LGBTQ Worldview: A Reformed Theological Perspective

Introduction: In recent decades, Western culture has undergone a dramatic moral realignment regarding sexuality and gender. Behaviors and identities once universally regarded as sinful or disordered are now celebrated as virtues, with “Pride”serving as the banner for this cultural revolution. The modern LGBTQ worldview elevates individual autonomy over divinely ordained norms, insisting that personal feelings of sexual orientation or gender identity define one’s truth and must be affirmed. This worldview stands in stark contrast to the historic Christian (and specifically Reformed) theological perspective, which holds Scripture as the ultimate authority on matters of sex

, gender, and identity. In what follows, we will examine ten key areas in which the modern LGBTQ ethos conflicts with Reformed theology, providing a detailed critique of each. We will draw on biblical exegesis, Reformed confessions, writings of the Reformers and Puritans, presuppositional apologetics, and even empirical data. The goal is a comprehensive, scholarly critique that remains pastorally sensitive – upholding biblical truth while speaking the truth in love. Each section builds on the last, moving from foundational theological principles to practical implications. Throughout, we maintain biblical fidelity, theological rigor, and pastoral clarity.

1. Scripture’s Authority vs. Modern Autonomy

At the heart of the clash is authority: Does ultimate moral authority lie with God’s Word or with man’s autonomous feelings and preferences? Reformed theology unambiguously affirms that the Bible is the sufficient and final authorityfor ethics. The Westminster Confession of Faith declares that “the whole counsel of God” concerning all things necessary for His glory and man’s salvation and life is either expressly set down in Scripture or can be deduced from it (WCF 1.6). In matters of sexuality, then, Scripture’s verdict is decisive – even if it contradicts cultural trends.

Modern LGBTQ ideology, by contrast, often elevates personal experience and “authenticity” as supreme. It argues that if an individual feels a certain attraction or identifies a certain way, that alone legitimizes it. Any biblical texts that prohibit homosexual behavior or gender confusion are either reinterpreted under novel hermeneutics or dismissed as antiquated. This reflects what Reformed apologists identify as human autonomy in ethics – man wanting to be a law unto himself apart from God. Dr. Greg Bahnsen, a presuppositional apologist, noted that the church today faces an ultimatum: “Either we will discriminate against [i.e. make moral distinctions about] homosexuals, or we will discriminate against the Word of God. We will either aim to convert the homosexual and have him transformed... or we will transform the Christian ethic into the image of homosexual values.” In other words, one’s ultimate standard must be chosen – God’s truth or man’s desires. Reformed theology insists that sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) is the standard, even if this stance invites cultural scorn.

Scripture speaks with clarity on these issues, and it does so as God’s unchanging moral law. The Reformation’s confessions reflect this. For example, the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q.139) explicitly lists “sodomy, and all unnatural lusts” as sins forbidden by the seventh commandment. Likewise, Reformed catechisms teach that the “duty required” in the seventh commandment (purity and chastity) applies to all, whether married or single. The point is that Christians are not at liberty to improvise a new sexual ethic; we are bound to the pattern revealed in Scripture and summarized in our confessions. When modern culture demands allegiance to a new sexual orthodoxy, the Reformed believer must respectfully demur, echoing the Reformers’ conviction: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

In sum, the LGBTQ movement’s ethos of self-determination collides with Reformed Christianity’s insistence on God’s determination of truth. Who is Lord? If Jesus is Lord, His Word on sexuality carries final authority. Any critique of the LGBTQ worldview must begin here, because all other differences flow from this fundamental one of authority. The following sections will assume this foundation as we explore specific areas of conflict.

2. Creation Order: Male and Female in God’s Image

Reformed theology starts the doctrine of man (anthropology) at Creation. In the beginning, God created mankind in His image, “male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). This binary, complementary design of two sexes is not an accident of nature or a mere cultural construct – it is a deliberate, very good (Gen. 1:31) work of God woven into the fabric of creation. Marriage, too, is established in the created order: one man and one woman united in a covenant bond (Genesis 2:24, affirmed by Christ in Matthew 19:4–6). The Westminster Confession summarises: “Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time.” This creational blueprint underlies the Christian understanding of sexual ethics – sexual relations belong only within the marriage of a man and a woman, and all other sexual unions or gender confusions violate the Creator’s design.

The modern LGBTQ worldview pointedly rejects this creational design. It asserts that gender is fluid or self-defined, not a fixed binary rooted in God’s creative intent. It treats homosexual relationships as equivalent to the male-female marital union. Yet from a Reformed perspective, these claims amount to an attempt to refashion creation according to human wishes – a modern replay of the pot telling the Potter what it should be (Isaiah 29:16). John Calvin, in his Institutes, stresses the importance of honoring God’s created order in society. He notes that marriage between a man and woman is a “basic thing for the right order of the whole society,” such that orderly sexuality within marriage helps preserve public morality. Calvin warned that when this order is abandoned and “everything is permitted to all men,” social chaos ensues. Significantly, he taught that “all joining together of man and woman outside of marriage is cursed before God”. By extension, any sexual coupling that deviates from the one-man/one-woman marital pattern (for example, same-sex relations) falls under this curse, not under blessing.

The English Puritans echoed these convictions. Puritan pastor Thomas Watson observed that God’s creation of two sexes established a moral law for sexual relations. In his commentary on the Ten Commandments, Watson lamented those in his day who were “so steeped and parboiled in fornication, incest, sodomy, and all manner of uncleanness” – a vivid description of sexual sins that violate nature. The Puritans understood sodomy (homosexual acts) to be a particularly heinous breach of the created order, a sin “against nature” (cf. Romans 1:26–27) and against God’s design. This is why historically the term “unnatural lusts” was used (as we saw in the catechism) – it indicates a departure from the natural function of the body as ordained by the Creator. In short, from creation onward, the norm is clear: humanity is made male-and-female, and sex is a gift to be enjoyed within the covenant of heterosexual marriage for procreation, mutual support, and to reflect Christ’s relationship with His Church (Ephesians 5:31–32). Any worldview that denies or overturns this creation norm will inevitably collide with the biblical, Reformed worldview.

Thus, the LGBTQ movement’s core assertions – that gender can be divorced from biological sex, or that two men or two women can fundamentally mirror the marital bond – must be understood by Christians as doctrines of a false anthropology. They misidentify who we are as created beings. As Reformed Christians, we respond by affirming the goodness of the created binary: “Male and female he created them.” This is not only a proof-text, but a framework for understanding human identity. True human flourishing, we maintain, can only occur when we live in line with God’s design, not against it. Any attempts to redesign human sexuality apart from God’s blueprint will ultimately prove hollow and harmful – a point to be explored further with respect to the consequences of LGBTQ lifestyles (Section 8).

