Tag Archives: sexuality

Bad Bible Takes Cause Harm

Posted on by

It’s no secret that I am fully affirming of LGBTQ+ people and equal marriage. It’s also no secret that my position on this is shaped in large part by my reading of the Bible, centred on Jesus and the surprising work of the Spirit.

However, it’s not enough for me to say, “Here’s what I think is a better way of reading the Bible related to sexuality, gender, and marriage.” It’s also important to put the spotlight on some really bad takes on a few biblical passages, not to win a debate, but because these bad takes have caused—and continue to cause—tremendous harm to LGBTQ+ folks.

Here are four of those Bad Bible Takes that cause real-life harm.

Bad Bible Take #1: Sodom and Gomorrah were judged by God because of homosexuality.

I get it. On the surface it sure looks like that’s what’s going on in Genesis 19, since you’ve got “the men of Sodom” wanting to have sex with the visiting angels, described as “men.”

But it’s hard to imagine that all “the men of the city” of Sodom, “all the people to the last man,” were gay. And more importantly, the sex being described is not based on sexual attraction; it is violent rape, which is always about power and control more than it is about sex. (Prepare your innocent eyes here: the rape of not just women, but also men, by heterosexual male soldiers has not been an uncommon feature of warfare through human history.)

The true sin of Sodom in this story is that, not only did the Sodomites refuse to extend hospitality to the strangers in their midst (like that modeled by Abraham in the previous chapter), they responded to these strangers with violence, wanting to brutalize them and cast them out. One wonders if this was the way Sodom treated all those who were vulnerable and needy.

Which is exactly where Ezekiel 16:49-50 goes with the Sodom story: “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.”

“Ah,” you might say, “but Jude says Sodom’s sin was homosexuality!” And you’d be wrong.

Jude 7 says, “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” The phrase “unnatural lust” is literally “lusting after different flesh,” and seems to be a reference to the men lusting after angels. (Think about it: it would be weird to describe same-sex lust as lusting after “different flesh”!).

But what about the “abominable things” that Ezekiel mentions? Could that be a reference to homosexuality? Well, it’s possible that they refer to the same thing being referenced in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which speak of a man “lying with a male as with a woman,” describing this as an “abomination” (same word in Hebrew). However, if that’s so, this actually helps us interpret Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, not the other way around—which leads to the next Bad Bible Take.

Bad Bible Take #2: The Law of Moses condemns homosexuality.

Again, I get it. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination,” seems pretty straightforward. But there are a few things wrong with seeing this as a blanket condemnation of “homosexuality.”

First, these verses in Leviticus say nothing about female-female sex, only some form of male-male sex. And second, these verses say nothing about same-sex attraction, let alone sexual orientation. In other words, right off the bat these verses are not condemning everything that is meant today by “homosexuality”: a sexual orientation that involves same-sex attraction, either female-female or male-male, and which may or may not be expressed through same-sex sexual acts.

Third, the phrase “as with a woman” suggests that penetration is the specific sexual act being described. Not sexual orientation, not female-female sex acts, and not even all male-male sex acts: just male-male penetration. If this is the focus, this prohibition is probably alluding to patriarchal notions of sexual penetration being inherently a male act: men penetrate, women are penetrated. Considering Jesus upset many patriarchal notions in his day—including anticipating a time, already here, when men would no longer “marry” and women no longer “be given in marriage”—this would be an odd thing for Christians to double down on.

However, fourth, some scholars have suggested that the reference here is specifically to male-male sex as part of the idolatrous practices of Israel’s neighbours, and perhaps even to prostitution or pederasty within that idolatrous context. And here’s where the reference to Sodom in Ezekiel 16 can actually help understand what’s going on in Leviticus 18 and 20. Because Ezekiel 16 says a lot about sexual immorality and “abominations” in its comparison of Israel with Sodom—and it’s all about prostitution in the context of idolatry.

