As Christians living in today’s culture, it is increasingly likely that we will have some friends come out of the closet as “gay” or “trans,” and we need to respond appropriately.
We must realize certain facts about God and the human sin nature so that we will have a proper perspective toward others, including friends who come out of the closet.
Our response to a friend who comes out of the closet as gay or trans differs depending on whether the friend claims to be a Christian. First, we’ll consider what the Bible would have us do when an unbelieving friend comes out:
We should not cut ties with unsaved friends who come out of the closet as gay. Jesus freely associated with sinners, including prostitutes and the pariahs of His society (see Luke 5:30; 7:34). So, Jesus’ response to (as yet) unrepentant sinners was to reach out to them and share the love of God with them. Following our Lord’s example, we should reach out to friends who come out. We should talk about their experiences, hopes, dreams, fears, etc. We should listen even as we point to Christ. We should avoid making assumptions. Our unsaved friends who come out as gay should know beyond a doubt that we love them.
Of course, love is not synonymous with approval of wrong actions. Friends who come out of the closet as gay should understand that we share the Bible’s position on homosexuality, viz., that homosexual behavior is sinful (see Romans 1:26–27). In all our conversations, we should follow Peter’s command: “In your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience” (1 Peter 3:15–16). So, we are to present the truth about God, sin, and salvation, and we make the presentation with “gentleness and respect.” Above all, we honor the Lord Jesus Christ.
In Jesus’ encounter with the woman at the well, He modeled godliness in His method, His manner, and His message (John 4:1–42). The Samaritan woman Jesus addressed was not homosexual, but she was guilty of another sexual sin: she had married five husbands and was currently living with a man to whom she was not married. Jesus entered into dialogue with her, connecting with her “at the level of their shared humanity” (www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/interacting-with-a-gay-identified-friend, accessed 1/24/24), asking her for a drink (verse 7). He goes on to discuss her situation, pointing out her need for living water and a relationship with the Messiah. As a result of their conversation, an entire Samaritan village was evangelized, and many came to faith in Christ (verses 39–42).
Like Jesus, we should strive for godliness in method, manner, and message. When an unbelieving friend comes out as gay, we should use our relationship with that friend as a basis to show true care and concern. We should remember that he or she is a person, not a project. As we preserve the relationship, we can build trust. In the Holy Spirit’s own time, the door will be open for deeper conversations.
Those deeper conversations with friends who come out of the closet may involve a discussion of the difference between gay attraction, gay identification, and gay behavior. Gay attraction (homosexual feelings) may not be a choice but rather a temptation causing a struggle. Gay identification (making peace with the feelings) and gay behavior (engaging in homosexual sex), on the other hand, are choices one makes. Our friends struggling in this area should know that feelings do not have to lead to either identification or behavior.
Second, we’ll consider what the Bible would have us do when a friend who is a professed believer comes out:
In the case of a person who claims to be a Christian coming out of the closet, the New Testament gives this guideline: “You must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people” (1 Corinthians 5:11). John Piper calls this “holy ostracism” and comments further: “This [verse] is describing a person who, without any sense that his Christianity is being imperiled, or his soul, is acting out homosexual desire in sexually active ways” (www.desiringgod.org/interviews/how-should-christian-friends-respond-to-a-friend-who-has-entered-a-homosexual-relationship-and-moved-to-a-church-that-accepts-it, accessed 1/24/24).
So, when a person claiming to be a Christian chooses to live one of several specific sinful lifestyles—Paul lists six sins—the rest of the church is to withhold fellowship from that person. It does not suggest rudeness, discourtesy, or incivility. “Holy ostracism” communicates that the level of fellowship has changed. Believers are to avoid doing anything that would imply that they regard the sinning person as a Christian brother or sister. As long as the friend claims to be both a practicing Christian and a practicing gay person, there’s no hanging out together. Spending free time with each other is a thing of the past. The reason for the “holy ostracism” should be clearly and lovingly communicated to the friend. The goal is to bring about repentance and reconciliation.
Having been involved in an outreach ministry, I can honestly say that you will find few friends more loyal than homosexual individuals when they see the love and character of Christ in you. As believers, we are called to be “the aroma of Christ” (2 Corinthians 2:15) and to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15).
J.
Homosexuality, or trans. or any of the other alphabet genders has become a big in your face issue today. Not so 50 years ago. Today it is normalized and accepted. 50 years ago was the closet. We know it to be sin because the Bible speaks clearly on it as it does on other sins as well. Is this type of sin bigger or more serious than any other sin?
I know homosexual people. They’re friends, but not close friends. None of them are Christians. If I was to approach them with the gospel from the starting point of their sin, they would reject my message. But if I approach them with the gospel of Jesus and His love for them, they will listen. God accepts us as we are when we come to Him and once we are His, He works His good in us which will mean a change. In God’s timing and when they’re ready, He brings their sexuality to the forefront.
Jesus never approached people solely on their sin. He worked in their life first showing them who He was and then He said, “Go and sin no more.” It was only by His revelation of Himself that they could stop sinning and want to stop sinning because they saw who He was.
