A Historical and Theological Examination of Christianity and Homosexuality

The Pre-Christian Context: Sexuality in the Ancient World

To understand the origins of Christian teachings on homosexuality, it is essential to first examine the cultural and philosophical world into which the faith emerged. The ancient Mediterranean was a complex story of differing sexual ethics, and early Christianity did not develop its views in a vacuum. Rather, its teachings were forged in dialogue with, and often in reaction to, the prevailing norms of Greco-Roman society and its own Jewish heritage. Crucially, the ancient world lacked a modern concept of “sexual orientation” as an innate, defining aspect of personal identity. Same-sex acts were understood not through the lens of identity but through frameworks of social status, power dynamics, procreation, and gender roles.²

Greco-Roman Mores

In the broader Greco-Roman culture, certain forms of same-sex relationships were not only present but, in some contexts, socially accepted.¹ The most well-known example is Greek pederasty, a relationship between an adult man (

erastes) and an adolescent boy (eromenos). This was often framed as a mentorship, where the older man would guide the youth in social, political, and military virtues.² While erotic, it was not seen as equivalent to a modern, mutual partnership but was instead structured by age and status.

Roman society, while often critical of Greek “softness,” also tolerated a wide variety of sexual practices.³ The moral judgment of a sexual act often depended less on the gender of the participants and more on the social status and the roles they assumed. A critical distinction was made between the active, penetrating partner and the passive, penetrated partner. For a freeborn Roman man to assume the passive role was considered deeply shameful, a mark of effeminacy and a subversion of the expected masculine role of dominance.¹ This stigma was about the violation of gender and status norms, not necessarily about the same-sex nature of the act itself. A Roman citizen could engage in sexual acts with a male slave, taking the active role, with little to no social opprobrium.¹

Evidence suggests a surprising degree of tolerance in the early Roman Empire. Historians note that same-sex marriages were legal, familiar among the upper classes, and not uncommon across different social strata.³ This legal and social reality demonstrates that the pre-Christian Roman world was far from universally hostile to same-sex unions, a stark contrast to the legal and moral framework that would later be established under Christian influence.⁴

Ancient Near Eastern and Jewish Context

The immediate religious and cultural heritage of Christianity was Judaism, which held a markedly different sexual ethic from the surrounding Greco-Roman world. The Jewish Scriptures, which would become the Christian Old Testament, consistently affirmed a patriarchal and heteronormative approach to human sexuality.¹ The primary purpose of sexuality was understood to be procreation, in fulfillment of God’s first command to humanity: “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). This imperative was not merely a spiritual ideal but a practical necessity for the survival and continuity of the community in a harsh ancient world.² Consequently, the ideal sexual union was exclusively penetrative vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman within the covenant of marriage.¹

While early Mesopotamian law codes are largely silent on the topic of homosexuality, other Ancient Near Eastern texts show it was a known concern. The Middle Assyrian law code, dating from the 12th century B.C., contains prohibitions against it, suggesting that the later Levitical laws were not without precedent in the region.⁶

During the Second Commonwealth period (c.⁵¹⁶ B.C. – 70 A.D.), a trend toward asceticism grew within Hellenistic Judaism. Influenced by dualistic philosophies that contrasted the spirit and the flesh, some Jewish thinkers began to view sexual desire itself as a weakness and a source of temptation, leading to calls for more rigorous regulation of all sexual expression.⁶ This growing ascetic impulse, which valued self-control and viewed non-procreative sexual pleasure with suspicion, formed a critical bridge between the Old Testament world and the emerging sexual ethic of the early Christian Church.

The development of the foundational Christian view on sexuality was, therefore, a complex process of synthesis and reaction. It did not arise from nothing but was deeply embedded in its historical moment. It inherited the strong Jewish emphasis on procreation, covenant, and patriarchal order. At the same time, it defined itself against what it perceived as the sexual chaos and moral decay of the broader Greco-Roman world. Early Christian writers, steeped in both Jewish Scripture and Greco-Roman culture, saw the sexual practices of their pagan neighbors—including pederasty and the status-based sexual exploitation common in Roman society—as emblematic of a world turned away from the one true God. Their subsequent condemnations were not simply abstract moral judgments but were also powerful acts of cultural and religious differentiation. By forging a new, stricter sexual ethic, the early Church was carving out its unique identity, one that stood in stark contrast to the world around it. This explains why so many early Christian condemnations focus on acts deemed “unnatural,” a concept that resonated with both the Roman sense of shame associated with subverting gender roles and the Jewish theological understanding of a divinely established created order.

Scriptural Foundations: Interpreting the Biblical Texts

At the heart of the Christian debate over homosexuality lies the interpretation of a small number of biblical passages. For centuries, these texts were understood as a clear and unified condemnation of all same-sex relations. In recent decades, But intensive scholarly analysis of their historical, cultural, and linguistic contexts has led to major disagreement. The modern debate is complicated by the fact that it superimposes the contemporary, identity-based concept of “sexual orientation” onto ancient texts that were addressing specific behaviors within a completely different cultural framework.¹ The ancient world had no concept of a “gay lifestyle” or an innate, lifelong orientation; same-sex behavior was understood in terms of acts, often linked to social dominance, cultic practices, or excessive lust.¹ The very word “homosexual” is a modern invention, first appearing in an English Bible translation only in 1946.¹ This fundamental mismatch between the conceptual world of the biblical authors and our own is the source of many of the most intractable disagreements in interpretation.

The Old Testament Texts

Two key passages from the Old Testament are central to the discussion: the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the prohibitions in the Holiness Code of Leviticus.

Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19)

The story of the destruction of Sodom has historically been the primary biblical source for the condemnation of homosexuality, giving rise to the term “sodomy” to describe same-sex acts.⁷ In the narrative, two angels visit the city, and the men of Sodom surround the house of their host, Lot, demanding, “Bring them out to us, so that we may know them” (Genesis 19:5). The traditional interpretation holds that “to know” (Hebrew:yada) is a euphemism for sexual intercourse, and that God destroyed the city as a punishment for this homosexual desire.

But a growing number of scholars, both those who affirm and those who do not affirm same-sex relationships, now argue that this interpretation misses the primary point of the story. They contend that the principal sin of Sodom was not consensual homosexuality but a combination of radical inhospitality, social injustice, and the threat of violent gang rape.² In the ancient world, hospitality to strangers was a sacred duty, and the men of Sodom’s actions represented a powerful violation of this code. The attempt to “know” the visitors was an act of aggression and humiliation, a common tactic used to dominate and dishonor outsiders or enemies in ancient warfare, not an expression of mutual affection or sexual orientation.⁸

This alternative reading is supported by other biblical texts. When the prophet Ezekiel condemns Sodom, he makes no mention of sexual sin, stating instead, “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy” (Ezekiel 16:49). Similarly, Jesus references Sodom as an example of a city that rejected God’s messengers, a sin of inhospitality (Matthew 10:14-15).⁸ Given this evidence, there is a wide consensus that the story of Sodom is, at best, an indirect and ambiguous source for a Christian sexual ethic concerning loving, consensual same-sex relationships.

