Sexuality, Gender and the Goodness of God's Design

What you'll learn

Explain the biblical sexual ethic as a positive, creation-based vision of marriage, and show where it is taught from Genesis to Hebrews
State the strongest affirming arguments (Matthew Vines, David Gushee) fairly and answer them with careful exegesis and scholarship
Speak about sexuality and gender with conviction and compassion, offering the same gospel of repentance, grace and belonging to everyone

Why this lesson needs both truth and tears

For many people, sexuality is where progressive Christianity is most visible. Churches that move in a progressive direction usually reach the point where they bless same-sex marriages and affirm transgender identities. This is often called an affirming position (affirming same-sex relationships as good). The historic Christian view is usually called the traditional or historic position.

Be careful how you describe the other side. Most affirming Christians would not say, "I affirm sin." They say the Bible, rightly read, does not condemn loving, committed same-sex relationships. Some, like Matthew Vines, even affirm inerrancy. Answer a position they do not hold and you lose the conversation before it starts. Views also vary: some who call themselves progressive still hold a traditional sexual ethic, and some affirming Christians are otherwise quite conservative.

This topic is never abstract. Behind every argument is a person: a friend who has wrestled with same-sex attraction since childhood, parents who love a child, a believer mocked by Christians. Truth without love sounds like a slammed door; love without truth leaves people where they are.

Why does the lesson warn you to describe the affirming position carefully, and what balance does it call for?Show answer

Most affirming Christians would not say 'I affirm sin'; they believe the Bible, rightly read, does not condemn loving, committed same-sex relationships, and some, like Matthew Vines, even affirm inerrancy. If you answer a position they do not hold, you lose the conversation before it starts. Because behind every argument is a real person, we need both truth and love: truth without love sounds like a slammed door, and love without truth leaves people where they are.

describe their view fairly
some affirm inerrancy
a real person behind every argument
truth and love together

God's good design: the biblical vision of sex and marriage

Start with the yes, not the no. The Bible's sexual ethic begins with creation. God made humanity in his image "male and female" and blessed them (Gen 1:27-28). The man and the woman are different and suited to each other, and in marriage they "become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). Sex is God's good gift, not something shameful. (You met the creation of humanity as male and female in Know Your Faith, Lesson 5.)

Jesus himself grounds marriage in these two texts. Asked about divorce, he joins Genesis 1:27 and 2:24: "he who created them from the beginning made them male and female" and therefore a man "shall hold fast to his wife" (Matt 19:4-6). Notice that Jesus treats the sexual difference of male and female as part of what marriage is, not an accident of it. Paul then reveals that marriage is a living picture of Christ and his church (Eph 5:31-32): two different parties, united in covenant love.

From this design comes one simple ethic for everyone: sexual intimacy belongs only within the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman, and outside marriage God calls us to chastity. "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled" (Heb 13:4). The Westminster Confession agrees: "Marriage is to be between one man and one woman" (WCF 24.1; 1689 LBC 25.1). This standard condemns heterosexual lust, pornography and adultery as clearly as same-sex activity. No one stands above the line.

How does Jesus ground marriage in creation, and what single sexual ethic follows for everyone?Show answer

Asked about divorce, Jesus joined Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, saying God made them male and female and therefore a man holds fast to his wife (Matt 19:4-6), so sexual difference is part of what marriage is. Paul adds that marriage pictures Christ and his church (Eph 5:31-32). The ethic is that sexual intimacy belongs only within marriage between one man and one woman, with chastity outside it, which condemns heterosexual lust, pornography and adultery just as clearly; no one stands above the line.

Jesus joins Gen 1:27 and 2:24
male and female part of marriage
intimacy only in marriage
no one above the line

The key texts on same-sex relations

Alongside the positive vision, a handful of texts speak directly to same-sex sexual activity. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 forbid a man lying with a male as with a woman. These sit among sexual commands (incest, adultery) that the New Testament repeats, not among the food laws Christ fulfilled.

Romans 1:24-27 is the fullest passage. Paul describes humanity exchanging the glory of the Creator for created things, and then describes women who "exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature" and men who were "consumed with passion for one another." Three details matter. Paul's language echoes Genesis 1 (Creator, creature, images of man, birds, animals), so "nature" means God's creation design. He includes women, which does not fit the theory that he only meant men abusing boys. And the phrase "for one another" describes mutual desire, not one-sided exploitation.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10 use the Greek word arsenokoitai. It is not found in any Greek writing before Paul, and many scholars think it was formed from the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) wording of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which places the words for "male" and "bed" side by side. If so, Paul is pointing straight back to the Levitical command, which is not limited to any particular kind of relationship. Most standard Greek lexicons define the word as referring to men who have sex with men.

