Resources For Christians On Same-Sex Attraction

IF you have lesbian or gay friends and/or have done much reading on the subject, you likely understand same-sex attraction in many cases to be a natural biological variation and neither inherently sinful nor indicative of rebellion against or rejection of God. Many, many lesbian and gay persons and couples know and love Jesus.

(NOTE: I either own or used to own or have read many of the anti-gay books that churches, including some of our former churches, recommend or refer to on the subject. You won't find links to those here.)

BUT IF NOT:

Did you know that "The Mother of Contemporary Christian Music," Marsha Stevens-Pino, is a lesbian and continues (with her spouse/wife) to write worship songs (https://balmministries.net/home)? And that the late Lonnie Frisbee, whose ministry caused or jump-started the growth of Calvary Chapel and The Vineyard during the Jesus Movement, was gay or bisexual?

Some of the sordid depictions of the lesbian/gay "lifestyle" may in large part be a reflection and result of how society has viewed and treated lesbian/gay people. As the late Dick Gregory said: If you visited a concentration camp, you were not smelling Judaism; you were smelling Nazism. And if you visited an inner-city ghetto, you were not smelling Black people; you were smelling racism. Fifty years ago psychiatrists rightly in my opinion stopped classifying same-sex attraction in the DSM as being a mental illness.

Justin Lee (author of Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate - Revised and Updated (May 2024)), who formed The Gay Christian Network, said that his father believed that lesbian/gay people should only be celibate or marry persons of the opposite sex—i.e., what's known as the "Side B" position. And then Justin's mother died. And Justin's father realized what loneliness and the desire for companionship meant. And then he changed his mind about same-sex marriage.

Meanwhile, much of the church continues to say to lesbian/gay Christians, as this book by Patrick  M. Chapman explains, "Thou Shalt Not Love."

With apologies to Bob Dylan:

You say you’re lookin' for someone
Who'll pick you up each time you fall
To gather flowers constantly
An' to come each time you call
A lover for your life an' so much more
But we say "No, babe
No, no, no, you can't have that, babe
We don't care what you're lookin' for, babe"
(Even though we have that for ourselves)

More information:

Kathy V. Baldock's Walking The Bridgeless Canyon: Repairing the Breach Between the Church and the LGBT Community is a great book on America's and the church's history re: lesbian/gay/transgender people, and it also has a study guide. Any Christian who reads this book, no matter where they stand, will be better informed afterwards. She tells the stories and tackles the hard questions as well as the relevant biblical passages.

Kathy discovered how and why the word "homosexual" first appeared in an English Bible translation (the 1946 Revised Standard Version (RSV) New Testament and the 1952 RSV Bible), as well as the person (Rev. David Sheldon Fearon) whose letter to the RSV Translation Committee resulted in it being changed in the 1971 Second Edition of the RSV Bible. A new documentary 1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture and book (with a separate study guide) Forging a Sacred Weapon: The 1946 Bible Mistranslation Behind Anti-Gay Theology tell the story as well as continue the discussion on what the Bible says about homosexuality. E.g.: Did you know that there are seven different scholarly interpretations of what Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 prohibit?

Note: There are some errors in content in the book that I’ve communicated to the author. Also, I'm not sure I agree with the book's assertions or conclusions about the meanings of arsenokoitēs and malakos; see, e.g., Dale B. Martin Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation Chapter 3 "Arsenokoitēs and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences" in which he concludes and states:

There is no question, then, about what malakos referred to in the ancient world. In moral contexts it always referred either obviously or obliquely to the feminine. There is no historical reason to take malakos as a specific reference to the penetrated man in homosexual intercourse. It is even less defensible to narrow that reference down further to  mean "male prostitute." The meaning of the word is clear, even if too broad to be taken to refer to a single act or role. Malakos means "effeminate." (p. 47)

Follow Kathy's webpage: http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/

Or Kathy's Facebook pages:

https://www.facebook.com/WalkingTheBridgelessCanyon/
https://www.facebook.com/CanyonwalkerConnections/

