"I know this post has been one of those Biblical writings that will turn a lot of you off. I simply want you all to know why it’s so important that the Supreme Court upheld bans of puberty blockers for young people."
Singling out LGBT folk for living in sin incompatible with Christianity seems like dwelling on a mote in our eye while ignoring the beam that is rapidly dismantling health care and social services for the poorest among us[1] and our neighbors that depended on us[2].
As for SCOTUS upholding bans on puberty blockers, as long as it's consistent in also upholding bans on other elective procedures for minors[3] and the principle isn't exclusively applied to LGBT minors, I don't see the issue. I'd rather that be an issue between a minor and their doctor - rather than a minor and their State legislators - but these kinds of powers would fall under a State's expansive umbrella to run itself as it sees fit.
"I want you all to know why it’s so important that churches and pulpits be free to express political choice, because our politics is the incubator of what we force others to do."
That's fine, as long as they are taxed and treated the same way as any other for-profit business in America that is free to endorse candidates and fully express their political choices. Note that other types of non-profits are prohibited from some of these activities (such as candidate endorsements), so churches should follow the same rules or lose their tax-exempt status.
Chris, I suspect we disagree on many things. Funny we agree on this post, but maybe for different reasons. Let’s just celebrate the agreement between us.
Yes, let’s let states manage the laws of their constituencies. TN was well within their right to decide the current “gender care” being conducted was not something they should allow in TN. Just like CA wants to promote openness to it.
And while I heartily endorsed Steve’s overall sentiment in the main article, it is not in the church’s mandate to lobby for a political party or candidate, IMO. Your point about favorable tax status as a non-partisan entity isn’t the whole point, but a good one, nonetheless.
But the overarching point to not taxing churches is, once they start down that road, what else would the state try to regulate, or dictate to religious institutions? History is replete with this kind of intimidation.
And why should a church be treated any differently than a secular non-profit?
We have these lanes (churches don't get political, the state leaves the churches alone) for very good reasons that would be idiotic to have to rediscover in an unnecessary sectarian conflict.
Can a gambler be a christian? How about a adulterer? Or a liar? Can a Trump supporter be a christian? Or literally any other sin that exists within that fake hate this person religion? It's so funny how its always those people who can't possibly be christian are always others. Never those within our circle of friends.
Yes I’ve seen all those questions. And the answer is if that person defines their identity based on their sin, no, they can’t be a Christian. But how often do you see the First Church of Gamblers? Or churches splitting over ordaining known and unrepentant adulterers as bishops? If there was a Church of Trump it would be a cult. The answer is consistent. The salient difference is how the culture pushes certain sins and judges churches by others.
Show me when the church has ever persecuted those sinners like they do homosexuality and there would be. Throughout the entire history of the church anytime whenever someone breaks off from the standard church and separates this happens. Whether its Martin Luther on down to pro slavery baptists. Every single time its those aren't real christians.
Oh, Steve. I agree with many of the beliefs you stated, but to say that there are no LGBT Christians is just so, so wrong.
The definition of a Christian is someone who has acknowledged that they, in and of themselves, are incapable of bridging the gulf between them and God that exists due to sin. Following this realization they have accepted Christ’s sacrifice on the cross as being the only thing that can do this.
Christians still sin, obviously. Many, many of them sin habitually. While habitual sin affects a person’s relationship with God, it does NOT mean that person is not a Christian. The things you would classify as sin under the LGBT label are no different than any other; there is no “better” or “worse” sin.
Not only do Christians sin, but they can be wrong about things. I’ve known people in various churches who believed it was a sin for women to wear pants, for example. I would never say that this mistaken belief meant that they are not Christians.
In today’s world, people who identify as LGBT are told by the majority that there is nothing wrong with acting on the way they feel. Some have even been told that the parts of the Bible that forbid homosexual behavior were misinterpreted or are simply no longer relevant. It’s easy to see why they would want to believe these things.
Then you have the fact that many Christians are much, much less than loving in their pronouncements against LGBT individuals. They don’t denounce the sin out of love and concern for a person’s relationship with God. They do it to draw a line between “us” and “them,” because it makes them feel superior to point out that they themselves aren’t engaging in that particular sin. Given this it’s no surprise that people who value love and compassion would react by creating their own churches that are free of this kind of condemnation.
Ultimately it’s not up to us to say who can or cannot be a Christian. We can have our own opinions based on what we see of a person’s actions, but we have no way of knowing a person’s heart. The only one who can do that is God, and He’s instructed us not to judge others in this way.
