… and we’re back! I apologise for the brief hiatus over the last couple of months, but Jury Service and holidays tend to create problems if they occur at the same time as a blog is scheduled to be written and published.
Before getting into today’s blog, I wanted to briefly mention a recent story I came across which received some cross-media attention. It was to do with AI, which is never far from the news! It seems that ChatGPT wrote a fictitious narrative passage written in the style of a gospel writer, about Jesus accepting Trans people. Whilst it was a totally fictitious bit of AI conjecture, there was a surprising echo of the Gospel behind the piece. If you haven’t come across it, Pink News have a report you can find here.
Whilst I had been puzzling over what to write about; for some time I have been feeling that I ought to try to rework my original essay into a shortened format. This is therefore a first attempt, to see how enthusiastic I can be to do a serious rewrite sometime later.
In the last couple of months, I have had fascinating conversations with many people around the idea that God stands with, and embraces, the LGBTQ+ community. I enjoy having discussions, but I will walk away if someone shouts at me – and fortunately, it’s been a while since that last happened. I get a brain fog and can’t think straight, but when you talk to people one-to-one, most are happy to chat. Some are open and receptive, some cautious, others agree with you, but couldn’t rationally argue the case if asked to explain; and still others cling so tightly to what they have been taught they can’t think for themselves, and finally, the rest just swiftly shift the conversation to other, safer, areas as quickly as possible! 😊
So, in view of those discussions, I thought it might be good to try and do a precis of some of the main themes I cover in my essay (downloadable here). As the Essay is a little over 360 pages, we clearly aren’t going to cover everything I included in that earlier piece. 😉
When I started writing my essay sometime around 2015, I wanted to find out whether being LGBTQ+ was a natural condition, like being taller or shorter than the person next to me, whether people had simply chosen to adopt the lifestyle, or something else. Naïve? Clearly. But there was a much bigger question to resolve after that (depending on the answer): If being LGBTQ+ was a complete accident of birth, with no social/cultural influence, and no choice or decision-making component; given that the Bible at first glance seems to be against homosexuals, have I understood my Bible properly? Is what the writers had in mind and were trying to say, the same thing as what we are talking about today? If they were sitting across the table from us over a cup of tea, would they use the same word(s) today – or different ones?
If I believe that my Bible tells me that no-one who is homosexual (as we understand it today), “will inherit the kingdom of God”, I, for one, have a problem. That paints God as a very capricious Deity who punishes someone, not for the bad that they do, but purely for something they are – and have no hope of changing. If the Bible were to say that no-one with any form of disability or mental handicap will inherit the kingdom of God, or, alternatively, a baby, you’d be jumping up and down. In fact, the Old Testament bars people with certain categories of injury or disease, along with anyone who is not a Jew, from entering the temple. However, in the New Testament, Jesus came to “tear away the curtain” that blocked people from “seeing” God, making it possible for anyone to be called a “Child of God”. John 3 states:
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
The whole message of the Bible is about encouraging people to change, so that they think about and care for those who are in need. The prophet Micah paints this picture of a God who hates insincerity and fake spirituality. In Chapter 6 he writes:
6 With what shall I come before the Lord
and bow down before the exalted God?
Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
with calves a year old?
7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousand rivers of olive oil?
Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.
Earlier in Micah (Ch.4), he writes:
6 “In that day,” declares the Lord,
“I will gather the lame;
I will assemble the exiles
and those I have brought to grief.
7 I will make the lame my remnant,
those driven away a strong nation.
This is not the picture of a capricious God, but of one who truly loves and cares for people and who wants us to be like that as well. So, if God truly loves the broken and powerless what has gone wrong? Have we understood Scripture in the way the writers intended? And the answer I would suggest is that one or two passages have been poorly translated from words that were not in common use, and we’ll look at this next time. Don’t forget that Scripture needs to be in harmony with itself, otherwise you need to do a proper deep dive into the text – and definitely not read it superficially. So, teaching that contradicts anything else from the Bible needs to be closely examined, and properly tested.
One other thing I need to point out. The church has a long and proud record of arguing from scripture that the earth was flat, that the earth was the centre of the universe, and that slavery was a pretty good idea blessed by God – and woe betide anyone who disagreed. Indeed, there were times people lost their lives, or were imprisoned, if they opposed the church.
So, with that as a pre-amble, is being LGBTQ+ natural? And as I respond, I want to make use of science, history, genetics, mathematics/statistics, and of course, logic. I have used the Bible a little, but next time my focus will be on that.
Quite clearly science is absolutely clear that homosexuality is something that occurs naturally in nature. The science journal, Nature, reports that homosexuality has been observed in over 1500 animal species. The animals themselves don’t know that they are acting any differently to their peers, they are simply acting in accordance with their nature – indeed in accordance with their Genesis call from God (And God said, “Let there be …. And God saw that it was good.”). We obviously cannot know or test whether any animals identify as trans, because they wouldn’t know that what they feel is divergent from the norm – and how would that reveal itself anyway?