See Kathy's detailed reviews of Christian anti-lesbian/gay books. Click on the image of the book cover to read the review: https://canyonwalkerconnections.com/library/kathys-book-reviews/

Kathy gave the following talks in 2018 in Austin, TX, about the history of our understanding of same-sex attraction:

Unclobbering the Tangled Mess—Part 1
Unclobbering the Tangled Mess—Part 2

---

Robert A. J. Gagnon's book The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics is frequently cited in arguments against homosexuality. Classicist Jean-Fabrice Nardelli assessed Gagnon's book, Gagnon responded, and Nardelli wrote a rejoinder to Gagnon's response, critiquing Gagnon's scholarship in detail:

• Nardelli: Robert Gagnon The Bible And Homosexual Practice. Ten Years After: A Non-Theological Assessment
• Nardelli: Robert Gagnon The Bible And Homosexual Practice. Ten Years After: A Non-Theological Assessment. Second, Revised Edition
• Gagnon: "The Dogs Bark But the Caravan Moves On": My Response to Jean-Fabrice Nardelli's "Critique" of The Bible and Homosexual Practice
• Nardelli: Rejoinder To Gagnon's '"The Dogs Bark But The Caravan Moves On" Part One'

---

Read a former Vineyard pastor’s book about his spiritual and pastoral and theological journey on this issue: A Letter to my Congregation (Second Edition), by Ken Wilson.

Watch Pastor Danny Cortez's story. He was a Baptist pastor when his son came out as gay.

Timothy Kurek "came out" as gay to his family and friends to see for himself how the label of "gay" would impact his life, and then wrote The Cross in the Closet about his experience.

The Reformation Project's Video Series The Biblical Case for LGBTQ Inclusion is pretty good and informative.

5 free videos by Jeffrey Tripp on the Bible and Homosexuality:

• Sodom and Gomorrah
• Leviticus 18 & 20
• Malakoi and Arsenokoitai
• Romans 1:26–27
• Positive Gay images in the Bible?

Some Relevant Scholarly Articles:

Holger Szesnat: Disagreeable Matters in the (Homo-)Sexuality Debate: Wrestling with the Scriptures in the Church 

Caleb M. Day: A Time to Throw Away? Rethinking the gender requirement for legitimate Christian sex 

Robert K. Gnuse: Seven Gay Texts: Biblical Passages Used To Condemn Homosexuality

Some Books:

Matthew Vines: God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships - Revised and Expanded (2025)

Martti Nissinen: Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective

Sarah Ruden: Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time

Dale B. Martin: Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation

Note: I have been told that these two sources are better analyses of arsenokoitai and malakoi than Dale B. Martin’s chapter about them, although Martin does engage with and critique Wright's article:

David Wright: Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ἀρσενοκοῑται (1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10)

Bruce Winter: After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (See Appendix: Roman Homosexual Activity and the Elite p. 110) 

Christopher B. Hays (son) and Richard B. Hays (father, now deceased): The Widening of God's Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (September 10, 2024). Richard B. Hays's 1996 book The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics has been a go-to book for Evangelicals for its scholarly anti-homosexuality position. Hays changed his position in this new book. There are several reviews of the book online. (Many fault the Hayses for not addressing the so-called "clobber" passages in their book, but perhaps the authors were approaching the subject from a different perspective.)

Some Questions

Some questions for Christians and the church about homosexuality and same-sex acts:

Non-Coital Sex

If one permits couples in heterosexual marriages to engage in sexual activity that does not each and every time include or conclude with coitus, does that not weaken the argument against sexual activity by couples in same-sex marriages? When coitus is not involved, why can’t a male do sexually to or with his male partner what a female can do sexually to or with her male partner, or why can’t a female do sexually to or with her female partner what a male can do sexually to or with his female partner?