What about Sodom (Gen 19)? Affirming writers rightly note that the men of Sodom intended gang rape and that Ezekiel 16:49 names pride and neglect of the poor (Jude 7 adds sexual immorality). But the historic ethic does not depend on Sodom; it rests on creation and the texts above.

What three details in Romans 1:24-27 does the lesson highlight, and why do they matter?Show answer

First, Paul's language echoes Genesis 1, so 'nature' means God's creation design rather than custom. Second, he includes women, which does not fit the theory that he only meant men abusing boys. Third, 'for one another' describes mutual desire, not one-sided exploitation.

echoes Genesis 1
'nature' = creation design
includes women
mutual, not exploitative

Why is the word arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 significant?Show answer

It is not found in any Greek writing before Paul, and many scholars think it was formed from the Septuagint wording of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which places the words for 'male' and 'bed' side by side. If so, Paul is pointing back to the Levitical command, which is not limited to any particular kind of relationship. Most standard Greek lexicons define it as men who have sex with men.

no earlier Greek use
formed from Septuagint Leviticus
Levitical command not limited
lexicons: men with men

Affirming arguments in their strongest form

Matthew Vines, founder of The Reformation Project, argued in a 2012 speech that "The Bible never directly addresses, and it certainly does not condemn, loving, committed same-sex relationships." His book God and the Gay Christian (Convergent, 2014) develops this case. David Gushee, a prominent evangelical ethicist who formerly held the traditional view, set out his change of mind in Changing Our Mind (2014). He argues that the covenant standard of lifelong faithfulness should be extended to same-sex couples: "maybe gay and lesbian people ought to be invited into that standard as well." Brandan Robertson's The Gospel of Inclusion (2019) is similar. Their main arguments:

Orientation was unknown in antiquity. The ancient world, they say, had no concept of a fixed same-sex orientation. Paul condemned same-sex acts as excess lust by people who could have been satisfied with the opposite sex, not the faithful love of people who are gay.
Only exploitative forms existed. The same-sex behaviour Paul knew was pederasty (men with boys), sex with slaves, or prostitution, so his words do not touch consensual, lifelong partnerships.
"Nature" means custom. "Contrary to nature" in Romans 1 refers to breaking cultural gender roles (as in 1 Cor 11:14 on hair length), not to a creation norm.
Celibacy is a gift, not a law. Paul calls celibacy a gift (1 Cor 7:7) and God said "it is not good that the man should be alone" (Gen 2:18), so requiring lifelong celibacy of all gay Christians is cruel and unbiblical.
Bad fruit. Jesus said a tree is known by its fruit (Matt 7:17-20). The traditional view, they argue, has produced shame, depression and broken families, so it cannot be right.

State fairly the affirming arguments that 'orientation was unknown in antiquity' and that 'only exploitative forms existed'.Show answer

The first says the ancient world had no concept of a fixed same-sex orientation, so Paul condemned acts of excess lust by people who could have been satisfied with the opposite sex, not the faithful love of gay people. The second says the same-sex behaviour Paul knew was pederasty, sex with slaves or prostitution, so his words do not touch consensual, lifelong partnerships. Matthew Vines summarised the case by saying the Bible never directly addresses, and certainly does not condemn, loving, committed same-sex relationships.

no concept of orientation
Paul condemned excess lust
only exploitative forms known
Vines' summary

What are the affirming arguments from celibacy and from 'bad fruit'?Show answer

The celibacy argument says Paul calls celibacy a gift (1 Cor 7:7) and God said it is not good for the man to be alone (Gen 2:18), so requiring lifelong celibacy of all gay Christians is cruel and unbiblical. The fruit argument appeals to Jesus' words that a tree is known by its fruit (Matt 7:17-20), claiming the traditional view has produced shame, depression and broken families and so cannot be right.

celibacy a gift, not a law
not good to be alone
tree known by fruit
claimed harm of traditional view

Answering carefully: exegesis and scholarship

On orientation: the claim that ancients knew nothing like it is weaker than it sounds. In Plato's Symposium, Aristophanes tells a myth in which original doubled humans were split, so that some people by origin seek the same sex and others the opposite sex. That is an ancient attempt to explain lasting, inborn attraction. Historians such as Kyle Harper (From Shame to Sin, 2013) show that early Christian sexual ethics were consciously different from Greek and Roman norms, not ignorant of them. Above all, Paul grounds his teaching not in people's motives but in God's creation design (Rom 1:20-27). Long-standing desire does not settle what is right; all of us have deep desires Scripture calls us to deny.