I don’t have the power to save anyone or change anyone. It’s only by Christ in me and through me that I can say or do anything that might make a difference. Jesus said, “Apart from Me, you can do nothing”.
Speaking to a friend who is also of an alphabet gender, requires God’s leading and presence. The important thing is to tell them of Jesus. It’s only when He is in their life that change can happen. If they’re a Christian, we pray and ask God to lead us in what we might say. God is the one who changes people, not us. We pray in the same way we would pray for another Christian who’s fallen into sin. God knows who are His and we need to remember Hebrews 10:14
"For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. " Done and being done.
Romans 1:26–27
The most important text regarding homosexuality in the NT is Romans 1:26–27. We learn from this text and the surrounding context that all sin, including homosexuality, is a consequence of idolatry. The fundamental and root sin, therefore, is not homosexuality or any other erroneous behaviour. The sin that provokes God’s wrath and leads to all other sin is the worship of the creature rather than the creator (Rom. 1:25). It is the failure to give thanks and praise to the one true and living God (Rom. 1:21).
It is important to emphasize here that homosexual sin is not singled out because homosexuals are particularly egregious sinners. Sin is an equal opportunity and democratic employer! All human beings have failed to glorify and thank God the way they should. Paul probably focuses on homosexuality at this point because it mirrors idolatry.16 In other words, both idolatry and same sex relations distort what human beings were made to do. That is, all human beings turn the world upside down by worshipping self rather than God. And same sex relations invert what God has intended, so that human beings opt for same sex intercourse instead of engaging in sexual intercourse with the opposite sex.
The reason homosexuality is proscribed here is that it is contrary to nature (para physin). The reference to ‘nature’ indicates that Paul refers back to the creation account, to what God intended when he created men and women.17 Paul’s use of the relatively unusual words thelys for females and arsen for males suggests that he draws on the creation account of Genesis (Gen. 1:27, LXX) where the same two words are used. The terms call attention to the sexual distinctiveness of males and females, suggesting that same sex relations violate God’s creational intent. Further, the phrase ‘contrary to nature’ echoes Stoic and Hellenistic Jewish traditions, which saw homosexual relations as a violation of the created order.18
Modern controversy over homosexuality has provoked a re-evaluation of this text.19 John Boswell, for instance, argues that Paul does not condemn all forms of homosexuality but only homosexual acts practised by people who are ‘naturally’ heterosexual.20 Such a view fails because it introduces a flawed concept of nature into the text. When he uses the term ‘nature’, Paul does not mean one’s individual and psychological predispositions. The word ‘nature’ refers to what God intended when he created men and women, and does not focus on the inherent character and disposition of human beings.21
Robin Scroggs minimizes Paul’s critique of homosexuality by claiming that Paul draws on Hellenistic Jewish tradition.22 Further, he thinks that pederasty is condemned here rather than homosexuality in general. The first argument presented by Scroggs reveals the weakness of his case, for there is no evidence that Paul departs from the unanimous Jewish conviction that homosexuality was sinful. Since Paul cites the tradition, he evidently passes on and concurs with the tradition. Nor does it work to restrict Paul’s comments to pederasty, for the text contains a general proscription of homosexual acts, and does not specify relationships between men and boys. Indeed, the text rules out Scroggs’s interpretation, for Paul does not refer to homosexual relations between men and boys. Instead, he specifically speaks of ‘males with males’ in verse 27. Furthermore, verse 26 demonstrates the implausibility of Scroggs’s thesis. There, same sex relations between females is proscribed, but there is no evidence that women and young girls engaged in same sex relations in the Hellenistic world.23 It follows, therefore, that in both verses 26 and 27 Paul speaks against homosexual relations in general, and the attempt to limit his words to pederasty fails.24
Gerald Sheppard argues that Paul’s words on homosexuality should be relativized in light of the canon as a whole since we gain understanding of God’s Word as we perceive in our own era the true nature of homosexuality.25 Such a reading, however, does not truly rely on canonical Scripture but introduces an extra-biblical norm in interpreting Scripture.26 Our cultural view of homosexuality effectively trumps the biblical witness for Sheppard. Victor Furnish and Margaret Davies are more straightforward in claiming that we can no longer accept the Pauline view on homosexuality since we know more about homosexual relations than Paul.27 This view at least has the virtue of honesty, but at the same time it removes itself from the realm of biblical and Christian ethics by surrendering to the tides of our culture.
We can contrast the view of Sheppard and Furnish with William Webb and his hermeneutical trajectory that emphasizes the redemptive movement in Scripture, a redemptive movement that may even transcend what the biblical text teaches.28 Webb argues that such a view does not open the door to homosexuality, for there is no movement in the biblical text towards endorsing homosexuality. We can be grateful that Webb sees no room in the Scriptures for same sex relations, but, in my judgement, Webb’s argument against homosexuality is not as strong as it should be. He downplays Paul’s argument from creation in Romans 1:26–27, and hence the fundamental argument against homosexuality in the Scriptures receives short shrift. Indeed, Webb’s own method could be employed by others to justify homosexuality, and given the trajectory of our culture and the evangelical movement, such an approach will probably not be long in coming.
