"A Christian defence of homosexuality": A Response

A couple years ago, as a freshly baptized Christian, I had planned to write a trilogy on the Christian attitude towards queerness. I decided to put this project on hold however after a discussion with a devout Christian who had assisted me in my coming to faith; advising that these were important questions, but it would be better to develop in my own understanding of Christianity before writing on such topics. I obliged out of humility, and now I appreciate that this was very wise advice. The articles I would have written would have been rash, over-rationalised - not having the necessary reverence. Whilst holding on to many of the ideas, my identity and faith have transformed substantially since then. This isn't the all-encompassing trilogy I had planned: I lack the ability to do justice in answering such a question. But I hope I can touch insightfully on the issue: giving due criticism to queer apologetics, whilst fully affirming the respect and dignity of queer people.

Partly I'll be writing on my own thoughts, but partly it will be a response to Jeremy Fosten's own reflections on queer Christianity which he has posted to Adounia. Jeremy is someone I respect deeply, and I admire the internal sense of social justice which motivated his original article. However, I believe he erred in important theological points. I hope to write as a continuation of Jeremy's empathy and emphasis of justice and equality, whilst sticking strictly to Christian fundamentals. Whilst I highly doubt it will be acceptable to Christians of Jeremy's perspective, I hope it will

The Theological Issue

The fundamental mistake in Jeremy's essay - which I believe (with admittedly little evidence) is widespread in queer apologetics - is a lack of differentiation between different theological concepts. "Love" as separate from "forgiveness" as separate from "salvation". It is from these concepts that confusion arises, and their implications where real issues develop.

The key fault of queer apologetics is mistaking the scope of God's forgiveness, "Somebody retorted to me that God doesn’t want us to love what is wrong. I have never heard a more unchristian thing. You must obviously love people who do wrong, it is an imperative feature of love your neighbour. It is also an imperative feature of the Christian doctrine of forgiveness.", the logical argument is as such:

1. God loves everyone

2. Gay people are part of 'everyone'

3. God loves gay people (From 1,2)

4. Fulfilment of gay desires is essential to being gay (From 3)

5. God loves gay sex (From 4,5)

Parts 1-3 of the logical argument cover the correct scope of Christian love: the fact this is in question is a fault of Christian sin - of which I think is the most important point in the discussions on LGBT issues. Adopting the argument of the Orthodox theologian Vladimir Soloviev, we primarily have a 'Christian issue', not a 'Queer issue'. Queer people have not violated their own commandments by being turned off Christianity for the genuine hate and disgust they have been treated with, and their suspicions of Christian love are justified as a result. Christian's have violated their commandments in their expressions of hate against queer people, and have provided a stumbling block to people coming to God - this is a grave issue.

That being said: the implicit extension of the logic which covers parts 4-5 over-extend the scope of love, which can only be resolved by destroying love or destroying morality. God loves the person behind the sin, and part of God's love is healing from sin. God does not call people from sin simply as a punishment, but from the notion that sin is harmful to the person. Both the conservative Christian and queer advocate desire the fruitful growth and wellbeing of gay people, but differ in their understanding of harm. Jeremy is absolutely correct in asserting that you must love people who do wrong, but this necessitates that such love doesn't justify or validate the 'wrongness' people commit. Or else God must love all human actions and desires: which whilst a convincing defence of gay sex, is less convincing when it comes to murder and rape. Therefore, God absolutely loves queer people, but this in itself provides no moral justification for acting from queer desires.

Moving from love to the notion of forgiveness, Jeremy writes "shunning homosexuals does not reconcile with the idea that God forgives those who accept him as their saviour.", which once again is an absolutely correct statement. God suffered on the cross for all of humanity's sins and to unite all people to himself. And once again shunning and degrading homosexuals is a grave Christian sin - but it still cannot justify gay sex. I think there is an issue of legalistic thinking around Christ's forgiveness: trying to find precisely under what conditions it applies, how specific to one's actions repentance must be to be "valid", ect. The Spirit outweighs the Law: one should simply repent and request forgiveness as far as their heart allows them, rather than strategising and scheming over the degree that one should repent. Yet the implication is it is contrary to continue a queer lifestyle if one believes that it is sinful, and it definitively is sinful to not reflect and meditate on how God wants you to structure your romantic life.

Which leads to the issue of salvation: "However, let’s imagine that there is a Christian who is also party to a homosexual marriage. They follow Christian teachings, go out on missions, hand out food parcels, help the needy and forgive those who trespass against them. They follow God practically to the letter… besides their romantic partner. Can we honestly believe that a god-accepting homosexual cannot be accepted into the kingdom of heaven?".