I’d argue it’s a matter of identity. Certainly a same-sex attracted person who tries to live for Christ and sins is covered under the blood of Jesus in repentance. But if that person says they are not in sin and continues living the gay lifestyle that is not repentance. No different than a serial adulterer who won’t stop, or a sex abuser, or a thief who refuses to repent. You can’t claim both the sin as identity and also claim Christ.
You can, because someone who claims this doesn’t believe they are in sin. It’s one thing for someone to know they’re in sin and not care. It’s another thing for someone not to understand they’re in sin due in part to the factors I listed above. This person sees no need for repentance. Many Christians fall into this category of not seeing their sin as sin. I don’t think it makes a difference if the sin is claimed as an identity.
Edited to add: Even someone who knows they’re in sin is not excluded from being a Christian.
Hey Steve! This is a powerful position statement that will not sit well with some of your readers, perhaps because of the plank(s) in their eye(s). Thanks for sharing.
Back when I was a christian I use to wonder about the homosexuality question and how to reconcile it with scripture. Was homosexuality a choice you could turn away from? But I knew gay people who lived in genuine long term relationships with their partners. I saw it was no more a choice than my own sexual orientation was a choice. Was God really demanding gay people live their life a lie and pretend to be straight or deceive themselves the world and their families about orientation. Or just as bad, live celibate lives so that others theology made sense.
So I decided to test the Bible and read it as if it was just another book, as prone to error as any book is. Or would I be struck by its wisdom and insight. I got as far as the nativity stories before I realised it was all made up. Matthew states Mary and Joseph were living in Bethlehem before Jesus was born and they fled to Nazareth to escape Herod via Egypt while Luke maintains it was a census that brought them to Nazareth (despite the fact that it make no sense to shuffle your population away from home before conducting a taxation census). Whatever. Long story short. I no longer look to the Bible for divine wisdom and life has made more sense since.
Short answer: not quite but sort of, depending on how you stated the question.
Longer answer: The Bible (as arranged by Christianity) is an expansive story relating Man’s separation from God through willful sin (ie disobedience) and continues as a long arc of the story of our reconciliation to Him through His forgiveness of our collective and individual sins by the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus.
Within that story of our eventual reconciliation, God gave the Nation (or rather People) of Israel, as set of laws. They were given this as a boundary of how to live in right standing with Him. But it was specific to his covenant with the Nation of Israel. As such, it contains religious practices specific to Judaism, it contains laws that deal with civil and judicial laws for the Nation of Israel, and laws which describe objective morality, independent of time or circumstance. The examples are, not cutting or trimming side burns (Jewish religious custom) and murder (objective morality).
There were later holy scriptures given to Apostles during and after Jesus’s life, ie the New Testament). A important aspect was that these precious laws were fulfilled in Jesus’s death and resurrection, which bought back the debt of Man’s sin, and also fulfilled the law. As such, it was shown that the law could only reveal Man’s sin and inability to be right with God on our own actions, thus the need for Jesus’s sacrifice.
So to finally get to what I think you are asking, yes, the Old Testament (especially the law given to Moses) states that homosexuality is a sin. This required repentance like all other sins. Repentance is the admission of wrongdoing and turning away from those wrong actions. In the New Testament , sins are forgiven, but repentance is still required. The New Testament does not list out what is explicitly sin, like the law of the Old Testament, but it does explicitly call out moral sins, and explicitly calls out homosexuality.
Though you asked if the Bible declares anyone other than heterosexual as invalid. The Bible does not do that. Example, someone may be attracted to same sex people, or to lots of people of the opposite sex. This isn’t a sin ( not very controversial) It is the acting on this attraction outside of heterosexual marriage that is the sin. This is more controversial among different groups of Christians, but only recently. Some Christian churches believe a same sex marriage acts the same as a hetero marriage and incurs no sin. Others do not.
But the Bible does explicitly state that no one is inherently “invalid”. God desires everyone as created to have a direct and spiritually intimate relationship with Him through his Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
"I know this post has been one of those Biblical writings that will turn a lot of you off. I simply want you all to know why it’s so important that the Supreme Court upheld bans of puberty blockers for young people."
Singling out LGBT folk for living in sin incompatible with Christianity seems like dwelling on a mote in our eye while ignoring the beam that is rapidly dismantling health care and social services for the poorest among us[1] and our neighbors that depended on us[2].
