“Does God Condemn LGBTQ+ Lifestyles? Part 1” (Gen. 1–3)

Series: “LGBTQ+ Issues”Text: Genesis 1–3

By: Shaun Marksbury Date: June 9, 2024

Venue: Living Water Baptist ChurchOccasion: AM Service

Introduction

Last time, we talked about the cultural downgrade that Romans 1 describes. We noted that God’s wrath or judgment against a society isn’t necessarily a fire-and-brimstone event, though it may be that. It usually is a more subtle action, a turning over to depravity. This can be manifest in many ways, such as homosexuality and lesbianism, as well as other sins that we see in our American (and Western) landscape. We are now at the point where calling these things “sin” is not welcome in our society.

In fact, the last thing we noted last time is that culture embraces and even applauds the downgrade. There are stories of teachers unions and school boards trying to promote ideology in schools, encouraging kids to adopt some non-conformist identity and then congratulating kids who do. There are activists throughout society who want to exalt those who “come out of the closet” as it were, all in the name of love and inclusion.

In fact, there is a growing militancy to this, as people rally around the cause du jour. For instance, a megadonor bankrolling the LGBT movement and its allies in the Democratic Party declared that it’s time to “punish the wicked,” those who hold traditional views about sexual morality. In 2018, an Ohio court removed a 17-year-old girl from her parents because they wouldn’t pump her full of cross-sex hormones and call her a boy. At least one person who watched my sermon from last week called me “absolutely repulsive” on Facebook and expressed a desire to organize a “pride party” action here. As Douglas Farrow summed it up, “Marriage, if you please, is the Sudetenland, and its concession is the precursor to a cultural Blitzkrieg.” The cultural downgrade is both celebrated and forced upon us.

The question we’re considering is what we as Christians should think about these things. Interestingly, there are many Christian voices joining the activists, saying we’ve misunderstood the Bible’s prohibitions on the matter. We’re going to consider that today, and we’ll then begin looking at what Scripture says.

The Biblical Redefinition

Christians must seek to be loving in all we do, especially since we worship the God who is love. We understand that the call to love extends beyond these walls, not just to fellow believers, but to everybody, even if they look and act differently from us. If there were people upset at the message we’re proclaiming and organized a protest outside our property, we love them, too. God calls us to love our neighbors regardless of whether an individual is homosexual, heterosexual, transgender, etc. — we recognize the inherent dignity that comes with the imago dei, God’s image in every person.

What does love look like? Well, there are professed Christians who say we should fully support and affirm LGBTQ+ lifestyles, becoming “allies.” For instance, one Southern Baptist church has staff in same-sex relationships. A pastor at First Baptist Church of Orlando boasted about his church’s inclusion — “We have transgender, LGBTQ, straight, single, married, divorced and cohabiting people,” he said. “These same people attend, listen, serve, grow and give.” Is that wrong?

Beyond the mantra, “love is love,” many look no further than Jesus’s words in Matthew 7:1 — “judge not.” Still, in that same chapter, Jesus also said, “Beware of the false prophets” (v. 15) and, “You will know them by their fruits” (v. 16). So, Jesus isn’t forbidding all judgement, just the unrighteous, hypocritical judgments (cf. John 7:24). So, it doesn’t seem that Matthew 7:1 is the only verse we should consider with this.

Another verse has been a favorite of evangelical egalitarians. They don’t support the concept of a biblical patriarchy or complementarianism, so they quote Galatians 3:28 — “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” In their mind, this verse obliterates any argument about headship in marriage, male leadership in the church, or any other gender distinctions. The problem with resting your entire argument on one verse is if that verse is demonstrably misapplied. It speaks of our universal justification in Christ, not hierarchies in church or marriage; the Paul who penned this continues to refer to distinctions between Jews and Gentiles and males and females.