3. The Fall and the Reality of Sinful Desires

The doctrine of Original Sin profoundly shapes the Reformed critique of modern sexual ethics. According to Scripture, human nature is fallen and our desires are disordered as a result of sin (Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 3:10-18). We are “by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3), and apart from grace we all have innate desires that are contrary to God’s law. In other words, the Fall explains the existence of homosexual and transgender desires. Rather than seeing them as neutral variations of human experience, Reformed theology sees them as manifestations of humanity’s corruption. John Calvin wrote that the heart of fallen man produces a “vast abundance of vices”, and unless God restrains us, we will be swept away by the lusts lurking within.

This stands in stark contrast to the modern claim that “people are born this way” as a moral justification for LGBTQ behavior. From a biblical perspective, being predisposed or inclined to a certain sin does not excuse it; rather, it reflects our need for redemption. Indeed, Scripture condemns not only sinful acts but also disordered desires (see Matthew 5:27–28, which indicts lust in the heart). The Reformed and Puritan tradition is especially clear on this point. The Puritans taught that even temptations arising from within, when cherished or deliberated upon, are themselves sinful. As one Reformed author explains, “Owen and the Puritans would say that a homosexual lust, even if not acted upon, is sinful... Homosexual attraction must be mortified because it is not natural, but rather unnatural. It is a temptation toward that which is evil.”. This doesn’t mean that experiencing unwanted same-sex attraction is the most grievous sin; it simply means it is one form of concupiscence (disordered desire) that stems from our fallen nature and must be fought with the Spirit’s help.

Romans 1:18–27 offers a sobering description of how sin has distorted human passions. Because mankind rejected God, “God gave them over to dishonorable passions”, resulting in women exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones, and men burning with lust for other men (Romans 1:26–27). The Apostle Paul portrays rampant homosexual behavior not only as sin but also as a consequence of God’s wrath – a society under judgment is one in which these “shameful lusts” proliferate openly. Puritan Thomas Watson commented that one of the worst judgments God can send is to leave people to their own lusts: “The greatest sign of God’s anger is to give men up to their sins. ‘So I gave them up to their own hearts’ lust’ (Psalm 81:12).”. In other words, when God removes His restraining grace, sinful desires run unchecked – an idea which perfectly describes late-modern Western culture’s sexual revolution. What used to hide in the shadows now marches in the streets under banners of pride.

Importantly, Reformed anthropology never views any one class of sinners as beyond the pale. We affirm universallythat “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Homosexual acts are described in Scripture as serious sins (e.g. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10), but they are listed alongside other sins like adultery, idolatry, drunkenness, etc. The same Pauline passage that says “men who practice homosexuality” will not inherit the kingdom of God goes on to offer Gospel hope: “Such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified...” (1 Cor. 6:11). Thus, while we call homosexual practice sin, we do so as fellow sinners in need of grace, not as those claiming any innate superiority. The key difference is that by God’s grace we have owned our sinful desires for what they are and seek to mortify them, rather than celebrate them. A biblical worldview acknowledges that our feelings or orientationsare corrupted by the Fall. Therefore, the presence of a strong desire (even if someone claims it was present from youth) does not make it right. Our task is to bring every desire and behavior under the lordship of Christ, who calls us to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Him (Luke 9:23).

In summary, the Reformed perspective unmasks the LGBTQ claim of “this is who I am” as a tragic case of mistaking fallen nature for God-given identity. It is precisely because these desires feel so innate and unchangeable that we need the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit to regenerate and sanctify us. Rather than baptizing our fallen impulses, Christianity calls us to repentance and offers the power of a new nature in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). Any ideology that instead labels sinful desires as virtuous “identities” is, from a biblical standpoint, deeply deceptive – it is the serpent’s lie, telling Eve that what God forbade was actually good and desirable (Genesis 3:4-6). As we move to the next section, we will see how these theological convictions were embedded in historic Reformed confessions and teachings, underscoring that our stance today is not novel but rooted in the faithful witness of the church through the ages.

4. Historical Witness: Reformed Confessions and Teachers on Sexual Ethics

One of the strengths of the Reformed critique is that it does not represent a new or reactionary stance, but rather continuity with the historic Christian consensus. From the early church through the Reformers and Puritans, the church has consistently taught that homosexual acts are sinful and contrary to God’s design. In an age where some claim “the church is finally waking up to affirm LGBTQ lifestyles,” it is important to demonstrate that affirming homosexual behavior or gender fluidity has literally no precedent in the first 1,900+ years of church history. On the contrary, the historical witness – including Reformed confessions – unanimously stands against the modern LGBTQ ethos.

We have already noted how the Westminster Standards explicitly condemn “sodomy” (WLC 139) and define marriage strictly as heterosexual (WCF 24.1). Similarly, the Three Forms of Unity (Continental Reformed standards) uphold biblical sexual ethics. The Heidelberg Catechism, for example, teaches in Q.108 that “God condemns all unchastity” and calls us to live “decent and chaste lives” whether married or single. Q.109 clarifies that even “unchaste actions, looks, talk, thoughts, or desires” are forbidden by the seventh commandment. Though it doesn’t list every sin by name, earlier Reformed teachers certainly understood homosexual acts to be included in “unchastity” and “unnatural lusts” that Scripture condemns (cf. Lev 18:22; Rom 1:26-27). The Belgic Confession (Art. 24) speaks of the regenerating work of the Spirit leading a Christian to “hate his sins and flee from them”, which by implication includes sexual sins of all kinds. The Reformers and their confessions saw no ambiguity on this issue: homosexual behavior was understood as sin needing to be repented of, not celebrated.

The magisterial Reformers like Luther and Calvin, despite differing on some points, were united in this moral assessment. In Geneva, Calvin supported the civil punishment of gross sexual misconduct (including homosexual acts) as violations of God’s law. Yet he also emphasized (pastorally) the hope of forgiveness for all sinners who repent. A recent study of Calvin’s writings notes: “Calvin accepted in theory that serious fornication (adultery, homosexuality) should be punished severely; still, he knew well the importance of forgiveness in practice. His pastoral calling was to preach from the hope of mercy… wrongdoers could experience the grace of God.”. This balance is instructive: historic Reformed Christianity was firm in principle (calling the sin what it is) but also rich in grace (offering Christ’s forgiveness to the penitent). Nowhere do we find a hint that homosexual practice was deemed acceptable if done in “loving, committed relationships” – a claim made by some modern revisionists. That idea is simply foreign to the entire historical teaching of the church.

