Why does Christianity condemn LGBTQ+ relationships? Origins of the Question Many ask why historic Christian teaching does not affirm LGBTQ+ relationships. Although various traditions and denominations have nuanced views, many Christians historically ground their perspectives in biblical texts they understand as prescribing specific relational and moral standards. Below is an extensive topical entry exploring why, within this traditional framework, Christianity condemns LGBTQ+ relationships. Scriptural Foundations Christian teaching on all matters of life and conduct typically begins with the Bible, which is viewed as authoritative and internally consistent. As it is written, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). This establishes the basis for believers to turn to the written Word for definitions of human relationships and behaviors. Creation and Designed Purpose Genesis describes the origins of humanity and sets the stage for how Christians have historically understood gender and sexuality. In Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Conservative interpreters view this duality—male and female—as significant for the design of marriage and sexual union (Genesis 2:24). This emphasis on complementarity underpins many Christians’ reasoning that sexual relationships are to be expressed within heterosexual marriage. Old Testament Passages 1. Levitical Code In Leviticus 18:22 we read: “You must not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination.” This reference is part of a broader code of sexual ethics in Leviticus 18–20, which addresses various prohibited relationships. While some aspects of Old Testament law (ceremonial, dietary) are interpreted differently under the New Covenant, many conservative Christians maintain that moral teachings—especially regarding sexual practices—remain instructive. 2. Crimes and Punishments in the Law Leviticus 20 expands on consequences for certain transgressions, though Christians typically interpret civil penalties in ancient Israel as part of a theocratic legal system. The moral principles, however, are still seen as relevant in defining sin. New Testament Passages Here Paul writes of men and women “exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones.” This text is often cited to show that same-sex behavior is contrary to what Paul calls the “natural function,” aligning it with a broader context warning against idolatry and moral chaos (Romans 1:18–32). Paul’s emphasis suggests that same-sex intimacy violates God’s intended design for human relationships. “Or do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral…nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts…will inherit the kingdom of God.” The letter addresses moral misconduct in the Corinthian church, placing same-sex acts in the same list as other sins such as adultery and greed. The passage is read as a call to repentance for all forms of sin, with the following verse (6:11) highlighting forgiveness and transformation through Christ. This passage places “those who practice homosexuality” among other behaviors considered “contrary to sound teaching.” Again, it is situated in a broader context of ethical instruction rather than personal animus, underscoring a general moral code rooted in the gospel. Historical and Theological Interpretations 1. The Patristic Era Early church leaders such as Augustine wrote extensively on purity and marriage, typically reinforcing the view that sexual activity belongs between one man and one woman, reflecting both the procreative and unitive design intended by God. 2. Medieval and Reformation Thought Through church councils and reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, the interpretation remained consistent that sexual relationships outside the male-female marital covenant are prohibited. This stance carried forward through various confessions and teachings. 3. Modern Conservative Teaching Contemporary conservative Christian communities largely hold to these historic interpretations. They point to the spiritual symbolism of marriage (Ephesians 5:31–32) as reflecting Christ’s relationship with the Church, wherein the image is specifically one of complementary natures. Christ’s Central Role in Redeeming All Sins Christians believe that every person, regardless of the nature of their sins or struggles, is in need of salvation (Romans 3:23). The gospel’s core message is that Jesus died and rose again to redeem humankind (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). While Scripture may categorize homosexual acts as sin, it also declares that those who turn to Christ receive forgiveness and transformation. Believers emphasize that the call is to repentance and faith in the resurrected Christ, extending grace to all, “for God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him” (John 3:17). Moral, Philosophical, and Behavioral Perspectives 1. Moral Consistency Conservative Christians often argue that condemning LGBTQ+ relationships is not a targeted stance but aligns with a broader moral grid that addresses all manner of sexual sin, including adultery, fornication, and other behaviors viewed as disordered or sinful. 2. Social and Pastoral Concern Many pastors and counselors within conservative Christianity uphold the principle that disapproval of LGBTQ+ relationships is not meant as personal hostility, but as adherence to biblical standards. Counseling often focuses on spiritual well-being, urging believers to live in accordance with what they consider godly design. 3. Philosophical Reasoning In philosophical discussions, appeals to natural law and teleology (the purpose or design inherent in nature) reinforce the belief that male-female complementarity is an observable aspect of human biology, reproduction, and societal structure. This viewpoint claims that denying these design features can lead to confusion regarding moral absolutes. Addressing Common Objections 1. “That Was Culturally Bound” While certain aspects of biblical law may have specific cultural contexts, conservative interpreters maintain that moral pronouncements on sexual sin are repeated in both Old and New Testaments, transcending any single era or culture. 2. “Jesus Never Addressed Homosexuality” Jesus did speak about marriage as the union of male and female (Matthew 19:4–6) and upheld the moral teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures. His public ministry often reiterated the heart of the law rather than abrogating it, reinforcing moral boundaries set in earlier revelation. 3. “Love Is Love” Christian teaching certainly places love at the center of its ethic (John 13:34–35). Yet, traditional theology distinguishes between love for all peoples and approval of all behaviors. The idea of loving sinners—and counting oneself among them—does not require condoning all acts, but rather seeking transformation in Christ. Conclusion In summary, many Christians who hold a traditional perspective believe that the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, consistently upholds a framework for human sexuality that reserves sexual expression for male-female marriage. Consequently, these Christians interpret same-sex relationships as contrary to God’s design and therefore sinful. While this stance has its detractors, proponents emphasize that Scripture directs believers to speak truth in love, seeking the repentance and redemption of all people through the grace found in Christ’s atoning death and resurrection. This interpretation, rooted in biblical theology and church tradition, is the primary reason many Christians conclude that LGBTQ+ relationships are incompatible with teachings they view as divinely revealed. |
    |