Tests

… To Hear What the Holy Spirit is Saying About Same-Sex Marriage

INTRODUCTION

We’re now looking at tests derived from Scripture to discern what the Holy Spirit is saying to us today . The same tests can be used on pretty much any issue where Scripture does not directly tell us what to do – especially where there are competing voices about how Scripture’s truths should be applied today. But obviously we’re just looking at them to test one particular issue – should we accept or reject same-sex marriage?

This section is quite big – a big hairy monster with thirteen legs!

But for those scared off by the 13-legged monster just click on to the summary version here.

For those staying, the 13 “legs” are:

1. Scripture’s Trajectory

2. The Moral Vision of the New Testament

3. A Different Trajectory – the Widening of God’s Mercy

4. The Fruit of the Teaching

5. Christ’s Law of Love – Why it’s the Ultimate Test and What it Means

6. What does Christ’s Law of Love Require of Us?

7. What Christ’s Law of Love Does Not Require of Us

8. The Ultimate Test of Love – How this determined the way Jesus & the apostles interpreted Scripture

9. How the church has used the Ultimate Test to re-interpret Scripture

10. Follow The Word not “the words”! Why taking a Literal Approach is Unfaithful and Wrong

11. How should the Ultimate Test guide whether we accept same-sex marriage?

12. The relevance of How We’re Wired to the Ultimate Test

13. The Devil’s Deception – who’s he tricked this time?

1. Scripture’s Trajectory

The argument, put forward by Robert Gagnon, Preston Sprinkle and other traditionalists, is that, whilst the trajectory of Scripture points towards female equality and abolishing slavery (e.g. Galatians 3), it does not point towards accepting same sex-marriage. So we have to reject it.

It seems to me the “trajectory of Scripture” argument (in this form) is really just another way of saying: because God didn’t directly address this issue, we just have to assume it’s a no. I’ve already responded to this in my earlier section on Scripture’s "Silence" linked here.

But briefly:

Ultimately, this amounts to saying unless Scripture tells us we can do something then we shouldn’t do it, which is not how evangelical Christians normally apply Scripture.
Scripture does not generally teach broad truths completely hidden to its original audience – how should instructions about sex and marriage be applied to a people then hidden in plain sight – those only attracted to the same sex.
As, I believe, we’ve already seen in the section on Scripture’s "Silence", there were very good reasons why Scripture could not teach its original audience to embrace same-sex marriage at that particular time.

2. The Moral Vision of the New Testament

Back in 1996, the evangelical New Testament scholar, Richard B. Hays, published his seminal work, The Moral Vision of the New Testament. (Despite any flaws on our current issue it’s still a great book with much to teach us – see the links to it in my Further Resources section). This explored the moral principles we derive from the New Testament that should guide the way we live today: essentially, the community, the cross and new creation. In one key chapter he argued that accepting even faithful homosexual relationships breached these three key principles. This chapter became one of the greatest influences in confirming mainstream evangelicals in their rejection of same-sex marriage.

Some have suggested that Richard Hays’ key principles are very sound but he misapplied them in reaching his traditionalist position. I explore this further in the long essay I will link here. In 2024, just months before he died, Richard Hays himself himself has now very humbly admitted he had got this issue wrong. In The Widening of God’s Mercy he and his son, Christopher, proposed a different way to consider this issue that, they believed, was much better aligned with Scripture.

3. A Different Trajectory - the Widening of God’s Mercy

Richard’s new work, The Widening of God’s Mercy, co-authored with his Old Testament scholar son, Christopher, (pictured above), was published only months before he died. It takes us on a journey through Scripture. (Again, see the link to purchase this in my Further Resources section). They plot God’s ever-expanding grace and mercy to people previously excluded and marginalised. This journey led them both to a very different place to where Richard had got to 28 years ago. Their compass now pointed very clearly towards the full inclusion of LGBTQ people within Christian communities, including affirmation of their covenanted relationships. (Note even fully affirming US evangelicals, like Matthew Vines and the Hays, use the acronym "LGBTQ" rather than "LGBTQ+" that we favour in the UK. I'm just respecting their use of terms).