The Puritans (17th-century heirs of the Reformation) were, if anything, even more outspoken. We encountered Thomas Watson’s strong words earlier. Another Puritan, Richard Baxter, warned in his Christian Directory that those engaging in such sexual sins “are hastening to hell and will scarcely escape it.” They saw sexual sins as soul-damaging. John Owen, famed for his teaching on indwelling sin, wrote that believers must constantly be “killing sin” or sin will be killing them – and he would include unnatural lusts in that deadly category. It is noteworthy that not a single Puritan or Reformed divine suggested that same-sex attraction was neutral or that adopting an “identity” based on it was permissible. To the contrary, they advocated fleeing even the appearance or temptation of such sin. William Perkins, an influential early Puritan, wrote about the “unnatural lusts” of Romans 1 as evidence of God’s wrath against idolatry, underscoring the shamefulness of the sin. The Puritans often cited Sodom (Genesis 19) as a warning example of how societal acceptance of sexual perversion invites God’s judgment – indeed, the very term “sodomy” comes from that biblical narrative. While modern scholars debate the exact sins of Sodom, the biblical text and virtually all traditional commentators understood the men of Sodom’s desire “to know” Lot’s male guests (Gen 19:5) as homosexual aggression. The New Testament solidifies this understanding: Jude 7 says the people of Sodom and Gomorrah “indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire” and therefore underwent divine punishment by fire. The uniform voice of church history, reflected in Reformed teaching, has been to treat these passages as clear condemnations of homosexual practice and as sober reminders that God’s moral law does not change with cultural tides.

To be sure, our forefathers in the faith ministered in different cultural contexts. They could scarcely imagine a time when governments would not only tolerate such sins (as a private matter) but actually promote and celebrate them publicly. Yet their writings contain resources to respond even now. The Reformed scholastics spoke of “natural law”, the moral order knowable by reason and imbued in creation, which aligns with Scripture. Homosexual practice, they argued, was against nature and reason – it doesn’t lead to procreation, it uses the body contrary to its natural function, and it erodes the social fabric. These arguments were not merely theological but also philosophical, showing that even apart from special revelation one can discern the disorder of these acts. In modern terms, one might point out the complementarity of the sexes in biology and psychology, and how same-sex pairings frustrate that design. The Reformers would urge us to reclaim such reasoning in our witness today.

In summary, when Christians uphold the historic view of marriage and sexuality, we are not being novel or extremist – we are standing in a great tradition that includes Moses, Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Owen, Edwards, and virtually every other luminary of church history. The burden of proof lies heavily on those who want to say all our spiritual ancestors were wrong until the late 20th century. As Reformed believers, we humbly stand with the cloud of witnesses, affirming that God’s Word and the consensus of His church cannot be so easily overturned. Far from being bigotry or ignorance, our stance is borne of fidelity to a truth deeply rooted in both Scripture and the wisdom of the ages. This historical rootedness should give us confidence as we engage the modern claims – we are anchored to an unshifting truth, not carried about by every wind of cultural doctrine.

5. Presuppositional Apologetics: Clashing Worldviews

Underneath the moral disagreements lies a deeper worldview conflict. The LGBTQ movement and biblical Christianity operate from vastly different starting points (presuppositions) about reality, truth, and ethics. Here the insights of Reformed presuppositional apologetics – as developed by Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen – are particularly useful. They remind us that there is an antithesis between the mindset of the regenerate Christian and that of the unbeliever (cf. Romans 8:5–7, 1 Corinthians 2:14-16). This doesn’t mean we cannot have any rational dialogue; it means at the foundational level our thinking is governed either by submission to God or suppression of God’s truth(Romans 1:18). Thus, the modern sexual revolution is not a morally neutral movement – it is, in essence, a rival religion with its own creed (“Love is love”), its own rites (pride parades), and even its own moral law (the ever-expanding list of what one must affirm or else be labeled a “bigot”). As one commentator quipped, “LGBT Pride Month is not just a secular commemoration of a people but a religious celebration of a belief—the belief that ‘Gay is good’...”. The movement asks for not mere tolerance, but wholehearted affirmation – effectively demanding worship of the creature’s desires rather than the Creator’s design.

From a presuppositional standpoint, we challenge the internal consistency and foundations of the LGBTQ worldview. Its ethical claims (e.g. “It’s wrong to discriminate against LGBTQ identities” or “Love means affirming someone’s self-defined identity”) cannot be sustained apart from borrowing capital from the Christian worldview. After all, if the universe is a cosmic accident and morality is subjective, who is to say any sexual behavior is objectively right or wrong? The LGBTQ activist might respond, “It’s about consent and not harming others.” But this smuggles in an ethical standard (“harm” is wrong, “consent” is a must) that naturalistic evolution cannot justify. The Christian can agree that consent is important and harm is bad – but we can justify those beliefs because people are made in God’s image and thus have inherent dignity (harming them is wrong) and moral agency (thus consent matters). The secularist has no absolute basis for these values, yet they assume them. In essence, the modern ethos borrows Christian ethics (love, justice, human rights) but selectively redefines them according to autonomous preference. Dr. Greg Bahnsen often demonstrated that without the foundation of God’s revelation, moral debates become futile – just one preference against another. In the case of LGBTQ issues, apart from God’s design, why should “authentic self-expression” be celebrated rather than, say, bodily discipline and chastity? Only by presupposing a view of the human person (as sovereign self, whose feelings are supreme) do they reach their conclusions – but that presupposition is precisely what we contest.

Bahnsen argued that when we press unbelieving thought to its logical consequences, it results in futility and contradiction. For instance, consider the transgender phenomenon: We are told gender is merely a social construct with no binding link to biology – yet the very term “trans-gender” implies there is a thing called gender one can move across. Activists simultaneously say “gender is an internal sense only you can know” and “a trans woman is a woman and you must accept her in all female spaces.” These claims are logically at odds. Or consider the mantra “Love is love.” It is a tautology that obscures the real issue: how do we define love? Biblical revelation defines love in accord with God’s holy character and law (“love does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth,” 1 Cor. 13:6). The modern view often defines love as unconditional affirmation. But carried to its conclusion, that would mean it’s “loving” to affirm even self-destructive behaviors – which is absurd and actually harmful. Thus, the LGBTQ movement’s shallow understanding of love ends up undermining true love (seeking the other’s good, even if it means telling hard truth).

By contrast, the Christian worldview provides what Bahnsen called the preconditions of intelligibility for ethics. We have a transcendent moral Lawgiver, so there is an objective right and wrong that transcends cultures. We have the imago Dei doctrine, so human beings have worth but also a nature with a given telos (purpose). Therefore, we can say acts like homosexuality or gender-bending violate that telos (cf. Romans 1:26 calls same-sex acts “contrary to nature”). Without these presuppositions, terms like “natural” or “dignity” or “equality” float in mid-air. The Reformed apologist can lovingly expose these inconsistencies. Indeed, part of our critique is showing that the modern sexual revolution is not an isolated phenomenon – it is the fruit of a broader rejection of God’s authority. It is, at root, a spiritual rebellionwrapped in the language of psychology and rights. As such, we respond at the presuppositional level: calling people back to acknowledge God as God. As Paul says of the pagans, “they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Rom. 1:25). The explosion of LGBTQ ideology is a dramatic instance of this exchange: people worship their own sexual appetites and subjective self-perceptions (“the creature”) instead of submitting to the Creator’s good design.

We should also highlight the outcome of these worldviews: A culture that embraces God’s pattern (chastity, marriage, family) reaps relatively stronger families, healthier relationships, and social stability. A culture that embraces the sexual revolution reaps brokenness: widespread STDs, confusion, loneliness, and the breakdown of the family unit. This is not just a moral assertion but observable (more on empirical consequences in Section 8). Van Til would call these the “epistemological self-consciousness” results – when a non-Christian worldview is acted on consistently, it results in destruction because it collides with reality as God made it.

