James Anderson has compared worldviews to bellybuttons. Everyone has one but no one thinks about it. While it’s true that many people don’t give a thought to their worldview, many think about it very carefully. Among those who think intentionally about their worldview are of course Christians, but also progressives and advocates of the LGBTQ movement. But the LGBTQ worldview is quite antithetical to the Christian worldview in some important ways. Many advocates of LGBTQ clearly (and aggressively) articulate their worldview, and it’s important for Christians to also clearly and lovingly communicate the biblical worldview and how it differs from non-Christian worldviews.
It’s my goal here to draw out the distinctions between the biblical and LGBTQ worldviews under four major headings: Morality, Community, Teleology, and Anthropology. The format is question and response in hopes that Christians might use the questions (and answers) in interactions with their LGBTQ friends in a way that would lead to helpful and even life-transforming dialogue.
Morality
Do you think it’s problematic if morality is based in us rather than God or a transcendent reality? Aren’t some things wrong on a deeper level than personal feelings? (i.e. racism, rape, etc.)
According to Nietzsche the greatest mistake of humans was to think in terms of a transcendent category that is greater than any individual.[1] Because we don’t base morals in God or any transcendent reality but rather in ourselves, morality becomes emotional preferences expressed as “right.” But as Carl Trueman points out, this makes society extremely volatile and subject to collapse.[2]
Additionally, there are some evils that compel us to grasp for something stronger than preference to condemn. No one wants to grant that the Nazi’s were perfectly justified to subjectively advocate for the moral goodness of the final solution. At times we long for an objective moral standard, and the truth is we all assume there is one. As C.S. Lewis writes, “Unless the measuring rod is independent of the things measured, we can do no measuring.”[3]
The reason we feel indignation at evil around us is because God made us moral people and wrote his law on our hearts (Rom. 2:15; 1:18-20), though our conscience is not perfectly calibrated to Scripture. We must not suppress his good law to pursue our desires since the result would be catastrophic. As the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it, “All men by their fall lost communion with God, are under his wrath and curse, and so made liable to the miseries of this life, to death itself, and to the pain of hell forever.” It turns out the true harm that can be done to people is in telling them to resist God’s good will for their lives.
What is wrong with the world?
Most people wouldn’t look at the world around us and pronounce it to be perfect. Many locate the problem with the world in our environment. Certainly, in some cases people are made to sin by others. But we can’t cast 100% of the blame on our environment out of compassion for others. In the end, it strips people of dignity and infantilizes them. As G.K. Chesterton points out, if people in terrible circumstances must respond negatively, then the only logical conclusion is that the people born in the best situations are the only people fit to lead and contribute to society.[4] Similarly, Michelle Alexander argues that removing human responsibility strips people of a vital aspect of human dignity.[5]
Instead of blaming our environment exclusively for our actions we should listen to the Bible which teaches that, though circumstances matter (Prov. 13:23), the ultimate responsibility for our sin lies with us (Rom. 3:23; Matt. 18:6). In Genesis 3, Adam and Eve are cursed for their sin though it was Satan who tempted them. Each of us will all give an account before God for every careless word spoken (Matt. 12:36).
If we follow Rousseau and credit our corruption to society and our parents (110), then we will take our eye off our greatest enemy: us. The solution is that we need a new heart, which God promises to give every person who trusts in him (Ezk. 36:26). We get that heart by trusting in Christ who was tempted in every way we were yet without sin (Heb. 4:15). Jesus was killed for our sins so we could be brought near to him in a loving relationship we were meant for.
Community
How would you define healthy community with others? Should our friends ever push back on desires we have or how we define ourselves?
Rousseau said community was a hindrance to self-expression.[6] Rousseau’s sentiments have found a true home in 21stcentury western thought where self-expression is the highest priority. In fact, expressive individualism is such a high priority that if a community challenges a person’s self-expression it’s seen as harmful, bigoted, and even immoral. We want deep, authentic community, but to avoid the hindrance to self-expression we demand that our community accepts us as we are–no exceptions.
However, if our identity is defined by our own minds, then the number of identities will be as limitless as the human imagination.[7] This will inevitably lead to the community being swallowed up by the individual. Where the individual is given ultimate sovereignty, real community will die.
Also, those who subjugate community to self-expression aren’t consistent. Greed, incest, pedophilia, and murder are opposed by almost all communities regardless of self-expression. However, by eliminating an objective moral standard like the Bible to tether our morals to it’s doubtful if even those most egregious sins will be opposed for long. We must ask ourselves if we would want to find ourselves living in a community like that in the future.
Lastly, making self-expression ultimate destroys other’s ability to make us better by holding us accountable. This is the type of community the Bible describes. “Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another” (Proverbs 27:17). Not only does this make us better people but our love and appreciation for each other grows as we hold each other accountable. As Proverbs 28:23 says, “Whoever rebukes a man will afterward find more favor than he who flatters with his tongue.”
We need a community that will hold us to the truth and that means opposing us at times when we aren’t walking in accordance with that truth. Christian community gives us just that.
Why do you think some people are so troubled by others not affirming their sexual identity?
Hegel argued that a self-conscious individual only exists in being acknowledged by another (59). As people we crave belonging. Because our very existence is dependent on the acknowledgement of our society, it can cause great emotional distress when we aren’t affirmed by our society. The refusal of some to bake a cake for a gay wedding causes some to feel unacknowledged by society which causes them to feel inauthentic and unvalued.
