Blog title text on photo of plants growing around a dilapidated greenhouse.

For a variety of reasons, it's struck me recently that many people who don't have much exposure to Christianity have very little sense of just how varied Christians are in thinking through homosexuality. And for many Christians, their theological exposure has either been pretty narrow or so fraught with traumatic experiences that it hasn't inclined them to lay out the various possibilities, either. So I wanted to map out what I perceive as the range of Christian positions on homosexuality.

My perspective is that Christian positions on homosexuality really have two layers: how to think about (homo)sexuality itself, and how to act regarding that as a member in society. I'll call these a "theology of sexuality" and a "theology of politics," respectively. By "theology of..." I mean "a way to conceptualize that thing in light of who God is and what God has for us." So in light of who God is, how should we see sexuality? (theology of sexuality) And in light of who God is, how should we engage with others in society? (theology of politics)

Here are my arguments in this post:

• For non-Christians: I think all of these stances will feel weird. But if a Christian's stance on homosexuality is offensive, I would suggest it may have less to do with their "theology of sexuality" and more to do with their "theology of politics." And vice versa: some Christians who hold a somewhat conservative theology of sexuality (Types 2-3 below) already express that interpersonally through a "Christian Pluralism" or "Christian Separatist" theology of politics that many non-Christians find tolerable and not at all homophobic. This possibility should be better known.
• For Christians: I'm hoping this discussion can allow us to a) feel heard; b) be more generous to each other, and c) influence our perspective on what issues are most important. I've heard countless discussions on theologies of sexuality, and almost none on theologies of politics. I think we have that priority reversed. Living as God's adopted people in a democracy is challenging and doesn't have a lot of Biblical precedent; we would do well to seek God's face in our "theology of politics" and downplay our divisions in our "theology of sexuality."

Note: My goal in breaking things out this way is to provide a format for people to discuss, especially people who haven't talked much about these issues in the church and don't know how to find other perspectives. For many LGBQ+ people, these issues aren't abstract; they're emotional and sensitive and the below explanations may be triggering. Additionally, I describe each type with terms that are native to that type. There are some advantages to this, but depending on the reader's experience, this could also remind some people of hearing that language used to exclude them.

I see five types of theologies of sexuality. Here's a brief explanation of each one, along with my assessment of that theology's strengths and weaknesses.

Type 1. Gay desire is a sinful choice (most conservative)

The most conservative understanding is that gay desires signal that a person is actively rebelling against God's will. This is because out of all sexual sins, homosexuality is extreme. It's an especially unnatural corruption of God's intent for (straight) sex as practiced in a marriage relationship. After all, in Romans when Paul narrates how sin came to dominate the world in general, he points to homosexuality and how God "gave people over" to such lusts. Or in today's society, look at male prisoners (who society has already held guilty of crimes) who adopt homosexual behavior; this is an outgrowth of their uncontrollable lust. Protecting against gay desires within a Christian congregation, then, is part of establishing God's will for God's church. In the same way that murder is the extreme of someone's violent thoughts, gay actions are the extreme of sexual deviancy, an easiy recognizable place to affirm God's judgment.

Theologically, I think this view is kind of naive (as though sin is only ever consciously chosen!), but its biggest challenge is empirical. Proponents of this view can't really account for anyone who experiences gay desires at an early age from within a devoutly Christian family, since the child clearly hasn't engaged in profligate behavior that would incline them toward that. In order to buy into this theology, then, people are required to ignore and downplay anyone's early-life gay experiences. And this frankly is willful blindness to real people's stories and to available scientific evidence. (It's no surprise, then, that people who hold this theology of sexuality are also comfortable denying scientific conclusions in other areas.)