In conclusion, the modern LGBTQ worldview is incommensurable with the Christian worldview. They cannot both be true, for they answer foundational questions differently: Who are we? What is our chief end? What is the nature of happiness and love? As Reformed believers, we unashamedly affirm that the chief end of man is “to glorify God and enjoy Him forever” (Westminster Shorter Catechism Q.1). Enjoying Him forever means enjoying His design, walking in His commandments – including those about our sexual conduct and identity. Any worldview that says the chief end of man is “to glorify himself and enjoy his desires for a season” is heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Our apologetic task is to both proclaim truth and expose error, praying that God may “grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 2:25). We turn now from these foundational issues to examine what Scripture specifically says about sex, gender, and identity.

6. Biblical Teaching on Sex, Gender, and Identity (Old & New Testaments)

“What does the Bible actually say?” This question must be faced squarely, because some today (even in ostensibly evangelical circles) argue that Scripture has been misunderstood and that it does not condemn loving homosexual relationships or modern gender identities. A thorough exegesis is beyond the scope of one article, but we can summarize the clear biblical witness from both Testaments, as Reformed theologians have traditionally understood it. In doing so, we lean on the meticulous work of scholars like Dr. James White, who has written and debated extensively on these passages, carefully refuting revisionist interpretations. As will be evident, the Bible’s teaching on these matters is consistent and unambiguous in its overall thrust.

Old Testament: The foundational passages are found in the Torah. Genesis 1–2 (as discussed in Section 2) establishes the male-female paradigm for marriage. Genesis 19 recounts the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; while the primary sin of Sodom included arrogance and inhospitality (Ezekiel 16:49-50 mentions their “pride” and failure to help the poor), the immediate provocation was the men of the city seeking to have sexual relations with Lot’s male guests (Gen. 19:5). Jude 7 clarifies that they “indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire”, leaving no doubt that homosexual practice was in view. Next, we have the Levitical law: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). And similarly, Leviticus 20:13 prescribes severe penalty under Israel’s civil code for this act. These verses straightforwardly prohibit male homosexual acts. Some attempt to argue these applied only to ancient cult prostitution or exploitative situations, but the text itself gives no such limitation – it addresses the act per se. Reformed commentators have long noted that the Holiness Code of Leviticus 18 mixes sexual laws that are moral in nature (incest, adultery, bestiality, homosexuality) with some ritual laws. But the context suggests these sexual laws are of universal moral relevance: “the nations” who practiced them were defiled and judged (Lev. 18:24–25). Indeed, Leviticus 18:30 concludes by warning Israel not to commit any of these “abominations” lest they be defiled. Dr. James White points out that “the clear wording of this passage makes it difficult for revisionists to limit its scope.” The usual strategy of pro-LGBT theologians, therefore, is to argue that Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians today. However, that fails upon closer scrutiny. The prohibition on homosexual acts in Leviticus is embedded in the moral law context, “applied to Gentiles in the text” itself, and significantly, the New Testament reaffirms this moral law. As Dr. White notes, “these Leviticus prohibitions are the basis for Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality in writing to the church at Corinth.” In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul uses the term arsenokoitai for homosexual men, a compound directly derived from the Greek words of Leviticus 20:13 (arsenos “male” + koite “bed”). This linguistic link strongly indicates Paul was intentionally echoing the Levitical standard and bringing it into the NT context.

Apart from homosexual acts, the OT also addresses gender expression. Deuteronomy 22:5 forbids cross-dressing: “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.” While this refers to clothing, the underlying principle is preserving the distinction of the sexes as God created. It shows that gender confusion is not a new phenomenon; even in ancient times, God’s law spoke to maintaining clarity between male and female roles/appearance. The creation order and accompanying symbols (like dress) mattered. Thus, one could say the seed of a biblical response to transgenderism is already present – the Bible calls it an abomination for a man to present himself as a woman or vice versa. The strong language underscores God’s displeasure at blurring the lines of His creation.

New Testament: Jesus reaffirmed the Genesis view of marriage as male-female (Matthew 19:4-6, “He who created them from the beginning made them male and female…”). While Jesus did not explicitly mention homosexuality or gender identity (He was operating in a Jewish context where the Law on these matters was assumed), He spoke of porneia (sexual immorality) as defiling (Mark 7:21-23). The term porneia in Jewish usage would certainly include homosexual acts along with all forms of illicit sex outside heterosexual marriage.

The clearest NT teachings come from the epistles. Romans 1:26-27, already discussed, labels homosexual desires and acts as “dishonorable,” “contrary to nature,” and “shameless.” This passage includes female homosexual behavior (“even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones”) – thus covering lesbianism as wellbiblehub.com. Notably, Romans 1 ties these acts to idolatry and moral rebellion, as part of humanity’s slide into darkness. It also notes that those practicing them “received in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Rom 1:27), which could allude to the inherent physical and psychological consequences of such sins (e.g. disease, emptiness, etc.). Dr. James White emphasizes that attempts to restrict Romans 1 to only abusive relationships are groundless – the text describes mutuallust (“men burned with passion for one another”) and uses general terms. It is a blanket condemnation of same-sex relations as unnatural, with no caveat saying “unless they really love each other.” We must remember: the moral logic of Scripture is that the form of the relationship (male-female within marriage) is what makes sexual expression legitimate, not merely the feelings of the participants. Loving feelings do not sanctify an otherwise forbidden union. For example, a man might “love” someone else’s wife (and she him), but that adultery is still sin despite their feelings. Likewise, even if two men or two women claim genuine love, Scripture says the union itself is out of bounds. Love does not eliminate the need for order and obedience to God’s design.

Next, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 provides a vice list: “Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality (malakoi, arsenokoitai), nor thieves... will inherit the kingdom of God.” Paul uses two terms here: malakoi (literally “soft men,” understood as the passive partners in homosexual acts) and arsenokoitai (active male partners). Effectively, he covers both roles in Greco-Roman homosexual practice to make clear that all homosexual practice is sin. Some revisionists have tried to claim these words refer only to prostitution or pedastery; however, extensive lexical and historical study (including James White and others) has debunked this. As one scholarly article notes, “malakoi and arsenokoitai clearly refer to the passive and active partners in homosexual sex.” The Faithful exegesis recognizes Paul’s Jewish background and how he was conveying the Levitical prohibitions into Greek terminology for his Gentile readers. As mentioned, the term arsenokoitai is virtually a quote from Leviticus. Dr. White’s work on this has helped expose popular myths (such as the claim that the word “homosexual” was a mistranslation introduced in 1946). The truth is that all major English translations for many decades (long before 1946) translated these terms in a way that condemns homosexual acts (e.g. the 1611 KJV: “abusers of themselves with mankind”). The church has never been in confusion about what this verse meant. Modern confusion is a case of special pleading due to cultural pressure, not new linguistic discoveries.