The Holiness Code (Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13)

The most explicit and direct prohibitions against same-sex acts in the entire Bible are found in the book of Leviticus. Leviticus 18:22 states, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 20:13 repeats the prohibition and adds a penalty: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death”.²

The historical context of these verses is the Holiness Code, a collection of laws intended to set the nation of Israel apart from its neighbors.² Many of the practices condemned as “abominations” were associated with the religious rituals of the surrounding Canaanite peoples, which may have included forms of cultic prostitution, both heterosexual and homosexual.⁶ The prohibitions also reflect a patriarchal worldview where gender roles were strictly defined. The condemnation focuses exclusively on male-male intercourse because it was seen as a violation of these roles—one man taking the “female” role—and because it involved the “wasting of seed,” which was considered essential for the procreation and survival of the community. Lesbian relationships, which did not violate these specific concerns, are not mentioned.²

The central hermeneutical question for Christians is whether these prohibitions constitute a timeless, universal moral law, like the prohibitions against murder or theft, or whether they are part of a culturally specific purity code that is no longer binding, much like the laws forbidding the consumption of pork or the wearing of garments made of mixed fabrics.⁸ Christians do not follow the vast majority of the laws in Leviticus, and the New Testament, particularly in the book of Acts and the letters of Paul, declares that Gentile believers are not bound by the Mosaic Law. The debate, therefore, centers on whether these specific verses on same-sex acts transcend their original context and remain a universal moral command for the Church today.

The New Testament Texts (The Pauline Epistles)

The New Testament contains three passages, all from the letters of the Apostle Paul, that are commonly cited in discussions of homosexuality.

Romans 1:26-27

This passage is arguably the most major biblical text in the debate, as it is the only one to mention female same-sex behavior and offers a theological rationale for its condemnation.¹ Paul writes:

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

The traditional view holds that this is a clear and direct condemnation of all homosexual acts as being “unnatural,” meaning contrary to the created order established by God in Genesis.⁹ In this reading, same-sex relations are a prime example of humanity’s rebellion against its Creator.

The affirming interpretation challenges this reading by focusing on the word “exchanged.” Paul’s argument in Romans 1 is that as a result of idolatry, people who knew the truth about God “exchanged” it for a lie. As a consequence, they also “exchanged” their natural sexual desires. This suggests that Paul is describing people who were naturally heterosexual but who, out of an excess of lust, abandoned their natural desires for something unnatural to them.⁸ This was a common understanding of same-sex behavior in the ancient world—not an orientation, but a vice of excess that anyone could fall into. According to this view, Paul’s condemnation is aimed at lustful, excessive, and exploitative behavior, not at individuals in loving, committed relationships who are living according to their natural, innate orientation. For a gay person, engaging in a heterosexual relationship would be the true “exchange” of the natural for the unnatural.⁸

1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:10

These two passages include “vice lists”—rosters of sinful behaviors that will prevent a person from inheriting the kingdom of God. Among the sins listed are two Greek words that have been the subject of intense scholarly debate: malakoi and arsenokoitai.

For centuries, these words were not translated with any specific reference to homosexuality. Early versions like the Vulgate rendered them as terms equivalent to “male prostitutes” or “male concubines”.¹ It was not until the Revised Standard Version of 1946 that the word “homosexuals” first appeared in an English Bible, as a translation of arsenokoitai.¹

• Malakoi: The literal meaning of this word is “soft.” It was a common insult in the ancient world, used to denigrate men as effeminate, weak, lazy, or lacking in self-control. Although It could be used in a sexual context to describe general licentiousness or men who took the passive role in sex, its meaning was broad and not limited to same-sex behavior.⁸
• Arsenokoitai: This is a compound word formed from the Greek words for “male” (arsen) and “bed” or “intercourse” (koites). It is an extremely rare word, with its first known appearance being in Paul’s letter. Affirming scholars argue that because it is so rare, its meaning is uncertain. They suggest it likely referred to specific forms of exploitative same-sex acts that were common in the Greco-Roman world, such as pederasty, prostitution, or sexual violence, rather than all forms of same-sex intimacy.⁸ Non-affirming scholars counter that the word’s component parts make its meaning clear: it refers to men who have sex with men.¹²

Given the linguistic ambiguity and the vast cultural gap between the first century and the twenty-both sides of the modern debate can claim to be making a faithful interpretation of the texts. This underscores the reality that the scriptural foundation of the issue is far from simple, requiring careful attention to history, language, and the deep-seated hermeneutical assumptions that every reader brings to the text.

The Patristic Period: Solidifying Condemnation (1st–5th Centuries)

In the centuries following the apostolic age, the leaders and theologians of the early known as the Church Fathers, built upon the foundations of Jewish tradition and the Pauline epistles to forge a strong and unified condemnation of same-sex acts. This period was crucial in solidifying what would become the near-universal Christian teaching for the next 1,500 years. The Patristic view was not an isolated prejudice but was deeply integrated into a comprehensive new sexual ethic, one that prized asceticism and procreation and stood in stark contrast to the surrounding Greco-Roman culture.

Unyielding Opposition

The historical record from the pre-Constantinian era is remarkably consistent: every major Christian writer who addressed the topic of same-sex relations did so with unremittingly negative judgment.¹³ There are no known early Christian texts that approve of homosexual activity in any form.¹³ This unanimous opposition suggests that early Christians viewed the matter as settled, inheriting what scholar Richard B. Hays calls the “characteristic Hellenistic Jewish hostility towards homosexuality” and incorporating it into their own moral framework.¹³

The writings of the Church Fathers are replete with strong condemnations. Tertullian (c. 155–220 A.D.), writing about Paul’s letter to the Romans, argued that when the apostle condemned those who changed the “natural use” of their bodies to that which is “unnatural,” he was validating the natural, God-ordained way.¹ Cyprian of Carthage (c. 210–258 A.D.) wrote of the “indignity” of men rushing with “frenzied lusts against men,” describing acts that “cannot even give pleasure to those who do them”.¹ Ambrosiaster (4th century) interpreted Romans 1 to mean that God, in his anger at humanity’s idolatry, allowed women to lust after other women as a sign of divine judgment.¹

Perhaps the most severe condemnation came from John Chrysostom (c. 347–407 A.D.), the influential Archbishop of Constantinople. In a homily on Romans, he argued that homosexual acts were “worse than murder” and so inherently degrading that the act itself constituted a form of divine punishment. He contended that such acts were a complete inversion of the natural order, where not only the soul but the body itself is disgraced.¹

The Influence of Asceticism and Dualism

The Patristic opposition to homosexuality cannot be fully understood without recognizing the broader philosophical and theological currents of the era. The late Roman Empire saw a widespread cultural trend toward asceticism, a spiritual discipline emphasizing self-control, abstinence from worldly pleasures, and the subjugation of bodily passions.⁶ This movement, which influenced many schools of philosophy and religion, found fertile ground in early Christianity.

Christian theologians increasingly developed a sexual ethic that was hostile to any form of sexual pleasure not explicitly ordered toward procreation within marriage.⁶ The primary purpose of sex was to have children; any sexual act that could not fulfill this purpose was viewed with suspicion. This framework meant that condemnations of homosexual acts were often presented alongside and with similar severity to condemnations of other non-procreative practices, such as masturbation or certain heterosexual acts.⁶ The core issue for many Church Fathers was the sin of lust (

luxuria)—the disordered and uncontrolled desire for sexual pleasure. This theme was central to the thought of Augustine of Hippo (354–430 A.D.), who taught that the sin of lust, which entered the world at the Fall, was passed down through the act of procreation itself.² Within this ascetic worldview, all sexual desire was problematic and needed to be strictly controlled and channeled toward its single legitimate end.

This new, stricter sexual ethic was revolutionary in the Roman world and served as a powerful marker of Christian identity. In a culture that Christians viewed as sexually permissive and decadent, the disciplined, chaste, and procreation-focused morality of the Church set its followers apart.³ The condemnation of homosexuality was therefore a logical and necessary component of a much larger theological project: the creation of a uniquely Christian sexual morality that rejected worldly pleasure for its own sake and oriented all of life toward God.