They point to the many other examples of biblical laws and teachings that the church had later abandoned or overturned, including eating non-kosher meat, abolishing slavery, emancipating women into leadership and a more merciful attitude to divorce.

They demonstrate from numerous examples in Scripture that, whilst God’s nature does not change nor his essential requirement of us “to act justly and love mercy”, his specific requirements of us do sometimes change as his mercy extends to new groups of people.

And this is always in ways consistent with his heart for justice and mercy. Just one example is the lifting of the strict command that all his male followers must be circumcised and allow into the church uncircumcised male believers.

When God changes his mind about what he requires, they say, his church should also change its mind. They point out from Scripture how our God is a God of surprises who continues to do new things as Isaiah prophesied, “See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up, do you not perceive it?” (Isaiah 43:19). The church always needs to keep its eyes open to perceive where God’s spirit may be doing a new thing. They perceive his new, new thing is extending his mercy to fully embrace LGBTQ people and their covenanted relationships.

I note that shortly before the Hays’ work had been published, a British pastor and writer, Danny Brierley, had also identified the same scriptural trajectory of mercy, or “meta-narrative” as he calls it, in his own great book, To Inclusion and Beyond (the link to purchase this is also in my Further Resources section).

The Hays observe how in many of these cases “where the church has changed its understanding of God’s will the impetus for change has come from careful and compassionate attention to human experience”. They point to the changes in church positions about slavery and the role of women as primarily a response to witnessing the human suffering of slaves and the waste of obvious divine gifts of women barred from church leadership by their sex. They and many others see similar patterns of both suffering and waste of gifts caused by a failure to fully accept LGBTQ Christians on the same terms as everyone else. They say this is especially so now that science and experience has taught us over the last 30+ years that same-sex attraction is biologically hard-wired into gay people. Yet, like heterosexual people, most of them are not called to celibacy. So, most share the same innate longing for a life partner God recognised in Adam from the beginning.

Most importantly, they argue the full church inclusion of LGBTQ people and their partners rhymes with the Bible’s portrayal of God’s ever-expanding mercy. They “advocate full inclusion of believers with differing sexual orientations not because we reject the authority of the Bible. Far from it: We have come to advocate their inclusion precisely because we affirm the force and authority of the Bible's ongoing story of God's mercy.”

In his concluding chapter Richard very humbly confesses that when writing his previous work “I fear I placed myself in the company of those who devote intensive, scholarly labors to straining out gnats, while neglecting what Jesus called the 'weightier matters' of the law; justice and mercy and faith' (Matt. 23:23) This book is an attempt to, belatedly, attend to those weightier matters.”

Wow! What a wonderful demonstration of what Micah 6:8 says God requires of us all - to “act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with our God.” And is this not the ultimate lens through which we should view this and every other issue?

When leading biblical scholars like these perform such humble about turns, whilst retaining their same high view of Scripture, I believe we should sit up and take notice. At the very least in the same spirit of humility as them we should listen to the reasons for their conclusions. I personally found their argument compelling. It confirmed me in my own conclusions reached through a different but parallel path, which we’ll explore shortly. I would highly recommend their excellent work to aid you on your own journey.

4 – The Fruit of the Teaching

This test is well articulated by Matthew Vines in God and the Gay Christian and on his Reformation Project’s website – both great resources that much informed my own research. Matthew has now published a fully updated version of his ground-breaking book, which I would highly commend. The same test is strongly supported by New Testament scholar, James Brownson, in his brilliant work, Bible, Gender and Sexuality .

(See the links to all these in my Further Resources section).

Matthew Vines says that the test our Lord himself gave us to work out if a teaching is true or false is: the teaching’s fruit - good or bad:

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.” (Matthew 7:15-20)

A true prophet’s teaching should ultimately promote the good fruit of the spirit; false teaching will produce Satan’s bad spiritual fruit of thistles and thorns.

This does indeed seem to be a test that Jesus himself gave us to test the truth or falsehood of teaching on an issue where the church is hearing strongly opposing prophetic voices. Some, like Matthew Vines, James Brownson, the Hays and Danny Brierley are prophesying that God wants us to now embrace same-sex marriage. Others, like Robert Gagnon, Preston Sprinkle, Mike Winger and (before he died) John Stott tell us that God wants us to hold firm to the church’s historical understanding of Scripture and roundly reject all same-sex sexual relationships.