Likewise, 1 Timothy 1:8-11 lists “the law is laid down for... the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, etc., and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.” Again the term arsenokoitai appears (here in plural), indicating that this behavior is “contrary to sound doctrine” and aligned with lawlessness. There is simply no positive mention of homosexual relations anywhere in Scripture; every mention is negative, and these vice lists place it in the context of serious sins.

Transgender identity in the modern sense isn’t explicitly described in Scripture, but biblical principles address it. Besides Deut. 22:5 noted above, Psalm 139:13-16 teaches that God forms each person in the womb – implying that our physical sex is part of His plan for us, not a mistake to be rejected. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 says, “You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.” Our bodies belong to God, and we ought not to mutilate or alter them in rebellion against how He made us. The transgender movement, which encourages people to “transition” through cross-sex hormones and surgeries, stands in stark rebellion to these truths. As Reformed pastor Kevin DeYoung writes, “Our gendered bodies are not incidental to our identity but essential to who we are.” To reject one’s God-given male or female body is effectively to say, “God, you made a mistake – I know better.” Theologically, it is a form of Gnosticism (viewing the true self as something apart from the body, with the body being a hindrance or irrelevant). Christianity repudiates that: we are body-soul unities, and salvation is about redeeming us as whole persons, not escaping our embodiment. The resurrection hope even affirms that our bodies (perfected) are part of our eternal identity. Therefore, to permanently alter one’s body in pursuit of a self-chosen identity is a grievous error.

To sum up, biblical teaching from Genesis to Revelation consistently upholds binary sex, heterosexual marriage, and the sinfulness of deviations like homosexual practice or gender confusion. The attempts by some “progressive Christians” to reinterpret the key passages fail under scrutiny. As Dr. James White often points out on his blog and in The Same Sex Controversy, the revisionist arguments require such strained exegesis (e.g. claiming arsenokoitai means something like “economic exploitation” rather than what the words plainly denote) that one can only accept them if already committed to overturning the traditional view. In contrast, the traditional interpretation is straightforward and has been affirmed across cultures and centuries of church history.

Furthermore, the continuity between the Old and New Testament sexual ethic underscores that this is not about obscure purity laws that expired with the old covenant. Rather, it’s about creation norms and moral law that carry into the new covenant age. The Westminster Confession helpfully distinguishes the ceremonial laws (fulfilled in Christ) from the moral law, “forever binding” upon all (WCF 19). Sexual ethics fall under that moral law category. The New Testament’s echo of Leviticus proves it: the moral law against homosexual practice still stands, now reinforced with gospel grace to help sinners turn from such sins. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) notably included a prohibition on porneia (sexual immorality) for Gentile converts, showing that even as other Jewish ceremonial customs were not imposed, the moral demand for sexual purity remained. The Apostolic teaching leaves no loophole for affirming LGBTQ conduct.

In light of Scripture’s clarity, the modern push within some churches to bless same-sex unions or accommodate transgender identities must be seen for what it is: a serious departure from biblical Christianity. It effectively accuses the Holy Spirit – who inspired Scripture – of either error or irrelevance on these points until our enlightened era. This is untenable for anyone who holds a high view of Scripture. We instead affirm with Paul that “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12). By showing what is sin, Scripture also shows us our need for Christ. And by forbidding what harms us, God’s commands actually protect true joy. In the next section, we turn to consider evidence of this in the real world: what are the fruits of the LGBTQ lifestyle versus the fruits of obedience? Lived reality, we will see, aligns with what Scripture and Reformed theology predict.

7. Consequences of Rebelling Against God’s Design: Empirical Observations

A valid critique of any worldview considers its real-world outcomes. Jesus said, “You will recognize them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). While personal anecdotes vary widely, at a population level there is substantial empirical data indicating that LGBTQ lifestyles are often accompanied by serious physical and psychological hardships. We present this data not to gloat or belittle – Christians should approach these facts with compassion, seeing them as further evidence that sin brings brokenness, and that our society’s experiment in sexual “liberation” is harming real people. The goal is to call people back to God’s design for their good, not merely to say “I told you so.” With that pastoral heart in mind, consider some sobering findings from medical and social sciences:

• Mental Health and Suicide: Numerous studies across different countries show markedly elevated rates of depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicidal thoughts among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals compared to the general population. A large 2021 study led by the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health found that “suicide risk was three to six times greater for lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults than for heterosexual adults across every age group and race/ethnicity category.” In concrete terms, among gay and bi males, about 12–17% had seriously contemplated suicide in the past year and 2% attempted it, far above the rates for straight men. Among lesbian and bi women, 11–20% contemplated and ~3% attempted. These disparities persist even in countries or regions that are very LGBTQ-affirming, suggesting it’s not all attributable to “social stigma.” The elevated rates of mental distress were once explained by psychiatrists as evidence that homosexuality and gender dysphoria themselves are psychological struggles. Today’s activists claim the opposite – that all distress comes from discrimination. Reality is likely multifactorial. But a Reformed theological lens would note that living in conflict with God’s design (and often with one’s own biological identity) creates inner turmoil. Isaiah 57:20 says, “the wicked are like the tossing sea; for it cannot be quiet, and its waters toss up mire and dirt.” Sin tends to produce inner disquiet. We must be careful: we do not conclude that every LGBTQ-identifying individual lacks peace or that heterosexual sinners have no mental issues. All humans have troubles. Yet the trend is significant and consistent: even in places with high affirmation, LGBTQ folk have much higher rates of suicide and self-harm. This should evoke compassion and also skepticism toward the narrative that these lifestyles are as healthy and wholesome as any other.

• Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs): Men who have sex with men (MSM) bear a hugely disproportionate burden of certain diseases, particularly HIV/AIDS and syphilis. According to U.S. CDC data, in 2022 MSM accounted for 67% of new HIV infections, despite being only around ~2-4% of the male population. The lifetime risk of HIV infection for an MSM in America is estimated at 1 in 6, compared to 1 in 524 for heterosexual men – an astonishing difference. This disparity is not because gay men are more inherently prone to disease, but because anal intercourse (common among MSM) is far riskier for transmission than vaginal sex, and because on average MSM tend to have higher numbers of sexual partners. No matter the cause, the result is tragic: thousands of young men contract a life-altering virus each year. Similar disproportion exists for syphilis: MSM account for the majority of syphilis cases in many Western countries, and co-infection of syphilis with HIV is common. There are also higher rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia, often in the throat or rectum, among MSM. These hard facts underscore the biblical warning that those who “dishonor their bodies” will “receive in themselves the due penalty” (Rom. 1:27). It’s not punitive superstition; it’s observable epidemiology. Sex outside God’s boundaries, especially in forms inherently riskier, often leads to physical harm. By contrast, faithful heterosexual marriage has the lowest rates of STIs – essentially near zero if both spouses were uninfected and monogamous. God’s way truly prevents much suffering.

