Hidden in Plain Sight: Five Biblical Passages That Reframe LGBTQ+ Acceptance
when being biblical means welcoming rather than condemning
‣ Check it Out: Some Past and Upcoming Things
‣ Hidden in Plain Sight: Five Biblical Passages That Reframe LGBTQ+
‣ Bonus: One ORT and One Mimetic Theory Take on this Topic
‣ Some ORT (and ORT-Adjacent) Resources
‣ Check it Out: Some Past and Upcoming Things
A link to last week’s conversation with Thomas Jay Oord. And here’s the link to this Friday’s chat with
.Conversations on deck include theologians like on May 9, on May 16, and on May 23.
FYI, if you’re on the app, these posts are always availble in audio.
‣ Hidden in Plain Sight: Five Biblical Passages That Reframe LGBTQ+ Acceptance
Introduction ✈ That Fateful Flight from Phoenix
Picture a plane full of people sleeping … flight from Phoenix to Kansas City … one guy’s face lit up by glow of phone as he hunches over to type … and type, and type again. Two and half hours—a furious war between thumb and screen, between truth and risk, between estimation and excommunication. The plane lands. His hands are cramped. His forehead hurts. But his soul? It’s lighter.
Yep, that was me. About ten years ago. I didn’t know it then, but as I flew across the country, I was doing more than changing time zones; I was changing my default to love, which changed the rest of my life.
Defaulting to love. It sounds simple enough, no? Problem is, Christianity hasn’t really provided a consistent definition of love, which is to say that we’ve been very inconsistent. What I decided on that late-night flight, was that a healthy definition of love rejects the assumption responsible for such inconsistency, which is that love is born of power. Instead, I committed to a power born of love.
What’s the difference? One leads to control, coercion, and conformity, and the other leads to an uncontrolling, non-coercive, and consensual approach. All of which informs my working definition of love; not something I came up with on that plane ride, but something that would emerge years later 👉🏼 Love is an uncontrolling, nonviolent, nonbinary, non-scapegoating energy in relationship with God and others that is meant for the flourishing of everyone and everything.
So, upfront, the reader (hey, that’s you!) should know that I’m comitted to reading the text by way of love. (Btw, this kind of thinking informs the conversation Tori and I had with with Brad Jersak, particularly at the end, when we talk about control and the cross.)
Reading Through the Lens of Love / Arc
If we can approach the few passages around same-sex relationships with this idea of love, it might open doors for us to see that the intention of the bible is less about a specific sexual ethic, and more about a particular ethic of love. Jesus (standing in the doorway) invites us to follow something like an arc that weaves its way through the inspired text: a divine trajectory moving from bondage to freedom, from exclusion to inclusion, and from closed-minded to open-minded thinking.
Without adopting love, we won’t see the arc, neither will we be able to let go of the old and gain new or surprising insight around the topic of sexuality. In some ways, I think this is the reason the church doesn’t adopt a more open-ended posture toward queer brothers and sisters … they (we) simply refuse to let go of the old and adopt the new.
We can’t make this an exuahustive post, but let's take a look at the ✋🏻scriptural passages referencing homosexuality and read them through a lens of love.
1. Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah
Perhaps the most famous (infamous?) reference to homosexuality in Scripture is the story of Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah. But what precisely is this narrative about?
Yes, the men of Sodom pound on Lot's door, demanding to violently rape his visitors, but no, we can’t suggest that this story gets at the depth of modern-day discussions around same-sex relationships. Do we imagine LGBTQ+ people seeking to attend our churches are asking for indiscriminate sexual access to everyone in our communities? It’s important we recognize that there’s a world of difference between violent gang rape and same-sex attraction.
When this passage is read through a power-from-love-lens vs love-from-power-lens, one realizes it says more about the abhorrence of coercion, inhospitality, lustful desires, and violent rape than it does about the rightness or wrongness of one’s sexual orientation.
It's worth noting that no other Biblical author makes a direct connection between the Sodom and Gomorrah story and the immorality of homosexuality. Both Ezekiel 16 and Jude 1 condemn many unhealthy behaviors in Sodom and Gomorrah, but neither specifically references homosexuality.
✅ Contrary to popular belief, the Genesis 19 passage keeps the doors of hospitality, grace, and inclusion open for everyone.
2. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: Stoning and Loving
It’s true, certain sexual acts between males are prohibited in these Levitical passages. But the person reading through a lens of love; one who is sensitized to coercion and victimizing, is compelled to ask about all the other prohibitions in Leviticus. Why have the rules about diet or clothing been discarded, but not homosexuality?
One common explanation involves distinctions the church has tried to make between moral, civil, and ceremonial law. Against this backdrop, homosexuality is always presented as something that fits within the moral law discussion. But who decided these classifications? I discovered this thinking traces back to Augustine and Aquinas, but then I had to ask, how much were they influenced by power or their own assumptions about what is "natural"? (Seriously, read into Augustine's life a little bit and tell me that you don't think Augustine had some maladjusted ideas around sexuality.)