Matthew Vines points to the apostles' acceptance of uncircumcised Gentiles into the church as an example of this test being put into action in Scripture. Scripture had strictly required all males to be circumcised before they were accepted as part of God’s people. Jesus and the Holy Spirit had both expressly declared all foods “clean” to eat, despite the bans in Leviticus (Mark 7:19 and Acts 10), but neither had directly spoken about lifting Scripture’s requirement of circumcision.

Yet, in Acts 10-15, seeing the fruit (and gifts) of the Spirit in the uncircumcised Gentiles who had accepted Jesus, Peter persuaded his fellow apostles that the Holy Spirit was telling them that he was not just declaring all types of meat as “clean” but was accepting uncircumcised believers as “clean”. Therefore, God no longer required his followers to be circumcised. (This is explored quite brilliantly in the Hays’ book by the way.)

My old youth leader, Phil, Barnes, shared with me how God spoke to him through these verses about this very issue when he was training to become an Anglican priest. Like most evangelical Christians, Phil had previously taken a fairly traditionalist position about same-sex relationships (despite his own brother-in-law being gay). But he saw God’s spiritual fruit in the lives of fellow ordinands who happened to be gay and in same-sex partnerships. He heard God saying to him there was nothing wrong with them or their relationships, “Don’t call unclean what I have declared clean.”

Matthew Vines argues that when this same fruit of the teaching test is applied to the same-sex relationships debate, the evidence of the fruit points very strongly in favour of accepting same-sex marriage because of :

the good fruit of the revisionist teaching seen in the positive changes in the lives of LGBTQ people when fully accepted into the church on the same terms as heterosexual people
the bad fruit of the traditionalist teaching seen in the serious hurt and damage done to LGBTQ people due to their sense of rejection and isolation

Notably, many traditionalists, including popular speaker, Mike Winger, agree that the fruit of the teaching is a correct scriptural test to apply to this issue. It’s just that they believe it’s the revisionist teaching which produces the bad rather than good fruit in the lives of LGBTQ people and others. So, they say this strongly points to rejecting all same-sex sexual relationships. Mike Winger claims to fully explore this as part of his YouTube series, Speaking The Truth in Love. (Again, see my Further Resources section for the link).

I will shortly fully explore the evidence of what good and bad fruit is produced by the alternative teachings. However, I can see how some may argue this isn’t how Jesus intended his fruit of the prophets’ test to work – that he was just talking about judging the prophets by the fruit of their lives. True prophets will bear the good fruit of the spirit – love, joy, peace, etc. False prophets will bear the opposite bad fruit in their lives – hate, anger, dishonesty, etc. It’s a very good test, for example, of politicians who claim to stand for Christian values.

I certainly do think Jesus was intending this test to be used of the prophets themselves. But, personally, I think he was probably also intending it to be used to test their teaching – what fruit does their teaching show?

But I believe Scripture’s ultimate test for working out true and false teaching is the one discussed below.

5. Christ’s Law of Love – Why it’s the Ultimate Test and What it Means.

Let me be very clear this is not some test I "cleverly" made up. I’m not that clever and it’s not my test! Like the fruit of the teaching test, I believe, this is Jesus’s test, also followed by the apostles.

Why is love the ultimate law?

“And yet I will show you the most excellent way …” (1 Cor. 12:31 b)

Paul, like his Lord before him, tells us, “The commandments … are summed up in this one command: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' Love does no harm to a neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfilment of the law.” (Romans 13:10)

And so, when asked how to interpret and apply Scripture to a particular situation, Jesus asks, “Is it lawful … to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” (Luke 6:9, RSV)

The law of Christ’s love has much in common with both the Hays’ vision of God’s widening mercy and the fruit test. They are like rivers running into the same ocean. The fruit test should lead to the same result as Christ’s law of love: the good fruit is what does people good; the bad fruit is what does people harm. Meanwhile, a key sign of God’s widening mercy is the church’s experience of the good or harm the church’s previous positions have caused to particular groups of people.