Type 2. Gay desire is sinful when indulged, like other lusts

More moderate is the perspective that gay desire is still sinful, but that it's just a special kind of lust that some people are prone to. When dwelt on or acted on, gay desires are lustful because they aren't being expressed within (straight) marriage. (And expressing them within a gay "marriage" is a misnomer spiritually, since a "high" view of Scripture takes seriously the verses in the Old and New Testament that condemn gay sex and establish marriage as heterosexual.) As lust, then, gay desires could be an intentional perversion of that person's natural heterosexual desires (as in Type 1 above), but they could also just be an inborn disposition or tendency. The comparison often made here is to alcoholism, which can run in a family and create a special temptation toward drunkenness. But, just as one doesn't give into being an alcoholic simply because there's a genetic predisposition to it, a Christian shouldn't give into homosexual desires even if they were born into them. Proponents of this view, then, still hope that gay Christians will be "healed" from gay desires or will be "converted" from them along with converting to Christianity (as with Type 1 above), but they would have compassion on a person while waiting - viewing them as "in the same boat" since many people experience lust. From this perspective, people with gay desires should remain celibate and confess their lustful thoughts in Bible studies/community groups, just as other (hopefully celibate) non-married straight Bible study members should confess their own lusts that they're working to resist. People with gay desires are encouraged to join a church, but should not be promoted to a leadership position if they are in a gay relationship, since that's an ongoing yielding to sexual lust.

This perspective offers a more nuanced understanding of how sin relates to choice than Type 1. It also - at least for Christians with gay desires who also hold this perspective - carries an active kindness and inclusion of gay Christians that's only present in Type 1 as rebuke. However, theologically, in locating a disapproval of homosexuality in a high view of Scripture, a Type 2 theology of sexuality is invested in discounting the spiritual maturity of Christians who are in gay relationships. Practically, people who hold this view tend to be overly credulous of sexual conversion therapy. Moreover, within American understanding of identity, Type 2's slogan of "love the sinner, hate the sin" is not well suited to people (especially non-believers) who believe that there is no "sinner" to love apart from their "sin" of being gay. Thus, to outsiders, the theology easily seems disingenuous, unfair, and pathologizing or even hateful of them as people. In its defense, I think this is mostly a problem of evangelistic technique. There's definitely room for people/congregations to grow in expressing a Type 2 theology of sexuality consistently without perpetuating the hierarchy of sinfulness explicitly advocated for by Type 1, and without feeling unfair and reductive to non-believers. What a Type 2 theology of sexuality gets right is that following God's call to us does upend many of the things that we're familiar with, from how we handle money, to how we respond to the poor, to where we live, to who we stand up for. Included in this is how we interact as sexual beings. While non-believers might not want to give up gay expression or gay desires (and perhaps rightly so), sexual transformation is not outside of the scope of Christ's work in us.

Type 3. Gay sex is against God's will, but non-sexual gay expression is neutral or positive

Type 2 marks what I see as the limits of "evangelical" Christianity, and Type 4 marks the beginning of what I see as "liberal" theology. Type 3 tries to be faithful to the insights of both. This theology of sexuality holds that, as with Type 1 and Type 2, God does call people to engage in heterosexual sex only (and to do so only within marriage), but that gay expression - indeed, a gay way of being, such as it might be - may be neutral or even holy. Thus, this perspective allows for "gay Christians" as such: Christians who don't need to be healed of their desires. In fact, they may even be encouraged to cultivate their gay identity, whether that's through a certain walk, voice, manner of dress, set of interests, etc., and to do that exploration as an expression of God's multifaceted creation. It simply prescribes that they seek celibacy in the process. Mandated celibacy emerges from trying to maintain a high view of Scripture (in which OT and NT injunctions against gay sex are still held as authoritative, as above), while trying to avoid the dogmatism of Type 2. After all, "homosexuality" as we think of it today (as an "orientation") didn't exist until a hundred or two hundred years ago, so it's fair game to see gay and trans expressions as a healthy contextualizing of God's gifts to us. In the process this theology demands some level of mystery: Why exactly would God make people gay if he didn't want them to ever act on their desires for (gay) sex? One response I've heard is that God instituted marriage in Genesis to unite differences between men and women, as a foreshadowing of Christ the bridegroom uniting difference with us the created. Thus, seeing (Christian) marriage as stricly between a man and woman is a way to affirm the difference between us as created and Christ as God. A more persuasive answer in my mind responds by extending God's mystery back to OT injunctions against, e.g. eating pork. Such regulations could have had historically specific justifications, of course (e.g. at the time, perhaps pigs were a potent carrier of disease), but fundamentally a Type 3 theology of sexuality would say that such regulations are God's prerogative. If God wants to mark God's people by having them not eat pork or not engage in homosexual sex, then it's not our position as humans to resist. A side effect of this mystery is that people who hold this perspective are often willing to attend a church that has leaders who are gay Christians in a relationship (referred to by Types 1 and 2 as people who "practice" homosexuality). If God is acting mysteriously through creating gayness as a good, but gay sex as a bad, then God can certainly manage the complicated positions that creates for people. This, then, is the first theology so far to be hesitant in calling gay sex "sin" and might only hazard that it (mysteriously) doesn't seem to be God's will; celibacy seems to be God's "preferential" option (to draw on language of liberation theology) that could be superceded by the context.