The Debate over Early Christian Tolerance (The Boswell Thesis)

In the late 20th century, this long-held picture of unanimous condemnation was challenged by the historian John Boswell. In his influential and controversial works, Boswell argued that the early Church was not uniformly hostile toward same-sex relationships. He pointed to the existence of a Christian rite called adelphopoiesis, or “brother-making,” which he contended was a form of same-sex union, akin to marriage, that was blessed by the Church.¹ He also highlighted the veneration of saints like Sergius and Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were described in some ancient texts as erastai (lovers), as evidence that same-sex couples could be honored within the Church.¹

Boswell’s thesis has been met with major criticism from other historians. Critics, most notably Richard B. Hays, argue that Boswell misinterpreted the evidence. They maintain that adelphopoiesis was a rite for establishing a form of spiritual or blood brotherhood, a common practice in many cultures, and not a sexual union.¹ They also argue that the iconography of Sergius and Bacchus is typical for saints who were martyred together and does not imply a romantic relationship.¹ Hays and others contend that Boswell’s argument relies heavily on a fallacious “argument from silence”—inferring tolerance from the relative infrequency of condemnations—and that he systematically downplays the considerable body of textual evidence that demonstrates a consistently and unanimously hostile attitude among all early Christian writers who addressed the subject.¹³ While Boswell’s work opened up an important and necessary historical conversation, the scholarly consensus remains that the Patristic period was characterized by a clear and unwavering theological opposition to all forms of homosexual practice.

The Middle Ages: From Sin to Crime

The Middle Ages witnessed a crucial and severe transformation in the Christian world’s approach to homosexuality. What had been primarily understood as a sin, to be managed through ecclesiastical confession and penance, increasingly became defined as a crime, to be prosecuted and brutally punished by secular authorities. This shift was not an isolated event but was part of a broader societal trend in the High Middle Ages toward consolidating power, defining orthodoxy, and persecuting those deemed “other.” The theological framework for this hardening of attitudes was most powerfully articulated by the 13th-century theologian St. Thomas Aquinas, whose synthesis of Christian doctrine and Aristotelian philosophy cemented the view of homosexuality as a violation of natural law.

The Rise of Intolerance and Canon Law

While the early Church prescribed penances for same-sex acts, a more systematic and harsh repression began to take shape in the High Middle Ages.⁶ Church councils began to legislate more formally against what was broadly termed “sodomy,” a category that could include various non-procreative sexual acts. An early example is the Council of Ancyra in 314, which prescribed a long period of penance for those who committed “irrational” acts. While the original canon likely referred to bestiality, later Latin translations expanded its scope to include homosexuality.¹

Over the centuries, the tone of ecclesiastical condemnations grew harsher. Pope Leo IX in the 11th century labeled homosexuality a “filthy” and “execrable vice”.¹⁵ The Roman Council of 1059, while focused on other reforms, operated in a climate where sodomy was already being condemned by papal authority.¹ A major turning point occurred at the Council of Nablus in 1120. Held in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, this council issued canons that prescribed burning at the stake for an adult convicted of sodomy, marking a dramatic escalation in the severity of punishment and a clear move toward treating it as a capital offense.¹⁶

Secular Law and Brutal Punishment

Beginning in the 12th and 13th centuries, secular law began to align with this increasingly severe ecclesiastical stance. As European kingdoms centralized their authority and developed more sophisticated legal systems, sodomy was formally criminalized. The punishments prescribed were often horrific. In 13th-century France, for instance, a first offense could be punished by castration, a second by amputation of the penis, and a third by burning at the stake.¹⁷ This period saw the first recorded execution for a same-sex act in Western Europe in 1292, and some cities, like Florence, established special courts dedicated to prosecuting the crime of sodomy.¹⁷ This legal transformation reflects a society becoming more rigid in its social and moral codes, and more willing to use extreme violence to enforce them.

Thomas Aquinas and Natural Law

Providing the definitive theological justification for this intensified condemnation was St. Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274). In his monumental work, the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas constructed the most influential and systematic argument against homosexuality in Christian history.¹⁸ His reasoning was rooted in his theory of “natural law,” which posits that human reason can discern the moral order that God has embedded in the created world.

According to Aquinas, the primary purpose of the sexual act, as determined by nature, is procreation.¹⁸ Any sexual act that is inherently closed to the possibility of procreation is therefore contrary to natural law. He classified such acts as “unnatural vices” (

vitia contra naturam), a category that included masturbation, bestiality, non-procreative heterosexual acts, and homosexual acts.¹⁹

Aquinas argued that these unnatural vices were the gravest of all sins of lust. While other lustful sins (like fornication or adultery) were contrary to right reason, unnatural sins were also contrary to the very order of nature itself. Because nature’s order was established by God, to violate it was to commit an offense directly against the Creator.¹⁸ He wrote that in “sins contrary to nature… An injury is done to God, the Author of nature”.¹⁸ This framework provided a powerful, rationalized, and seemingly objective basis for condemning homosexuality. Aquinas’s synthesis of faith, reason, and natural order became the cornerstone of subsequent Roman Catholic moral theology on sexuality and profoundly influenced the development of Western legal traditions that treated sodomy as a crime against nature.¹⁸

The legal and theological hardening against homosexuality during this period cannot be seen in isolation. The High Middle Ages was an era of powerful social change, marked by the Crusades, the rise of universities, the centralization of state power, and the Church’s efforts to define and enforce doctrinal orthodoxy through institutions like the Inquisition. This was a society increasingly concerned with defining boundaries and purging itself of perceived deviancy. The intensified persecution of those accused of sodomy was part of a larger pattern of intolerance directed at Jews, heretics, and other minority groups who did not fit within the rigid, unified Christian social order being constructed.¹ By defining sodomy as a crime against God, nature, and the state, both ecclesiastical and secular authorities were able to use its prosecution as a powerful tool to assert their moral and political authority and to enforce a strict, homogenous vision of Christian society.

The Protestant Reformation: A New Sexual Ethic, An Old Condemnation

The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century was a theological earthquake that shattered the unity of Western Christendom and revolutionized Christian thought on many fronts. One of its most major social impacts was a radical rethinking of marriage, celibacy, and sexuality. But this revolution did not lead to greater tolerance for homosexuality. Instead, the Reformation presented a paradox: Although It liberated sexuality within the confines of heterosexual marriage, its theological innovations inadvertently reinforced the condemnation of same-sex relationships and closed off social and spiritual space for those who did not fit the new normative model of the Christian family.

Martin Luther’s Views

Martin Luther (1483–1546) was at the forefront of the Reformation’s new sexual ethic. He broke decisively with the medieval Catholic Church’s elevation of clerical celibacy and monasticism, which had long been held as a spiritually superior state to marriage.²³ Luther championed marriage as a “blessed estate,” ordained by God for nearly all people, including clergy, as a remedy for lust and a proper context for companionship and procreation.²⁴ He celebrated physical attraction and sexual intimacy within marriage as a sacred part of God’s good creation, a stark departure from the more ascetic views that had dominated earlier Christian thought.²⁴

Despite this radical rethinking of marriage, Luther’s views on homosexuality remained firmly within the traditional condemnatory framework. His writings show an unambiguous and strong opposition to what he termed “sodomy.” He described it as a “monstrous depravity” and a “heinous” sin that arose from satanic influence, which perverts the natural passion and longing of the male for the female that God implanted in creation.¹ His historical writings leave no doubt about his personal revulsion and theological condemnation of same-sex acts.

Some modern theologians and historians have argued that if Luther were alive today, his own theological principles might have led him to a different conclusion. They suggest that his emphasis on the goodness of loving physical union and his willingness to set aside certain biblical laws that were not in line with the gospel’s core message of grace could, in a modern context, be extended to affirm loving, committed same-sex relationships.²⁴ While this remains a matter of speculation, the historical record of Luther’s own views is clear and condemnatory.