Yet, this verse remains useful for the activist-theologian, for if there are no gender distinctions in Christ, then there are no marital arrangements requiring gender distinctions. The goal is to reinterpret and even rewrite Scripture to allow for certain lifestyles. Dr. Anna Carter Florence, professor of preaching at Columbia Theological Seminary, spoke on the need to take away everything from future Christian leaders: “First-year seminary is all about learning to lose. First, we take their Jesus away. Then we mess with their Bible. Then their heads. By the first of November, they don’t know who they are any more.” In his article, “Liberating Gay Theology,” Rev. Jeffery Dennis expresses his desire to “transform the church,” writing, “We need a gay God, a God who would lead us toward a more affirming, harmonious, creative, socially conscious, and spiritually profound life.” Reimagining Scripture is the goal of those seeking a more “loving” way.

The result is a range of beliefs among Christians today. Some professing Christians, known as “Side-A” affirming believers, teach that God made people gay, and that resistance to any LGBTQ+ lifestyles is wrong. Some are slightly to the right of that — “Side-B” affirmers — who teach that people are born gay due to sin, and so identify as gay, but they can live to the glory of God through their abstinence. To the right of that would be those Christians who renounce their gay identity, but who don’t ultimately think that God changes these bent affections in everyone. Finally, there are those Christians who believe that these lifestyles originate both as a result of a sin nature and developmental issues, but Jesus can both save, heal, and transform the individual caught up in this sin. (We would advocate the latter category, believing that God can change people caught up in sexual sin so completely that they no longer even need to identify with that sin.) Yet, we have to conclude that there’s a lot of disagreement among professing Christians as to how to best love those in these lifestyles.

The church’s confusion is a major contributing factor to our culture’s downgrade. In our quest for loving people, we can’t simply reinterpret the Bible through the framework of our experiences. The God of love delivered the Word to us as He wanted us to read it. Just as Jesus calls us to take up our cross and follow Him, we need to die to our own desires and to live for Him.

That brings us to our point we began considering last week: True love isn’t found in affirming everything under the sun. A loving parent doesn’t always say “yes” to a child, and even adults don’t always seek their own good. Love means that boundaries exist, boundaries that, if crossed, means that a person’s affections and desires are now selfish or even hateful. Society doesn’t always understand this point, but Christians must recognize that it’s not loving to affirm everything someone does or feels.

Scripture is our guide. So, with our remaining time, let’s start considering what God’s inspired Word says on the subject. Is it clear, or have we misunderstood it?

The Biblical Definition of Sex and Marriage

A straightforward reading of Scripture highlights all of the letters in the LGBT+ lifestyle as sinful, as we began to consider last week. It’s not that these are the only sins Scripture speaks of, nor are these sins the most egregious the world has ever seen. Still, these are sins the Western world has flipped its opinion of, choosing now to celebrate and promote them while demonizing those who disagree with them. We talk about these other sins, but since there is no adultery pride flag currently flying in our nation’s capital, we’re talking about the sins our culture wants to embrace.

It’s commonly pointed out, though, that there are only six debated passages in relation to this subject, which isn’t much in a Bible with over thirty-one thousand verses. Considering that not even one speaks positively of homosexual relationships, it seems that one condemning them would be sufficient — and six seem like repeated emphasis. In fact, in this study, we are going to consider a dozen passages which underline the point that Scripture condemns these lifestyles.

The Creation Reveals God’s Original Design for Us (Genesis 1–2)

This is the oft-ignored passage in this discussion, though we began considering it last week. Among the creation elements, we have God creating them in His image “male and female” and calling them to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:27–28), the same command given to Noah’s family after the flood (9:1, 7). This means not only that God creates them male and female, but that a key part of their image-bearing is procreative. Jesus affirms this original creation and its purpose for marriage in the New Testament (Matt. 19:4–6), but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Note the specifics of the creation scenario. Throughout Genesis 1, God affirms the goodness of creation. Yet, the first time God says “it is not good” is in relation to Adam being the alone (Gen. 2:18). This speaks of Adam’s uniqueness, his “kind,” for when he first meets Eve, he recognizes her as “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (v. 23). None of the animals God created could be considered a “helper suitable for him” (vv. 18–20) — which is only Eve. None of the animal kinds would do.

