A Letter to the Church: on Homosexuality
Examining how the church engages with the homosexual community - consistency is key.
As the window closes for churches to decide whether they’d like to stay members of the United Methodist Church, the casualty count is in. To date, 7,659 churches have split from the Methodist denomination over the denomination’s treatment of homosexuality concerns. To put this in context, Protestantism’s most significant split of the 20th century involved no more than 700 churches - so this is a big deal.
If you aren’t up to date on the news, technically, the United Methodist’s rules prohibit ordaining same-sex relationships, but progressive churches have been defying the rules, and conservative ones have packed their bags in response.1
This news comes after Pope Francis permitted the blessing of same-sex couples a few weeks ago. I want to clarify, given the enormous amount of confusion on the internet, that he did not permit the blessing of same-sex marriages, only the people - as individuals.
This article is going to have a lot of one-off clarifications and footnotes. As with any current debate in the church, it’s still messy, which inevitably stirs up passionate feelings on both sides. It is my intent to build up the church, so please, give me grace for the clarifications that I miss - I don’t have the time to write the book-length paper required to cover this topic fully.
I will not be providing a bullet-proof theological defense of my position. Instead, I hope to give you a fresh perspective to wrestle through this topic on your own terms, in your own churches, in a more intellectually robust manner— all in hopes of bringing more people into a relationship with Christ.
And if you happen to be someone in my audience who fiercely disagrees with my starting point— that homosexuality is a sin and hinders us from being transformed into the image of Christ— please know that I’m not a hateful Christian. I really care about gay people. That’s why I’m writing this article! But I also have reasons for believing the things I do. If you can’t fathom why I’d believe this way, I’d challenge you to respect my opinion in the same way you want me to respect yours and use this as an opportunity to engage with someone who believes differently. Know that if I were talking to a non-Christian, especially a gay person, I wouldn’t have this conversation until a deep level of trust had been built, mainly because of how poorly the church has handled this in the past.
To critics of my view, I understand the argument that when the Bible mentions homosexuality, it doesn’t mean homosexuality as we know it today - I disagree with this view for various reasons. I plan to address this in a future article, outlining a more stringent theological defense of my non-affirming view. Right now, though, my sights are set on challenging “Bible-believing”2 churches (like my own) regarding our historically problematic approach to this conversation.
Remember, one does not care to mention said problems unless one cares in the first place.
Let’s begin.
Diagnosing the Problem
It used to be a 1+1=2 type simple for me. Homosexuality is a sin. It’s so clear in the Bible — end of story.
But now it's 1+2a (10b - √2)/2 = 2.
The equation still equals 2 — as in, I still believe homosexuality is a sin, but the equation is more complex than high school me thought (as most things are).
1+1=2 translates to arguing about what the Bible says, using a bible verse to back up your stance, and allowing that verse to stop the conversation without giving the other person a chance to talk. It’s elementary—child’s play.3
Whereas 1+2a (10b - √2)/2 = 2 looks more like arguing what the Bible is, wrestling through the contexts, listening to the other side’s perspective, evaluating the various theological aspects the topic might influence, and praying through the inevitable moments of confusion.
It’s a grave error for Christians to argue from a 1+1=2 perspective, not because they are getting the answer wrong, but because the way they are going about getting the answer isn’t, metaphorically speaking, how the professor asked for it to be done.
To pragmatize my analogy, many Christians see this debate as a moral issue first, assuming the conversation starts and stops around the yes/no checkbox of “Is it a sin, or is it not a sin?”
But there’s so much more to discuss. This leads to my first proposition:
The main point of discussion for Christians (whether liberal or conservative) should not center on homosexuality’s sinfulness, but rather, should focus on biblical authority.4
Let’s break that down.
If one regards the Bible as the “Word of God” and believes that its teachings are devoid of flaws in all matters that it intends to speak on, it's probable that homosexuality is seen as a sin.