• Substance Abuse: Studies consistently show higher usage of drugs, tobacco, and alcohol in LGBT populations. Some suggest this is coping behavior for minority stress; again, it may also be that a subculture centered on bars and nightlife (historically, for gay men) encourages heavier drinking. Regardless, the outcome is more addiction and related health issues in these communities.

• Transgender Health Outcomes: Perhaps the most alarming data comes from studies of those who undergo medical gender transitions. A long-term (30-year) Swedish study famously found that post-operative transsexual individuals had extremely high suicide rates – about 19 times higher than the general population. Even if that study’s exact figure is debated, multiple analyses confirm that gender dysphoric individuals post-transition still suffer much higher mental health struggles than others. Some recent studies claim that gender-affirming treatments improve mental health in the short run, but the data on long-term outcomes is scant and contested. Significantly, many western countries (UK, Sweden, Finland, etc.) are now tapping the brakes on rushing minors into hormonal and surgical interventions, precisely because a growing number of young people detransition (revert to identifying with their birth sex) and express regret at the irreversible damage done to their bodies. Double mastectomies, removal of sex organs, permanent changes from cross-sex hormones – these are drastic measures. A theology of the body that each person is created male or female and that our bodies are gifts to steward would say: it is better to help someone find peace with their given body than to radically alter the body to match the mind. The high rates of regret and ongoing suicide risk post-surgery seem to vindicate that view. Our heart should break for those individuals – they were promised joy at the other end of transition, yet many found only deeper despair. Only the gospel, and embracing one’s God-given identity, can heal that wound.

• Relational Instability: Although harder to quantify, it’s documented that same-sex romantic relationships on average have higher rates of non-monogamy and break-ups than heterosexual marriages. Even in countries with same-sex marriage, many gay male couples openly reject monogamy. The concept of lifelong exclusivity is statistically less common in practice. This in turn can affect mental health and life satisfaction. By contrast, a man and woman who marry and stay faithful provide a more stable environment, especially if they raise children. And indeed, children are an important part of this discussion: the LGBTQ worldview intentionally severs procreation from sexuality (except via third-party interventions). It’s not uncommon for children raised by same-sex couples or in very “progressive” environments to report confusion or longing for a missing mother or father figure. Studies on outcomes for children of same-sex households are disputed, but even apart from that, we can say: a mother and father bring complementary gifts to parenting that two of the same cannot fully supply (no matter how loving). God’s design of the family (one father, one mother, raising offspring) has a wisdom to it borne out over millennia.

Now, it must be stated: Correlation is not necessarily causation. Not every gay or transgender person will experience these harms, and heterosexual sinners can face similar woes (e.g. promiscuity among heterosexuals leads to STIs and heartache too). The point is not a simplistic “only gay people get diseases or depression.” Rather, it is to highlight that the celebratory narrative – “Come out and you’ll be living your best life, free and happy!” – is often far from reality. There’s a reason even secular health officials treat MSM as a high-risk group and why we see an epidemic of loneliness and mental illness especially among transgender youth. The modern experiment is not delivering the promised utopia of personal fulfillment. Instead, it yields the “bad fruit” of pain, which is exactly what a biblical worldview would predict. As Proverbs 14:12 says, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.”

Reformed theology can incorporate these empirical findings within its framework of common grace and the noetic effects of sin. Even non-Christians can observe and gather data that aligns with God’s moral order (common grace allowing some truth to be seen). The fact that secular data is confirming the dangers of these lifestyles adds weight to our argument: God’s commands are not arbitrary – they’re for our flourishing. When we violate them, we unavoidably suffer consequences. This is part of the “due penalty” Romans 1 speaks ofbiblehub.com.

In love, therefore, Christians reach out to individuals in the LGBTQ community not with smugness but with compassion and hope for something better. Our stance against the sin is because we desire the person’s good. Like a doctor who must tell a patient the harsh truth about an illness in order to offer the cure, the church tells the truth about these behaviors in order to extend Christ’s healing. We cannot celebrate what is destroying our neighbors; true love compels us to lovingly warn and invite them to wholeness in Christ. The next section deals with the ironic dynamic of “pride” and “shame” in today’s culture – a dynamic that highlights the spiritual rebellion underlying these issues, but also opens a door for the gospel remedy of grace.

8. From Shame to Pride: The Reversal of Moral Values

One of the most striking aspects of the modern LGBTQ movement is its appropriation of the term “Pride.” Sins that were once associated with shame are now paraded openly with pride (quite literally in Pride Parades). This inversion has profound theological significance. In Scripture, “pride” is a root sin, the epitome of a heart in rebellion against God. Conversely, “shame” – in the proper sense – is the appropriate feeling when we violate God’s design. Our first parents felt shame after sinning (Genesis 3:7). Godly sorrow and shame for sin can lead to repentance (2 Cor. 7:10). Yet our culture now encourages those engaging in LGBTQ behaviors to feel no shame whatsoever, but instead to glory in what they do.

From a Reformed perspective, this “Pride” emphasis fulfills Isaiah 5:20 – “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness.” To boast about something God calls sin is a high-handed act of defiance. As Answers in Genesis writer Avery Foley succinctly put it, “At the heart of Pride Month... is pride. Pride comes from a rebellious heart that rejects the benevolent authority of the Creator. A proud person ultimately claims to know better than God... celebrating our own choices and desires over what God has commanded.”. The very terminology of “Pride” is theological: Pride was the first sin (Satan’s fall, and then man’s desire to “be like God” in Eden). It is no coincidence that a movement bent on moral autonomy would elevate pride as a virtue. In embracing “Gay Pride,” society essentially sacralizes the notion that “my way is better than God’s way.” Pride, in the biblical worldview, is the anti-God state of mind – “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6). The celebration of Pride is thus not a morally neutral civic festivity; it is a spiritual declaration of independence from God’s moral order.

The role of shame is also important to consider. Historically, feeling shame for immoral acts was considered a catalyst to seek forgiveness and change. As the prophet Jeremiah lamented about apostate Israel, “Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? No, they were not at all ashamed; they did not know how to blush” (Jer. 6:15). A culture that has lost the ability to blush at sexual perversion is a culture far gone in rebellion. The LGBTQ movement explicitly talks about “smashing the shame” or removing the stigma associated with these behaviors. In one sense, compassion demands we treat people with dignity and not heap personal insults – but the movement goes further, insisting that not even an internal sense of shame is warranted. All feelings of guilt must be expunged through affirmation. To the extent that Christians or churches previously handled this insensitively (perhaps shaming people in a cruel, mocking way), we should correct that. However, the biblical answer is not to eliminate appropriate shame, but to minister the gospel to it. The only “no-shame solution”, as Rosaria Butterfield (a former lesbian) has said, is repentance and grace, not hardening oneself in pride. If one repents and trusts Christ, “those who look to Him are radiant, and their faces shall never be ashamed” (Psalm 34:5). The cross of Christ is the place where our shame is covered by His honor. But what the world offers instead is a counterfeit: replace shame with pride through sheer will and social support. This is a kind of psychological self-justification. By loudly declaring their lifestyle is good and demanding everyone agree, individuals seek to silence the voice of conscience within. Sadly, that voice cannot be silenced so easily; it often resurfaces at unexpected times (in the dark of night, or later in life) unless truly dealt with at the cross.

