeting others with a kiss).
Amidst all this, I think we have to consider that the Bible only possibly discusses acts of a sexual nature between members of the same sex. While we might think differently in a culture that seems obsessed with isolating individuals (especially men) from having any sort of affection in their relationships with the same sex to avoid any doubt that one is anything other than purely heterosexual, most, if not all, behaviors of affection between members of the same gender are certainly fine. Anyone who claims otherwise is stuck in stereotypes that are neither ancient nor “traditional.”
Even then, none of the handful of so-called “clobber passages” appear to have anything less than a clear-as-mud declaration concerning sexual intimacy between members of the same sex. When Paul uses the Greek word “arsenokoitai” (ἀρσενοκοίται) in his letters to the Corinthians and Timothy, he coined a new word that doesn’t have any external context or common use outside of the Biblical texts. While I could go into the variety of problems with these particular passages, I think this is enough to suggest the complexity of the situation with these passages.
In addition to this, we can almost certainly discard the Old Testament references as well, since the distinction that Christians have to make regarding the Law is that we consider it through the lens of the New Testament, and specifically, our consciences are only bound to moral mandates that are reaffirmed or introduced in the New Testament (since the Gospel is only concerned with morality as any laws that were ceremonial or civil in nature were only mandated for their specific contexts). Any references to same-sex behaviors applied to the Israelites, and are not readdressed nor revisited by Christ. Christ summarized the Law best with love of God and love of neighbor. Anything beyond that is muddying a very clear declaration of the tenets upon which all moral actions rest.
Second of all, we must contend with the reality and nature of those, such as I, who have (and, based on scientific evidence, were likely born and grew into) a homosexual orientation. Our sexuality is wholly out of our control, and attempts to control it or convert it end in utter failure, inflicting more wounds than causing actual, measurable change. After ex-gay ministries have attempted to “make the gays straight” for decades, they have at best accomplished nothing, and realistically left 700,000 with more wounds than they came with, or driven them to the point of ending their time in this world (suicidality is already a huge problem amongst LGBTQ+ youth without considering conversion therapy). Combined with this, God doesn’t appear to be in the business of making gay individuals straight, as there is no evidence that sexual orientation happens under any circumstances ever.
As someone who is gay, there is absolutely nothing that I can change on my part. It is the job of Christians in the church to thus reassess how they approach individuals such as myself, since they are the only ones who have any sort of influence over the spiritual well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals. Our hands are tied with regard to our identity. There is no “changing” on our part. Which, logically, leaves the church in necessity to adapt.
Based on the very fact that gay individuals can’t control their sexuality, the church can at very least stop allowing or perpetuating the lies that humans are by nature born heterosexual, since clearly that’s not the case (or else, people like me wouldn’t exist). Along with this, there is no risk in accepting us for who we are. That means no condemnation or schooling for how we describe or talk about our sexuality, since there is nothing wrong with one calling themselves gay, queer, or claiming that they are same-sex attracted. While I have a personal preference for the terms “gay” or “queer,” none of the terms used to describe sexuality or “queer identity” are inherently better than the others (although some might be more helpful in certain situations over others). If Jesus did not shrink away from the prostitute who washed his feet, then Christians should be the least willing to shrink away from people who call themselves “gay.”
Third of all, we should have open arms, whatever situation the homosexual individual is in. Instead of driving them away with hostility or a list of demands before they become “tolerable,” we should be focused on sharing the message of promise. The church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. It is the job of all Christians to encounter anyone who has come to seek refuge in the church with the radical love of Jesus and the comforting message of the Gospel (especially since there is no litmus test for the condition of the individual’s heart). If they have come to the church, they are searching for answers and healing (and if they aren’t, they still need the Gospel anyway).
The job of the church is not to manufacture perfect people, but to empower people with the message of the Gospel and encourage them in the love of each other and their neighbors. By loving those who are made in the image of the God who shed his blood for them and all of us, we show that we have hearts that have been turned toward loving God. This is the same in regard to LGBTQ+ individuals.
Our goal should not be to force the homosexual couple to divorce (which we should find fault with such a demand, especially if the couple happens to be parents). Our goal should not be to force the trans individual to detransition. Our goal should not be to force any queer person whom Christ has called to remain in celibacy. Our goal should be to show them the love of Christ and point them to the Savior, who will work change in them as he sees fit in accordance with his will. Our demand that the individual must change for us to share the message of the Gospel shows our lack of trust in the efficacy of the message. And at that point, what is it worth to believe in a message that we don’t trust to be effective?
Fourth of all, heterosexual Christians should stop seeing homosexuals as being foreign, unnatural, mentally ill, or innately broken due to their sexuality. Our similarities far outnumber our differences. In fact, the main and only practical difference we have is the gender of whom we are attracted to. Yet besides that, our desires for love, affection, romanticism, intimacy, and an exclusive relationship with another individual are all common. We have the same desires, just with different people in mind.
We are still human, and we deserve at very least to be considered with the same dignity and respect, regardless of whether our sexuality is known or not. To heterosexual Christians, we are still your neighbors, whom Christ urges you and commands you to treat with love and grace. If you are to model anyone, model your Savior, who approached sinners of all sorts with the same tenderness, grace, and love.
Fifth and finally, there is a middle way of dealing with the theological problems surrounding the topic of homosexuality. While it may be ideal for gay individuals, such as myself, to remain celibate, we have no mandate from God to do so. We, along with our straight peers, have an invitation to be celibate, but even Paul acknowledges that not everyone is given the ability to remain a lifelong celibate. There is a danger in forcing ourselves to standards that we cannot uphold. Paul considers that it is better for one to be married to one to whom they can be fully dedicated, rather than to burn with lustful passion.
In the case of same-sex couples, while it might not be the “ideal,” it is certainly better than the alternatives, which can lead to dishonest celibacy and risky sexual activities that harm both oneself and one’s neighbor or despair that can lead to depression, apathy towards God, and even suicide. If our theology places individuals like myself at increased risk of degraded physical or mental health and suicide, we must rethink our theology – and this is most certainly the case we find ourselves in here. That, and besides the notoriously misused “clobber passages”, there is nothing that should theologically prevent at least tolerance of same-sex unions.
In addition to that, I think Christians have to recognize the astonishing amount of “good fruits” that are present in same-sex households. For example, studies have consistently shown the children of same-sex couples to be just as resilient as children of heterosexual couples (in fact, in certain cases, the children of same-sex couples have a marginal advantage in this regard). Same-sex households are way more likely (7x compared to heterosexual households) to adopt children and provide stable environments to them. Same-sex couples also tend to be happier than straight couples on average. With all of these things in mind, I think it’s very hard to dismiss any sort of goodness in same-sex relationships. If such relationships were as harmful as Christians tend to speak of them, we would find that to be consistent with reality. It simply is not the case, as much many conservative Christians might hope it were.
That being said, some gay individuals will find themselves to be more content as lifelong celibates. There is nothing wrong with that. Others will find themselves unable to remain celibate and end up marrying someone of the same sex for their own well-being. Given the very clear principles of Scripture that by nature outweigh the unclear ones, we should find no fault with that either. It is not our job to suggest that we know God’s will better than he does. God works in the hearts of all types of sinners and has called all types of people to be his children. That includes me, and that includes many other Christians who also call themselves “gay.”
In my own case, I don’t know what the future holds, but I’m open to whatever God sends my way. If it is his will that I remain celibate for life, so be it. If it be his will that anything else happens, I have no reason to be opposed to that. I trust that he holds all things in his hands and is working in my best interest, both for the here and now and what lies beyond in eternity.