Excellent article here.
J.
I am going to be 100 percent honest here @JennyLynne. I read the article twice. I want so desperately to respond, but I will wait till tomorrow for two reasons.
1 - I want to make sure that I do so Biblically, and compassionately. I know for a fact that I do not agree with some of the article. I want to research a bit to make sure I am not wrong. I will admit, I am extremely quick to point out that the Bible is clear. Anything outside marriage between one man and one woman. ANYTHING. Sex before marriage. Homosexuality, Transgenderism, Pedophilia, Bestiality, yes, all these are talked about in the Bible.
Homosexuality- Leviticus 18:1-5, 22-24, 29, Leviticus 20:13, Ezekiel 16:49-51, Romans 1:18-32, just to name a few.Transgenderism- Deuteronomy 22:5, Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 11:14-15, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5Pedophilia - Mark 9:42, Luke 17:1-37, 2 Timothy 3:1-17, 1 Corinthians 5:1-6 Beastiality- Leviticus 18:19-30, Exodus 22:19
I am quick to point out that the Word says this.
“Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.” 1 Corinthians 6:18-20
This is the only sin we are told to “Flee from.” Why? “Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.” With this sin, we also see a unique dynamic of attempting to justify it with science and false compassion.
2- This can also be seen as the most direct opposition to God and His plan for mankind. The devil works overtime in this one. Why? 1, “Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.” 2, God says,
"Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Genesis 1:26-28
Whatever does not reproduce dies. Two males, two females on an Island, the females decide they are lesbian, the males gay, no more people on the Island. An exact opposition to God’s command. Open rebellion. 3 God says,
“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24
Why? Homosexuals deserve love, too. What is wrong with a long-lasting gay relationship? How does that affect you? So one. An exact opposition to God’s command. Open rebellion.
3- Of course, we need to love them. Of course, Jesus would come to them. Of course, Jesus would encourage them to? As I said, I will respond tomorrow. I want to make sure that I do not respond out of anger or preconceived notions. Just honesty, and perhaps some honest questions.
Peter
Ok, here we go. When scientists or researchers state that homosexuality is natural, they are generally looking at three distinct lines of evidence: evolutionary biology, genetics, and observable behavior across the animal kingdom. This is inherently flawed. Evolution is false, genetics offers theory, not fact, and we are not animals.
According to “Twin Studies,” identical twins (who share 100% of their DNA) are significantly more likely to both be homosexual than fraternal twins (who share roughly 50% of their DNA). If orientation were purely environmental or theoretical, the rate of coincidence between identical and fraternal twins would be identical.
In a 2019 study published in Science, the DNA of nearly 500,000 people. It confirmed that while there is no single “gay gene,” sexual orientation is polygenic, meaning it is influenced by a complex combination of thousands of genetic variants working together, alongside prenatal environmental factors, such as hormone exposure in the womb.
The “Kin Selection” (or “Gay Uncle”) Hypothesis. This model suggests that non-reproducing family members contribute to the survival of their nieces and nephews. By dedicating resources to their genetic relatives, they ensure the family’s shared genes are successfully passed down to future generations.
Here is the thing. This is ALL Hypothesis. Theory. One of the main problems is that they are trying to justify it. Trying to say it is natural. When you When someone enters an investigation with a fixed conclusion and only hunts for data that supports it while tossing out or ignoring data that contradicts it, they are not doing science. They are doing propaganda or rationalization.
One of the greatest philosophers of science, Karl Popper, famously pointed out that the defining characteristic of a scientific statement is that it must be falsifiable. For an idea to be scientifically valid, there must be a theoretical way to prove it wrong.
If an idea is set up in such a way that no matter what the data shows, the person will always find a way to make it fit their preconceived notion, it has left the realm of science entirely.
The Scientific Approach: “If my hypothesis is true, I should see X. If I see Y, then my hypothesis is wrong, and I must discard or change it.”
The Validation Approach: “I know X is true. If the experiment shows Y, then the experiment was broken, the data is corrupted, or the people who ran it have an agenda.”
It is entirely human to want validation. Our brains are naturally wired to look for patterns that confirm what we already believe because it feels comfortable and safe. It takes an immense amount of intellectual discipline, humility, and rigorous study to look at hard data, realize your favorite theory is completely wrong, and say, “I was mistaken. Let’s look at what the truth actually is.”
Real science isn’t a body of absolute, unchanging decrees; it is a process. It’s a tool designed specifically to strip away human bias, ego, and wishful thinking so we can catch a glimpse of reality as it actually is, not just how we want it to be. When people weaponize the language of science just to back up a belief they refuse to ever question, they are merely wearing science like a costume.
Having said all that, let me say this. Genesis 1&2, Psalm 139, Romans 8. Jeremiah 1:5, Galatians 1:15, Corinthians 5:17, Luke 1:15, and Isaiah 49:5, just to name a few. God creates us. He forms us the way we should be. He never makes mistakes.
Peter