Non-Procreation

For those who would argue that homosexual sex is wrong because it cannot be procreative, is non-procreative sex between married heterosexual couples okay? Many heterosexual couples engage in sexual activity with no intention of procreation (or no ability to procreate in cases of infertility), or with no unprotected coitus (thus preventing even the possibility of procreation, assuming no unintended semen entry). Are heterosexual couples permitted to do this? When homosexual couples engage in non-procreative sexual activity, they do it for the very same reasons that heterosexual couples do. Homosexual persons have the very same feelings of arousal and sexual desire and urging toward persons of the same sex that heterosexual persons have toward members of the opposite sex, and studies and personal stories seem to show that trying to reprogram or redirect homosexual persons’ arousals and urgings to respond to opposite-sex persons is in the vast majority of cases rarely if ever successful. So if the reason for “male and female”—i.e., procreation—is not a required factor for all permissible heterosexual sexual activity, why can't homosexual couples do what heterosexual couples may do? If the intent or possibility of procreation is not the determining factor or sine qua non for permissible sexual activities between heterosexuals, then why may homosexual couples not engage in sexual activities?

Accommodation

For those who view same-sex attraction as at best a disability or a perversion/distortion of proper sexuality, or as a less-than-ideal situation: We permit and even encourage heterosexual couples to find accommodations for sexual or physical impairments so that they can engage in sexual activity for the non-procreative benefits of love, fulfillment, closeness, bonding, pleasure (including selflessly pleasing the other), etc., that such activities achieve. If same-sex attraction is indeed a lack of, or impairment or damage to, the “normal” ability to react and act sexually toward a person of the opposite sex, why should we not have the same compassion and attitude toward persons with same-sex attraction, especially since the “accommodation” in such cases is so easy—i.e., simply let them sexually relate to a person of the same sex? Dave Thompson proposes a “third way” along these lines in his book Over Coffee: A Conversation for Gay Partnership and Conservative Faith.

Why "Homosexuals/Homosexuality"?

I think one limits one’s ability to fully think about these issues if one automatically or primarily refers to or views persons with same-sex attraction as “homosexuals” or as having a “homosexual ‘lifestyle’.” Why do we use this terminology to categorize and (often) stereotype such persons? Do we primarily refer to ourselves or each other by our eating preferences (omnivores, vegetarians, vegans)? Or by the means by which we get to work or school (motorists, bicyclists, public transportation riders)? Or by our residences (homeowners, home buyers, renters)? Or by our entertainment preferences (movies, theater, opera, sports, TV)? Etc. All of these are valid ways of classifying people depending on the purpose of the classification. As one author pointed out, we could just as validly group together men and women who are sexually attracted to men as being “androphiles” or “androsexuals,” and men and women who are sexually attracted to women as being “gynecophiles” or “gynecosexuals.” I don’t primarily or even significantly view or regard myself as being a “heterosexual,” and I certainly wouldn't say that I live or have a “heterosexual ‘lifestyle’,” as my “lifestyle encompasses and can be defined or characterized by a lot of things, not simply or mainly by my opposite-sex attraction or sexual activity.

Christians First

It seems to me that Christians have or should have more in common with each other than with non-Christians. I.e., Christians, regardless of their sexual attraction, should first understand themselves to be brothers and sisters of/with each other and not reflexively align/ally heterosexual Christians (including themselves) more with heterosexual non-Christians than with homosexual Christians, nor align/ally homosexual Christians (including themselves) more with homosexual non-Christians than with heterosexual Christians. Maybe a first step in Christians and the church being better about these things is to stop defining members of the body of Christ as being “homosexuals” or “heterosexuals.”

---

Here are the responses of a reader of this blog post. Feel free to respond to either my questions or to their response, or to both:

Some questions for Christians and the church about homosexuality and same-sex acts:

Non-Coital Sex

Q: If one permits couples in heterosexual marriages to engage in sexual activity that does not each and every time include or conclude with coitus, does that not weaken the argument against sexual activity by couples in same-sex marriages?

A: No, because the question is not what “one permits,” but rather what kinds of sexual outlets does *the Bible* permit. Aside from procreation, the Bible does not specify what type of sexual experience is allowed between one man and one woman in covenant, so that is completely in the subjective domain of the heterosexual couple.