I have always seen “choice” as a major factor in the discussion for Christians, because if people can choose the category of people they are attracted to, you could perhaps make a moral case that some choices are wrong. Personally, I couldn’t choose and didn’t choose – I never gave it a thought! I am drawn only to certain people of the opposite sex, and I can’t do anything about that.
This choosing is different to a hetero‑typical person ethically deciding that they will not get romantically involved with someone who is married, or somebody they work with, or somebody they are assisting as part of their professional work (e.g., member of the Police force dating a victim), since they are still free to get to know anyone else.
It will also be true of those in the LGBTQ+ community who may decide they won’t go out with anyone, at certain difficult times of their life (Paul speaks a little into this situation in 1 Corinthians 7; 26-28). Despite that, those best of intentions (because that is what they are – intentions) can go awry! Dating sites rely on people selecting the criteria that attract them the most in a possible future partner. As a typical straight man, I have always only been interested in women, but I have never been interested in simply any woman, they had to be somebody special here, or somebody specific there, looks, character, age-range, interests, maturity, some sort of spark, etc. It would be exhausting to be attracted to every woman!
The obverse is also clearly true, that for a gay man or woman, they cannot choose to be attracted to somebody of the opposite sex – unless they specifically identify as bisexual. Watching BBC’s “Countryfile” of 24th September 2023, it was interesting to hear one young guy who, on realising he was gay, telling us that he prayed to God, pleading that, at least, would God make him “Bi” so that he could marry a woman and hide his orientation, so it looked alright. This pleading with God, is something we hear about so many times in so many stories. If choice were involved there would be no need for this angst, but sexuality is utterly involuntary. Whether you were gay or straight, did YOU actively choose? YOU didn’t, did you? It just happened.
However, if you additionally have a faith (in any Deity), there is increased pain, because you believe your God can be appealed to, to change things. But if the prayers are not answered in a positive way, your whole worldview/belief structure, is threatened. Here I will use Christian language, but I’m aware this can be applied to all the other major faiths as well.
For the person of faith, it is very tricky. You have been told God made you, and that by prayer, God can change things for the better, or provide healing. In addition, many churches either directly, or indirectly, say that homosexuality is a sin, and trans people are not allowed to change the bodies God has given them (although its okay for others with deformities to receive plastic surgery!). Churches also say that there is a good chance that God can heal you if you are fervent and sincere enough, but it might take time.
(As an aside, to address the LGBTQ+ person, God has nothing to heal you of – you are fine just as you are.) Faith groups pile guilt on shame. LGBTQ+ Christians often pray that God will heal them, and when that doesn’t happen, they are left feeling all the more rejected by God, because they are made to feel they aren’t good enough, or don’t have enough faith, and therefore an order of magnitude more wretched.
Much of the Christian church lacks the empathy and desire to provide encouragement and support. A few days ago, Premier reported on how students in Oxford evaluated 30 churches in the city as to how inclusive the churches were towards LGBTQ+ people. It’s an indictment that this sort of report is even essential to stop new LGBTQ+ students to Oxford, unnecessarily being put in harm’s way. There was a follow-up article a couple of days later which is worth reading, but I kind of disagree with the author in that I think he was being idealistic, when I don’t think the original idea sought to be an in-depth commentary of church life across the whole of Oxford, but an overview “hitch-hikers guide to…” . Yes, Christians would have been involved in compiling the report, but the Oxford LGBTQ+ Society was not a Christian group – they are first and foremost an LGBTQ+ group. Hence the ideals expressed in that second article are not really that relevant. If you want to read the student report you can download it here, and you’ll see that each church only has a dozen or so lines, and you really wouldn’t expect more.
Getting back to the science, what is it telling us? So far, science is unclear about what determines a person’s sexuality. As we’ve already said, we have seen it in nature. We have also mentioned that “choice” used to be the explanation for the fact that people identified as gay. It is still held by many Christians who have never sat down and talked with someone who identifies as LGBTQ+. Then, 50+ years ago the idea that it was caused by a gene, became popular. Linked to that was an ethical issue that if this had proved to be the source, would we then be able to breed out the gay gene by removing it from the embryo? Would this be ethical, and what does it imply for other undesirable conditions? Fortunately, that gradually also died away as it was realised that genes were unlikely to be the vector – there were many identical twins where if one were gay, it didn’t mean the other would be. Currently there is an idea there might be an epigenetic link. There is an interesting Guardian article from Australia, only published a little over a week ago, as I write this, that explored this promising issue of epigenetics.