If, on the contrary, one views the scriptures in the same broad, artistic brush as works like Homer's Iliad or an ordinary teenagers diary (which theoretically could still be describing real experiences with a real God - but nonetheless, is likely flawed in the same way that my 7th grade journal is theologically flawed), then they would belong to the more “liberal” Christian demographic, which tends to recognize homosexuality as not being sinful.5
No argument about homosexuality will end well without first acknowledging these opposing starting points regarding what the Bible is and how it should be read. This is where the conversation should start, and if no conclusions are reached, then we probably shouldn’t continue arguing about homosexuality. Very little progress will be made.
So, if not about its sinfulness, what should the conversion center around, especially for Bible-believing Christians?
Ecclesiology: A Theology Regarding the Church
Ecclesiology isn't just a fancy term to throw around at dinner parties; it's an important theological field. It's all about studying Churches - the broader, 'Big C' Church concept. This includes understanding the Church's roles, structures, membership criteria, and its relationship with God and the world. Think of the Church as the school and ecclesiology as its education policy.
Given the below trend, it seems we are on the right track:
There are very few Christians who believe being gay is a sin. It’s gay sex that is a sin (no different than premarital sex or adultery). The argument usually goes something like:
Homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says it is a sin - (yes, I agree).
People deliberately practicing the sin of homosexuality, especially habitually, should not be given membership status in the church - (yes, I agree… in the same way I would revoke/withhold membership from someone in an unrepentant affair).
But too often, #2 ends up looking more like this:
People deliberately practicing the sin of homosexuality, especially habitually, should not be
given membership status*welcomed into the church at all.*
Confessionally, very few churches would admit to this rather crude rewording of #2, but from a practical perspective, I’m afraid our actions have spoken louder than our words. As soon as a gay person comes into our church, we tell them they must change immediately, yet we let the porn-addicted members flounder in their sin for years on end.
This ought not minimize the sin of homosexuality, but should draw attention to the inconsistencies we as the church have been tolerating.
If this isn’t the case for your church, kudos - y’all have passed the first test, and for that, I am very thankful. We need more churches like yours.
But I have one more thing for you to ponder, and it’s a big one. I welcome disagreement. All I ask is that you think critically and examine your own heart.
Disagreement Shouldn’t Necessitate Divorce
Say we disagree on the foundational assumption I started this article with — that homosexuality is a sin — you say it’s not a sin, and I say it is. I would argue that our disagreement, in and of itself, is not grounds to dismiss you as a fellow Christian.
For clarification (and this is a big clarification) I am referring to the disagreement itself, not vouching for affirming churches per se. A decent percentage of affirming churches also skew orthodoxy, sometimes blatantly throwing it out the window, which I would call grounds for ecclesiological exclusion because I think orthodoxy is the thing that makes Christianity distinctively Christian.6
Here’s an analogy to further convey my point.
There are plenty of Christians that I disagree with doctrinally, even on matters of what is and is not sin, that I am still willing to call Christians.
For example, only 5% of Christians tithe/give at all.7 That’s astonishing. It reveals a general lack of generosity that exists in the hearts of many Christians today. This is a big problem, given the Bible mentions caring for the poor almost 2000 times (more than any other subject8).
Comparatively, homosexuality is referenced in about six to eight passages.9
Yet the church is unbelievably slow to call out the sin of greed, lack of generosity, and turning a blind eye to the poor.
Certainly not as fast as we call out homosexuality.10
Perhaps you're wondering, “If we are going to withhold church membership from active participants in the homosexual lifestyle, shouldn’t individuals who don't partake in generosity have their membership revoked as well?”
Good question.
First off, tithing is not a requirement in the New Testament, whereas homosexuality is still explicitly called a sin. So, while the argument isn't completely parallel, I do believe there is a biblical case to be made that those leading lavish lives saturated with frivolity, yet neglecting to give back (be it through tithing or other means of generosity), should be challenged by their church in the same way that a church would challenge someone for living a homosexual lifestyle.
Furthermore, I would inevitably question their faith's legitimacy if their life does not exhibit generosity. It’s a big freaking deal - just like homosexuality is a big freaking deal.
The emphasis of one sin should never minimize another.
"But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth."