This law of love test is the approach to Scripture I highlight in my long essay which I’ll link again here about how, I believe, we can hear what God’s saying to us through his word today.

Jesus came to establish a new heavenly kingdom on Earth, marked above all, by love and mercy. That’s because God’s very nature is love. It’s the key his heart is tuned to: “… God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.” (1 John 4:8-9 KJV)

“God is love” – what does it mean in practice?

What does it mean in practice that God’s very nature “is love”? I believe Scripture shows us it means that “in all things he works for the good of those who love Him” (Romans 8:28) – not just those who are following him right now, but everyone who is potentially part of his people. In other words, everyone in the whole world! That’s why God sent his own son into the world: “For God so loved the world that he sent his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) And as John also tells us, “He is the atoning sacrifice … not only for [our sins] but the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2)

And this eternal life is not meant to be something only experienced in the next age, but should start now. It’s a better, more abundant way of living, free from sin and able to enjoy God’s gifts for us in the way he intended, the way that’s best for us. So, Jesus declared, “I have come that they may have life and have it to the full” (John 10:10)

And so, being a God of love who works for our good, in his word he doesn’t just give us commands for the sake of it, like some vicious dictator testing us for testing’s sake. Instead, Scripture itself tells us the commands and guidance God gives us through his word are given “for our good always”. (Deuteronomy 6:24).

Some may cite Hebrews 12: 10 - “he disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness.” - and suggest that, for example, instructing all gay people not to marry and have sex with the person they love is a godly discipline they must just accept so that they can become “more holy”. But surely this verse is just a restatement of the general principle that God’s instructions to us through Scripture are for our good. Surely he doesn’t discipline us for the sake of discipline, even as a test, he disciplines us “for our good”.,,

This was sometimes harder to see with some of the Old Testament’s rules and regulations before Christ. But their ultimate purpose was still to do good and prevent harm to God’s people. This included rules marking them out as different to other idolatrous nations to try to separate them from their influence which could (and did!) tempt them away from God, towards sin, harm and destruction.

6. What does Christ’s Law of Love require of us?

Just as God is love, he call us as his people to also be love to others: “Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.” (1 John 4:9)

So, Scripture itself tells us that love should always be the guide to our actions: “The commandments … are summed up in this one command: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ Love does no harm to a neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfilment of the law.” (Romans 13:9-10). And ultimately in Jesus “The only thing that counts is faithfulness expressing itself through love.” (Gal. 5:7)

This does not mean “anything goes” as long as it “feels” loving. Scripture tells us there are two key principles to loving our neighbour:

Do what is for “the good of others” (see e.g. 1 Corinthians 10:24; Romans 15:1-2; 1 Philippians 2:4; 1 Thessalonians 5:15)
Do others “no harm” (see e.g. Romans 13:10; 1 Corinthians 13:4-8)

And I believe Scripture also shows us this must mean:

what does good rather than harm to others generally; not just one person. (See e.g. Galatians 6:10 and 1 John 3:16)
what is good rather than harmful to the whole person - physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. (See e.g. John 10:10 and 1 Tim. 4:1-5)
it absolutely includes what does good not harm immediately now – so Jesus was not prepared to send away people coming for healing on the Sabbath and tell them to come back tomorrow (See also Proverbs 3:27-28)
but it also considers what does good rather than harm not just immediately but in the longer term and ultimately in eternity. (See e.g. 1 Peter 1:3-7 and 2 Cor. 3:17)

Because Christ’s law of love goes to the heart of what was behind the Old Testament laws, it very often sets a much tougher, higher standard: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28). But it’s a different standard; the way of the Spirit rather than the way of a long list of rules and regulations: “But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.” (Romans 7:6, ESV)

7. What Christ’s Law of Love does NOT require of us

Jesus was not an Essene-like ascetic and nor was Paul and this was not the gospel they preached. Although Jesus and Paul after him were celibate, they absolutely did not ask this of their followers and most of Jesus’s apostles enjoyed sex lives with their wives. He and his disciples after him embraced and celebrated life in all its fulness and encouraged people to enjoy life but in a righteous way. Hence Jesus enjoyed partying, eating and drinking and cracking jokes, rejoicing and weeping with others in their celebrations and heartaches. He actually described his invitation to join him as ultimately leading to a final big party in heaven! (see e.g. Matt 22:1-14 and Luke 14:15-24).