Someone here might think this only means that any two (or more) humans can come together to form a marriage. However, understand that the text isn’t just speaking of a platonic companionship. The term in vv. 18 and 20 translated “suitable” in the NASB is נֶ֫גֶד (neged). This does not mean she was created to be “suitable” for him as a laborer, perhaps helping him with his gardening. Rather, with the preposition כְּ (kĕ), the term means “opposite, counterpart… corresponding to him.” While Adam obviously noticed that she was a person like him and unlike the animals, the term translated “suitable for” speaks of an opposite complement. Within the context here, the fact that the man will “be joined to his wife” and “they shall become one flesh” (v. 24), fulfilling the creation or cultural mandate of multiplying, then this means that this “suitability” or correspondence extends beyond like DNA and cognitive faculties. They are literally built to fit together, creating a sexual union within their marriage.

This is not a strained exegesis. Rather, this is the natural conclusion of the term, “one flesh.” In fact, in 1 Corinthians 6:16, Paul cites this verse and speaks of the folly of joining with a prostitute. God created sex and sexuality in humanity for a purpose. Sexual intercourse in Scripture is not a dirty or a negative concept. However, its pleasure is reserved for marriage (e.g., Prov. 5:15–19). Indeed, every reference to relationships in Scripture are always male/female, which is what we see in the creation.

That purpose is damaged in relationships which are willfully outside of this order. Of course, there are men who cannot sire children, and there are women who are barren, and that is not what we’re talking about. A same-sex union does not naturally produce children, and it can often enough physically harms the people engaging in it. God has a design that befits both sexes, and we shouldn’t try to circumvent that.

Today, in transgenderism, we have the ultimate expression of human autonomy apart from God. A confused person (or a blatant rebel against God) can now pump his body full of hormones, go under the knife to mutilate himself, dress in women’s clothing, and then demand everyone call him a “her.” To become more inclusive, our government schools have decided to teach our children that they could grow up to be a different gender than the sex of their bodies. For instance, a mother in California is suing her Los Angeles school district because teachers secretly manipulated her 11-year-old daughter into changing her gender identity. She was called into the principal’s office for a meeting in 2019, and when her daughter entered the room, the teacher broke the news that the daughter would be now identifying as a boy. The mom didn’t know what to do, but she tried to be supportive. When the school went online-only due to COVID in 2020, the mom reported that that her daughter began returning to her “old self” and returned to using her given name. A leaked recording from a California Teachers Association conference revealed that some kept private meetings and stalked students online for recruits. This is but one example, and even in our Mesa County libraries here, there are books set out in the children’s section to teach children that they can become something other than what they are born as.

The sad reality of this is only beginning to be known. The infertility and physical damage these children experience has led to many questioning the practice of pumping our children full of hormones and transitioning them. For instance, even the National Health Service in England has “stopped prescribing puberty blockers for children and young people with gender dysphoria or gender incongruence, saying there is ‘not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness’ of puberty-suppressing hormones.” They have rightly gone back to treating questioning children with therapy, an approach sorely lacking in these cases. There is a reckoning coming with lawsuits from these kids who were experimented on in the name of inclusion and have chosen to go back to identifying with their birth sex in their adult years — experimentation that has come because people are not satisfied with God’s creation.

People supporting the ongoing sexual revolution counter here that Christians are inconsistent. For instance, they say that Christians violate the sacred bond of marriage by getting a divorce, and that is correct. We seek to address that when the temptation arises, and it’s important for each of us to realize that our actions send messages to the watching world. However, just as I tell my kids, one person’s sin doesn’t excuse you to sin; we are each responsible for our own obedience before God. And we see clearly in Scripture that He designed marriages to be between one man and woman for life.

What has messed up the original creation so much that we now have divorces and unnatural unions? That brings us to our next passage: Genesis 3 and the fall of man. Let’s consider that next.