As for SCOTUS upholding bans on puberty blockers, as long as it's consistent in also upholding bans on other elective procedures for minors[3] and the principle isn't exclusively applied to LGBT minors, I don't see the issue. I'd rather that be an issue between a minor and their doctor - rather than a minor and their State legislators - but these kinds of powers would fall under a State's expansive umbrella to run itself as it sees fit.
"I want you all to know why it’s so important that churches and pulpits be free to express political choice, because our politics is the incubator of what we force others to do."
That's fine, as long as they are taxed and treated the same way as any other for-profit business in America that is free to endorse candidates and fully express their political choices. Note that other types of non-profits are prohibited from some of these activities (such as candidate endorsements), so churches should follow the same rules or lose their tax-exempt status.
[1] https://www.klkntv.com/rural-southwest-nebraska-clinic-closes-blaming-expected-medicaid-cuts/
[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2025/07/01/nx-s1-5452513/trump-usaid-foreign-aid-deaths
[3] https://kidshealth.org/en/teens/plastic-surgery.html
Chris, I suspect we disagree on many things. Funny we agree on this post, but maybe for different reasons. Let’s just celebrate the agreement between us.
Yes, let’s let states manage the laws of their constituencies. TN was well within their right to decide the current “gender care” being conducted was not something they should allow in TN. Just like CA wants to promote openness to it.
And while I heartily endorsed Steve’s overall sentiment in the main article, it is not in the church’s mandate to lobby for a political party or candidate, IMO. Your point about favorable tax status as a non-partisan entity isn’t the whole point, but a good one, nonetheless.
Federalism. :-)
1st amendment, 'nuff said.
Care to elaborate?
The first amendment protects religion from state interference. And btw, NOT the other way around.
The First Amendment protects my speech from state interference, but that's orthogonal to it taxing my income.
And just to be clear, I think the 16th amendment should be repealed because of this same argument.
But the overarching point to not taxing churches is, once they start down that road, what else would the state try to regulate, or dictate to religious institutions? History is replete with this kind of intimidation.
And why should a church be treated any differently than a secular non-profit?
We have these lanes (churches don't get political, the state leaves the churches alone) for very good reasons that would be idiotic to have to rediscover in an unnecessary sectarian conflict.
Can a gambler be a christian? How about a adulterer? Or a liar? Can a Trump supporter be a christian? Or literally any other sin that exists within that fake hate this person religion? It's so funny how its always those people who can't possibly be christian are always others. Never those within our circle of friends.
Yes I’ve seen all those questions. And the answer is if that person defines their identity based on their sin, no, they can’t be a Christian. But how often do you see the First Church of Gamblers? Or churches splitting over ordaining known and unrepentant adulterers as bishops? If there was a Church of Trump it would be a cult. The answer is consistent. The salient difference is how the culture pushes certain sins and judges churches by others.
Show me when the church has ever persecuted those sinners like they do homosexuality and there would be. Throughout the entire history of the church anytime whenever someone breaks off from the standard church and separates this happens. Whether its Martin Luther on down to pro slavery baptists. Every single time its those aren't real christians.
Oh, Steve. I agree with many of the beliefs you stated, but to say that there are no LGBT Christians is just so, so wrong.
The definition of a Christian is someone who has acknowledged that they, in and of themselves, are incapable of bridging the gulf between them and God that exists due to sin. Following this realization they have accepted Christ’s sacrifice on the cross as being the only thing that can do this.
Christians still sin, obviously. Many, many of them sin habitually. While habitual sin affects a person’s relationship with God, it does NOT mean that person is not a Christian. The things you would classify as sin under the LGBT label are no different than any other; there is no “better” or “worse” sin.
Not only do Christians sin, but they can be wrong about things. I’ve known people in various churches who believed it was a sin for women to wear pants, for example. I would never say that this mistaken belief meant that they are not Christians.
In today’s world, people who identify as LGBT are told by the majority that there is nothing wrong with acting on the way they feel. Some have even been told that the parts of the Bible that forbid homosexual behavior were misinterpreted or are simply no longer relevant. It’s easy to see why they would want to believe these things.
Then you have the fact that many Christians are much, much less than loving in their pronouncements against LGBT individuals. They don’t denounce the sin out of love and concern for a person’s relationship with God. They do it to draw a line between “us” and “them,” because it makes them feel superior to point out that they themselves aren’t engaging in that particular sin. Given this it’s no surprise that people who value love and compassion would react by creating their own churches that are free of this kind of condemnation.
Ultimately it’s not up to us to say who can or cannot be a Christian. We can have our own opinions based on what we see of a person’s actions, but we have no way of knowing a person’s heart. The only one who can do that is God, and He’s instructed us not to judge others in this way.