Let’s take another historical event, the Holocaust. Yes, we know that about 8 million Jewish people died in concentration camps. But did you know that between 1933 and 1945, an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 men who were accused of homosexuality, were deported to concentration camps. Unfortunately, most of them died in the camps, often from exhaustion. If being homosexual was a choice, would you seriously choose to allow yourself to be taken to a concentration camp on a point of principle?
Historically and culturally we also know that throughout recorded history we have records of people who would today identify under all the various banners of LGBTQ+. Statistics vary, but generally about 3.5-6% of any given population in countries where homosexuality is not a crime, identify as being under one of the categories. Sometimes higher percentages than those are quoted – maybe when other sexual conditions are added in. As I contend, it is perfectly normal – a part of God’s creation. It is not unreasonable to surmise that similar numbers would also embrace the identity in countries where it is too dangerous to come out. In every culture across the world, we have stories, histories and pictures of people who would today be identified as being some part of the community. Africa and African Churches may claim that homosexuality is a Western, or colonial disease, but as I point out in the essay, there are very good sources that pre-date the European Colonisation of Africa that show it was a normal part of life before the first Europeans came to the continent.
In first nation cultures we find examples of multiple genders being recognised. People with both male and female characteristics might become the tribal medicine‑man/woman, shaman, or witch doctor, because they were seen to be the bridge between the spirit, and human world of those cultures. I go into a lot more detail in my essay.
I learned an interesting fact when I followed a link in the earlier Pink News article, and that was that there are eight human genders recognised in the Jewish Talmud (this is the central text of Rabbinic Judaism and the primary source of Jewish religious law that Jews followed alongside the Torah – the first five books of the Bible) – and you thought there might be just two! Jesus would have been very familiar with the Talmud since it was written down between 500-200 BC/BCE, and contained many additional Jewish laws, interpretations and explanatory stories. Read more about the eight genders here. This in itself raises questions because if Jesus knew of this, but didn’t make any comments or directives, He clearly didn’t have a problem, nor see it as important.
Still on that subject of history, we know that for most of recorded time, sodomy has been outlawed. These days we tend to only think of sodomy as anal sex between men, but it used to have many more meanings. Until the last century or so, the term “sodomy” was associated with various forms of non-procreative sexual acts, including homosexuality, bestiality, masturbation, and sometimes even non-procreative heterosexual acts. The word “sodomy” still gets used in various legal jurisdictions and cultures to characterize culturally unacceptable sexual practices. The Church played a significant role in shaping the perception of sodomy as a grave sin, and sodomy laws were enacted in many places during much of the Middle Ages and beyond. Penalties for sodomy could be severe, including death, on occasion. Any kind of sexual pleasure outside of procreation was seen as a violation of the natural order, and a sin against God.
Nowadays, although only practiced by a growing minority, anal sex in heterosexual relationships isn’t seriously blinked at. Although many will disapprove, they won’t get angry, and the church says nothing, at least there is no clear teaching, because there is no clear prohibition in the Bible. Largely, if people are married – and it’s specifically a man and woman – what happens in the privacy of the bedroom, stays there, providing it is consensual. Superficially there looks to be a bit of hypocrisy in that if anal sex is relatively okay for straight people, why not if you’re gay and Christian? If it’s purely that the gay person isn’t married in the eyes of the church, make it possible to marry! I’m sure you’re aware that there are many ways gay people can have sex other than just this. So, if you’re judging them purely because you think they’re engaging in anal sex, what is the basis of your argument? Distaste isn’t a valid argument. And what is your basis of judgement against lesbians? And what about those gays and lesbians who are “between relationships”? They may be effectively long-term celibate, though possibly not by choice. Where do they stand? Any argument must be credible and stand up under any examination.
We referred to genes earlier, and this requires us to additionally take a look at mathematics and statistics. Christians frequently talk about the doctrine of “original sin” where, because of the sin of Adam and Eve (where they ate of some sort of fruit that God had said they should avoid), everything from that point on, was tainted by that sin of disobedience. Death and disease entered the world and the perfect world God had created was stained and spoiled. So, my asthma and eczema, the need to wear glasses, and various other issues would be a direct result of the Fall, as would all the conditions identified by flags that fly under the LGBTQ+ standard. Many Christians still argue that because God only made two genders at the beginning, even today there are only two possible genders. This is a very silly correlation: what you are saying is that anything that differs from the first pair is against the will of God. Think it through. Using me as an example, I have a different skin and eye colour to Adam for starters, and then probably every part of my body from the size of my hands, feet, internal organs, and on through intelligence capacity, and skills – all will be very different to Adam. Am I truly an abomination – well, maybe to some! 😊
This is really an argument I should leave till next time, but logically, if original sin affected every part of our bodies and lives, how is it that gender and sexuality isn’t touched by the Fall, over time, in that worldview?