In other words, at the very least Leviticus 18 and 20 aren’t speaking to things like sexual orientation or even female-female sex. But it’s very likely these verses are not even speaking about all male-male sex either—only male-male sex that is idolatrous or exploitative in nature. Which leads to the next Bad Bible Take.

Bad Bible Take #3: Paul lists homosexuality among those sins that are contrary to sound teaching and keep one from the kingdom of God.

I’m speaking, of course, of the two “vice lists” in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11. Some English translations use the word “homosexual” in these lists of sins. But that’s a really bad—and harmful—translation of the word arsenokoitai. (It’s worth noting that no English translation before 1946 translated arsenokoitai as “homosexuals.”)

Arsenokoitai comes from two Greek words, meaning “man” and “lie with.” If that rings a bell, it should—it’s the language of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. In other words, whatever is being referenced as sexual immorality in these Leviticus verses is likely what’s being described as sexual immorality in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1.

And, as we’ve seen, that’s not “homosexuality” as some blanket term. It’s not about sexual orientation. It’s not about female-female sex. And it’s probably not even about all male-male sex, but particular male-male sex acts that are idolatrous or exploitative in nature. Which makes perfect sense in the context of these vice lists in 1 Corinthians  and 1 Timothy: “idolaters” and “slave traders” are listed right alongside arsenokoitai.

And this is a good segue to the fourth Bad Bible Take.

Bad Bible Take #4: Paul describes homosexuality as a sin which God gives people over to in judgment.

Yes, I’m now talking about Romans 1:26-27.

First, once again, this passage is only clearly speaking of male-male sex. Some translations have verse 26 describing women exchanging natural relations with unnatural relations “with other women”—but that last phrase is not there in Greek. The “unnatural relations” that women engage in are more likely “unnatural relations” with men, or, even more likely, with animals (Leviticus 20 once again may be in the background here, and bestiality is the one sin listed there which women are said to instigate).

Second, the male-male sex that is described has nothing to do with the sex that happens within a committed, loving relationship. It’s a sex motivated by lust and grounded in idolatry. In other words, like Leviticus 18 and 20, like 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1, Paul in Romans 1 seems to be thinking of male-male sex acts that are idolatrous and exploitative.

None of these passages—not a one—is referring to “homosexuality” in general as we understand it today, let alone what we know of as same-sex marriage. These are all condemning harmful same-sex acts, in exactly the same way that the Bible condemns harmful heterosexual acts.

These are just Bad Bible Takes.

But the worst part about all these Bad Bible Takes is not their exegesis, but the harm they have caused.

Some of these Bad Bible Takes are more clearly wrong interpretations or translations than others, especially Takes #1 and #3. But the reality is that at least some biblical scholars who oppose same-sex marriage don’t look to these passages anymore to support their view. They know these passages are not as clear as they’ve been made out to be, and they may not even speak about “homosexuality” as we think of it today.

But even worse than the biblical interpretation behind these Bad Bible Takes is the fact that these have been used as “clobber passages,” heavy clubs to pound gay people into submission, shame, and silence. Even if non-affirming scholars don’t look to these passages anymore, they are still used every day on social media, in coffee shops, around kitchen tables—and in churches.

The result has been devastating—not just for gay, lesbian, and bisexual folks, who one might expect to receive the brunt of these particular “clobber passages,” but for people of all the letters and the plus of “LGBTQ+.” Queer youth generally have a higher risk of depression, suicide, homelessness, and being a victim of a violent crime than the average. But the risk of these things is even greater when their family rejects them, and even greater again when their community of faith rejects them. (For instance, see here.)

And part of that rejection is taking these Bad Bible Takes and wielding them like a club, and in doing so destroying these beloved children of God, bearers of the image of God.

May we leave these Bad Bible Takes behind and instead reach out to LGBTQ+ folks around us and among us with love, with tenderness, with compassion—and with full acceptance, even celebration, for who they are.