Along with Type 2 theology of sexuality above, this theology helpfully critiques the American insistence that sexual satisfaction is the defining feature of (Christian) marriage. When used by liberal Christians, the slogal "love is love" defines "fulfilling one's sexual desire" as love, which is Biblically unjustifiable and doesn't speak well to other cultural/historical conceptions of what a loving marriage requires. A Type 3 theology of sexuality also admirably accomplishes a high view of both sex and sexual ethics. That said, theologically, in separating gay ways of being from gay sex, perhaps this perspective ends up reinforcing the very view of bodily desires being evil that it disavows. Its emphasis on mystery is also difficult for other Christians to follow, and can easily be unsatisfactory to everyone: neither committed to hard gospel truths like the evangelical theologies are, nor willing to fully affirm God's holy action in gay people like the liberal theologies. At a practical level, there is also an empirical question of whether requiring celibacy can be done without repressing people's sexual desires. (This is a problem that's particularly salient in the wake of recently disclosed overwhelming church-facilitated child abuse and child abuse cover-ups by celibate men, some of whom were gay. Lord have mercy.)

Type 4. Being gay is a valid sexual identity in God's kingdom

This position is tired of how Christians have excluded gay people from the church (even in the moderated ways of Types 2 and 3), and affirms that gay people (gay sex, expression, identity - it's silly to differentiate) are welcome to continue as such as Christians. These are "open and affirming" Christians/congregations. Biblically, some proponents of a Type 4 theology of sexuality argue that the Bible really did/would approve of gay sex. Gay sex in ancient Greece tended to be between adult men and young boys, as a masculine act of dominance. Thus, when the New Testament prohibits gay sex, it might be better to view it as just prohibiting "rape." (Similarly, the Old Testament injunctions against gay sex are just part of the old covenant that has been replaced by freedom in Christ; after all, no Christian today follows OT regulations to expel women while they're on their period.) My impression, however, is that this isn't honest to the Biblical scholarship. Paul knew that homosexual sex could be done consensually, and he still prohibited it. Rather, for the most part, Type 4 theology of sexuality begins to take a "low" view of Scripture. Put bluntly, yes, the Bible does prohibit gay sex, but we just don't care. Perhaps we don't care because of a wider skepticism about the Bible (e.g. Paul was sexist anyway and the Bible is only written by humans - have you ever read what God is recorded as telling people to do in the Old Testament?) Or perhaps the person is themself gay and feels affirmed by God in that, adapting a view of Scripture to match that. Or perhaps affirming LGBT issues are simply non-negotiable to the person's faith. Regardless, along with a low view of Scripture on this point is often an abandoning of sexual ethics itself. As long as people are engaged in "healthy" patterns, anything goes. (And this is often unstructured; the church doesn't facilitate healthy patterns for people or inquire about them.) However, rationales for a Type 4 theology of sexuality are ongoing. For instance, I've been intrigued by my friend Scott Hagley's interpretation of Peter's vision of a sheet with animals. From Peter's vision, followers of Christ were now permitted to discard kosher regulations, simply because God had "made clean" animals that God had earlier declared unclean. This is a revision of God's will, and a revision that expands outward to include those Gentiles who had been excluded. And this is really the gospel: always drawing in the people who seemed outside God's plan. Similarly, then, perhaps the testimony of gay Christians today is a revelation by God's Spirit, a "making clean" of gay Christian practice.