The Bible tells us that we were made to crave not the acknowledgement of men, but of God. Until we acknowledge him as God, we will always crave acknowledgement. Until we recognize his love as the all-satisfying draught, we will continue to thirst to be recognized by others. Jesus said to the Samaritan woman in John 4:13-14, “Whoever drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water I give him will never be thirsty again. Indeed, the water I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
Every person has value and their existence is validated by nature of the fact that they are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). But that doesn’t mean all of our behavior and self-identities are acknowledged as valuable by God. God alone gets to define what is and what is not good, because he is eternally good.
So each person living contrary to God’s will should thank him for any lack of cognitive rest they feel in doing so. And they should leave behind anything keeping them from acknowledging the One who will acknowledge them and love them even if no human on earth does.
Perhaps a good follow question would be, how would it change someone’s life if they knew God acknowledged them as valuable? Zacchaeus left his riches and lifestyle behind like yesterday’s garbage the moment he was invited to dine with Jesus (Luke 19:1-10). Maybe it’s ultimately not the acknowledgement of others and of our society we crave, but God’s.
Teleology
Do you think we have a purpose in life? Does the world around us serve a purpose or do we shape our purpose?
There are two ways of viewing the world around us: mimetic and poetic.[8] The poetic view sees the world as raw material that we must shape into something meaningful. In this view, we as individuals carve out our own purpose subjectively. The mimetic view sees the world as already having a telos and shape that we must conform ourselves to.
The Bible is mimetic in its view of the world. God made the world and everything in it and he gave it all a purpose: to glorify and enjoy him (Isa. 43:7; Matt 22:37-39). God gave us a world with a shape and a purpose, and he gave us bodies, minds, and souls which are designed to live according to his good purpose. There are times when our feelings do not seem in accord with God’s design. Some people are sexually attracted to the same sex though that isn’t God’s design. Some feel uncomfortable with their gender. Yet no treatment or surgery can reverse or erase the immutable reality of our anatomy and chromosomal makeup. We can’t undo or rewrite God’s design, but must live in accord with it as difficult as that may be at times.
If we embrace the poetic view of the world, seeking to author our own purpose from the world the result will be hardship. We are made by God and for his glory. His word is a light to our path and a lamp to our feet. As theologian Herman Bavinck writes, “Where people seek to block out the rays of God’s truth, darkness, crudeness, and suffering ensue.”
Anthropology
What is at the core of a person’s identity? What makes someone who they are?
Some would say a person’s personality or their appearance. But if someone was in a car accident and badly disfigured we likely wouldn’t say they are a different person. If someone even had severe memory loss we may say they aren’t the same, but we wouldn’t say they are a different person.
But some have argued that our identity is found in our sexuality. Freud popularized the idea that sexuality is a person’s identity.[9] Sadly, this thinking led Freud to the sexualization of children. If sexuality is identity then even children should be sexually active.
The core of a person’s identity is the fact that they are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). They are spiritual, immortal beings who will live forever either with God or apart from him (John 5:29).
This means that everything outside of our souls, are subject to some change. Married people have often commented on how much their spouse changes over the course of marriage, yet they remain the same person. At the same time God made us each uniquely and wonderfully (Ps. 139). Our personality, ethnicity, desires, gifts, experiences, and gender are all given to us by God and cannot be erased. Each of us glorify God in the way he made us.
This all means that our sexuality, like other aspects of our life, are neither ultimate nor trivial. They aren’t trivial, so we shouldn’t seek to change who we are, nor can we truly rewrite something like chromosomes. Yet, they also aren’t ultimate. When our desires or bodies don’t naturally line up with God’s revealed will for all his people, we must live according to his will and be comforted that any part of us that feels suppressed doesn’t represent who we truly are.
Our value, identity and who we are is wrapped up in Christ. Why some live with unwanted sexual desires or gender dysphoria we may not know this side of heaven. But we do know that like the man born blind, we aren’t any less loved as a person made in the image of God. One day God will cause the full light of heaven to shine on every riddle of this earth, and in that moment we will sing with joyful hearts, “They who trust him wholly, find him wholly true.”
Conclusion
For the history of the church Christians have been exceptionally good at loving and welcoming all people while also maintaining a wall of sound biblical doctrine to surround and define the Christian community. It seems Satan’s strategy over the last couple hundred years has been to use philosophy and cultural influences to erode that wall of sound doctrine and biblical practice to make “love” an indefinable and all-inclusive concept. This undermines one of the church’s most compelling arguments for the faith: love for others. The question for the church in the 21st-century is, will they be enticed to believe the Satanic definition of love which on the surface seems most fruitful and faithful to our 21st centuries ears, but in the end leads to death for all who are welcomed by it? Or will they follow in the footsteps of the majority of Christians in the history of the church and love and welcome people regardless of who they are while refusing to compromise on what it means to be a Christian? I pray we choose the latter in compassion, kindness, and love.
[1] Carl R. Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution(Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2020). 174.
[2] Trueman. 78.
[3] C.S. Lewis, Christian Reflections, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994). 73.
[4] G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (Independently published, 2020). 87.
[5] Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (New York: The New Press, 2011). 176.
[6] Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self. 48.
[7] Trueman. 50.
[8] Trueman. 39.
[9] Trueman. 204.
Mike McGregor
Mike McGregor (MDiv, Reformed Theological Seminary) is Director of College Ministry at First Baptist Church in Durham, N.C. You can follow him on Twitter at @m5mcgregor.