As I’ve indicated in this post, many non-affirming biblical scholars and theologians don’t primarily base their view on these passages. They appeal to a broader biblical theology of gender, sexuality, and marriage, claiming that the Bible supports a binary view of sex and gender and/or a “traditional view” of marriage as only heterosexual. I don’t find their arguments compelling, but it’s important to note that I’m not addressing those “better” arguments for a non-affirming view here. See “My Journey toward Being Affirming” for a broader biblical-theological argument for an affirming perspective.

© Michael W. Pahl

Jesus Wasn’t “Family Values”

Posted on by

The iconic Cleaver family

I am what they call a “family man,” committed to my wife and children. I love my wife, I love my family. I love families. Nothing brings a smile to my face quite like watching families (especially young families) just being a family together—except for being with my own family being a family together.

What’s more, my thoughts and feelings about the significance of marriage relationships and the importance of families are grounded firmly in my understanding and experience of Christian Scripture and the way of Jesus. Devoted faithfulness, holy love, persevering hope—marriage and family can give powerful witness to these and other core Christian virtues.

Nevertheless, none of that keeps me from acknowledging a few difficult realities.

For example, the Genesis creation stories are not as clear cut on marriage and family matters as we might like. Yes, these stories highlight how marriage relationships can fulfill the human need for biological procreation, how they can satisfy our innate need for human companionship, and how a marriage forms a new kinship group within society. These stories also underscore the inherent equality of “male and female” before God, sharing the dignity and responsibility of all humankind “in God’s image.”

However, there’s the fascinating fact that in the first creation story adam is said to include both “male and female” (Gen 1:27; see also 5:2), and the intriguing possibility that the second creation story is describing the creation of a non-gender-specified adam who is only gender-specified once the second human is built from the first (that’s when ish, “man,” and ishah, “woman,” are explicitly mentioned). I know, weird, eh?

And then there are all the ways even the “sure teachings” I’ve highlighted above fray at the edges as soon as you stretch them a little. These stories can’t be teaching that only procreative marriages are valid—what about couples unable to conceive? They can’t mean that marriage is the only way our innate need for companionship can be fulfilled—what about celibate singles? They can’t require that “male and female” be some absolute binary—what about intersex persons? Childless couples, celibate singles, “eunuchs from birth”—these were all known in the ancient world.

Or, for example, “biblical marriage” and the “biblical family” were not what we think of when we hear those phrases. We can tend to think of “marriage” as a relationship built around the love of two people for one another, and “family” as a nuclear family of one father, one mother, and their biological children.

However, most of the biblical depictions of marriage either assume or describe an adult man marrying a post-pubescent girl as arranged by the man or his father with the girl’s father, in large part to provide some economic or other pragmatic advantage for these men. We’re not talking Christian romance novels here.

Not the iconic Cleaver family

And most of the biblical depictions of family think of it more in terms of “household”: not just dad and mom and kids, but maybe also grandma, maybe a single uncle or aunt, maybe orphaned cousins, and, if dad were wealthy enough, maybe a few slaves and their kids (and in Old Testament days, maybe an additional mom, or concubine, or two or three, why not—and their kids). No, this isn’t “Leave It to Beaver.”

And then we get to Jesus, who was more disruptive than supportive of “traditional marriage” and “family values.” Sure, Jesus sides with the stricter interpretation of Jewish Law in his day when it comes to divorce and remarriage. And yes, Jesus speaks out not just against adultery but even against men lusting after a woman who is not their wife.

However, Jesus’ “No divorce except in adultery—and no remarriage!” was geared at least in part to protect women in a strongly patriarchal culture from being abandoned by men without provision for their welfare. And his “No lust!” put the onus on men to control their sexual desires—not women to restrict their dress or their actions. This is patriarchy put on notice.