Importantly, this theology of sexuality takes seriously the spiritual experiences of gay Christians, and has for decades taught straight, often older congregants how to love gay Christians in more thoroughgoing ways than the "love through correction" of Type 2. It also accounts for intersex people in a way (namely, acceptance) that Types 1-3 struggle to, since they go along with a presumed sex binary. And, by being in line with today's labels, Type 4 deals with gender expression, including transgender identities in a natural way: acceptance. (For Types 2-3 above, it's awkward to have no Biblical mooring for dealing with gender expression.) However, the low view of Scripture that most versions of this theology adopt remove the saltiness of Scripture (in the sense of Mt 5:13) and become susceptible to our cultural blind spots. In particular, American public discourse about homosexuality is built on individual choice, the primacy of sexual fulfilment, and disregard of societal (and familial) expectations. These are some of the very same aspects of American culture that are heavily critiqued by Christians around the world. That is, to the extent that this theology depends on American public discourse, its foundations are troubingly and unreflectively Western. Even with a twist on Acts that allows for supporting LGB(TQ)+ sex with a high view of Scripture, this position's sexual ethics are often simply whatever is comfortable for people. Sometimes this absence is a semi-intentional result of burning out on fundamentalist attention to sex and abstinence; sometimes it's a way to increase people's attention to God's Spirit moving through them personally. But at best it's extremely undertheologized - as though God doesn't intend God's kingdom to include our sexual practices. The integrity of this position would be greatly increased by a robust and congregationally held Christian clarification/revision of "healthy" sex.

Type 5. Gay people occupy a privileged sexual identity in God's kingdom (most liberal)

Finally, a consequence of liberation theology is that, since the poor (broadly construed) are God's "preferential option," then gay people, as historically marginalized people, occupy a privileged position in Christian churches. LGBTQ+ people are a witness to and special bearer of God's kingdom, along with black and brown people in the US, immigrants, impoverished people, those unjustly locked away, and others. As such, they should be leading churches, and churches should seek them out (not just permit them) in ecclesial leadership. To an extent, this theology could be considered a sub-category of Type 4. But I think it goes further than most articulations of Type 4 by uniting LGBTQ+ inclusion with antiracist, anticapitalist, ecologically just understandings of Christianity. In particular, it exposes that many churches that hold to Type 4 are also primarily white, and that those churches being "open and affirming" is not yet doing the work of undoing privilege and adopting Christ-like humility within Christian churches. Moreover, in some congregations that hold to Type 4 theology, congregants who hold a more conservative view (probably Type 2 or 3) would feel uncomfortable but not unwelcome. In Type 5 theology of sexuality, however, it's fundamental to congregants' spiritual formation to receive LGBTQ+ Christians as embodying Christ's redemption in special ways. To reject that, then, is to reject the premise of the congregation's work.

This final theology of sexuality helpfully points to how sexual orientation is, in American Christian churches, wrapped up with race, and challenges Christians in those congregations to more complete transformation of how they move through society. However, this may be due to a liberation theology lens more than a theology of sexuality per se, and it may overstate the case for historic LGBTQ+ exclusion, especially when considered intersectionally.

Summary of theologies of sexuality

There's a few things to be said at this point.

1. Most theologies of sexuality are not well understood by non-Christians. Clearly, I don't hold much sympathy for Type 1, the most conservative theology of sexuality, yet that is the only perspective that many non-Christians are familiar with. This leaves Types 2 and 3, at the least, outside of most popular understanding. And to the extent that people are familiar with the classically progressive liberal Christian Type 4, people are likely to construct a dichotomy of "reasonable" (Type 4) and "not reasonable" (Type 1) Christianity, missing just how radical Christian practice is meant to be, which is on display in Types 2 and 3 as well as Type 5.
2. Conversely, although most Christians are familiar with the stances that come out of each theology, most Christians are unfamiliar with the rationales for each theology. In particular, the ways that theologies of sexuality are tied to a high or low view of Scripture are rarely expressed clearly. Rather, a high view or low view is presumed, and evidence for that theology is presented, leaving out the compromises or problems made in the process, and making out other theologies to be incomprehensible. This contributes to Christians talking past each other on these issues. Hearing the insights of other positions requires that we let down our guards to see God's Spirit at work where we weren't expecting it.
3. Finally, these five types are internally facing! As theologies of sexuality, these are all about how to understand God, in relation to following God. In other words, although non-Christians are rightly invested in the children of Christians being raised well, I don't think non-Christians understand (or maybe just don't believe or haven't seen) how the sexual standards created by these theologies apply first and foremost internally, to other Christians who have committed to following God's call. It shouldn't necessarily be surprising that someone who isn't following God would be engaging in things God commands people not to do. To understand the various ways this plays out for Christians politically and interpersonally, we'll have to look at the second layer (below).