Paul encouraged an attitude of enjoying and thanking God for his gifts in this life. He preached directly against ascetism: “Since you died with Christ to the elemental forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: ‘Do not handle! Do not taste!’ Do not touch!’? These rules, which have to do with things that are destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have the appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility, and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining self-indulgence.” (Col 2: 20-23)

Paul therefore actively encouraged marriage and plenty of sex within it as the proper outlet and control for sexual desire (see 1 Cor. 7) and preached strongly against a denial of marriage. Not just because marriage and sex within it are a good gift from God, but because banning marriage could not prevent the harm of sexual self-indulgence. He therefore warned against the teaching of those who “forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if received with thanksgiving because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.” (1 Tim 4:3-4). I believe Paul’s words should serve as a particular warning today for those of us forbidding marriage to LGBTQ+ people (as I had previously advocated). We need to be very sure of our ground before denying this divine gift to them or anyone.

All of this informs what Jesus and Paul must have meant by what was for people’s “good or harm”. Asceticism was not their way. Instead, they taught practical spiritual common sense – to enjoy the good gifts of this life but in a controlled, righteous way. Yes, you must make God your number one but you can still enjoy unique companionship in marriage that people have been blessed by since Adam and Eve. Have sex but keep it within marriage. Enjoy eating and drinking but not to excess – don’t become a fat glutton or a drunkard. And in your enjoyment of such blessings don’t overlook the poor. All these things are part of the good gifts of life in this age which Jesus and Paul recognised and encouraged. As Jesus’ brother James reminds us, “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights …” (James 1:17)

8. The Ultimate Test of Love - How this determined the way Jesus and his apostles interpreted Scripture

Throughout the New Testament we see Jesus himself and Peter and Paul after him - our heroes of faith – put that higher law of love into action in the way they interpreted Scripture. Time and again our heroes took a flexible, purpose-driven, love-centric approach to understanding and applying scripture to the situations they faced, asking: what does good for people and what does them harm? This is Christ’s test and law of love. By contrast, the villains of the faith -the Pharisees (and later the circumcision party among the early Christians) took a zealously literalistic, legalistic approach to Scripture. They tried to drain every last drop out of the words' meaning - to "strain the gnat" from Scripture's commands rather than focus on "the weightier matters of scripture - to act justly and show mercy." (Matt 23:24)

Let’s look at one example of these contrasting approaches in action: Jesus's Sabbath day healing of the man with the withered hand (highlighted by Richard and Christopher Hays in The Widening of God’s Mercy). (See Luke 6:1-11 and Mark 3:1-6).

The Pharisees’ literalistic approach to Scripture convinced them that healing on the Sabbath was effectively work on the day the Lord commanded men to rest and so was banned by Scripture. On a purely literal application of the words of Scripture, they may have seemed correct. At the time when the Sabbath rules were written Jesus's unique ministry of regular miraculous healings had not been foreseen. Therefore it had not been necessary for Scripture to directly address the question of whether it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath. So there was no exemption set up for miraculous healers "working" on the Sabbath. Therefore, strictly applying the words of Scripture, the Pharisees are outraged that Jesus should heal on the Lord’s day of rest.

But Jesus rejected such a literalistic approach to understanding Scripture. Instead, his purpose-driven, love-centric approach looked at the moral and spiritual reasons behind the Sabbath commandment - to do good to people by allowing them to rest and to prevent harm by banning employers or slave masters from depriving their servants of a rest day. But when a strictly literal application of the command was clearly causing harm rather than good that approach was failing to fulfil the command’s purpose and a different approach was needed. After all, as Jesus told them, "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." It was because of his purpose-driven, love-centric approach to Scripture that he asks the Pharisees, "which is lawful to do on the Sabbath - to do good or to do harm, to save life or destroy it?"

