Living as an LGBT Christian has provided a rather odd blessing. Although I no longer proscribe to evangelical ethics surrounding homosexuality, I spent the first 18 years of my life absorbing it zealously. Now, as an LGBT+ affirming Christian formerly rooted in conservative Christianity, I have witnessed the way both “sides” fail to impact one another. Below are some of the most common and simultaneously unhelpful phrases used by LGBT advocates in their conversations with Christians. Though often perceived by the speaker as obvious truth, these idioms can bar even the most well intended conversation. Reducing the use of these phrases, and understanding why they fail to make an impact, is vital for improving interactions between the Christian and LGBT communities.
"Just love!"
LGBT activists often simplify the debate over Christian affirmation of non-traditional gender and sexual expression to one word: “love." This seems reasonable considering Christianity’s foundation on the notion of God’s love for humanity and the need to emulate that love. However, this fails to impact most non-affirming Christians because their lack of affirmation IS considered an expression of love. Traditionalist theology views every sin as failure to follow God’s intended design for one’s life; a design which is fulfilling, healthy, and edifying. As a result, many Christians believe that the best way to love LGBT+ persons is to remain in staunch opposition to the identities which they perceive as foreign to God's design. Any criticism directed at non-affirming Christians which simply demands “love” fails to aid discussion because it assumes a definition of love which is not mutual.
“Born this way.”
Lady Gaga fails to compel evangelical Christians, tragic as it is. Arguments for the affirmation of LGBT+ persons based on natural disposition fall flat when ignoring Christian concepts of humanity. One central pillar of the Christian faith is the belief that human nature is innately corrupted. Jesus himself stated that “What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them” (Matt 15:11 NIV). Disobedience to God originates internally, defining every vice as a “natural inclination." Consequently, an argument for the goodness of an LGBT+ identity based solely on its “naturalness” appears based on ideology which could similarly proclaim theft, dishonesty, or murder morally admissible. How “natural” something is stands inconsequential for evangelical Christians because that which is natural to a person is often sinful. LGBT affirmation weakens in the minds of many Christians under slogans like “born this way”. This makes them both unusable and potentially damaging.
"Science says it’s normal."
Scientific research over sexuality, gender expression, and the LGBT+ community have resulted in a numerous discoveries. Many of these findings have improved lives and driven progress around the world. As a result, scientific findings are often viewed as a foundation for inclusive measures. However, no amount of scientific research can ultimately impact some Christians. Studies which do not condemn LGBT+ issues are liable to unparalleled criticism or outright dismissal. The sinful nature of humanity is blamed for causing researchers to “find what they were already looking for.”
Among other evangelicals, the scientific veracity of studies into sexuality and gender identity is recognized. However, this does not make these studies succinct evidence for necessary LGBT+ affirmation. Scholarly work which fails to align with non-affirming interpretations of the bible can inspire theological reconsideration. It cannot, however, replace this process. There still remains a necessary practice of reevaluating and reinterpreting traditionalist theology. Scientific findings, if used as the sole foundation for affirmation, will fail to impact most evangelicals as scriptural acceptance or condemnation overrules any secular findings. Dismissing this reality will prevent meaningful conversations over Christianity and the LGBT+ community.
"No harm, no foul?"
Although it is common to argue morality based on perceived harmlessness, this concept of “no harm, no foul” is unconvincing for non-affirming Christians. An evangelical understanding of scripture holds that any biblical condemnation is warranted for guiding humanity to wholeness under God’s design. Therefore, all that is outside of these guidelines is prohibited for one’s physical, mental, or spiritual well-being. Attempts to justify acceptance of LGBT+ expression, or to claim it as benign, defies this theological framework. Traditional evangelicalism interprets scripture to condemn LGBT+ expression, and consequently believes that such actions are innately destructive. Affirmative discourse which attempts to work from proof of harmlessness to moral positivism clashes against this barrier.
No amount of evidence of safety or positive effects can dissuade most non-affirming Christians. Alternatives to heterosexuality and cis identities must be harmful in some form, regardless of how invisible this harm may be, due to the unquestionable protective nature of scripture. In order to have edifying conversations over sexuality and gender identity, one must begin at this scriptural level.
"Jesus said nothing."
Referencing the number of times which Jesus mentioned homosexuality is sometimes framed as a final blow against Christian condemnation of the LGBT+ community. If God incarnate fails to discuss something, it must not be particularly important. Three counterpoints to this assumption, however, cause it to fail. First, traditionalist theology views the entire Bible as “God breathed” and “useful for teaching.” If condemnation appears anywhere in scripture it is therefore spoken by God just as authoritatively as if Jesus said it within the Gospels.
Secondly, although Jesus does not refer to sexuality or gender expression directly, Jesus references the Genesis creation account. Many non-affirming Christians believe this allusion affirms the morality of heterosexuality and cis-genderedness, consequently framing anything else as sinful.
Lastly, this argument fails to consider the brevity of Jesus’ ministry. There are a number of topics which are universally considered immoral which Jesus never discussed directly. If one attempts to base an argument for moral goodness based on Jesus’ silence many other wrongs must consequently be defined as moral.
