Biblical Analogies

Should Christians accept
committed, faithful
homosexual partnerships?

Applying analogical reasoning to Biblical issues allows us to draw principled conclusions based on God’s truth revealed in scripture.

On this page, we review four common uses of Analogical Reasoning for accepting homosexual relationships. These four uses illustrate how the church adapts to the surrounding culture over time.

Here, we offer five additional uses of Biblical An@logy which strongly validate gay and lesbian relationships.

The good Doctor challenged gay Christians.

If we want non-gay Christians to accept us as blood-bought members of the body of Christ, we must come up with strong Biblical analogies for gay partnerships, which correspond with relationships accepted in the Bible.

If gay Christians can provide strong Biblical analogies for gay partnerships, then the church should accept gay and lesbian partnerships as blessed by God.

According to Dr. Gagnon, the four analogies presented on this page do not share sufficient similarities and are therefore, in Dr. Gagnon's opinion, too weak to be useful.

Here is what a good strong an@logy should do, according to Dr. Gagnon, as posted on his website.

1. The Holiness Code does not cover every circumstance humans face. Analogy allows us to
draw principled conclusions based on God’s response to comparable situations.

2. Biblical Analogy reflects the consensus of centuries of judgments by God, through His prophets, to His people.

When the facts of other cases are similar to the case at issue today, Homosexual Relationships, application of the rule established in similar cases is justified.

When seeking to explain Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, pro-gay apologists use Biblical analogy to validate their understanding that God can and does accept gay and lesbian relationships which are within the Biblical moral framework. These uses of Analogy reflect the situation of believers two and three millenia past as they confronted the culture of their time.

The truth of scripture has not changed but the understanding of the church on these cultural issues has changed. Now we are dealing with the culture of our time.

Therefore, Biblical analogy encourages us to conclude that the church should change her mind on the issue of homosexual relationships and accept saved gays and lesbians as fully as she accepts saved heterosexuals.

This analogy reasons that Jews did not include Gentiles in the household of faith until God pointed out to Peter in Acts 10, that Gentiles also had the gift of the Holy Spirit. Since the first century church changed her mind and accepted saved Gentiles as equal members in the body of Christ, this an@logy concludes that the twenty-first century church should change her mind and accept saved homosexuals as equal members in the body of Christ.

It is objected that Gentiles are specifically welcomed into Christian fellowship in the New Testament but practicing homosexuals are not.

Our chapter on Eunuchs in the book Gay Christian 101 makes clear that God does welcome believing eunuchs-homosexuals into the body of Christ, as did the early church, while also specifically excluding eunuchs from the Adam and Eve marriage paradigm.

Since the stance of the church toward slavery has changed, this an@logy concludes that the twenty-first century church should change her mind about treating saved homosexuals as second-class citizens and accord them their rightful place in the body of Christ.

It is objected that passages supporting slavery are culturally limited in their application, therefore the church was right to change her mind on slavery but would be wrong to change her mind on homosexuality.

Based on the historical and scriptural evidence presented in our 390 page book, Gay Christian 101, for a culturally limited interpretation of the alleged anti-gay passages, a consistent hermeneutic requires the church to re-examine her unscriptural anti-gay position.

In Christ Jesus “there is neither male nor female.”

The church now accords women more equal standing with men. Since the church changed her mind about women in church and ministry, this an@logy concludes that the church should change her mind about saved homosexuals in church and ministry.

It is objected that there are scriptural examples in both testaments, of women in ministry, which constitute a growing acceptance over time, while the same situation does not exist for homosexuals.

This objection is answered by noting that the alleged anti-gay passages, understood in their cultural, doctrinal, historical and religious context, deal with pagan worship of the fertility goddess, not committed, faithful, same sex partnerships.

Many Christians understand the words of Jesus in Matthew 19:1-12 as affirmation and acknowledgment that homosexuals, referred to by Jesus as born eunuchs, did not make a personal choice to be gay.

Further, no scripture which mentions Sodom mentions homosexuality. Homosexuality was not the issue in scripture. Cultic sex worship of false gods was the issue.

Therefore the church should affirm committed, faithful homosexual partnerships which are not pagan or cultic.

This an@logy reasons that the views of the first century church regarding divorce and remarriage have changed to such an extent that divorced persons are now allowed, in many churches, to pastor or teach Sunday School and serve in other areas not open to them in previous centuries.

Since the twenty-first century church has changed the way she deals with divorced and remarried persons (regardless of what scripture says), this an@logy concludes that the church should also change the way she deals with gay and lesbian people of faith, because of (not in spite of) what scripture says.

Jesus and scripture are clearly against divorce and remarriage yet most of the modern church rejects homosexuals while accepting divorce and remarriage.

Yet Jesus affirmed people who are born eunuchs, who through no choice of their own, are unable to fit the Adam and Eve marriage paradigm, Matthew 19:3-12.

Since Jesus affirmed born eunuchs yet exempted them from the Adam and Eve marriage paradigm, the church should affirm committed, faithful gay and lesbian partnerships, even though they are outside the Adam and Eve (male-female) paradigm.

It is objected that the church does not encourage serial divorce and remarriage whereas homosexual practice, even in a monogamous relationship, is regarded by traditionalists (against all logic), as serial sin.

This objection is answered by noting that Jesus and scripture regard remarriage by some divorced individuals as sin, Matthew 19:1-12, regardless of the rationalizations of modern Christians.

Many heterosexual Christians, including Dr. Robert Gagnon, view re-marriage after divorce as one single sin, but each subsequent sexual act in the re-marriage, IS NOT considered serial sin.

These anti-gay Christians then add a novel twist by alleging the opposite argument about homosexuals, that each individual sexual act in a monogamous homosexual partnership IS serial sin.

Isn't that slick. The divorced and remarried sinners in their churches have only committed one sin but those nasty gays are constantly sinning!

My, my, how the brethren love to justify their own sins while condemning the perceived sins of others.

As scriptural teaching against heterosexual rape does not prohibit loving, heterosexual relationships so scriptural injunctions against shrine prostitutes who worship the Canaanite fertility goddess, do not prohibit loving same sex partnerships as we know them today.

Some of the information on this page is excerpted from the book Gay Christian 101 - Spiritual Self-Defense For Gay Christians, which can be ordered here.

Click here to examine the Gay Analogy of Amram and Jochebed, the parents of Aaron, Miriam and Moses, which convincingly validates Gay Relationships.

Click here to return to GayChristian101.com Homepage.