If I've done a good job so far, this blog post has already felt like a lot. It's presented several new lines of thought that challenge your boundaries. If you need to pause here, then, I understand. But a theology of sexuality isn't enough. Christians conceptualize their role in the world in (at least) three different ways. And I would argue that especially within democratic societies, these are more central to interacting as Christians than our theologies of sexuality are. For each theology of politics, we can it play out politically and interpersonally for people who hold various theologies of sexuality. The goal here is to help us see how our different theologies of sexuality could be downplayed in a coherent way.

"Christendom" - God's kingdom makes itself known through our governments

For some Christians, God's "kingdom come" is just that - a kingdom, or at least, a visible governmental structure that fulfils the same functions as ancient Israel. Such a government provides laws and other social structures that honor God (thereby preventing people from sinning), and serves as a witness of God's work to the rest of the (non-believing) world. Clearly, this theology supports a quasi-theocratic government, something that operates "on Christian principles" and would ideally be led by a Christian. Christians can (and should) thereby support God's work through political advocacy. In fact, this was the dominant political theology in Western Christianity for hundreds of years, and was known as "Christendom."

It's hard to review all of the shortcomings of Christendom as a theology of politics. It has been persuasively critiqued theologically as desirous of power, as violent, as racist, and thereby as contrary to how God's Spirit moves and how God's kingdom operates. Christendom holds tightly whereas God acts with patience. Empirically, Christendom has a bad track record. The most famous of these embarrassments is the Crusades, which is not an aberration as much as it is a perfection of Christendom theology. The main exception to all this is that Eastern Orthodox Christians have tended to operate in a Christendom theology of politics (which we can see in all the national variations: Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.), and perhaps that has been redemptive (I don't know the relevant history to make an assessment). The important part, though, is that any of the five theologies of sexuality can be taken up within a Christendom theology of politics. In the US, Christendom is most associated with the Religious Right of the 80s broadly and a corresponding Type 1 theology of sexuality, where it plays out as advocating against legalizing gay marriage, advocating for the legal benefits of partnership being codified under the term "marriage" (i.e. opposing civil unions as the standard for marriage), challenging gay court cases, and generally lamenting the decline of the nation (because again, how the nation is doing morally is an indicator of how God is doing). But Christendom can also be at work in a more diluted way by liberal Christians who have faith that activist reforms constitute God's kingdom. At an interpersonal level, Christendom means holding non-Christians to the standard of Christians, which again can be applied to reject people's practices or affirm them.

"Christian Pluralism" - Christian convictions permit publicly relevant arguments

Like Christendom, Christian Pluralism hopes that our public policies will align with personal Christian stances. But it differs in method. If the first theology uses force, this theology of politics uses persuasion. Because God is the author of all truth, it tends to view Christianity as very reasonable, and therefore expects that there will be compelling arguments for its positions that people don't need to be a Christian to buy into. In other words, Christian moral positions are best for society, and this is something that our pluralistic democratic body will sometimes realize.