On exploitation: Romans 1 includes women and describes mutual passion "for one another", and arsenokoitai draws on Leviticus, which makes no exception for consensual relationships. Robert Gagnon's The Bible and Homosexual Practice (2001) is the most detailed scholarly treatment of these texts. Kevin DeYoung's What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality? (2015) gives an accessible, careful version of the same conclusion.

On celibacy: Gen 2:18 is answered by marriage, but the New Testament also honours singleness. Jesus, the most fully human person who ever lived, was single, and he spoke of those who remain unmarried "for the sake of the kingdom" (Matt 19:12). Every unmarried Christian is called to chastity, and the answer to loneliness is the family of God (Mark 10:29-30), which challenges our churches to be that family.

On fruit: where Christians have been cruel, mocking or dishonest, we must repent and say so plainly. But Jesus' fruit test examines teachers and their teaching against God's word; it does not let pain overturn what God has said. The remedy for bad application is better obedience, not a different ethic.

How does the lesson answer the claim that ancient people knew nothing of sexual orientation?Show answer

Plato's Symposium includes Aristophanes' myth explaining why some people by origin seek the same sex, an ancient attempt to explain lasting, inborn attraction. Historians such as Kyle Harper show that early Christian sexual ethics consciously differed from Greek and Roman norms rather than being ignorant of them. Above all, Paul grounds his teaching in God's creation design, not people's motives (Rom 1:20-27), and long-standing desire does not settle what is right.

Aristophanes' myth in Plato
Christian ethics consciously different
grounded in creation, not motives
desire doesn't settle right

How does the lesson respond to the celibacy and 'bad fruit' arguments?Show answer

Genesis 2:18 is answered by marriage, but the New Testament also honours singleness: Jesus was single and spoke of those unmarried 'for the sake of the kingdom' (Matt 19:12), and the answer to loneliness is the family of God (Mark 10:29-30), which challenges our churches. Where Christians have been cruel we must repent, but Jesus' fruit test examines teachers and their teaching against God's word; pain does not overturn what God has said. The remedy for bad application is better obedience, not a different ethic.

Jesus was single (Matt 19:12)
church as family (Mark 10:29-30)
repent of cruelty
better obedience, not new ethic

Gender identity and the goodness of the body

Questions about gender identity are related but distinct. Scripture teaches that our bodies are not a shell or a mistake but part of God's good creation: "male and female he created them" (Gen 1:27), knit together in the womb (Ps 139:13-14), and bought at a price to glorify God (1 Cor 6:19-20). Our sex is a given to be received, not a feeling to be chosen.

At the same time, gender dysphoria (persistent distress about one's sex) is a real and painful experience, not a pose. Andrew T. Walker's God and the Transgender Debate (2017; second edition 2022) shows how to hold biblical conviction and compassion together. Carl Trueman's The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self (2020) explains why our culture assumes the inner self defines who we are. Never mock; listen to their story. Love also tells the truth: a new name, new clothes or medical treatment cannot change the sex God gave, and the kindest help is to walk patiently with a person toward receiving their body as a gift.

The Nashville Statement, published on 29 August 2017 by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, summarises the historic view in fourteen articles. Article VII denies "that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God's holy purposes in creation and redemption." Article VI addresses rare conditions that progressives sometimes cite to argue that sex is a spectrum: it affirms that people born with a physical disorder of sex development (sometimes called intersex conditions) "are created in the image of God and have dignity and worth equal to all other image-bearers", and that they "should embrace their biological sex insofar as it may be known." Article VIII affirms that people who experience same-sex attraction "may live a rich and fruitful life pleasing to God through faith in Jesus Christ," and Article XIV denies "that the Lord's arm is too short to save or that any sinner is beyond his reach." Hold the firmness and the hope together, as it does.