The celebration of Pride also has a religious overtone as noted. The month of June has effectively become a liturgical season in secular society, complete with its rainbow iconography, its martyrs and saints (e.g. Stonewall, Harvey Milk), and its evangelists and missionaries spreading the creed of sexual liberation. Commentators have observed how zealously corporations, government agencies, and schools participate in this – akin to how medieval society had everyone participate in church festivals. The difference is, the object being celebrated is human sexual diversity elevated to an idol. Romans 1:23 says they “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man”, and indeed in Pride we see the creature (specifically man’s sexual self) glorified. First Things magazine described Pride Month as the new public “liturgical celebration” of our secular culture – a time when everyone is expected to burn a pinch of incense to the false god of erotic liberty. Not bowing (i.e. not affirming Pride) can cost one’s reputation or job, a parallel to how refusing to worship Roman emperors cost the early Christians. This parallel highlights that the cultural pressure today is not mere politics but spiritual allegiance. Will we “bow to Baal” (in this case, the Baal of sexual relativism) or stand faithful to Christ?

From a pastoral angle, we recognize many LGBTQ-identified individuals adopt Pride out of a sense of woundedness. They felt ashamed or rejected before; Pride feels empowering and freeing initially. But it is a false gospel. It tells them “you’re perfect as you are, be proud of yourself,” when in reality we are all sinners in need of Christ. True dignity and joy come not from celebrating our sin, but from finding our identity in Christ who forgives sin. Shame and guilt, if directed to the cross, become the pathway to healing. The current culture instead directs shame to a trash heap and tells people to dance on it – but the trash heap is smoldering with unresolved guilt that can flare up. The only way to truly remove the guilt of sin is through atonement and repentance, not through social trends. Our task as the church is to compassionately articulate that the restless pursuit of validation (through Pride parades, pronoun declarations, etc.) will never suffice. Augustine’s timeless truth applies: “Our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee, O Lord.” All the pride in the world cannot fill the God-shaped void or silence the law written on the heart (Romans 2:15).

In preaching and counseling, we should certainly not aim to increase someone’s shame by shaming tactics. Rather, we speak the law of God which may naturally produce conviction and shame. Then we immediately point to the Savior who “for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame” (Hebrews 12:2) – Jesus bore our shame on the cross so that all who humble themselves can be lifted up. Here is the great irony: the Pride movement urges people to stay proud – which according to Scripture means God will oppose them (James 4:6) – whereas if they would humble themselves, God would lift them up in due time (1 Peter 5:5-6). The Gospel flips Pride to true dignity: not dignity in sin, but dignity as a forgiven, cleansed child of God.

In sum, the Pride vs. shame dynamic highlights the theological rebellion afoot. Pride, the deadliest of sins, is being hailed as a virtue, and not just any pride but pride in actions that Scripture calls “abominations” (a term conveying deep shamefulness in God’s sight). This should not make us hate or fear those waving rainbow flags; it should break our hearts and spur us to prayer. Like Daniel in Babylon, who saw the king Nebuchadnezzar strutting in pride, we know that “those who walk in pride [God] is able to humble” (Daniel 4:37). Sometimes that humbling might come through temporal judgments or personal crises that bring one to their knees. Our hope is that many caught in the Pride deception will, by God’s grace, have a prodigal son moment: coming to their senses in the pigsty, feeling the sting of empty pride, and deciding to return home to the Father in humble repentance. Our churches must be ready to receive them with open arms and celebratory feasts, just as heaven rejoices over one sinner who repents.

Having journeyed through these eight detailed points, we have laid a foundation in Scripture, theology, history, apologetics, and practical realities. What remains is to bring all these strands together in a concluding pastoral exhortation – reaffirming the Reformed conviction of God’s truth, extending the gospel hope to sinners (including ourselves), and encouraging the church to stand firm and loving in this turbulent cultural moment.

9. Conclusion: Biblical Fidelity and Pastoral Care in an Age of Confusion

We have undertaken a comprehensive critique of the modern LGBTQ worldview from a Reformed theological perspective, and the findings are clear: the current cultural ethos on sex and gender is fundamentally at odds with God’s design as revealed in Scripture and affirmed throughout church history. As such, faithfulness to Christ requires that we not compromise or accommodate those aspects of the LGBTQ agenda that demand calling evil good. We must “hold fast the pattern of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13) even if the world vilifies us as backwards or hateful. Yet our stance must never stem from personal animus or a pharisaical spirit. “Speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) is our mandate – truth and love together.

For the church, this means several things. First, we reaffirm doctrinally what the Reformed confessions teach: that marriage is between one man and one woman, that all sexual intimacy outside of that bond (whether heterosexual or homosexual) is sin, and that our created male-female identity is a gift to be embraced, not altered. We also affirm the gospel doctrine of regeneration – that by the Holy Spirit, sinners can be washed, sanctified, and justified (1 Cor. 6:11). We reject the fatalism of saying “someone is gay and can never change.” While temptations or inclinations may indeed persist even after conversion (just as other besetting sins do), the identity of a Christian is not “gay” or “trans”; it is “in Christ.” By God’s grace, there are many believers who were once LGBTQ-identified but have found new life and even new affections as they follow Jesus. Some remain celibate yet joyful, directing their love into friendships and service. Others have seen orientations shift over time. We don’t prescribe that conversion will instantly remove all temptations (sometimes God leaves struggles to keep us dependent on Him, à la 2 Cor. 12:7-9), but we insist that sinful desires do not define the Christian. Our old self – with all its passions – has been crucified with Christ (Gal. 5:24). We are now defined by union with Christ, and called to walk in holiness by the power of the Spirit. This is actually a hopeful message in a world that tells people they are their sexual attractions and nothing can be done. With God, there is forgiveness and there is transformation (to varying degrees, in God’s timing).

Secondly, we commit to pastoral care that is compassionate and wise. We must create church environments where people struggling with these issues feel safe to open up and seek help – not because we will affirm the sin, but because we will love them. Many who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria have felt isolated, ashamed, or mistreated (perhaps even by Christians). We should lament where professing Christians have responded with cruelty or crude mockery; such behavior is itself sinful and counter-productive. Instead, like the Father in the parable, we watch and pray for the prodigals to return, ready to run to them with grace. This means having ministries or support groups for those who repent out of LGBTQ lifestyles, helping them form healthy same-sex friendships (devoid of eroticism) and integrate into the spiritual family of the church. It means offering biblical counseling that addresses the heart issues, trauma, or family wounds that sometimes underlie these struggles. For example, some women in lesbian relationships have a history of abuse by men; sensitivity to such trauma is needed even as we encourage obedience to Christ.