Then there is a lengthy list of other things Jesus was and said and did that are often ignored in discussions of “Jesus and marriage/family.” In a marriage-dominated culture, Jesus was single and celibate. He encouraged others to be single and celibate instead of getting married—if they could hack it. As a single man he caused tongues to wag because of his close relationships with women. When his mom and siblings came to visit, he feigned indifference, saying his faithful disciples were his true mothers and brothers and sisters. Then there’s that bit about “hating your father and mother and wife and children” to follow Jesus. And that other bit about “follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead”—to the disciple who wanted to bury his father first.

Topping all this off is Jesus’ uncomfortable conviction that people will “neither marry nor be given in marriage” in the resurrection age. Echoes of Genesis, with its potentially androgynous original Adam? Maybe, but at the very least it’s patriarchy overturned—“marrying” was the dominant male role, “being given in marriage” the submissive female, and Levirate marriage (which the Sadducees were referencing) was all about keeping the male line going. No marriage = no male-dominated society.

No, Jesus wasn’t “family values.” He was “kingdom values,” centred not on kith and kin but on kingdom—God’s kingdom, God’s vision of justice and peace and flourishing life for all, not just families and the tribes that emerge from them.

Also not the iconic Cleaver family

The Apostle Paul doesn’t teach any differently. In fact, he’s right in line with Jesus if you focus on the letters most scholars believe Paul directly authorized. Paul, too, was single, and he viewed singleness as preferable to marriage. He frequently referred to God as “Father” and fellow believers as his “brothers and sisters,” while leaving no unambiguous reference to his own biological family. His teaching on divorce and remarriage is an extension of Jesus’, including the anti-patriarchal overtones.

Even Jesus’ idea that there will be no marrying or being given in marriage in the resurrection is there in Paul—that’s the essence of Galatians 3:28. In this passage Paul apparently quotes Genesis 1’s “male and female” when he says, “there is…no longer ‘male and female,’ for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” The resurrection age has arrived with the resurrected Christ, so now “in Christ” conventional—and even, it seems, creational—gender distinctions are irrelevant.

These radical ideas carried on into the early centuries of the church. For most early Christians, celibacy remained the ideal (even if they didn’t attain it themselves) and the church was God’s true family. For some, distinctive gender roles, at least within the church, were a relic of a bygone era. A few Jesus-followers even connected Jesus and Paul on this, passing around a saying of Jesus that “the kingdom of God would come” when “there is neither male nor female.”

However, not everyone could handle this. The Roman Empire certainly couldn’t—they, not the Christians, were the original guardians of “traditional family values.” These Christian teachings on marriage and family were seen by the powers-that-be as potentially subversive, even destabilizing for society (sound familiar?).

This led some early Christians to reassure their lords and neighbours that Christians were indeed pro-marriage, pro-familia. That’s the motivation for the so-called “household codes” in the New Testament, those passages that instruct wives, children, and slaves on how they were to relate to the pater familias, the patriarch of the proper Roman household. Yet even these capitulations to traditional Roman marriage and Roman family values were sometimes laced with subtle subversion. Imagine, the patriarch of the family being instructed at all in household matters, let alone having to love his wife and treat his slaves fairly!

What’s my point in all this? It’s not to mock the Bible, or to denigrate marriage and family—may it never be! That’s why I began this article the way I did (go back and start over if you need to). Rather, my point in all this is really three points.

First, we don’t do anyone any favours when we minimize the complexity and challenge of the Bible on marriage and family. The Bible’s teachings on these things are not uniform, and neither are they clear or simple. They’re certainly not easy. There are difficult laws and stories and teachings in the collection of ancient writings we call the Bible that do not fit neatly into our modern, western, nostalgia-for-white-1950s-suburbia way of thinking about marriage and family. If we want to take our Bibles seriously we must face up to this fact.

Which leads right to my second point: we need to be careful not to assume our understanding of marriage or family is the right one. The range of perspectives and practices on marriage and family throughout Israelite, Jewish, and Christian history is astounding. Polygamy, concubinage, monogamy, celibacy. Other-sex, same-sex, no-sex covenants. Households with slaves, extended families, nuclear families, adoptive families, single-parent families. Patriarchal, egalitarian.