Q: When coitus is not involved, why can’t a male do sexually to or with his male partner what a female can do sexually to or with her male partner, or why can’t a female do sexually to or with her female partner what a male can do sexually to or with his female partner?

A: Same answer as above. Wrong question to be asking IMHO.

Q: Non-Procreation [questions]

A: I don’t argue this.

Q: Accommodation

For those who view same-sex attraction as at best a disability or a perversion/distortion of proper sexuality, or as a less-than-ideal situation:

A: You seem to be arguing more for how can a couple experience sexual satisfaction. Sexual satisfaction can be accomplished in a number of ways within a relationship (heterosexual married, heterosexual non-married, homosexual state-endorsed unions, as well as non-unions or casual sex). This is really beside the point. The question is not how can one experience fulfillment of sexual desires, but what is the permissible way to achieve sexual fulfillment *in God’s economy*. Because the Bible is largely silent on the issue (other than what Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 7), I don’t think we can go further than what the text mentions.

Q: Why “Homosexuals/Homosexuality”?

A: Stereotyping is wrong. Labels are wrong but unavoidable in this culture where it seems everyone has an “identity” including sexual identity.

Q: Christians First

It seems to me that Christians have or should have more in common with each other than with non-Christians.... Maybe a first step in Christians and the church being better about these things is to stop defining members of the body of Christ as being “homosexuals” or “heterosexuals.”

A: Maybe, but many gay Christian self-identify as “gay.” I don’t have a problem with this.

Q: So, what exactly is wrong with homosexuality or homosexual acts? Or more specifically, since this is a Biblical/Christian theology blog: Does the Bible or the church teach against homosexuality or homosexual activity?

A: It seems to especially as per Leviticus 18 where not only homosexual activity is considered wrong but also a host of other sexual alliances.

Q: If so:

Why does it do so?

A: I don’t know entirely. God knows.

Q: Is it right for it to do so?

A: “Right” is subjectively in the eye of the beholder. Best to stick with the meaning most likely in the Biblical text.

Q: Do or should such teachings apply to us today, and if so, how?

A: If we are believers then we have to have some way to measure behavior. The Bible (along with conscience and the Holy Spirit) is all we have.

Q: Is simply being homosexual or having same-sex attractions wrong? If yes, please explain why.

A: No.

Q: If not, then is it the sexual behavior between two persons of the same sex that is wrong?

A: Yes, apparently according to Leviticus 18:22.

Q: If so, is it because the only proper sexual activities between two persons are those that directly or indirectly include both one and only one penis and one and only one vagina? If so, what about sexual activities between two persons when one or both of them has had sex-reassignment surgery so that now one of each sex organ is present even though one or both of them previously had the opposite sex organ?

A: Sex reassignment is a different topic altogether and I would argue not something condoned by the Bible particularly if we believe that we are born with a specific biological sex (which we all are unless we are intersex; again different topic we can take up elsewhere).

Q: Is it the inability or failure to consummate the actions with coitus (i.e., penis-vagina intercourse) that makes same-sex sexual activities wrong, since except for coitus two women or two men can together do just about everything sexually that a man and a woman can do?

A: No. Again, the question should not be “How can we achieve sexual satisfaction?” But rather, “Are any and all ways of achieving sexual satisfaction permissible?”

Q: If so, what does that mean for deliberate non-coital sexual activity by heterosexual couples, or for heterosexual couples who do not or cannot (due to disability, etc.) consummate all their sexual activities with coitus? Is it because the potential to produce children is what makes marriage and instances of sexual activity okay?

A: No. It’s because “from the beginning God made them male and female.”

Q: If so, what does that mean for heterosexual couples who use natural or artificial methods to prevent unplanned or unwanted conceptions?

A: I don’t see that as being an issue at all. I’m sure coitus interruptus was practiced to control making babies if an Israelite couple had already produced progeny and didn’t really want or couldn’t afford more. As long as there was at least one heir, that’s all that mattered to most ancient Israelites (to keep the inheritance within the family/tribe).