Thirdly, we engage the culture as salt and light (Matthew 5:13-16). We advocate for truth in the public square – for example, against policies that compel Christian institutions to violate their convictions, or against the medicalization of children with puberty blockers and surgeries. At the same time, we must model an alternative community. In a world increasingly jaded and lonely despite sexual “freedom,” the church should shine as a loving community where people – single or married – find genuine belonging and purpose. This is crucial: many young people with LGBTQ attractions get swept into that subculture because it offers them a sense of family or affirmation they lacked elsewhere. The church can, by God’s grace, be the real family they need, where we carry each other’s burdens and celebrate each person as an image-bearer with gifts to contribute to Christ’s body.

Fourth, we remain humble, remembering our own sins and need for grace. There is no place for self-righteousness. As Paul says after listing those who won’t inherit the kingdom: “And such were some of you. But you were washed...” (1 Cor. 6:11). We too were sexually immoral, or idolaters, or liars, etc., in various ways. It was purely God’s mercy that saved us. So we approach our neighbors not as moral superiors but as beggars showing other beggars where to find bread. Our confidence is not in our moral perfection but in Christ’s. This humility actually enhances our witness – it shows that we aren’t just advocating a moral code, but a Redeemer who forgives and changes hearts.

In closing, the modern LGBTQ worldview, for all its loud claims of “love” and “pride,” is ultimately a dead end. It cannot deliver the fulfillment it promises, because it is built on a lie about human nature and happiness. As Reformed Christians, we have both a firm foundation and a better story. The firm foundation is God’s unchanging truth – the same yesterday, today, and forever – which provides an anchor amid society’s chaos. The better story is the gospel: that though all of us are broken by sin (including in our sexuality), God so loved us that He sent His Son to save us. Jesus died and rose to rescue people precisely from the things that now enslave and identify them. A gay man is not beyond Christ’s reach; a trans-identified person is not beyond the power of the new birth. The church must hold out this hope. We have seen examples – from Rosaria Butterfield, to Becket Cook, to many unnamed others – of God drawing people out of these lifestyles and into joyful holiness. We should expect He will yet do more, even if the world gets darker.

To the one struggling and reading this, we say: God’s commands are not to destroy you, but to lead you to life. The initial shame you feel for sin can be taken away completely in Christ and replaced with the radiant joy of being loved by God as His child. You need not parade in pride to prove your worth; you can kneel in repentance and receive a worth and identity that far exceeds anything this world can offer – “a new name... better than sons and daughters” (Isaiah 56:5). To the church, we exhort: hold fast to Scripture, love your neighbor, prepare for possible persecution, but do not lose heart. The cultural tides may rage, but King Jesus is on the throne. His design will be vindicated; indeed, it is vindicated a little each time a sinner finds it was the Father’s house they were longing for all along, not the far country.

Let us then go forth with conviction and compassion. Conviction, knowing that we have the truth of God’s Word on these matters – a precious deposit not to be squandered for social acceptance. Compassion, knowing that apart from grace we would be lost too, and that our battle is not against flesh and blood but against spiritual forces that hold people captive (Eph. 6:12). May our Reformed churches be beacons of light, cities on a hill, where the beauty of God’s pattern for sexuality and family is displayed, and where the grace of Christ is offered to all who thirst for righteousness. In doing so, we both glorify God and truly love our neighbor – for there is no conflict between truth and love when both are rooted in God. As the Apostle Paul encouraged Timothy, so we too: “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2). This task is indeed “out of season” in today’s climate, but it remains our calling. By God’s grace and for His glory, may we be found faithful. Amen.

References

1. Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), Chapter XXIV, Section I – “Marriage is to be between one man and one woman...”.

2. Westminster Larger Catechism (1647), Q.139 – lists “sodomy, and all unnatural lusts” among sins forbidden by the seventh commandment.

3. Heidelberg Catechism (1563), Q.108–109 – teaches that “God condemns all unchastity” and forbids all unchaste thoughts, words, and actions.

4. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1541 French edition (McKee trans.) – emphasizes the necessity of marriage for social order and calls sexuality outside marriage “cursed before God.”

5. Watson, Thomas. The Ten Commandments (London, 1692) – describes those “steeped and parboiled in fornication, incest, sodomy, and all manner of uncleanness” and warns that God giving someone over to sin is a dreadful judgment.

6. Owen, John (and Puritan consensus) – on the sinfulness of even inward homosexual lust: “homosexual attraction... is not natural, but rather unnatural... needs to be mortified.” (summarized in Mark Jones, 2018).

7. Bahnsen, Greg. Homosexuality: A Biblical View (1978) – argues that the church must choose to please God’s Word over cultural pressure: “either we will discriminate against homosexuals, or we will discriminate against the Word of God...”. Also connects NT terms (αρσενοκοιται) to Leviticus.

8. White, James R. The Same Sex Controversy (2002) – provides exegesis of key texts. E.g., notes that Leviticus 18’s prohibitions undergird Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality in 1 Corinthians. His AOMin blog debunks revisionist claims about malakoi/arsenokoitai and the “1946” mistranslation myth.

9. Brown, Michael L. A Queer Thing Happened to America (2011) – documents the cultural shift and activist tactics. E.g., describes how gay activists used “zaps” (militant protests) to intimidate opponents and change media/APA policies.

10. NIH/NIMH Study on LGBT Suicide Risk – Ramchand et al., Am. Journal of Preventive Medicine (2021). Found lesbian, gay, and bi adults 3–6 times more likely to have recent suicidal thoughts/attempts than heterosexual peers.

11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – HIV Statistics (HIV.gov, 2022): 67% of new HIV infections in US were among MSM. Lifetime HIV risk: 1 in 6 for MSM vs 1 in 524 for straight men.

12. Swedish Long-Term Study – Dhejne et al., PLoS ONE 2011. Found post-sex reassignment individuals had much higher mortality, including a suicide rate ~19.1 times that of controls. (See also Heritage Foundation summary).

13. Foley, Avery. “Is Pride Worth Celebrating?” Answers in Genesis (June 29, 2018) – Theological analysis of Pride: “Pride comes from a rebellious heart that rejects the... authority of the Creator.”. Cites Scripture on God’s hatred of pride.

14. First Things Magazine – Carl R. Trueman, “Pride Month and the Infantilization of Society” (June 2022) – describes Pride Month as a pseudo-religious celebration with transgressive, liturgical character.

15. Rosaria Butterfield – Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert (2012) – personal testimony of leaving a lesbian lifestyle. Emphasizes that repentance and Christ are the only solution to sin’s shame (Butterfield calls repentance “the only no-shame solution” for a convicted conscience).

16. Scripture (ESV unless noted) – Genesis 1:27, 2:24; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Deuteronomy 22:5; Isaiah 5:20; Matthew 19:4–6; Romans 1:18–27biblehub.com; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11; 1 Timothy 1:9–11; Jude 7; etc. (Biblical citations throughout text; see embedded links). These collectively forbid homosexual practice and gender confusion, while holding out redemption in Christ for those who repent (e.g. 1 Cor. 6:11).