All these and more have been represented among God’s people through history to today, all of them justified by divine revelation or human tradition or simple necessity. This doesn’t mean anything goes for Christians thinking about marriage and family. It means that a Christian perspective on marriage or family is not going to be determined by a facile appeal to Scripture or history.

Which then leads to a third point: it’s simply wrong to elevate marriage or family at all—let alone some specific idea of marriage or family—to the status of “essential Christian teaching” or a “gospel issue” or the like. I hear people say things like, “The Bible begins in Genesis with a marriage and ends in Revelation with a marriage, and that is why the nature of marriage is fundamental to our story as well,” and my first thought is, “But we follow as Lord an unmarried man who encouraged celibacy and taught that there would be no marriage in God’s good future.” Seriously, ponder that.

There’s a reason none of the New Testament gospel summaries or early Christian rules of faith or creeds said anything about marriage or family or even sexuality: these, like all dimensions of human existence, are impacted by the gospel, but they are not the gospel.

Here’s the thing: The crucial question of Christianity is not and never has been, “What do you think about marriage?” but Jesus’ question, “Who do you say that I am?” The central call of Christianity is not and never has been, “Stand up for traditional family values!” but Jesus’ call, “Come, follow me.”

This Bible-believing family man fears we’re confusing these things, conflating them, and thus badly missing the point of it all.

© Michael W. Pahl

My Journey Toward Being Affirming

Posted on by

I have been fully affirming of LGBTQ+ folx and supportive of equal marriage for a few years now. This was the culmination of many years of research and reflection and, most importantly, relationship with LGBTQ+ people. Although my story of becoming affirming is not the most important story to be heard in this, my story might be helpful to others. Here it is.

Note that my views do not necessarily reflect those of my current or previous employers.

Some handouts related to this video:

© Michael W. Pahl

The Bible and Same-Sex Relationships

Posted on by

This was the subtitle of a study conference our denomination had 3.5 years ago, hosted at our church: “The Bible and Same-Sex Relationships.” I was one of the plenary speakers at the conference. Although I would word a few things differently now—I’ve learned much since then, and my own perspective has settled—I feel two of my presentations have some enduring value and so I thought I’d share the videos here.

The first is about how we approach the Bible generally: how we read it as Christians, as Anabaptist Christians in particular, and especially when talking about complicated and controversial topics. While there’s much more that could be said about biblical interpretation than I say here, it’s still a good summary of my thinking on this.

The second is a set of concluding reflections on points of agreement between what we called the “traditional” and the “affirming” views. If there is a practically workable “middle way” or even “third way” for churches on this—even simply a basis for fellowship among individuals or churches who disagree—it will be built around the kinds of things I highlight here. (Note: I’m well aware of the delicious irony of me speaking about Jesus being “clear” on the call to love, in light of my reflections on “the Bible is clear on X” in the previous video!)

Blessed Are the Outliers

Posted on by

Our lives in the modern west are greatly affected by statistics. Everything from medical research to political polling relies on statistical analysis. (I’m sure there’s a statistic out there somewhere to prove it.)

One of the realities of statistical analysis is something known as an “outlier.” An outlier is a data point, a recorded observation, that sits outside the mainstream of data. It’s an oddity, an anomaly.

This has nothing to do with coffee.

Say, for example, you’re conducting a poll to see what time of day people in your neighbourhood drink their coffee. Your survey gets 100 responses from coffee drinkers: 52 in the early morning, 28 in the mid-afternoon, 19 in evening after dinner—and 1 in the middle of the night, at 3 a.m. That one data point, that 3 a.m. coffee, is an outlier—it’s outside the mainstream.

What do you do with this outlier?

You might decide that the person probably made a mistake, incorrectly indicating “a.m.” instead of “p.m.” in their response. In that case, you determine the outlier doesn’t reflect reality, and you set it aside (though you might, in your head, include it among the mid-afternoon coffee drinkers).