The Fall Explains our Deviations from God’s Design (Gen. 3)

With the fall of man in Genesis 3 came all manner of sin into the world. For the first time, they feel the need to hide themselves from God (v. 8). They were always naked, but after they chose to sin by eating from the forbidden fruit, their thinking changed. They now, somehow, instinctively knew that they were now exposed before God (v. 10). This is correct; God knew what they had done, though He asked them to tell Him. He eventually clothes their nakedness (v. 21), pointing to their need for God to cover them spiritually through the death of an innocent — an act which ultimately pointed to the sacrifice of Christ.

Consider that moment, though. Fitting for our discussion is the fact that sexual shame occurs at the Fall. Before God clothed them, before they heard Him coming, they suddenly understood they were naked and fashioned rudimentary coverings from the leaves of a fig tree (v. 7). It’s one thing to understand the pangs of conscience before God, the desire to cover up our sinful deeds before His holy eyes. Yet, why are they covering up before each other?

It is natural to assume that there was an attraction between Adam and Eve. We talk about them existing in a state of innocence before the fall, and we assume that means that there was no sexual attraction because we think about sexuality in a post-fall state. Yet, God made them with that procreative purpose, and our bodies still naturally develop with the ability to achieve that end (illnesses and other post-fall discrepancies aside). Genesis 2:25 says, “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” That means that their attraction was a pure, unadulterated longing for one another. There wasn’t any porn to ruin their brains at the time, and they wouldn’t have ever imagined exploiting one another.

However, that was before the fall. With the fall, sexual deviance entered their minds and hearts for the first time. We see this clearly when God confronted them about their sin; Adam blamed Eve (and indirectly, God Himself — “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate,” v. 12). Eve likewise blamed the serpent (v. 13). Because sin infected the whole of their being, their thinking, affections, and will were all sickened within them.

Sin is the reason we have trouble in our marriage relationships. In v. 16, the Lord predicts of Eve that her “desire” will be for her husband, but he would rule over her.” The expression translated “your desire will be for your husband” speaks of a woman’s ongoing desire to usurp her husband’s headship in marriage. The next expression, “he will rule over you,” is a despotic mastery, where he may begin to oppress or subjugate her. The fall resulted in a twisting of the wife’s desires for her husband and a warping of his leadership in the relationship; marriages are forever marred by sin.

Sin introduces all manner of deviation from God’s created norm. People approach sex and marriage differently. Because of sin, we now seek self-pleasure. People similarly approach marriage with selfish intent, thinking only of their own wants and desires, prioritizing themselves over others. In heterosexual relationships, this may result in an avoidance of marriage or a lack of commitment to marriage. It might also result in shameful acts such as rape or incest, acts which we should be prosecuting as capital offences.

People now gravitate toward whatever they feel will bring them the most enjoyment. This is vividly pictured when people of the same sex come together, mirror images of each other rather than complementing counterparts. Sometimes, the sins of adults against children can affect what affections and expressions that a child develops, and a culture in downgrade tells those children to pursue whatever is in their hearts at the moment rather than counseling them. The fallen world treats marriage and sexuality differently now because of sin.

This was not the original design. Should there have been opportunity in the Garden, before the Fall, there would never have been sexual attraction between two men or two women, nor a man who wanted to transition into a woman. All such deviations result from the fall.

Conclusion

As I said, this is just the start of this. We’ll consider ten more passages next time, Lord willing. For today, I want you to see that, despite a desire to shoehorn a current trend into Scripture, God clearly communicated what He expected. And, of course, that is what we naturally see within ourselves.

Our affections and thoughts are affected by the fall more than we know. However, in the gospel, we begin to see a reversal of the fall. One of the points we’ll see next week is how the New Testament promises in Christ help us to live as better men and women, husbands and wives. This hope is for anyone who recognizes their sin, their exposure before God, and seek a covering in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He not only pays for our sin, His Spirit helps us to walk anew, regardless of whatever sin has been troubling us.

Christian families: One of the best things Christians can do is have kids and raise them up in the Lord. This not only continues in the spirit of the cultural mandate, it is one of the best ways we can push back against culture. Especially in a time when the Western world is in population decline, Christians should do what we can to fill the earth with the gospel of our Lord.