Then turning to a mathematical/statistical point of view I want to quote a paragraph from my essay:
The man/woman in the street would say that the difference between a man and a woman is determined by the presence of a penis or vagina/breasts, however it isn’t that simple. Scientists would say that a female has two X chromosomes and a male has one X and one Y chromosome. That sounds pretty simple, but actually it is incredibly complex! Every human cell contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, for a total of 46 chromosomes including an XY or XX chromosomes. A chromosome contains hundreds or thousands of genes – for example chromosome 1 has over 2000 genes; chromosome 22 has 5-600; the X chromosome has 8-900 and the Y chromosome has 50-60. A gene is a segment of DNA containing the code used to synthesize a protein. You can look up more information here: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/chromosome
In the table I include with the essay, the number of chromosome base pairs is 3,095,693,981, and the number of chromosomal variations is a staggering 155,630,645 possible variations, so from a statistical point of view it is not at all surprising that things will go wrong from time to time, if hormones are secreted at the wrong time, or by the wrong amount.
There are many people who, under a microscope, don’t fit the pattern of having the standard issue XY or XX chromosomes. Their might have different combinations of X and Y chromosomes. The percentages might be small, but the numbers are large. What is their gender? How is the Bible relevant to them, when there are no people they can identify with?
Some people like to think we all fit into one of two boxes, but life is nothing like that. We have different faces, different coloured and tinted skins, different sizes and shapes of ears, noses, heads, bodies, arms, hands, feet, … yes, and even genitals. There is definitely no one size fits all! That’s just the short version of the list. Every organ in the body can be a different size and shape to the person next to us. Some of us are naturally strong, or good runners, or good at sports with good co-ordination, natural skill, and balance. Others less so. I wanted to be a good footballer – I never wanted it to be a career, but just to play well. Well, my lack of ability ensured that I became the left-back – left back in the dressing room! I also wanted to play the guitar – that too quickly went out of tune, with my lack of a sense of rhythm. There is an infinite variety of sizes and shapes and abilities, so just accept it and think through the logic and implications.
If you then explore the huge range of differences within the mind and brain, of intellects, creative abilities, culture, interests, and hobbies, religious, political, as well as sporting, you have another huge spectrum. We are all different – we are very diverse people – we don’t fit into neat boxes.
Why is it so strange to think that God might pro-actively create those who are LGBTQ+? Why does it seem that so many creative and imaginative people are gay? Maybe God needs these people to move civilisation forward in creative and imaginative ways that the rest of us aren’t cut out for.
Sexuality isn’t limited to different boxes or pigeon-holes – straight, gay, bi, trans. Just like everything else, sexuality is a spectrum. Some people will be entirely straight and others entirely gay, but then you’ll have certain people identifying with any of the points in between. So, if we look at this very simplistic table, we have someone who identifies as gay on the left, and someone who identifies as straight on the right, and someone who is bi, in the middle. But how does someone in the nondescript area of blue/lavender area identify? And how does the person in the yellow/green identify?
As I say in the essay:
“… there will be those who largely identify as straight but have a bit of a draw to those of the same sex. Likewise, there will be those who identify as gay, but who have a slight draw to the opposite sex. Then obviously there will be those who know they are equally attracted to both men and women. I suspect that if you can keep your head down as pass as straight without too much problem, you’ll do so. Why put a target on your back if you don’t have to?!”
Most seem to identify with the identity that gives them the simplest answer, even if the truth is a little more nuanced. Obviously, the biggest group by far will be straight, but sexuality is very much a spectrum, and we must recognise it.
And there’s no logical reason why being trans can’t also be a spectrum either, and I think it is probably good to think in this way as it will hopefully make us more sympathetic and empathetic to those real people affected by society’s attitudes.
Are LGBTQ+ people guilty of sin? No, and yes! I have already alluded to it but if choice is not a factor, and that being gay or trans is a scientific fact that is common and natural within so many species of life on the Earth, you cannot argue that actually being LGBTQ+ is a sin. The only time sin can be claimed would be in terms of the expression of your sexuality in lust and promiscuity, where sex occurs outside a committed relationship – but this is identical for every straight person as well. There is no sin in simply being gay, or whatever, and we’ll confirm that next time when we look at some of the so-called “clobber” passages.
So, I have to conclude that being LGBTQ+ is a complete accident of birth. There is no social/cultural influence, and no choice or decision-making component. Therefore, have I understood my Bible properly, have I or someone else misunderstood the Bible – has someone inadvertently made a translation error? This is what I’ll look at next time, where we’ll see how much we can get through!
This blog is far from perfect, but if you have any helpful insights or comments, or even a question, drop me a message via the Contact page. Even if you disagree, contact me, but be civil and intelligent, if you want me to engage.
Changing Minds 