1 John 3:17-18
The essence of church membership lies in the condition of one's heart. Following any confrontation regarding such a lifestyle, be it homosexuality or lack of generosity, if the individual at hand exhibits nothing but an unrepentant heart, then, as far as I’m concerned, revoking their membership would indeed be a matter of serious consideration.
It's crucial to remember, however, that membership should not be confused with attendance. Church doors should always remain open to anyone and everyone.
I’m just tired of sin cherry-picking. Not because I want homosexuality to be permissible in the church, but because we as the church lose credibility when we carelessly respond harshly to sins like homosexuality while turning a blind eye towards others.
In a culture infused with sex and sexual identity, it’s more important than ever for the church to reconsider how we are thinking about this topic. We won’t be able to speak to the world about homosexuality until we get serious about killing the sin in our own hearts— whether lust, porn, greed, gossip, lack of compassion, apathy in injustice, laziness, selfish ambition, the love of money, the list goes on…
It’s time to embody (not just confess) our new identity in Christ and his call to master our sinful desires. I’m confident we will find overflowing life on the other side of this obedience.
Sanctification is not optional— Church, it’s time to regain our credibility.
If you enjoy my work, please share it! It would mean the world to me.
In the majority of my articles, the terms “conservative” and “liberal” do not directly refer to the political nature of those words. Within every theological spectrum, there are varying degrees of “conservation” and “progression.” For example, the Episcopalian church is generally viewed as more progressive/liberal (they allow homosexual marriages) than the Southern Baptist Church, which would be conservative.
I’m aware that using the term “Bible-believing” for inerrancy-affirming churches does a bit of a disservice to liberal views of Scripture, as they would likely claim they “believe” the Bible too, just in a different way. If this is you, please excuse my over-simplifications. I cannot cover every caveat and still maintain the heart behind my messages.
To this end, I don’t think that using biblical texts for the sake of making a point is wrong. I am saying that there may be more to a given conversation, especially depending on the worldview of the person we are talking to. We need to use nuance and thoughtfully approach hard topics.
For clarification, on a pop culture level (between the church and culture), the sinfulness debate is indeed what the argument centers around, but again, the intention of this article is to engage the church, not the world, so I’m focusing on the “inside/between churches” concerns.
Some affirming perspectives hold to the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture (see “God and the Gay Christian”). They would use a (poor) hermeneutic to debate monogamous homosexual behavior as not sinful. So, the argument does sometimes come down to its sinfulness. There are rarely only two sides, and one should expect a myriad of various interpretations with their own levels of nuance. For the sake of this article, I did not want to get too deep theologically in an effort to make my main point more digestible.
On ecclesiological exclusion: Unfortunately, the vast majority of churches that do not see homosexuality as a sin have also thrown orthodoxy out the window (doctrines of the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, the coming judgment, etc). Why is this grounds for ecclesiological exclusion (as in not calling them fellow Christians)? Well, this is what the church has always done because orthodoxy has never been optional - why should it start being optional today? If we throw orthodoxy to the wind, we’re left with something that does not resemble any historically acceptable form of Christianity. I believe Christianity is something bigger and more true than my ever-changing opinions, so I am not free to form it from a mold of my opinions. It forms my opinions (through wrestling and questioning, yes), but nonetheless, I am not free to make of it as I wish.
https://sojo.net/list-some-more-2000verses-scripture-poverty-and-justice
Leviticus 18:22
Leviticus 20:13
Genesis 19:1-29 (the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, although interpretations vary)
Judges 19:1-30 (a similar story to Sodom and Gomorrah, with varying interpretations)
Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:9-10
Additionally, some interpretations include Jude 1:7 as a reference.
One may argue that the explicit affirmation of homosexuality is different than an implicit disobedience of greediness. (More a matter of personal fidelity to Christ than it is a matter of denominational acceptance.) This is a worthy point of contention and may very well be important for the conversion. It would seemingly take us back to the discussion surrounding biblical authority/inerrancy and the weight it ought to hold in our ecclesiological theology. Maybe for another article.