I get questions from young people asking what I think about gay people, same sex attraction, homosexuality. Mainly, these inquiring minds want to know if I think the Bible is clear about what we do with people who don’t fit the category of heterosexuality.
And here we find our first problem with the term “homosexual.” For starters it’s unclear. For a philosopher this is major problem.
“Homosexual” now refers to anyone who doesn’t fit into our heterosexual shopping bag. As Janel Paris explains in The End of Sexual Identity: Why Sex is Too Important to Define Who We Are, homosexual is a category of negation. We toss anyone we can’t bag as “straight” right into it. “Homosexual” includes lesbians and gays, but in Christian subculture ‘homosexual’ takes on many more meanings: The woman who’s had same-sex relationships in college but now lives celibate, the man who fantasizes about homo-erotic sex but who is married with three children. The bisexual teen, the college student who wants to struggle against SSA (same-sex attraction), the intersexed man who has finally decided he can’t stop living as a male anymore. Now you can get an idea why the LGBT (or as Paris found, this longest of terms, LGBTQQPA (H), BDSM representing lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, pansexual, asexual, heterosexual, bondage, domination/discipline, submission, sadomasochism) community has so many letters in their name. There is a wide spectrum of people they’re trying to represent.
In relief, heterosexual ends up sounding super clear: all those sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex.
Homosexuality sounds confusing, multi-faceted and aberrant. The term started out that way. While sodomy (same sex acts between men) was easily associated with a behavior and therefore easily repented from, homosexuality began to be associated with an identity, a “degenerative disease, a form of insanity, a congenital condition or an acquired condition” as recently as 100 years ago (Paris). Now “homosexual” is more commonly used by Christians than those within the LGBT etc community. But it’s a term that will continue to bother me.
The biggest, baddest problem with labels of “heterosexuality” and “homosexuality” is not that categories keep us from loving those in our lives (though they often do). The problem isn’t that we should shirk the task of knowing our gender’s boundaries and becoming appropriately, fully human within them. I have some definite ideas (What’s wrong with S&M?) about what it means to be a woman and what is good to do and not do with my reproductive organs. I believe some thing in sex hurt us (Sex, Food and Fifty Shades of Gray). In my study so far, I believe homo-erotic behavior is not the best way to use our genitals (read a dialog I shared with my lesbian Christian friend: What if I’m Christian and Gay?). But I have friends who I love, who I know love Jesus who disagree with me and express their views with steadiness and their own Biblical research.
The problem with labels like heterosexuality and homosexuality is that they improperly define a human by her desires.
And last time I checked my desires are too capricious and just plain silly to be the basis for my identity.
We all know the incredible childishness of our fantasy lives and our hearts. Married men and women know how attractive a crush or lustful affair can be for about five minutes, and then we remember who we married.
I have experienced a steady attraction for men in my life. But entertain a possible world scenario with me (philosophers love possible worlds). What if I were to change and find myself attracted to women?
While the world system might say I’m bisexual, I would beg followers of Jesus to take a moment to step back.
Since when did the God of Israel categorize his people by their desires? I believe our desires (even sexual desires) are not essential to who we are as humans, and therefore not a steady basis for something as important as our sexuality.
Point two, I’m wary of categories that sound clearer than life has made them out to be. Take, for instance, the many people who do not squarely fit into the heterosexual category. I meet these men and women at Christian colleges and speaking events and I want to argue their case, to beg that you consider that if categories marginalize those who love Jesus more confused, and less at home among us, perhaps we ought to come up with better categories. For those marginalized who are reading, I do recommend you start by reading “What if I’m Christian and Gay?“
There is not a verse in Scripture that defines God’s people by their sexual desires. Homosexual or heterosexual identity is not a concept from the Bible. There are verses about what men and women can do with their sexual organs, but sexual identity? If you can find it in there, let me know.
So what terms do we use to talk about our sexual desires? How about we start by using the terms others choose for themselves and then when they ask us about the Bible, let’s not say more than the Bible actually says.





So much good stuff here, Jonalyn. I really liked this insight: “And last time I checked my desires are too capricious and just plain silly to be the basis for my identity.” Me too. As C.S. Lewis reminded us, one’s feelings might be nothing more than the product of indigestion.