In other words, if by healing this man's hand on the Sabbath day I would do good and save life rather than do harm life and destroy it then I should heal him on the Sabbath, regardless of what a literal interpretation of the words of Scripture might suggest. The Pharisees had no answer to this, but Jesus demonstrated his answer by healing the man then and there.

Peter and Paul followed the Master’s example by applying Scripture in just the same, purpose-driven, love-centric way: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” (Gal. 5:6).

The way of the Spirit and Christ’s law of love should lead us to do what is overall good for others rather than harmful (Romans 13:10), even sometimes going against a literal understanding of Scripture’s direct instructions. That’s why Paul was able to tell the Colossians that notwithstanding Old Testament rules (or even the apostles' Council of Jerusalem instruction) : “.. do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” (Col. 2:16-17)

Christ’s law of love requires us to take the same love-centric approach to Scripture

So, where Scripture, as properly interpreted and understood, says nothing about an issue then Scripture itself instructs us to follow “in the new way of the Spirit” and keep the one ultimate command of “loving our neighbours as ourselves.” This means doing what brings them good and avoiding what brings harm.

Equally, where there are two alternative arguable interpretations of Scripture, one of which we can see overwhelmingly causes good and the other overwhelmingly causes harm, the right interpretation must be the one that has the good consequences, the wrong one causes harm.

I believe Sabbath day healings probably fell into the first category. And for the reasons explained earlier I believe that’s where same-sex marriage falls: Scripture was only banning all-male intercourse outside of marriage, because that was the only place it was then happening. It therefore never addressed whether same-sex marriage and any forms of sex within it were right or wrong. However, I appreciate some will view this issue as two competing interpretations of Scripture. Either way, I believe the same test of Christ’s love needs to be applied: do what brings good, avoid what causes harm.

More difficult is where Scripture seems to say very clearly and directly we must do or not do something but following it seems to just as clearly cause harm rather than good. This was the tricky situation facing the apostles – do we accept into the church uncircumcised male Gentiles who accept Jesus and have been filled with the Spirit? We see how they dealt with this dilemma in Act 10-15. Following the tests of the law of love and the spirit’s fruit, the apostles saw that, exceptionally, it was God’s will to set aside the apparently clear command of Scripture as his mercy continued to expand to a new group of people. And they recognised the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophesy, “Behold! I do a new thing.” (Isaiah 43:19, KJV) This setting aide of a clear, direct command of Scripture made the apostles’ decision to accept uncircumcised male believers far more radical than churches today deciding to accept same-sex marriage! Because, as I believe we've seen, this involves no breach of a clear, direct command of Scripture - the specific ban on all-male anal intercourse was directed at such acts carried out within very different relationships to marriage .

9. How the church has followed the Law of Love to re-interpret Scripture's Instructions

This process of of re-interpreting Scripture in the light of Christs law of love did not end once Scripture’s canon was complete. The church continued this, for example, with the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of women’s roles in church, marriage and society. Here again the church perceived the Spirit doing “a new thing” as God’s mercy expanded to a new group of people, so that to follow Christ’s higher law of love - to do good and prevent harm - required them to set aside previous understandings and applications of Scripture.

And a further major example of the church re-interpreting Scripture in the light of the law of love is their change of position over "usury" - lending with interest.

Credit for identifying this issue goes entirely to Matthew Vines in his newly updated version of "God and the Gay Christian" - see the link in my Further Resources.

Today, we would see this as a common place fact of ordinary commercial life. But for 1,500 years the church stuck faithfully to the apparently very clear teaching of Scripture, which strictly banned the taking (and, by extension, giving) of interest on loans (Deuteronomy 23:19-20 and Ezekiel 18:12-13).

Ezekiel even ranked usury as equally serious an offence as Leviticus 18 rated male-only intercourse. He judged it worthy of death and condemned it as toveah - the very same word for "abomination" used in Leviticus 18. And right up to the late Middle Ages, the church continued Scripture's usury ban, viewing it as wickedly "unnatural" (just as they viewed male-only intercourse): by letting a man-made thing - money - grow like only God-made things should. And so Dante's Inferno reserved the same third ring of the seventh quarter of hell for both interest-chargers ("usurers") and "sodomites"!