Or, you might decide that there really is a person who likes a cup of coffee at 3 a.m., but that datum is still statistically irrelevant—it doesn’t reflect the norm. That’s especially helpful if you’re using this poll to start a coffee delivery business—there’s no way you’re getting up at 3 a.m. to bring a coffee to this one person (that is, if they even exist).

But let’s say you expand this research beyond your neighbourhood. The larger your data set, the more varied the responses—and the more outliers you’ll find. While the largest numbers might still clump together around early morning, mid-afternoon, and after dinner, you’d probably discover that there are people drinking coffee at all hours of the day. You might even discover that there is a coterie of 3 a.m. coffee drinkers you’d never considered—night shift workers needing that jolt of caffeine to keep going, perhaps.

This is another reality of statistical analysis: in order for data to be useful, it often needs to be aggregated, lumped together into larger, identifiable groups. It’s not all that useful in politics or marketing, for example, to focus on the individual or the outlier. Whether you’re selling legislation or LEGO, it’s the mainstream, the norm, the aggregate groups, that really matter.

Unfortunately, however, many Christians have bought into this notion, that “it’s the mainstream, the norm, the aggregate groups, that really matter.” I say “unfortunately” because that’s not the way of Jesus.

Jesus taught that God was the kind of shepherd who left the ninety-nine sheep to go searching for the one, wounded, lost sheep. He taught that in God’s economy the last one was just as important as the first. He held up the very least among us—the forgotten poor, the irrelevant outsider—as the one in whom we could see his reflection. Time after time he engaged the individual where they were at—a Samaritan woman, a Roman centurion, a Jewish leper, a man blind from birth, a high-ranking Pharisee, a rich young ruler, a “sinful woman”—their proximity to the aggregate norm irrelevant.

In other words, Jesus saw not just those who fit the norm. He saw the oddities, the anomalies, the statistically irrelevant.

Jesus saw the outliers—and loved them.

This isn’t the way many people think. It’s not the way many Christians think. We often determine the “norm”—both what’s “typical” and what’s “right”—based on aggregate data, and then we either ignore or dismiss all deviations from the norm, all those oddities or anomalies, all those outliers.

Take current debates over sexuality, for example.

We rightly determine that most people are born either biologically male or biologically female—but then we decide this means there are only biologically male or biologically female people. We either remain ignorant (willfully?) of the very existence of intersex persons or we dismiss them as anomalies, the result of sin affecting human genes.

Read this book.

But nothing can change the simple fact that somewhere around 15 out of every 1000 people are born neither fully or exclusively “male” nor fully or exclusively “female,” whether that’s hidden in their DNA or internal sex organs, or that’s obvious from external genitalia. And nothing can change the fact that each one of these persons is created in God’s image, and that they, too, are “fearfully and wonderfully made” by God.

Or, we correctly ascertain that most people are other-sex oriented, that most biologically male humans are sexually attracted to biologically female humans and vice versa—but then we decide this means other sexual orientations are unnatural and willful, even if the person never acts on that attraction. We either pretend gay Christians don’t exist or we dismiss them as anomalies, the result of sin affecting human desires.

But nothing can change the simple fact that through history and across cultures there has always been a small percentage of people, roughly 5-15% of any given human population, who are same- or bi-sex attracted. Nothing can change the fact that none of us, gay or straight, chooses our sexual orientation. And nothing can change the fact that lesbian, gay, and bisexual Christians do indeed exist—experiencing same-sex attraction, some choosing celibacy and others not, but all also experiencing the presence of God’s Spirit in their lives, shaping them toward Christlikeness.

This is just one example of the way Christians buy into the dominant cultural narrative of “natural normativity.” In this narrative there are observable norms in nature or society (what’s “typical”) that reflect God’s norms (what’s “right”). These norms can be determined by simple observation, even by statistical analysis, by aggregating the observed data into identifiable groups, even at times clear binaries. These norms of nature or society are then to be defended or even demanded as God’s clear will. All kinds of social distinctions, based on ethnicity, wealth, gender, class, and more, have been justified through human history by this narrative of “natural normativity.” (Did you know Aristotle believed some people were “slaves by nature”?)