Did you see what I recently wrote about lesbian and gay relationships (http://timfall.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/lesbian-and-gay-relationships/)? It dovetails in nicely with your comments about how marginalized LGBTetc. people can be in our society.
Tim
Jonalyn,
I’m so excited you’ve posted about this book. A good friend of mine gave me Paris’ book over the summer and that is when my paradigm on sexuality and even identity began to shift.
What really concerns me about the church jumping on the bandwagon of sexual identity is what Paris touches on, as well: heterosexuality becomes the goal rather than sexual holiness. We have an epidemic, I believe, of people in opposite-sex sexual relationships that are not sexually holy but are considered fine and healthy and individuals with same sex attractions that they are not expressing but they receive the church’s attention because their desires define them.
Equally, why is the church so comfortable with anything defining us? Shouldn’t we just be defined by Christ and recognize any other identity marker as inappropriate?
I’m in my senior year at Biola and getting ready to write a final paper of Paul’s idea of identity, sexuality, and idolatry in Romans so these thoughts are readily on my mind.
Thanks for the blog
“Shouldn’t we just be defined by Christ. . . ”
Wow! What a simple and enormously challenging statement. If Christ defines me, then he owns me. If he owns me, I need to match up to him in every way. (I’m not a philosopher, so feel free to point out the problems with this, Jonalyn.) But what a great way to think of the Christian life. If I’m gossiping, or cheating (not to mention the many flavors of sexual sin) I’m hardly being defined by Christ. But to allow Christ to define me, to ask my self throughout my day if I’m an artifact of his grace, now that’s something! No “just” about it.
Great points. Thank God I’m not defined by my desires.
Great post Jonalyn!
I just so happened to have been loaned this very book a couple of weeks ago. I just cracked it open a few days ago. Love what I’m reading, and your post affirms that this book is a good addition to the gay debate in the church. I agree with the other commenter that the principles i read in the bible have to do with sexual holiness and responsibility with our sexual power. Gay, straight, bi……and all that is nuanced in and between is not the core of who we are. I have become convinced that the core of our being, created in the image of God, is genderless just as God is genderless. The core of our being is spirit, not flesh. Is not our gender identity rooted in our flesh??
Thoughts?
Thanks, Pam.
Yes, sexual holiness and sexual stewardship appear to be more important to following the God of Israel than finding ourselves labeled homosexual or heterosexual by our culture.
Here’s where I think we need some distinctions. Sexuality contains two very different concepts: how we do it and gender.
Sexual orientation (what Paris is calling sexual identity) is not talked about in Scripture. But our sexuality (male, female, eunuch– I think this may refer to those we call “intersexed” today) is talked about in Scripture.
Sexual identity is not the same as our sex (male/female, etc). Paris’ book talks about the former, but not the latter.
I wouldn’t say God is genderless as much as he contains all that is good about gender. Our image bearing capacities involve our soul (I have a chapter on that in Ruby Slippers, Chapter 2), because God is soul (or spirit i.e. immaterial being). However, our bodies are something God took on in the incarnation and showed us the godliness of having flesh. I would even go as far as the Eastern Orthodox who talk about becoming godlike (theosis) in our humanity… this is what Jesus showed us and makes possible for us.
While the core of our being, or as philosophers would say, our essence is soul (or immaterial) we cannot be fully human without having been embodied (having flesh as you put it). Paul calls the disembodied state in heaven with God as “naked” in 1 Cor. There is something incomplete about our humanity without our bodies.
In my study, the best way I can explain this is to say having a female or male body irreversibly changes our soul’s experiences. Much more on that in Chapter 5 of Ruby Slippers.
I see our gender linked to why God needed a male and female to represent his image on earth. Dorothy L. Sayers says it’s our creative capacity (procreation, recreation, unification in sex to start with) that is the only attribute in Gen 1 that is listed of God and of humans.
I believe we both, in our bodies and souls represent different things about God’s nature in our creativity and in much more. And if our God holds all goodness of male and female (before the fall twisted it), then our bodies and souls could and should reflect as much as we can.
Glad you asked.
This is something I have noticed the past few years in conversations with friends (and Christians) who struggle with their sexual desires both heterosexual and homosexual (and all of its facets). I am beginning to see that addictions in many forms (sexual, substance, emotional, etc.) boil down to an identity issue. The addiction, no matter what form it takes, is merely a symptom of what is going on internally within their soul. These symptoms point to a hidden place only God can see and ultimately heal. Thank you so much for this post!