John Calvin’s Views

John Calvin (1509–1564), another leading figure of the Reformation, shared Luther’s positive view of marriage as the God-ordained context for sexuality, intended for both procreation and mutual companionship.²⁷ As the guiding theological force in the city-state of Geneva, Calvin’s views had a direct and powerful impact on civil law and social order.

Under Calvin’s influence, the authorities in Geneva sought to create a morally upright Christian society, and this involved the strict regulation of sexual behavior. Sexual crimes, including adultery, fornication, and sodomy, were punished with growing severity by the civil government, which was seen as having a duty to enforce God’s law.²⁹ While Calvin did not write as extensively on homosexuality as on other topics, his biblical commentaries and the legal actions taken in Geneva demonstrate an unequivocal condemnation of same-sex acts as a grave sin and a violation of public decency.¹⁶ He accepted in theory that homosexual acts should be punished severely by the state, a view consistent with the legal trends of the era.²⁷

The Broader Impact of the Reformation

The Reformation’s impact on the social standing of those with same-sex attractions was powerful and, in many ways, negative. The period leading up to and during the Reformation saw a general increase in hostility toward homosexuality in Western Europe.¹ The theological shifts of the Reformers contributed to this climate in several ways.

The Protestant dismantling of monasticism and the celibate priesthood eliminated a socially recognized and spiritually honored life path that existed outside of heterosexual marriage. In the medieval world, the celibate life was not only an option but was held up as the highest spiritual calling.²³ The Reformation effectively closed this door.

The new Protestant emphasis on the Christian household as the primary unit of religious and social life elevated the patriarchal, heteronormative family to an unprecedented status.²⁵ With the celibate ideal gone, the procreative family became the only normative model for a proper Christian life. This created a social and theological structure with no honorable place for those who did not marry and have children.

This created a major paradox. While the Reformation “liberated” sexuality from the suspicion it had been under in the more ascetic medieval framework, it did so only by confining it strictly within heterosexual marriage. In doing so, it inadvertently created a more rigid social order that intensified the marginalization of anyone who did not conform to that model. For those with same-sex attractions, the Protestant world offered no recognized vocation, no honored status, and no legitimate path for their lives, making them appear even more deviant and out of place than they had before.

The Roman Catholic Church: Doctrine, Distinction, and Pastoral Developments

The Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality is rooted in a deep and consistent tradition stretching back through the natural law philosophy of Thomas Aquinas to the writings of the Church Fathers and the interpretation of Scripture. Although Its core doctrine has remained unchanged, the modern era has witnessed major developments in its pastoral approach, leading to a powerful internal tension between unchanging moral principles and a growing imperative for compassion and inclusion. This dynamic is central to understanding the Catholic Church’s complex and evolving engagement with the issue today.

Official Doctrine from the Catechism

The official and authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church is articulated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This teaching is marked by a crucial distinction between homosexual inclination and homosexual acts.

Distinction between Inclination and Act

The Church teaches that having a homosexual inclination or tendency is not in itself a sin.⁹ The Catechism acknowledges that for a major number of men and women, this tendency is “deep-seated” and that they “do not choose their homosexual condition”.³⁴ Because the inclination is not a free choice, the person is not morally culpable for simply having it.³³

But the Catechism also describes the homosexual inclination as “objectively disordered”.⁵ This is a technical theological term meaning that the inclination is not ordered toward its proper end according to God’s creative design. It is a tendency toward acts that are themselves morally wrong. The Church clarifies that this does not mean the person as a whole is disordered, but that the inclination itself is misdirected.³³

Condemnation of Acts

While the inclination is not sinful, homosexual acts are considered “acts of grave depravity” and are “intrinsically disordered”.⁹ The Church’s condemnation of these acts is absolute and based on two primary theological principles derived from natural law:

1. They are not open to the gift of life. The Church teaches that the sexual act has two inseparable ends: the unitive (the expression of love between spouses) and the procreative (the openness to creating new life). Homosexual acts, by their very nature, are closed to procreation and thus violate a fundamental purpose of sexuality.²²
2. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. The Church holds that God created humanity as male and female, and that the sexual union is meant to express this God-given complementarity. Same-sex acts cannot fulfill this symbolic and biological reality.⁹

For these reasons, the Catechism states that “under no circumstances can they be approved”.³⁵

Call to Chastity and Respect

Given this framework, the Church teaches that persons with homosexual tendencies are called to live a life of chastity, which for them means abstaining from all genital sexual activity.⁵ This is presented as a path to holiness, uniting the difficulties they may encounter with the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.³⁴

At the same time, the Catechism makes a strong pastoral demand on the rest of the Church. It states that homosexual persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.⁵

Historical Development and Recent Pastoral Shifts

This official doctrine did not emerge in a vacuum. It is the modern articulation of a teaching built upon Scripture, the condemnations of the Church Fathers, and, most significantly, the natural law framework of Thomas Aquinas.¹⁵ In the 20th century, as the gay rights movement gained prominence, the Vatican reiterated and clarified this teaching in documents such as Persona Humana (1976) and the 1986 letter On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.²²

More recently, the pontificate of Pope Francis has been marked by a major shift in pastoral tone. His famous off-the-cuff remark, “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?” signaled a move away from a language of condemnation toward one of accompaniment and mercy. He has also expressed support for civil union laws as a way to provide legal protection for same-sex couples, while still maintaining that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.²²

This pastoral shift has highlighted and, in some cases, exacerbated deep tensions within the global Church. In Germany, the “Synodal Path,” a multi-year process of dialogue, voted in 2023 to formally allow liturgical blessings for same-sex unions in German dioceses, a decision that was met with strong condemnation from the Vatican and conservative bishops worldwide.⁵

In a landmark development, the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of Pope Francis, issued the declaration Fiducia supplicans in December 2023. This document authorizes priests to offer “spontaneous,” non-liturgical blessings to couples in “irregular situations,” including same-sex couples.⁵ The declaration takes great care to state that this is not a blessing of the union itself and does not change the Church’s unalterable doctrine on marriage. It is intended as a pastoral gesture, a plea for God’s help and grace for individuals who desire it. Nevertheless, the document has been met with both praise for its pastoral openness and fierce resistance from many bishops’ conferences, particularly in Africa, who see it as a confusing and dangerous departure from tradition.

The modern Catholic Church is thus navigating a powerful and difficult tension. On one hand, it holds to what it considers immutable doctrinal claims about the nature of sexuality and marriage, rooted in two millennia of tradition. On the other hand, it is increasingly compelled by its own Gospel mandate to respond with compassion and mercy to the lived realities and powerful suffering of many LGBTQ+ Catholics. The attempt to create new pastoral categories, like the non-liturgical blessings of Fiducia supplicans, represents an effort to bridge this gap—to offer a gesture of welcome and grace without altering fundamental doctrine. This tension between doctrine and pastoral practice is the defining feature of the Catholic Church’s current, and often fraught, engagement with homosexuality.

The Modern Denominational Landscape: A Spectrum of Belief

What was once a nearly unified Christian position on homosexuality has, in the last half-century, fragmented into a wide and complex spectrum of beliefs and practices. Today, the official stances of major Christian denominations range from complete condemnation to full affirmation, with many churches caught in periods of transition, debate, and schism. This diversity reflects the deep theological divides that now characterize modern Christianity on issues of sexuality.