The key error here, which is a huge misunderstanding of Christianity, is that acceptance into heaven is justified on personal righteousness - never mind absolute perfection! All mainstream Christian denominations agree that no human deserves acceptance into heaven, and it is only through God's grace that we may come to his table. There are discussions on if changed action is a necessity of genuine faith, and as a result is connected to salvation: but the genuineness of faith in this example is evident. I can't speak too much on salvation: my personal understanding is that the Bible itself keeps the specifics vague, so I can't speak decisively myself. But anyone who speaks confidently on the issue of queer salvation - most of whom focus on the issue certainly aren't doing it to raise people up - I don't believe is guided by scripture. 1 Timothy 2:3-4: "This is good, and pleases God our Saviour, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth".

Let me note explicitly: none of what I have said is to justify the positive claim that a queer lifestyle is sinful, but simply that notions of love, forgiveness, and salvation cannot morally defend gay sexuality. And I don't make these arguments out of a desire to promote a homophobic Christianity. But that accuracy in the underlying theological concepts is of far greater importance than whatever stance towards queerness that one settles on.

The Cultural Issue

A significant part of the controversy between Christians and the LGBT community is that religion commits one to cultural values which are incommensurable to secular values. The existence and revelations of God have implications for one's understanding of reality and truth, and hence the evaluation of actions and beliefs. As a Christian I believe that (aspects of) secular culture are incorrect, and therefore defences of queer lifestyles from these cultural values are similarly incorrect. Once again I definitely don't expect these cultural ideas to be acceptable to most people who read this, who will predominantly be not Christians. But that it might help contextualise the matter.

Jeremy writes in regards to the enforcement of homosexuals sacrificing romantic and sexual relations that "In fact, the choice in either direction is to detach themselves from what is natural to them. It is to live without love. How can we ask anyone to do that?". It is important to not that St Paul actually suggested this as the best way to live, rather than a cruel punishment - which applies to heterosexuals just as equally. 1 Corinthians 7-9: "I wish all of you were single like me. But you each have your own gift from God. One has this gift, and another has that one. I speak now to those who are not married. I also speak to widows. It is good for you to stay single like me. But if you can’t control yourselves, you should get married. It is better to get married than to burn with desire".

I suggest that the deemed oppressiveness of restricting romantic/sexual desire is primarily a product of a secular fixation on relationships, rather than an inherent evil. Western culture is obsessed with relationships and sex: it is the driving narrative behind 95% of films and songs and books, it is a dominant aspect of product advertising and celebrity worship, and understood as absolutely essential to an individuals life fulfilment. Much has been said on the matter; but substantial elements of this is a vacuum of meaning in secular culture. I shalln't go into a cultural diatribe: but as far as the centralisation of romantic love is from secular culture, Christian's can hardly be blamed for not sharing those cultural values. This is not to deny the objective strain of unfulfilled desire, and that romance genuinely is the pinnacle of intimacy - a beautiful good.

In focusing on sufferings of repressing romantic desire, people completely miss the glorification due to those who would give up their sexuality as a sacrifice to God. In forgetting that Christian glory is defined in worship of God, there is a legitimate explanation that heterosexuals are denied such an opportunity. Jesus prioritised tax collectors and prostitutes because in their sin they realised their need for repentance, and hence became of greater faith than the Jewish religious elites. If homosexuality is indeed not godly, it is the heterosexuals in their arrogance who will continue to rationalise and play down their own sin.

Which brings us to the great error in Christian culture: in emphasising the sexual sin of homosexuals, there is no subsequent focus on the sexual sin of heterosexuals - keeping in mind this is the far more prominent sinfulness. Frankly, no one cares about Christian sexual ethics - most Christians don't care about sexual ethics. To decry homosexuality without a concern for heterosexual fallibility is hypocrisy, pure and simple. Sin abounds in society to such an extensive degree it's almost impossible to translate a disavowal into a secular understanding.

The ultimate cultural issue however I believe is such: it is better to be a homosexual Christian bound to celibacy, than a 'liberated' homosexual who doesn't know God. Which I think people forget how utterly batshit insane Christianity is, the calculation isn't even close. As a Christian you get to (literally) talk to and make requests of God, literally become one of God's children, become gradually sanctified into the divinity of God, and have the peace of knowing the universe genuinely functions for your interests. The idea that the freedom to suck cock is in anyway comparable to what God offers is an absurdity.