Esther,
Great observation that addictions are related to identity issues. Very true. You might enjoy reading Healing Religious Abuse and Spiritual Addiction by the Linns. I found it quite helpful in this regard. A favorite quote: “An addiction is any substance or process we use to escape from and get control over a painful reality in our lives, especially painful feelings. We use something outside to escape from and control something we’re afraid of inside. As Anne Wilson Schaef says, the purpose of an addiction is to put us out of touch with ourselves. Addictions are our best attempt to belong to ourselves, others, God and the universe. Recovery comes when we find a better, more authentic way to belong.” P. 153 Linns
More on this theme at this talk I did last month “I Can’t Breathe”. Let me know if you’d like the link to it!
Found the link for ya: http://www.soulation.org/content/?p=813
Fantastic! Thank you for the resources. For the past few years God has magnified my focus on broken people so it is refreshing when He gives me a new article, book, blog post, etc. that refuels my love and passion for people He so dearly loves.
Thank you for the link as well, I cannot wait to listen to it.
Jonalyn
“I believe our desires (even sexual desires) are not essential to who we are as humans”
Why do you believe that?
Hi Benjamin,
Mainly because for something to be essential to who we are then if it changes our essence changes. We want to build our essence (or being) on something rock solid. Just as I wouldn’t say my hair is essential to who I am (for instance I can lose a few hairs on my head, but keep my identity as Jonalyn intact), so I wouldn’t say something as quick to gain and lose as desires is essential to who I am.
To desire is human, this is a capacity in our soul. But to identify my ontology with one or two specific desires (for same or opposite sexual encounters, for example) turns my identity into shifting sand, here today, gone tomorrow.
Just as my lust in the past did not define me, neither does a desire for same or opposite sex define me.
In my experience of myself I have a unified “I” of my desires. I possess my desires, they don’t possess me.
It seems too that as Christians our identity is in Jesus and who he is. That’s what I get from Galatians 2:20 anyway.
Ah. so you are differentiating between desire, in general, and desires, in specific. You’re saying specific desires are not essential to who we are as humans, but that the ability to desire–that is indeed essential to who we are as humans.
Am I hearing you correctly?
That sounds kind of relaxing =).
Benjamin,
You nailed it. Lol. Pun not intended.
Relaxing– I like that word here.
What an interesting post! You are so right. It doesn’t matter at all what our sexual preference/lifestyle is because we are defined by Christ and we have freedom in Him to be the way He made us!
There’s a lot here to think about. I guess I’m wondering if you’re separating sexual orientation from actual sexual lifestyle in this post? As someone who may not fit the strictly heterosexual mold, I believe there’s a difference between what we know our natural tendencies and preferences to be on the inside, and with our bodies… and then the way we actually choose to live out our sexuality. Does that make sense?
Valerie,
I am doing this, but I’m doing a bit more in this post.
I like to use the term “sexual stewardship” as we all have sexual desires to take care of. So what you and I do with our sexual desires is a matter of stewardship, as you put it “There’s a difference between what we know our tendencies/preferences (I’d say desires) are on the inside and what we choose to live out with our sexuality (I’d say our sexual stewardship).”
However, sexual orientation is sometimes a confusing term as it makes the matter appear final or easily discoverable. Whenever psychologist try to figure out a human’s sexuality they often review a whole host of things
- sexual attraction
- behavior
- thoughts and fantasies
- emotional bonding
- patterns of socializing
- lifestyle preferences
- self-identification
In this post I’m trying to show how identity is not based simply on attraction. Does that help?
Hi Jonalyn,
Your husband directed me here after reading my comments on a different blog.
I have to say that you make a good point arguing against labeling people by their desires. I’ve always disliked hearing people say things like “I’m an alcoholic but I haven’t fallen off the wagon in 6 months.”
I was thinking about how labels are typically used:
-to identify who we are, e.g., our gender, our race, our nationality, etc.
-to identify our relational statuses, e.g., father, husband, uncle, son, etc.
-to identify what we do, e.g., our profession, our hobbies, etc.
These all make sense to me, but I agree with you that we shouldn’t label people by their desires. Now I just need to take the thoughts captive and catch myself before referring to people with same-sex attractions as gays or homosexuals.