The Eastern Orthodox Church

The Eastern Orthodox comprising a communion of autocephalous churches, maintains a traditional and socially conservative view on homosexuality. Orthodox teaching consistently condemns homosexual acts as sinful, contrary to God’s law, and a distortion of the created order.³⁷ Marriage is understood exclusively as the sacramental union of one man and one woman, a sacred institution that reflects the union between Christ and His Church.³⁹

While the condemnation of homosexual acts is firm, the Orthodox pastoral approach emphasizes compassion and mercy. The Church teaches that persons with same-sex attraction, like all human beings, are to be treated with love and understanding.³⁸ They are encouraged to pursue a life of repentance and ascetic struggle, seeking to overcome sinful passions through prayer, confession, and participation in the life of the Church.⁴⁰ There is widespread opposition to the social acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex marriage among Orthodox Christians in Eastern Europe and Russia. But attitudes are notably more liberal among Orthodox Christians living in the United States and Greece, where a majority say society should accept homosexuality.⁴¹

Non-Affirming Protestant Denominations

Many conservative Protestant denominations continue to uphold the traditional view that homosexual behavior is a sin.

• Southern Baptist Convention (SBC): As the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, the SBC holds that homosexual behavior is contrary to Scripture and God’s design for the family.⁴² The convention has passed numerous resolutions over the decades opposing homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and civil rights protections based on sexual orientation.⁴⁴ In 2025, the SBC’s annual meeting passed a resolution calling for the overturning of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.⁴⁶
• Assemblies of God: This major Pentecostal denomination teaches that the Bible clearly identifies homosexual behavior as sin and as contrary to God’s created order for human relationships.⁴²
• Presbyterian Church in America (PCA): A conservative Presbyterian body, the PCA officially considers homosexual practice to be a sin. Its pastoral approach often focuses on helping individuals “leave behind the gay lifestyle” through repentance and transformation.⁴⁹

Denominations in Transition or with Diverse Policies

The United Methodist Church (UMC): The UMC provides the most dramatic recent example of denominational change. For 52 years, its official lawbook, the Book of Discipline, contained the statement that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching”.⁵⁰ This clause was the source of decades of bitter conflict. Following the departure of over 7,600 conservative congregations between 2019 and 2023, the remaining body held its General Conference in May 2024 and voted overwhelmingly to reverse its long-standing policies. Delegates removed the “incompatible” clause, lifted the ban on ordaining openly gay clergy, and removed penalties for clergy who perform same-sex weddings.⁵¹ This historic shift has repositioned the UMC as one of the largest LGBTQ+-affirming denominations in the world.

Affirming Protestant Denominations

A growing number of mainline Protestant denominations have officially adopted policies of full inclusion for LGBTQ+ individuals.

• Presbyterian Church (USA) (PC(USA)): After decades of debate, the PC(USA) is now a fully inclusive denomination. It celebrates the gifts of all gender identities and sexual orientations, permits the ordination of LGBTQIA+ clergy (since 2011), and allows for the marriage of same-sex couples (since 2014).⁵⁶ In 2025, the denomination approved an amendment to its constitution to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.⁵⁹
• The Episcopal Church: A member of the global Anglican Communion, the Episcopal Church has been a leader in LGBTQ+ inclusion. It has a long legacy of welcoming LGBTQ+ members and officially approved the ordination of openly gay clergy, consecrating its first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in 2003. The church now allows for the marriage of same-sex couples.⁴⁹
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA): The largest Lutheran body in the U.S., the ELCA allows for the ordination of LGBTQ+ pastors who are in committed relationships (since 2009) and permits its clergy to perform same-sex marriages.²⁶
• United Church of Christ (UCC): The UCC has been at the forefront of LGBTQ+ affirmation for decades. It was the first mainline Protestant denomination to ordain an openly gay minister, William R. Johnson, in 1972, and was an early advocate for same-sex marriage.²⁴

The following table provides a concise summary of the official policies of several major U.S. Christian denominations, illustrating the clear divisions in the contemporary landscape.

Table 1: Official Stances of Major U.S. Christian Denominations on Same-Sex Marriage and LGBTQ+ Ordination

Denomination	Stance on Same-Sex Marriage	Stance on Ordaining Openly LGBTQ+ Clergy
Roman Catholic Church	Not permitted; marriage is between a man and a woman.	Not permitted; candidates must overcome homosexual tendencies.
Eastern Orthodox Church	Not permitted; marriage is between a man and a woman.	Not permitted.
Southern Baptist Convention	Opposed; advocate for legal prohibition.	Not permitted.
The United Methodist Church	Permitted at clergy’s discretion (as of May 2024).	Permitted (as of May 2024).
Presbyterian Church (USA)	Permitted and celebrated.	Permitted and celebrated.
The Episcopal Church	Permitted and celebrated.	Permitted and celebrated.
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)	Permitted and celebrated.	Permitted and celebrated.

This table clarifies the starkly different paths that Christian traditions have taken. For Christian researchers seeking to understand the current state of the debate, these official policies represent the institutional outcomes of decades of theological argument, cultural change, and internal conflict. The clear and easily comparable format of the table serves as a valuable tool for grasping the breadth of the current denominational divide, a divide that shows no signs of closing in the near future.

The Theological Divide: Core Arguments in the Modern Debate

The fragmentation of the modern denominational landscape is a direct reflection of a deep and fundamental disagreement over theology and biblical interpretation. While both sides of the debate often claim to be faithful to Scripture and Christian tradition, they operate from different starting points and prioritize different theological principles. This clash of hermeneutics—competing ways of reading and applying the Bible—is the engine driving the contemporary conflict. Understanding these core arguments is essential to grasping why the issue has become so divisive.

The Non-Affirming (Traditional) Position

The traditional or non-affirming position is built on three pillars: the authority of Scripture, the order of creation, and a specific understanding of sin and discipleship.

• Biblical Authority and Interpretation: This view holds that the Bible is God’s revealed Word and that its teachings on sexual morality are clear, timeless, and authoritative. The handful of passages in Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy that explicitly prohibit same-sex sexual acts are seen as direct and unambiguous expressions of God’s universal moral law, not as culturally conditioned rules that can be set aside.⁹ The argument is that the consistent witness of both the Old and New Testaments is that homosexual practice is sinful.
• Creation Order and Complementarity: A central tenet of the non-affirming position is the theological significance of male-female complementarity. Proponents point to the creation accounts in Genesis 1-2 and Jesus’s reaffirmation of them in Matthew 19 as establishing the divine template for human sexuality: the lifelong, covenantal union of one man and one woman.¹¹ This “one flesh” union is seen as unique because it brings together the two distinct and complementary halves of humanity, reflects the image of God, and is naturally ordered toward the procreation of children. Same-sex unions, by their nature, cannot fulfill this created design and are therefore seen as a departure from God’s will.⁴²
• The Nature of Sin and Discipleship: From this perspective, same-sex attraction is understood as a consequence of the Fall—a manifestation of the disordered desires that affect all of humanity. While simply experiencing the attraction may not be a sin if it is not chosen, acting upon it is.¹¹ The call to Christian discipleship is a call to submit all desires, including sexual ones, to the Lordship of Christ. For Christians with same-sex attraction, this is understood as a call to lifelong celibacy and chastity. This is acknowledged as a difficult path, but one that is no different in principle from the call for all unmarried Christians to remain celibate.⁶³

The Affirming Position

The affirming position challenges the traditional view by employing a different hermeneutical approach, redefining the essence of marriage, and appealing to the practical consequences of the traditional teaching.