The Queer Issue

What has been missing thus far is an addressing of the actual question: is an LGBT lifestyle acceptable for Christians? The answer I have come to is simply that I don't know, and that it's unfortunate that queer people have to bare this state of uncertainty. As a result of this uncertainty, I have made the personal decision not to engage in gay relationships - but I'd hardly be comfortable issuing this as a prescriptive requirement for Christians to follow. And ultimately I'm glad that the Church of England permits the blessing of queer relationships; as an encouragement for those who have made a different decision to myself to ensure their partnership aligns with Christian principles.

Jeremy is correct to be suspicious of homophobic translations, in his point that "Firstly, the line in Leviticus is mistranslated. Anti-gay Christians always trawl out Leviticus 18:22, “Man shall not lie with man”": but I don't believe this is the knock-out argument that most queer apologetics believe it is. In the most essential regard: it doesn't disprove that the passage had homophobic intent, but simply that the associations that come with modern translations aren't as clear in the original Hebrew as implied. We know that something about male-male sex was considered sinful, but no explanation of precisely what. Which makes possible valid Christian homosexuality, but certainly doesn't prove it's acceptability.

The strongest argument I know for a pro-homosexual Christianity is that one time male-male relations are described in the Bible, it doesn't seem to describe the modern concept of homosexuality. Romans 1:24 in describing sexual sin explains "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another": take note of the strict causality - homosexual desire is almost a punishment from God as a consequence of lust. Yet if this was intended as a description of the modern concept of being gay, it's false. Many pious and devout Christians who struggled against their sexuality are gay, and by all viable accounts they did not choose - intentionally or unintentionally - to be gay. The sole description of who is intended to be covered in Paul's diatribe against male-male sex doesn't seem to refer to homosexuals.

To strengthen the point, Paul's moralising seems to become far clearer when put in the context of a common conceptualisation of homosexuality of the time - that gay desire derived from an overabundance of lust. From such a perspective the criticism of homosexuality is simple: lust is a sin, therefore homosexuality is a sin in a similar vain to promiscuous sex being a sin. If this is indeed an accurate description of what Paul was thinking: it is unclear why this should apply in relation to the modern revelations of homosexuality.

And contrarily, the strongest argument for a homophobic Christianity also appears to me as relatively weak. Pointing towards the anthropology defined of human union in Genesis 2:24: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.": that rather than homophobia being stated explicitly, it is implicated through being outside God's defining of human nature. Which is precisely the interpretive issue - a broad and general passage is being used to justify an intensely concrete and legalistic requirement. One could reasonably say that since homosexual marriage wasn't a thing, the explicit specification of a man and a woman is simply an artifact of using a culture's language to communicate with them. Or that the wider meaning within this section of Genesis is that God doesn't want man to be lonely, so that since people are 'made' homosexual, it suggests their union is desirable. Or if we really wanted to piss off the LGBT community whilst simultaneously affirming queerness: we could argue that this is an approval of heteronormativity, without a denigration of atypical queerness as being 'lesser'.

And whilst qualifying that scripture does and should override personal reasoning; I personally can't see any reason why loving and monogamous gay relationships are bad or should be rejected. It is likely (admittedly from evidence I can hardly recall, and read years ago) that having a queer minority is socially beneficial in adopting kids, and being able to provide support for their extended family who are parents. I believe queer love is beautiful, and involves all the romantic virtues of the genuine and pure reciprocal devotion that partnership requires - Ecclesiastes 4:9-12: "Two are better than one,because they have a good return for their labor: If either of them falls down, one can help the other up. But pity anyone who falls and has no one to help them up. Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone? Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken."

As a result I certainly don't affirm anti-gay Christianity: I don't think it's justified in scripture, and I can't defend it through reason. However, despite such, the truth is that it's still uncertain whether God approves of queer relationships - whereas it is certain that he approves of heterosexual relationships. As a result I made the personal decision not to adopt a gay lifestyle, simply because it's less risky. I dislike this state of uncertainty immensely: I think it's a tragic situation, and feel deeply for the queer people who aren't bisexual as myself who need to make a far more difficult decision than I have, and I don't understand why God (seemingly) has left this issue vague. And I support and affirm the decision of other queer Christians who meditating on the matter themselves, believing that God approves of queer relationships, enter such unions themselves. But I admit with a heavy heart that I simply cannot be confident on the matter, and where there is uncertainty, it is better to know you're following God's will than to take a chance.