As Christians we should be wary of this. Too often these norms don’t reflect real biblical values, let alone actual Christian values based on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Too often they merely reflect some idealized utopia a generation or two back, when everything was good and everyone was godly—even though that utopia never really existed. Too often these norms only reflect the power structures of a particular society—they’re good for the many, but not for the few, or they’re good for the powerful few, but not for the powerless many.

In so many ways in his own day, Jesus broke through the norms of nature and society, including those that were attributed to God. “Righteous” and “sinners,” men and women, Jew and Gentile, rich and poor—in each of these categories and more Jesus looked past the aggregate groups and engaged with individuals. Provocatively, even scandalously, Jesus went looking for the oddities, the anomalies, the outliers, and brought them into God’s flourishing life of holy love.

How about us as followers of this Jesus? Are we willing to look past the aggregate statistics to the individual person? Are we willing to engage each person regardless of how they fit with the “norm,” and see in them the image of God and the person of Jesus, and share the feast of God’s life and love together with them?

Blessed are the outliers, you might even say, for theirs is the kingdom of God.

© Michael W. Pahl

The Straight Lifestyle

Posted on by

“This is one of the things that bothers me most about straight people: the heterosexual lifestyle. They live a life of unrepentant debauchery: casual sex, multiple partners, widespread adultery, easy divorce.”

“It’s all about sex for them: they always dress so provocatively, and their talk is filled with cheap sexual innuendo—‘locker room talk.’”

“For the straight community, sex is just a marketing ploy and people are nothing more than sexual objects.”

“They get fuelled up on pornography, then they harass and abuse and rape at will. Rape culture is straight culture.”

Imagine someone saying these things about heterosexual people. If you are straight, as I am, how would you respond? How would you feel?

My first thought would be: “But wait, I’m as straight as they come, and I don’t do those things. That’s not my ‘straight culture.’ That’s not my ‘heterosexual lifestyle.’”

That’s true—and that’s exactly how gay people feel when they hear straight folks talk about the “gay lifestyle.” Gay Christians even more so, since all the gay Christians I know desire just as much as straight Christians to live out a biblically-grounded, Jesus-centred morality. LGBTQ+ sisters and brothers among us reject sexual promiscuity, infidelity, exploitation, degradation, and abuse just as much as straight Christians do.

adichie-storyThere is no one-size-fits-all “gay lifestyle,” just as there is no monolithic “straight lifestyle.” This is “the danger of a single story,” as Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie describes in a must-see TED Talk. When complex human beings and human situations are boiled down to one simplistic narrative, when “all Muslims” or “all natives” or “all gays” are painted with the same brush, we strip away their humanity and embolden our bigotry against them.

My brothers and sisters, this is not the way of Jesus.

My second thought, however, after some hard, honest reflection on this description of the “straight lifestyle,” would be: “But there is some truth to this.”

Rape culture is a reality in many settings—and it’s largely perpetuated by straight white males.

“Sex as marketing ploy” and “people as sex objects”? Heterosexuals perfected that.

And there’s no need to say much about adultery and divorce: that’s been the playground of straight men and women as long as there’s been marriage.

Of course this goes both ways. There’s no doubt that there are LGBTQ+ folks who are sexually promiscuous, who commit adultery, who exploit and abuse others sexually.

But that’s the thing: sexual promiscuity, infidelity, exploitation, degradation, and abuse—these are not homosexual problems, nor are they heterosexual problems, they are human problems.

Please, for the love of God and neighbour, let’s drop the “gay lifestyle” tag. It’s unfair and untrue—or at least as unfair and untrue as a “straight lifestyle” label would be.

And then, also for the love of God and neighbour, let’s focus on addressing the sexual sins that are truly destructive in our lives, our relationships, and our world.