Q: What does that mean for sexual activities between heterosexual couples who cannot or who cannot any longer have children? Consider the following scenarios: If potential childbearing is not the reason for marriage and instances of sexual activity, can two gay persons who have not been changed from their homosexuality (whether they cared to change or tried to change or prayed to be changed, etc.) become a couple and engage in sexual relations for the pleasure of it and the oneness and companionship and intimacy and love it engenders and enhances between them so they become more giving and fulfilled human beings?

A: This is where I would disagree. I don’t think that being a “fulfilled human being” necessitates sexual gratification. I almost think that might be insulting to some. I know plenty of single people, virgins in their 40s and 50s, (straight and gay) who are not complaining about their lack of sexual fulfillment. Sexual fulfillment in this culture has become an idol. It’s not the be-all, end-all to life.

Bottom line: 1 Thessalonians 4:4 “...each of you must know how to control his own body in holiness and honor.” I don’t know any way to do that other than to 1) be married, one man with one woman in the Lord, or 2) keep a celibate lifestyle.

What Is Wrong With Homosexuality?

So, what exactly is wrong with homosexuality or homosexual acts? Or more specifically, since this is a Biblical/Christian theology blog: Does the Bible or the church teach against homosexuality or homosexual activity? If so:

• Why does it do so?
• Is it right for it to do so? and
• Do or should such teachings apply to us today, and if so, how?

Before you answer these questions, please first consider and answer these additional questions (Note: I am using "homosexual" and "gay" to refer to either males or females):

I. Is simply being homosexual or having same-sex attractions wrong? If yes, please explain why.

II. If not, then is it the sexual behavior between two persons of the same sex that is wrong? If so, why is that:

1. Is it because the only proper sexual activities between two persons are those that directly or indirectly include both one and only one penis and one and only one vagina? If so, what about sexual activities between two persons when one or both of them has had sex-reassignment surgery so that now one of each sex organ is present even though one or both of them previously had the opposite sex organ?
2. Is it the inability or failure to consummate the actions with coitus (i.e., penis-vagina intercourse) that makes same-sex sexual activities wrong, since except for coitus two women or two men can together do just about everything sexually that a man and a woman can do? If so, what does that mean for deliberate non-coital sexual activity by heterosexual couples, or for heterosexual couples who do not or cannot (due to disability, etc.) consummate all their sexual activities with coitus?
3. Is it because the potential to produce children is what makes marriage and instances of sexual activity okay? If so:
   1. What does that mean for heterosexual couples who use natural or artificial methods to prevent unplanned or unwanted conceptions?
   2. What does that mean for sexual activities between heterosexual couples who cannot or who cannot any longer have children? Consider the following scenarios:
      • A couple discovers before they're married that they won't be able to have children. Should they be able to get married, and if so, should they be able to engage in sexual activities after marriage for the pleasure of it and the oneness and companionship and intimacy and love it engenders and enhances between them so they become more giving and fulfilled human beings, even though they know that no children can result from such activities?
      • A couple discovers after they're married that they physically can't have children, and despite many prayers and clinic visits, neither God nor doctors heal their infertility. Can they continue to engage in sexual relations for the pleasure of it and the oneness and companionship and intimacy and love it engenders and enhances between them so they become more giving and fulfilled human beings, even though they know that no children can result from such activities?
   If potential childbearing is not the reason for marriage and instances of sexual activity, can two gay persons who have not been changed from their homosexuality (whether they cared to change or tried to change or prayed to be changed, etc.) become a couple and engage in sexual relations for the pleasure of it and the oneness and companionship and intimacy and love it engenders and enhances between them so they become more giving and fulfilled human beings?
4. Is it because of a reason I haven't listed? If so, what is that reason?

I am not a philosopher or logician or rhetorician, so I do not pretend to have presented all the necessary and relevant questions for addressing the topic. However, the ones I have posed are those that I would want a person who is promulgating or defending a position to answer.