• Hermeneutics of Love and Justice: Affirming Christians argue that the Bible should not be read as a flat rulebook, but as a developing story of God’s redemptive work, which shows a clear trajectory toward greater inclusion. They contend that the specific “clobber passages” must be interpreted in their original historical and cultural context.⁷ When read this way, they argue, the passages are condemning not loving, committed same-sex relationships (a modern concept), but rather ancient practices of sexual exploitation, pederasty, cult prostitution, or excessive lust.¹⁰ These specific prohibitions are then weighed against the Bible’s overarching and primary themes of love, grace, justice, and radical welcome for the outcast, which are given interpretive priority.
• Redefining Marriage and Covenant: This view posits that the true essence of Christian marriage is not primarily about gender complementarity or procreative potential, but about the quality of the covenant between two people. Drawing on passages like Ephesians 5, which compares marriage to the relationship between Christ and the they argue that the core of marriage is a commitment to lifelong faithfulness, mutual love, and self-giving sacrifice.¹⁰ Since same-sex couples are fully capable of embodying this covenantal ideal, their relationships can be seen as holy and blessed by God.
• The “Fruit” of the Teaching: A powerful argument for the affirming position comes from Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 7: “by their fruits you will know them.” Proponents argue that the traditional, non-affirming teaching has produced overwhelmingly “bad fruit” in the lives of LGBTQ+ people. They point to well-documented evidence of psychological and spiritual harm, including increased rates of depression, anxiety rejection, and suicide, as well as a powerful sense of alienation from God and the Church.⁸ This devastating impact, they contend, is itself evidence that the traditional interpretation is flawed and not aligned with the life-giving Spirit of the Gospel.

The Emergence of “Queer Theology”

In recent years, a more radical theological approach has emerged, often called “Queer Theology.” It is important to distinguish this from the “affirming theology” described above. While affirming theology generally seeks to include LGBTQ+ people within existing Christian structures and doctrines (e.g., by arguing that same-sex marriage is consistent with a biblical view of covenant), queer theology takes a more critical and deconstructive approach.⁷

Drawing from secular queer theory, which is inherently “anti-normative,” queer theology seeks to challenge and disrupt the very foundations of traditional theology, including its binary understandings of gender and its privileging of heterosexuality.⁶⁷ It critiques some forms of affirming theology for simply trying to make LGBTQ+ people fit into a fundamentally heteronormative model (e.g., monogamous marriage). Instead, queer theology finds positive theological value in “queerness” itself—in the experience of being an outsider, of challenging norms, and of deconstructing power structures within the Church and society.⁶⁶ Organizations like The Reformation Project, which advocate for LGBTQ+ inclusion based on biblical authority, explicitly distinguish their “affirming” approach from the more transgressive methods of “queer theology”.⁶⁸

The contemporary debate is not merely about what a few verses say. It is a fundamental conflict over how Christians should read their sacred text. The non-affirming side prioritizes the plain meaning of explicit commands and the received tradition of the Church. The affirming side prioritizes the Bible’s overarching narrative themes and the lived experience of those affected by the teaching. Both sides claim fidelity to Christ and Scripture, but they arrive at radically different conclusions because they begin with different foundational assumptions about how to interpret and apply God’s Word in the modern world. Until these deeper hermeneutical disagreements are addressed, the divide is likely to remain.

The Influence of Modernity: Psychology and Social Movements

The intense theological debates within Christianity over homosexuality did not arise in a vacuum. They have been profoundly shaped, and in many ways catalyzed, by powerful secular forces that emerged in the 20th century. The scientific consensus of modern psychology and the political advocacy of the LGBTQ+ rights movement introduced new knowledge and new social realities that directly challenged the Church’s long-standing assumptions. The current conflict within Christianity is, in large part, a story of how the Church is adapting—or resisting adaptation—to new information from outside its own theological tradition, creating a deep tension between the authority of revelation (Scripture and tradition) and the claims of reason (science and lived experience).

The Impact of Psychology

For most of Christian history, same-sex behavior was understood through a purely moral lens as a sin, a vice, or a willful choice to rebel against God. Modern psychology fundamentally altered this framework by introducing the concept of sexual orientation.

• From Sin to Orientation: The scientific understanding of sexual orientation as a deep-seated, enduring pattern of attraction—not a conscious choice for most people—was a major catalyst for theological reconsideration.⁶⁹ If being gay is a natural disposition rather than a voluntary moral choice, the traditional ethical framework for judging it becomes problematic.⁶² This shift forced a distinction, now common even in conservative traditions like the Catholic between the orientation (not sinful) and the act (sinful).
• De-pathologizing Homosexuality: The decision by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders was a landmark event. It undermined religious arguments that homosexuality was “disordered” in a psychological or pathological sense, reframing it as a normal variation of human sexuality.⁷
• Documenting Harm: Psychological and sociological research has provided empirical evidence for the “bad fruit” argument used by affirming theologians. Numerous studies have documented the major mental and emotional harm caused by non-affirming religious environments and family rejection, including higher rates of anxiety, depression, and attempted suicide among LGBTQ+ youth.⁶⁵ This data has made the human cost of traditional teachings impossible to ignore.
• The Failure of Conversion Therapy: In the late 20th century, some Christian groups embraced psychological theories, particularly from psychoanalysis, to promote “reparative” or “conversion” therapies. These were based on the premise that homosexuality was a developmental disorder that could be “cured” or changed.⁷⁴ But these therapies have been widely discredited by every major medical and mental health organization as ineffective and harmful. Their failure has led many Christians to conclude that sexual orientation is not something that can or should be changed, further strengthening the case that it is an innate characteristic.

The Influence of the LGBTQ+ Rights Movement

The social and political advocacy of the LGBTQ+ rights movement has been an equally powerful force for change within the Church.

• The Power of Visibility and Personal Relationships: Perhaps the single most major factor in changing attitudes among Christians has been the simple act of getting to know openly LGBTQ+ people. As more individuals have “come out” to their families, and church communities, long-held stereotypes and prejudices have been broken down.¹⁴ Many Christians who once held traditional views have changed their minds after seeing the faith, love, and commitment in the lives of LGBTQ+ people they know personally.
• The Development of New Theologies: The LGBTQ+ rights movement created the social and intellectual space for the development of new theological frameworks. Drawing inspiration from black liberation theology and feminist theology, theologians began to re-read Scripture from the perspective of an oppressed and marginalized community. This gave rise to “liberation theology” for the queer community and, later, “queer theology,” which seeks to dismantle the heterosexist and patriarchal structures latent in traditional Christian thought.⁷
• Forcing an Institutional Response: The political successes of the movement, culminating in the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States, created a crisis for many denominations. Churches could no longer avoid the issue; they were forced to respond, either by liberalizing their policies to align with the new legal reality or by reaffirming their opposition as a form of counter-cultural witness.⁵
• Creating Affirming Communities: The movement fostered the creation of LGBTQ+-affirming Christian organizations, such as DignityUSA for Catholics, The Reformation Project for evangelicals, and Q Christian Fellowship. These groups have provided vital support, community, and theological resources for LGBTQ+ Christians and their allies, creating a powerful and organized counter-narrative to traditional teachings and demonstrating that one can be both faithfully Christian and openly LGBTQ+.¹

The modern debate over homosexuality is therefore a prime example of the Church’s ongoing encounter with modernity. For centuries, its views were shaped almost exclusively by its internal sources of authority. The 20th century introduced powerful external sources of knowledge and social pressure that could not be ignored. Affirming denominations have largely sought to integrate this new knowledge, leading them to reconsider their interpretations of Scripture and tradition. Non-affirming denominations have largely resisted it, prioritizing the authority of their received tradition over the claims of secular science and social movements. The resulting schism is a vivid illustration of the Church’s continuing struggle to define its relationship to the modern world.

Conclusion: Current Trends and the Path Forward

The long and complex history of Christianity and homosexuality has arrived at a moment of powerful division and ongoing transformation. The once-solid consensus of condemnation has given way to a fractured landscape where denominations, congregations, and even families are charting divergent paths. An analysis of current sociological data and denominational trends reveals a Christian world grappling with a generational shift in attitudes, a growing gap between official doctrine and lay belief, and the painful reality of schism. The future of this issue within the Church will be defined by the tension between these powerful forces of change and the deep roots of tradition.