Like Christendom, Christian Pluralism is equally available to all theologies of sexuality. It's most natural to those that aren't attached to traditional Christianity in the first place, like Types 4 and 5. For proponents of Types 4 or 5, Christians can easily adapt their support of LGBTQ+ Christians into public arguments. Instead of making the theological argument that God moves through gay Christians, liberal Christian Pluralists would simply talk about, e.g. love, dignity, and respect. Christian Pluralism can be used by those with more conservative theologies of sexuality as well to engage in public issues. Someone who holds to Type 2 might not make the theological claim "God doesn't want people to be practicing homosexuality." Instead, as a rhetor aware of their non-Christian audience, they might point to how gay couples who pay for a surrogate to have children take advantage of women materially and (because there are few regulations on documenting the surrogate) prevent the child from knowing who one of their birth parents is. In the worst case, Christian Pluralism can be cherry picking and retroactive, but in the best case it engages in dialogic inquiry, albeit with some translation required to interpret and evaluate others' public arguments theologically. This is one of the shortcomings in the public eye: that since (especially for more conservative Christians) their positions originate theologically, they will only agree with non-Christians' arguments to the extent that those arguments engage with them theologically. This helps explain why conservative Christians have been very resilient against the public promotion of LGBTQ+ issues that center on "love": that framing doesn't speak to core theological aspects of a Type 1, Type 2, or even Type 3 theology of sexuality. There's a complementary theological deficit to Christian Pluralism, which is an overreliance on persuasion (says the guy with the PhD in rhetoric). But seriously, by extending personal stances to public advocacy, this theology has a muddled expectation about how others will react that can easily transform into a Christendom approach (political persuasion is, after all, a certain kind of force), or toward apathy and disengagement (which, theologically speaking, is selfish and unloving). Interpersonally, Christian Pluralists who hold to Types 1-3 regarding sexuality are very willing to be friends with gay people, to work with gay people, etc. under the hope that there would eventually be a kairotic (appropriate) moment to discuss issues around Christianity, with one aspect of a holistic Christian transformation being LGBTQ+ expression.

"Christian Separatists" - Christians should expect to be in the minority politically

There is a final theological understanding of politics that differs quite dramatically from the two above. It's also the least known among Christians, being most associated with the historic "peace" (i.e. pacifistic) denominations, such as Mennonites. This is a theology of politics that expects Christians to be rejected. Biblically, it draws from the suffering of Christ, the history of Christian persecution, and the parables where God's kingdom is small, hidden, and inconsequential to those in power. Empirically, this perspective points to times when Christians (as a group and individually) experienced amazing growth and manifestation of God's love precisely when those Christians were oppressed politically. This theology is allergic to power and structure, and sees God working most when God's commands are only being followed by a few faithful people, who are often on the margins of society.

As above, any of the five theologies of sexuality can be engaged with through a Christian Separatist theology of politics. Rejection-based politics isn't well known in the first place, but I think Type 3 is especially predisposed to the tensions involved in doing one thing, but expecting everyone to do something else. This is the primary theology of politics by which a person might hold a certain belief about homosexuality and Christianity and yet not advocate for those at a public level. ("Checking your religion at the door" is similar in effect, and is perhaps what many people expect Christians should do, but theologically it's hard to justify why you would stop following God in order to vote or deliberate.) That said, Christian separatism can be fatalistic or removed from society, which can be especially galling to activists who seek structural change. And Biblically, Christian separatists have a high view of the New Testament, but have difficulty explaining God-directed violence and theocratic government in the Old Testament, amounting to a partially low view of Scripture.

For Christians reading this, I've tried to draw us out of polemical debates on homosexuality. The five types outlined above don't agree with each other. But I think they show us a path toward creating unity. As people of different traditions and cultures who all follow Jesus the Annointed: may God's Spirit bind us to God and each other, and may our love grow and disrupt patterns opposed to God's reign more and more.

For non-Christians, I hope this post has pulled back the curtain on what can be mysterious, divisive, incomprehensible, and strange about Christians' ideas. In our interactions with you, including this blog post: may we offer you the truths we have encountered (that some of you may join us); may we sense the ways God is speaking through you right now; and may we have a sense of mutual concern for each other as we are pulled through time and space together into the Age to come.

Back to list of blog entries

*I've been inspired to write in this brief contrastive style by John Howard Yoder's synthesis of Christian pacifism in Nevertheless. (Unfortunately, Yoder was significantly destructive to his communities precisely because of his sexual ethics.) I'd also like to thank Mike Gehrling for introducing me to the idea of mapping out different positions on homosexuality within Christianity.