I’d argue it’s a matter of identity. Certainly a same-sex attracted person who tries to live for Christ and sins is covered under the blood of Jesus in repentance. But if that person says they are not in sin and continues living the gay lifestyle that is not repentance. No different than a serial adulterer who won’t stop, or a sex abuser, or a thief who refuses to repent. You can’t claim both the sin as identity and also claim Christ.
You can, because someone who claims this doesn’t believe they are in sin. It’s one thing for someone to know they’re in sin and not care. It’s another thing for someone not to understand they’re in sin due in part to the factors I listed above. This person sees no need for repentance. Many Christians fall into this category of not seeing their sin as sin. I don’t think it makes a difference if the sin is claimed as an identity.
Edited to add: Even someone who knows they’re in sin is not excluded from being a Christian.
Hey Steve! This is a powerful position statement that will not sit well with some of your readers, perhaps because of the plank(s) in their eye(s). Thanks for sharing.
Great post, Steve. Great debate, post publication.
We can disagree to the extent of some misgivings, and even the wisdom of politicking from the pulpit, but this is a small matter.
I agree 100%!! Thank you for speaking the bold truth!
Back when I was a christian I use to wonder about the homosexuality question and how to reconcile it with scripture. Was homosexuality a choice you could turn away from? But I knew gay people who lived in genuine long term relationships with their partners. I saw it was no more a choice than my own sexual orientation was a choice. Was God really demanding gay people live their life a lie and pretend to be straight or deceive themselves the world and their families about orientation. Or just as bad, live celibate lives so that others theology made sense.
So I decided to test the Bible and read it as if it was just another book, as prone to error as any book is. Or would I be struck by its wisdom and insight. I got as far as the nativity stories before I realised it was all made up. Matthew states Mary and Joseph were living in Bethlehem before Jesus was born and they fled to Nazareth to escape Herod via Egypt while Luke maintains it was a census that brought them to Nazareth (despite the fact that it make no sense to shuffle your population away from home before conducting a taxation census). Whatever. Long story short. I no longer look to the Bible for divine wisdom and life has made more sense since.
I’m not Christian, and have never read the bible to any extent.
I find the infinite genders to be nonsense, but only from a biological and scientific standpoint.
So does the bible explicitly disavow/denounce/refute/otherwise declare invalid any person who is anything other than a heterosexual man or woman?
Thanks for a reasonable question, Steve.
Short answer: not quite but sort of, depending on how you stated the question.
Longer answer: The Bible (as arranged by Christianity) is an expansive story relating Man’s separation from God through willful sin (ie disobedience) and continues as a long arc of the story of our reconciliation to Him through His forgiveness of our collective and individual sins by the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus.
Within that story of our eventual reconciliation, God gave the Nation (or rather People) of Israel, as set of laws. They were given this as a boundary of how to live in right standing with Him. But it was specific to his covenant with the Nation of Israel. As such, it contains religious practices specific to Judaism, it contains laws that deal with civil and judicial laws for the Nation of Israel, and laws which describe objective morality, independent of time or circumstance. The examples are, not cutting or trimming side burns (Jewish religious custom) and murder (objective morality).
There were later holy scriptures given to Apostles during and after Jesus’s life, ie the New Testament). A important aspect was that these precious laws were fulfilled in Jesus’s death and resurrection, which bought back the debt of Man’s sin, and also fulfilled the law. As such, it was shown that the law could only reveal Man’s sin and inability to be right with God on our own actions, thus the need for Jesus’s sacrifice.
So to finally get to what I think you are asking, yes, the Old Testament (especially the law given to Moses) states that homosexuality is a sin. This required repentance like all other sins. Repentance is the admission of wrongdoing and turning away from those wrong actions. In the New Testament , sins are forgiven, but repentance is still required. The New Testament does not list out what is explicitly sin, like the law of the Old Testament, but it does explicitly call out moral sins, and explicitly calls out homosexuality.
Though you asked if the Bible declares anyone other than heterosexual as invalid. The Bible does not do that. Example, someone may be attracted to same sex people, or to lots of people of the opposite sex. This isn’t a sin ( not very controversial) It is the acting on this attraction outside of heterosexual marriage that is the sin. This is more controversial among different groups of Christians, but only recently. Some Christian churches believe a same sex marriage acts the same as a hetero marriage and incurs no sin. Others do not.
But the Bible does explicitly state that no one is inherently “invalid”. God desires everyone as created to have a direct and spiritually intimate relationship with Him through his Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. Much appreciated.