Here's another question that gets at the issue from a different angle: If the church wants to take these prohibitions seriously, shouldn't we also take the prescribed punishment of execution seriously? If you're a "stand on the word of God" kinda-church, who faithfully follows the text, what's your justification for not immediately putting all gay people to death?
Furthermore, nestled between these prohibitions sits Leviticus 19:18: "Love your neighbor as yourself." What if your neighbor is gay? How do you kill your neighbor and love your neighbor simultaneously? How do you remain faithful to Scripture's prohibition while honoring Scripture's command to love?
✅ The person reading Leviticus passages through a lens of love must be open to these questions and the direction their responses lead, which is, at the very least, in a direction that keeps the doors of hospitality, grace, and inclusion cracked open for everyone.
3. Romans 1:26-27: "Natural" and "Unnatural" Relations
Admittedly, there are some challenges here, but nothing insurmountable, for when the Apostle Paul condemns those who exchange "natural" for "unnatural" relations, it's reasonable to suggest that he's assuming everyone is predisposed toward being heterosexually oriented. But what if some people, as we now understand, aren't oriented heterosexually? For them, wouldn't it be "acting contrary to nature" to have relations with people of the opposite sex?
Some scholars cry "Foul!" And "That's anachronism!" In other words, they're telling us that to read modern ideas about sexual orientation back into Paul's ancient ideas is wrong. Bbout the best response I could come up with on that plane ride as I heard those scholars singling me out for my anachronistic transgression is to say … maybe?? Then again, hasn't that been our practice with other biblical issues? How else would we have changed our minds about divorce, slavery, women in ministry, or nationalism without considering our evolving understanding, and how do we understand anything without going through our issues, which are very much modern? I suspect one can distinguish between dogmatic anachronism and being aware of a scriptural arc pulsating throughout the biblical text.
Speaking of scholarship, one should be very careful to attribute certain people to scholarly status (yes, sadly, even me), but I was so surprised to read what presidents of seminaries are willing to write around the bible and sexuality, that I responded to one, in this post.
Meanwhile, love compels us to ask Paul some more questions about the "unnatural" part. For example, in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul uses the word "unnatural" in reference to men's hair. That's right … the exact same word. Why and how did we change our minds about the unnaturalness of long hair but not same-sex relationships?
Oh, and what is "natural sex"exactly? The kind that produces children? If so, what about couples unable to become pregnant? Is adoption "unnatural"? Is sex only "natural" when bodies are anatomically compatible? What about those with anatomical differences?
Sheesh, in time, one realizes that there are as many questions as there are answers to the Romans passage (and one point I'm saving for the end).
✅ Yes, reading Romans 1 in light of love keeps the doors of hospitality, grace, and inclusion open for everyone.
4. 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10: Lost in Translation
Some translations use the word "homosexual" in these passages, but some will not, and even when they do, they will debate what these verses actually mean. Btw, this is pretty important: the etymology of the Greek word often translated as "homosexual" is unknown. David Bentley Hart, in his "New Testament Translation," renders this word as "catamite." He notes: "There is no evidence of its use before the NT," and "It would not mean homosexual in the modern sense, for the simple reason that the ancient world possessed no comparable concept of a specifically homoerotic sexual identity; it would refer to a particular sexual behavior, but we cannot say exactly which one."
It's not a stretch to say that we aren't 100% certain what this word meant in Paul's context. Even if we allowed for the ambiguity, and kept these verses in, there would still only be six verses in the entire Bible specifically addressing homosexuality in a negative light. Gluttony and overeating appear way more often, yet no churches are crafting "anti-overeating statements" or "affirming-overeating statements." Haha, given the food, diet, health crises in our country, churches should be splitting right and left over such verses. How is it possible that we highlight something mentioned so infrequently while deemphasizing issues mentioned more often?
✅ Neither the letter to the Corinthians or to Timothy provide evidence that we’re being “biblical” we close doors of hospitality, grace, and inclusion.
5. Matthew 19:12-13: Jesus and the Eunuch
What surprised me the most in my digging into all of this (resulting in my cross-country, late-night thumb-jousting session), was what Jesus had to say about the eunuch. While he expressed no specific opinions about homosexuality, promiscuity, contraception, how far one should go on a first date, or gay marriage, his statements about eunuchs—something of a catch-all term in the Ancient Near East lumping anyone who was outside of normal sexual expression—were, frankly, amazing.