How should a Christian hold together the goodness of the body and compassion for people experiencing gender dysphoria?Show answer

Scripture teaches that our bodies are part of God's good creation: made male and female (Gen 1:27), knit together in the womb (Ps 139:13-14) and bought at a price (1 Cor 6:19-20), so our sex is a given to be received. But gender dysphoria is a real and painful experience, not a pose, and people should be met with patience rather than suspicion, while love also tells the truth that the sex God gave cannot be changed; never mock, and listen to their story. The Nashville Statement models holding both: firm on God's design, yet affirming that no sinner is beyond the Lord's reach.

body is God's good gift
sex received, not chosen
dysphoria is real pain
firmness and hope together

How does the Nashville Statement respond to people born with a disorder of sex development (intersex conditions)?Show answer

Article VI affirms that they are created in the image of God, with dignity and worth equal to all other image-bearers, and that they are welcome as followers of Christ. It also says they should embrace their biological sex insofar as it may be known. Rare medical conditions do not overturn God's design of humanity as male and female.

image of God, equal dignity
welcome as followers of Jesus
embrace biological sex as far as known
design remains male and female

The gospel for everyone: warning, welcome and witness

Paul's list in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 includes the sexually immoral, adulterers and men who practise homosexuality, but also thieves, the greedy, drunkards and swindlers. All of us are in that list somewhere. Then comes the turn: "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 6:11).

That is why affirming theology is not a small in-house disagreement. Romans 1:32 warns not only against practising sin but against giving "approval to those who practice them." Telling people God blesses what he forbids withholds the call to repentance that leads to life.

Yet God's grace is real, both for people who once lived in same-sex relationships and for believers who still experience same-sex attraction and fight to live faithfully. Rosaria Butterfield, a tenured English professor at Syracuse University and lesbian activist, came to Christ in 1999 through the patient friendship of pastor Ken Smith and his family; her book The Gospel Comes with a House Key (2018) calls Christians to open their homes. Christopher Yuan tells his story in Out of a Far Country: A Gay Son's Journey to God and a Broken Mother's Search for Hope (2011, written with his mother); he has since taught the Bible at Moody Bible Institute and wrote Holy Sexuality and the Gospel (2018).

Your identity is not your desires but your union with Christ. Following WCF 6.5, Reformed Christians treat disordered desires themselves as part of our fallen nature, to be confessed and put to death, not embraced as an identity. The Nashville Statement likewise denies that same-sex attraction is part of 'the natural goodness of God's original creation' (Article VIII), and that adopting 'a homosexual or transgender self-conception' fits God's purposes (Article VII). So this course, with Butterfield, does not commend 'gay Christian' as a self-description. Some evangelicals who hold the biblical ethic use such language more loosely; that is a debate about words and wisdom among people who agree on the ethic, and it should be had with charity.

So be firm about God's design, honest about your own sin, generous with hospitality, and confident that Jesus still eats with sinners (Luke 15:1-2) and makes them new.

Example: Talking with a friend who says 'love is love'

Friend: My cousin just married his boyfriend. They really love each other. How can love be wrong?

You: I can tell you love your cousin, and I'm glad. Can I ask what you mean by love here?

Friend: They're committed and faithful. Isn't that what God wants?

You: Faithfulness is good, and close friendship between two men can be a real gift. But when Jesus was asked about marriage, he went back to creation: God made us 'male and female', and a man holds fast to his wife (Matthew 19:4-6). So the question isn't whether their feelings are real. It's what God made marriage to be.

Friend: That sounds harsh for people who never chose their feelings.

You: I don't think they chose them. All of us have desires we didn't choose, and God calls every one of us, single or married, to bring our sexuality under Christ. That includes my lust and my selfishness. Paul lists sexual sin alongside greed and drunkenness, and then says, 'such were some of you. But you were washed' (1 Corinthians 6:11).

Friend: So what would you say to my cousin?

You: That Jesus loves him more than I ever could, that he calls all of us to turn from sin and follow him, and that I want to be his friend either way. Would you read Matthew 19 with me this week?