Growing Acceptance Among Laity

One of the clearest and most major trends is the steady and widespread increase in the acceptance of homosexuality among Christian laity in the United States. Extensive survey data from the Pew Research Center demonstrates this shift across nearly every Christian tradition. In its 2023-24 study, 55% of all U.S. Christians stated they favor allowing same-sex couples to marry legally, a notable increase from 44% in 2014.⁸¹ This growing acceptance is found even within denominations that maintain official non-affirming stances. For instance, between 2007 and 2014, the share of evangelical Protestants who believe homosexuality should be accepted by society rose from 26% to 36%, and among Catholics, it jumped from 58% to 70%.⁸²

The Generational and Relational Divide

This trend is largely driven by two key factors: generational change and personal relationships. Younger generations of Christians are consistently more accepting of homosexuality than their elders. Among evangelical Protestants, for example, roughly half of Millennials (51%) say homosexuality should be accepted, compared to only a third of Baby Boomers and a fifth of the Silent Generation.⁸² As these more accepting younger cohorts grow to become the majority within their churches, the pressure for institutional change is likely to intensify.⁸³

Research and anecdotal evidence strongly suggest that personal relationships are a powerful catalyst for changing hearts and minds. Many Christians who have reconsidered their traditional beliefs cite their experience of knowing and loving an LGBTQ+ person—a child, a or a fellow church member—as the primary reason for their shift in perspective.¹⁴ In an increasingly open society, such personal encounters are becoming more common, steadily eroding the stereotypes and prejudices that once underpinned widespread condemnation.

Denominational Realignment and Schism

The theological and social tensions over this issue have become a primary driver of conflict and institutional separation within global Christianity. The most dramatic recent example is the schism within The United Methodist Church. After decades of struggle, the departure of more than 7,600 conservative congregations for “reasons of conscience” related to homosexuality paved the way for the remaining denomination to overwhelmingly reverse its bans on LGBTQ+ clergy and same-sex marriage in 2024.⁵⁵ Similar deep divisions persist within the global Anglican Communion, where the progressive stances of Western churches like The Episcopal Church are in sharp conflict with the conservative views of many provinces in the Global South, particularly in Africa.

The Path Forward

Looking ahead, the Christian world appears to be solidifying along two divergent trajectories. One path is one of theological and social integration, where a growing number of denominations are concluding that the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ people is not a departure from the Gospel but a fulfillment of its call to radical love and justice. On this pathes are developing new liturgies, pastoral practices, and theological frameworks to affirm and celebrate the lives and relationships of their LGBTQ+ members.

The other path is one of retrenchment and counter-cultural witness. For many conservative traditions, reaffirming the historic Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality has become a core tenet of faithful Christian identity in what they perceive as an increasingly secular and morally adrift world. On this path, the traditional family structure is upheld as a non-negotiable divine institution, and adherence to this teaching is seen as a crucial mark of biblical orthodoxy.

The growing gap between the official doctrines of these non-affirming churches and the evolving beliefs of their own members, particularly the young, points toward a potential crisis of authority. The long-term institutional health and viability of these traditions may depend on their ability to reconcile their theological claims with the lived experiences and moral intuitions of their congregations. The history of this issue shows that Christian thought is not static. Yet it also shows the powerful power of tradition. The tension between these two forces ensures that the Church’s engagement with homosexuality will remain a defining and consequential feature of Christian life for the foreseeable future. The landscape is not stable, and further change, whether through painful conflict or gradual adaptation, appears inevitable.

Bibliography:

1. History of Christianity and homosexuality – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity_and_homosexuality
2. LGBTQ in Early Christianity – World History Encyclopedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1794/lgbtq-in-early-christianity/
3. Christianity’s Influence on Attitudes toward Homosexuality in the Roman Empire – PDXScholar, accessed August 6, 2025, https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074&context=younghistorians
4. Young Historians Conference: Christianity’s Influence on Attitudes toward Homosexuality in the Roman Empire – PDXScholar – Portland State University, accessed August 6, 2025, https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/younghistorians/2015/oralpres/9/
5. Christianity and homosexuality – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_homosexuality
6. Christian Intolerance of Homosexuality – The University of Chicago Press: Journals, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/227706
7. Queer Theology: Reclaiming Christianity for the LGBT Community – Chapman University Digital Commons, accessed August 6, 2025, https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=e-Research
8. “The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality … – Matthew Vines, accessed August 6, 2025, https://matthewvines.com/transcript/
9. Homosexuality | Catholic Answers Tract, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.catholic.com/tract/homosexuality
10. The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships – The Reformation Project, accessed August 6, 2025, https://reformationproject.org/case/
11. Christianity and Homosexuality: A Review of Books – Timothy Keller, accessed August 6, 2025, https://timothykeller.com/blog/2013/10/4/christianity-and-homosexuality-a-review-of-books
12. Was homosexuality really “openly tolerated” by church and state in the early Middle Ages? : r/AskHistorians – Reddit, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/22ij5i/was_homosexuality_really_openly_tolerated_by/
13. The Roots Of Homophobia – The Credibility Of Boswell’s Historical …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/hays.html
14. The Bible and same sex relationships: A review article – Redeemer Report – Redeemer Churches and Ministries, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.redeemer.com/redeemer-report/article/the_bible_and_same_sex_relationships_a_review_article
15. History of the Catholic Church and homosexuality – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality
16. The Regulation of “Sodomy” in the Latin East and West | Speculum …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/710639
17. Being Gay the Medieval Way! | Homosexuality During the Middle Ages… – YouTube, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIu-i_k12pE
18. Natural Law, Homosexual Conduct, and the Public Policy Exception, accessed August 6, 2025, https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1870&context=scholar
19. Thomas Aquinas on Marriage and Sex, accessed August 6, 2025, https://theo.kuleuven.be/apps/christian-ethics/sex/history/h2c.html
20. Thornas Aquinas on – Sexual Ethics, accessed August 6, 2025, http://www.cfdiocese.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Levering-Thomas-Aquinas-on-Sexual-Ethics.pdf
21. Medieval Sourcebook: Aquinas on Unnatural Sex – Fordham University, accessed August 6, 2025, https://origin.web.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas-homo.asp
22. Catholic Church and homosexuality – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality
23. It’s About Sex…Not Homosexuality – Reflections, accessed August 6, 2025, https://reflections.yale.edu/article/sex-and-church/it-s-about-sexnot-homosexuality
24. Stange believes Martin Luther would not have condemned …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.skidmore.edu/news/2007/273.php
25. Luther, Same-Sex Marriage, and the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland: A Gender-Sensitive Historical Analysis – MDPI, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/11/1/48
26. Homosexuality and Lutheranism – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Lutheranism
27. Punishment and forgiveness of sexual crimes: A special reference to sodomy in Calvin’s theology, accessed August 6, 2025, https://scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2074-77052022000100055
28. John Calvin: Marriage, Singleness, and Sexual Sin | Rekindle, accessed August 6, 2025, https://rekindle.co.za/content/2020-12-03-john-calvin-marriage-singleness
29. John Calvin on Marriage and Family Life, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.johnwittejr.com/uploads/5/4/6/6/54662393/a140.pdf
30. Sex, Marriage, and Family in John Calvin’s Geneva: Courtship, Engagement, and Marriage (Religion) – The Bookworm, Bernardsville, accessed August 6, 2025, https://bookwormbernardsville.indielite.org/book/9780802848031
31. (PDF) Punishment and forgiveness of sexual crimes: A special reference to sodomy in Calvin’s theology – ResearchGate, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364612821_Punishment_and_forgiveness_of_sexual_crimes_A_special_reference_to_sodomy_in_Calvin’s_theology
32. MYTHS ABOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S TEACHING ON HOMOSEXUALITY, accessed August 6, 2025, https://gtacs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Myths-about-Catholic-Church-Teaching-on-Homosexuality.pdf
33. General Principles | USCCB, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.usccb.org/committees/doctrine/general-principles
34. From The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 Chastity and homosexuality 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men o, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.catholichawaii.org/media/224236/homosexuality_-_from_catechism_of_the_catholic_church.pdf
35. Catechism – 2357 – The Catholic Cross Reference, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/catechism/#!/search/2357
36. The Catholic Church and Homosexuality in the U.S.: Timeline · Religion and Homosexuality in the United States, by John D’Emilio and His Students – OutHistory, accessed August 6, 2025, https://outhistory.org/exhibits/show/religion_homosex/catholic
37. HTC: Orthodox Statements on Homosexuality – Holy Trinity Cathedral, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.holy-trinity.org/morality/homosexuality.html
38. Eastern Orthodox view of sin – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_view_of_sin
39. Holy Synod – Encyclicals – Statement on same-sex relationships and sexual identity, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.oca.org/holy-synod/statements/holy-synod/holy-synod-issues-statement-on-same-sex-relationships-and-sexual-identity
40. Does the Orthodox Church accept gay people as members? : r/OrthodoxChristianity – Reddit, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/comments/15czsgj/does_the_orthodox_church_accept_gay_people_as/
41. Orthodox take socially conservative views on gender issues …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/08/orthodox-take-socially-conservative-views-on-gender-issues-homosexuality/
42. Homosexuality, Marriage, and Sexual Identity | Assemblies of God (USA), accessed August 6, 2025, https://ag.org/Beliefs/Position-Papers/Homosexuality-Marriage-and-Sexual-Identity
43. Addressing Homosexuality Biblically, Compassionately – Baptist Press, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/sbc-life-articles/addressing-homosexuality-biblically-compassionately/
44. The Baptist Church and Homosexuality in the U.S.: Timeline – OutHistory, accessed August 6, 2025, https://outhistory.org/exhibits/show/religion_homosex/baptist
45. Resolution On Homosexuality – SBC.net, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/resolutions/resolution-on-homosexuality-3/
46. Southern Baptists endorse repealing the legalization of same-sex marriage in the US, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD5tUcXyDvs
47. Southern Baptists target porn, sports betting, same-sex marriage and ‘willful childlessness’, accessed August 6, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/southern-baptists-pornography-sports-betting-gay-marriage-aac48e558ea4b7f1c3b869b917e6eea2
48. Southern Baptist delegates call for reversal of Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/southern-baptist-delegates-call-for-reversal-of-supreme-court-ruling-on-same-sex-marriage
49. The Religious Landscape for LGBTQ+ Persons – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed August 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8389760/
50. Sexuality and the United Methodists | Religion and Public Life – Harvard University, accessed August 6, 2025, https://rpl.hds.harvard.edu/religion-context/case-studies/sexuality-united-methodists
51. May 2 wrap-up: Delegates declare homosexuality no longer ‘incompatible’ | UMNews.org, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.umnews.org/news/may-2-wrap-up-delegates-declare-homosexuality-no-longer-incompatible
52. Homosexuality and Methodism – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Methodism
53. What is The United Methodist Church’s position on homosexuality? | UMC.org, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.umc.org/en/content/ask-the-umc-what-is-the-churchs-position-on-homosexuality
54. United Methodists begin historic reversal on longstanding anti-LGBTQ policies | PBS News, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/united-methodists-begin-historic-reversal-on-longstanding-anti-lgbtq-policies
55. Historic shift LGBTQ inclusion United Methodist Church | UMC.org, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.umc.org/en/content/historic-shift-lgbtq-inclusion-united-methodist-church
56. List of Christian denominations affirming LGBTQ people – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_affirming_LGBTQ_people
57. LGBTQIA+ Ministry | Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), accessed August 6, 2025, https://pcusa.org/how-we-serve/inclusion-equity/lgbtqia-ministry
58. Presbyterianism and homosexuality – Wikipedia, accessed August 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterianism_and_homosexuality
59. PCUSA approves amendment barring discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity – Christian Post, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.christianpost.com/news/pcusa-approves-amendment-banning-lgbt-discrimination.html
60. History of LGBTOrdination, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Suydam/Reln220/History%20of%20LGBTOrdination.html
61. Affirming Denominations – GayChurch.org, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.gaychurch.org/affirming-denominations/
62. A Christian Perspective on Homosexuality | Popular Writings | Reasonable Faith, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/practical-issues/a-christian-perspective-on-homosexuality
63. 10 Things Everyone Should Know About a Christian View of …, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/10-things-everyone-should-know-about-a-christian-view-of-homosexuality/
64. LGBTQ+ Theology 101 – Q Christian Fellowship, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.qchristian.org/resources/theology
65. Evaluating Church Teachings by Their Fruits – The Reformation Project, accessed August 6, 2025, https://reformationproject.org/case/good-vs-bad-fruit/
66. Queer Theology – A Brief Overview | Student Christian Movement, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.movement.org.uk/resources/queer-theology-101
67. Beyond Affirmation: Where The Reformation Project Gets Queer Theology Wrong, accessed August 6, 2025, https://jamiearpinricci.medium.com/beyond-affirmation-where-the-reformation-project-gets-queer-theology-wrong-2335ab1fcd47
68. Affirming vs. Queer Theology: Understanding Key Differences – The Reformation Project, accessed August 6, 2025, https://reformationproject.org/affirming-theology-vs-queer-theology/
69. Psychology and Christianity – The Gospel Coalition, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/psychology-christianity/
70. Sexuality Programming and Student Support | Calvin University, accessed August 6, 2025, https://calvin.edu/sexuality-programming-and-student-support
71. The Relationship of Religious Comfort and Struggle with Anxiety and Satisfaction with Life in Roman Catholic Polish Men: The Moderating Effect of Sexual Orientation – PMC, accessed August 6, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5653706/
72. LGBTQ people raised Christian report more minority stressors, similar health to those who were not – Williams Institute, accessed August 6, 2025, https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/lgbtq-christianity-press-release/
73. Homosexuality and Religion: The Conflict – BYU ScholarsArchive, accessed August 6, 2025, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=intuition
74. Freud’s Effect on Christian View of Homosexuality and Its Implications – ScholarBlogs, accessed August 6, 2025, https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/basicproblems002/2015/04/20/freuds-effect-on-christian-view-of-homosexuality-and-its-implications/
75. Religion and Faith – GLAAD, accessed August 6, 2025, https://glaad.org/religion/
76. LGBTQ Inclusion Course – The Reformation Project, accessed August 6, 2025, https://reformationproject.org/courses/the-biblical-case-for-lgbtq-inclusion/
77. The Reformation Project—Advancing an Orthodox and Affirming Church, accessed August 6, 2025, https://reformationproject.org/
78. Allies – Q Christian Fellowship, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.qchristian.org/guides/allies
79. Clergy – Q Christian Fellowship, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.qchristian.org/guides/clergy
80. Resources – Q Christian Fellowship, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.qchristian.org/resources/landing
81. 16. Religion and views on LGBTQ issues and abortion – Pew Research Center, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/religion-and-views-on-lgbtq-issues-and-abortion/
82. Most U.S. Christian groups grow more accepting of homosexuality – Pew Research Center, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/12/18/most-u-s-christian-groups-grow-more-accepting-of-homosexuality/
83. Conservative Christian Attitudes and Beliefs about Homosexuality, accessed August 6, 2025, https://www.puc.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/115386/Conservative-Christian-Attitudes-Poster-FINAL-aubyn.pdf