Again, see the arc, for biblical law in Deuteronomy 23:1 made it impossible for eunuchs to be accepted. However, later, Isaiah challenged the law. Isaiah 56:3-6 and made the startling claim that eunuchs can find God's blessing. Jesus didn't refute Isaiah's words. Instead, in Matthew 19:12-13, he takes the thought further by explaining that some are "born eunuchs." What does this mean? Is Jesus referring to children born with uncategorizable reproductive organs? He concludes by saying, "Let anyone accept this who can." The Apostle Philip apparently accepted this teaching, for in Acts 8, Philip not only interacted with a eunuch but led him to be baptized!
This progression—from Deuteronomic exclusion to Isaiah's challenge to Jesus' acknowledgment of inborn difference to Philip's act of inclusion—creates a remarkable arc. If it doesn't represent a movement from bondage to freedom, from exclusion to inclusion, from closed-minded to open-minded thinking, I don't know what does!
✅ Thankfully, the words of Jesus the doors of hospitality, grace, and inclusion wide open for everyone.
Conclusion ✈ Leave the Baggage Behind
Yes, in some shape or another, all of the above was what I hammered out on that fateful Phoenix flight. It would be true to say that I left the plane with far less baggage than I brought on.
And while circumstances, experiences, systems, beliefs, and people are different, I suspect this same basic movement could help a lot of American-christians leave some baggage behind, too.
May it be so. 🙏🏻
‣ Bonus: One ORT and One Mimetic Theory Take on this Topic
Open and Relational:
ORT has helped open up the dialgoue for me in many ways. Once I dug into it a bit, I realized that creativity (which I suggest in Theology of Consent is the interplay between life and anti-life forces) contributes to randomness in creation. It’s amazing to see that God not only allowed for chance and risk in his design; even more, it is the design woven into the heart of love itself. 👉🏼 If God has allowed randomness to influence everything else, why wouldn't our gender, sex, and sexuality be subject to a measure of randomness as well?
All of this has helped me see “the different” as something to celebrate rather than something to call immoral. (It’s also helped me see how obsessed Christianity is with closed rather than open-ended discussions.) What seems healthy to admit is that anomalies, randomness, and uncertainty are present within everything. Even more, we exist not despite the wildness of it all but because of the wildness of it all. Nothing is abandoned. Love precedes everything, celebrates everything, and holds all things together.
LGBTQ+ people are living, breathing human beings—children of God whose sexuality falls outside conventional parameters. But so what? (Haha, that’s my basic takeaway … so what!?) 😂 God loves them because God loves everyone and everything, even especially anomalies. Who among us would dare suggest otherwise? If God loves and welcomes those who differ from the norm, we can and should also. (Btw, if you want to hear how ORT opens the door in all kinds of ways, you should listen to my podcast with Andrew Davis.)
Mimetic Theory:
Among other things, what Girardian thinking has given me is a reasonably intelligent way to see how easily our desires lead to conflict which then leads to the remedy of our conflict: scapegoating. Scapegoating works best when we can choose someone who’s just a bit different than us. Is this not the very thing we have done with our queer brothers and sisters? 🫤
When I hear people pushing me to interpret the Romans passage as Paul illustrating the very worst thing about sin—that sin carried to its extreme leads to homosexual behavior—it gives me pause. Particularly when I remember that originally the letter wasn’t chopped up into chapters and verses. So, when I read in Romans 2, "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself” it makes me think that Paul's point at the beginning of Romans isn't so much to dial in sin and judgment as it is to set the reader up so he can say in what we now call chapter 2, "Hey, you who have dialed in sin and judgment, you are the one who stands in judgment!"
Mimetic theory has forever marked me in the following way 👉🏼 no one is capable of offering a truly objective critique. For good or for bad, we implicate ouselves in our praises and our judgments. Trust me, I don't like this! And I still fall prey to the temptation of thinking myself to be outside the problem. But then I’m reminded of the reality that, at a certain level, we’re all in this together. Therefore, it is absurd, unhealthy, and a complete waste of time for me to condemn anyone, not least of which are human beings who are finding their sexuality to be different than mine.
I hope you leave a question and comment below and thank you to those who’ve subscribed to this publication because, well, you may already know this, but despite my commitment to reading the text through a lens of love, I was asked to surrender my credentials as a pastor. Haha, my personal life was enriched but my bank account wasn’t.
If you need more reasons to subscribe, read my substack intro publication.
One of the best books I've read on this subject, with ideas not unlike yours, Jonathan, is "God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships" by Matthew Vines.
Thanks for the tag and for including me in this conversation. Speaking of Girard and Mimetics, I reference him and his theory on scapegoating (my specialty as a clinician and researcher) in a recent post here, The Scapegoat's Shadow: Socio-Political Aspects of 'Splitting' and 'Othering', for anyone interested (we might want to discuss doing a collaborative video on this sometime down the road as well): https://familyscapegoathealing.substack.com/p/scapegoating-in-human-systems