How does 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 contain both warning and hope for everyone?Show answer

Paul's list includes the sexually immoral, adulterers and men who practise homosexuality, but also thieves, the greedy, drunkards and swindlers, so all of us are in it somewhere. Then comes the turn: 'And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified' (1 Cor 6:11). The gospel warns everyone and offers cleansing to everyone.

list includes everyone
not only sexual sins
'such were some of you'
washed, sanctified, justified

Why does the lesson say affirming theology is not a small in-house disagreement, and how should a believer think about same-sex desire and identity?Show answer

Romans 1:32 warns not only against practising sin but against approving those who do, and telling people God blesses what he forbids withholds the call to repentance that leads to life. Yet God's grace is real: Rosaria Butterfield came to Christ through the patient hospitality of Ken Smith's family, and Christopher Yuan tells of his journey to God. A believer's identity is union with Christ, not desire; following WCF 6.5 and the Nashville Statement, disordered desires are to be confessed and put to death, not embraced as an identity, while we stay firm, honest about our own sin and generous with hospitality.

Rom 1:32: approving sin
withholds call to repentance
Butterfield and Yuan
identity in Christ, not desire (WCF 6.5)

In their own words

“The Bible never directly addresses, and it certainly does not condemn, loving, committed same-sex relationships.” (Matthew Vines, speech at College Hill United Methodist Church, Wichita (March 2012); argued at length in God and the Gay Christian (Convergent, 2014))

“Affirming theology does not reject the Bible's authority; it is a better reading of the Bible. The six or so 'clobber passages' address lust and exploitation, not the faithful love of gay couples. (Paraphrase)” (The Reformation Project's 'affirming theology'; Vines, God and the Gay Christian (2014))

“Faithful, lifelong covenant is the Christian standard for sex, and 'maybe gay and lesbian people ought to be invited into that standard as well.'” (David P. Gushee, interview with Religion Dispatches (November 2014) on his book Changing Our Mind (2014))

“Requiring lifelong celibacy of every gay Christian turns a gift into a law, and God himself said it is not good for the man to be alone. (Paraphrase)” (Vines, God and the Gay Christian (2014), chapter on celibacy; appealing to Gen 2:18 and 1 Cor 7:7)

“The gospel is a message of radical inclusion, and the church should fully include LGBT+ people. (Paraphrase of book's thesis)” (Brandan Robertson, The Gospel of Inclusion: A Christian Case for LGBT+ Inclusion in the Church (2019))

Key texts

Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24: The creation foundation: humanity as male and female, blessed, and united as one flesh in marriage. Start every conversation here, with God's good design.
Matthew 19:4-6: Jesus joins Gen 1:27 and 2:24 to define marriage. Use it to answer 'Jesus never said anything about this': he defined marriage as male and female from the beginning.
Romans 1:24-27: Same-sex relations described as 'contrary to nature' in a passage full of creation language; includes women and mutual passion 'for one another', which tells against the exploitation-only reading.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11: Lists many sins, including arsenokoitai, then gives the hope: 'such were some of you. But you were washed.' Use it to humble everyone and offer grace to anyone.
Romans 1:32: Approving sin is itself serious. This is why affirming theology cannot be treated as a matter of indifference.
Hebrews 13:4: Marriage is to be honoured by all and the marriage bed kept pure: one sexual ethic for every Christian.
Matthew 19:12; 1 Corinthians 7:7-8: Singleness for the sake of the kingdom is honoured, not second-class. Use it to answer the claim that celibacy is a cruel burden, and to challenge the church to be family.

Objections and answers

Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.

“Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. If it mattered so much, wouldn't he have mentioned it?”Show a response

Jesus did speak to it, by defining marriage. When asked about divorce in Matthew 19:4-6, he went back to creation: God made them 'male and female', and therefore a man holds fast to his wife and the two become one flesh. He did not need to list every alternative. He also named sexual immorality (porneia) among the evils that come from the heart (Mark 7:21), a word a first-century Jew would understand in light of the Law, including Leviticus 18. And Jesus said nothing directly about many things we all agree are wrong. Arguing from silence is weak. The question is not 'did Jesus mention this word?' but 'what did Jesus teach marriage is?'

“Paul had no idea of sexual orientation. He was condemning exploitative pederasty and lust, not two committed, loving adults.”Show a response

I take that argument seriously, but it does not fit the text. In Romans 1:26-27 Paul includes women, which does not match the pederasty pattern, and he describes men 'consumed with passion for one another', which is mutual. His word arsenokoitai seems to come from the Greek of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which forbid the act itself, not only abusive forms. Ancient writers also knew of lasting same-sex attraction; Plato's Symposium has a myth explaining it as inborn. Most importantly, Paul does not argue from people's motives but from creation: 'natural' and 'contrary to nature' sit in a passage about the Creator and his design. Commitment does not change the design.

“The traditional view has caused depression, self-harm and broken families. Jesus said you know a tree by its fruit. That fruit is rotten.”Show a response

Some of that pain is real, and where Christians have mocked, shunned or lied, we must repent; I am sorry for it. But notice what the fruit test does in Matthew 7: it tests teachers by whether their life and teaching match God's word. It does not say that whatever causes pain must be false; Jesus' own call to deny ourselves is painful. The answer to cruelty is not a different ethic but the whole gospel: honesty that we are all sinners, a church that becomes real family for single people, deep friendship, practical care and patient hope. Many Christians who have walked this road, such as Rosaria Butterfield and Christopher Yuan, testify that following Jesus here has been costly but life-giving.

“The church changed its mind about slavery and about women. This is just the next step on the same trajectory.”Show a response

The comparison breaks down at the root. Scripture never grounds slavery in creation; it regulates a fallen practice, and the New Testament already undermines it (Philem 16; 1 Tim 1:10 condemns enslavers). Marriage, by contrast, is grounded in creation before the fall (Gen 1-2) and reaffirmed by Jesus. Even William Webb, whose 'redemptive-movement' hermeneutic is often used for this argument, concluded in Slaves, Women and Homosexuals (2001) that the biblical texts show no movement toward accepting same-sex relationships. Every text that addresses the subject points the same way. A trajectory needs a direction in the text; here there is none.

“God made me this way. How can it be wrong to love the person I'm attracted to?”Show a response

I believe your attractions are real and that you did not choose them, and I won't pretend this is easy. But the Bible teaches that all of us are born with desires bent by the fall (Jer 17:9; Jas 1:14-15). Having a desire, even an unchosen and lifelong one, does not show that acting on it is God's will. That is true for my desires too. God does love you; that is exactly why he speaks about what is good for you. And love between people of the same sex is not wrong in itself: deep friendship is a gift (think of David and Jonathan). The question is whether sexual union belongs outside the marriage God designed. Jesus offers you himself, a family and a future, not a lesser life.

“Christians are obsessed with gay people but ignore divorce, porn and greed in their own churches. It's pure hypocrisy.”Show a response

That's a fair hit, and I'm not going to defend it. Some churches have been loud about homosexuality and quiet about divorce, pornography and greed. But the Bible's ethic isn't selective. Sexual intimacy belongs only within the marriage of one man and one woman, which condemns heterosexual lust, pornography and adultery just as clearly (Heb 13:4). Jesus said lust is adultery of the heart (Matt 5:27-28) and restricted divorce (Matt 19:9). Paul's list in 1 Corinthians 6 includes the greedy and drunkards alongside the sexually immoral. No one stands above the line. So the right response to hypocrisy is repentance, not a lower standard for everyone. And the good news is the same for all of us: 'such were some of you. But you were washed' (1 Cor 6:11).

“Affirming Christians like Matthew Vines love Jesus and even believe in inerrancy. Isn't this just a disagreement about interpretation, like baptism?”Show a response

I respect that Matthew Vines and others take Scripture seriously, and I'd much rather discuss the texts with someone who does. It's true that Christians disagree on some questions, like baptism, while remaining in fellowship. But this disagreement is different in kind. Paul doesn't treat same-sex sexual activity as a secondary question; he lists it with other sins, warning that the unrighteous 'will not inherit the kingdom of God' (1 Cor 6:9-10), and in Romans 1:32 he warns against approving sin as well as practising it. If God blesses what he forbids, there is nothing to repent of; if he forbids what we bless, we are withholding the call to repentance that leads to life. That's why this touches the gospel itself. We can still speak kindly, admit our own sins and keep listening.

Written task

A Christian friend tells you: 'I've been reading Matthew Vines. He loves the Bible, and he shows that Paul was only condemning exploitation, not committed gay couples. I think our church has been cruel.' Write a 300-400 word reply. Fairly summarise Vines' argument, answer it from at least three texts (including Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6), acknowledge any real wrongs done by churches, and end with the gospel offer and a concrete step of friendship or hospitality.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

Represents the affirming argument accurately and in its strongest form, without caricature
Answers with careful exegesis of at least three texts (e.g. Gen 2:24/Matt 19:4-6, Rom 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9-11), including the 'for one another' and arsenokoitai points
Honestly acknowledges church failures without conceding the biblical ethic
Presents 1 Cor 6:11 or similar gospel hope and the call to repentance for all sinners alike
Tone is warm, humble and free of crude language or stereotypes