But then along John Calvin came and challenged all this (I'm beginning to like this guy a bit more again!)

Following Christ's law of love, Calvin looked at the underlying moral logic of Scripture's ban on usury, which he understood was to do good for the poor by protecting them from the rich taking unfair advantage of them. He recognised the need to understand Scripture in its original context, before applying it to his own different context. The original context was a fundamentally agrarian society where poorer folk were often forced to take out loans to survive when their harvests failed. This made it "apt" to simply ban all lending with interest. However, in his different, more commercial world of the 16th century such a complete ban would likely to do more harm than good, e.g. it would have restricted individuals receiving loans to start their own businesses. Therefore, he advocated re-interpreting Scripture's instruction to allow some lending with interest. However, he also advised following the good purpose behind the original ban by placing significant restrictions on lending with interest to comply with Christ's "golden rule" of "loving your neighbour as yourself" and prevent people's exploitation by the rich. Ultimately, Calvin's view became the whole church's view.

Calvin is normally viewed as an ultra conservative evangelical. But Calvin here followed Christ's ultimate law and test of love - to re-interpret and even modify the literal words of Scripture to do good not harm. He did not simply throw Scripture out of the window, but, with the Spirit's guidance, he discerned the age-abiding principles behind the usury ban - to prevent commercial exploitation of vulnerable farmers by the rich - and re-applied it to a new context - a more commercial world. He did that in a way that did good rather than harm - allowing lending with interest but banning excessive interest etc.

Revisionists would say that's exactly what they're doing with same-sex relationships: not ignoring Scripture's ban on male-only intercourse, but discerning the age-abiding principles underlying that ban - to prevent sexual exploitation and uncontrolled lustful promiscuity, exemplified by masters sleeping with their slave boys,etc. They have then applied those principles to our different context today - men and women wanting to enter faithful partnerships with people of the same sex. They do that in a way that does good rather than harm: discouraging any promiscuous or exploitative sexual relationships but encouraging faithful same-sex marriage and consensual sex within it.

Revisionists would say they are being no more radical or "dangerously liberal" with Scripture than Calvin was. In fact, if anything, they'd say they were being less radical as, unlike Calvin, they are not promoting any direct breach of Scripture's original instructions.

Note: even if I'm wrong and we should still follow Scripture's ban on all-male anal intercourse strictly to the letter, this would still not outlaw same-sex marriage. It would just require two husbands to avoid that very particular act which, as we’ll see, is the least common sexual activity amongst gay men!

10. Follow The Word not “the words”! Why taking a Literal Approach is Unfaithful and Wrong

I have heard some traditionalists talk of a childlike, faithful “surrendering to Jesus” and his word. I am sure they are very sincere and genuine in this submission to our Lord, which is much to their credit. But, it seems to me, that how they do that on certain issues amounts to saying if the Bible in some way refers to an issue (even remotely) we just need to logically extend that as far as possible. We can then trust our heavenly Father that following his word will ultimately be for everyone’s good and going against it for our harm, even if we can’t see it. By sticking as closely as possible to the literal words of Scripture, regardless of the apparent immediate consequences, we are being as faithful as we can be to Jesus and that’s all he requires of us.

But, actually, what Jesus requires of us is to love and show mercy: “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8) And as Jesus said more than once to the Pharisees, “But go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy not sacrifice’“ (Matt. 9:13 and 12:7). I wonder which people of faith Jesus might be saying this to today?

I believe this should mean that, just like Jesus and his apostles, we should apply Scripture in a love-centric way that benefits rather than harms others. So, that does mean having to work out what is beneficial rather than harmful for others. Very often this is obvious and requires a simple following of Scripture’s commands – do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not lie, etc. But sometimes it’s less obvious - when we’re facing a new situation that had not been directly contemplated by Scripture - like Jesus’s Sabbath day healings or the apostles embracing uncircumcised Gentile believers. And I would say it’s the same with gay or bisexual people wanting to marry a partner of the same sex. This was also something completely unheard of and therefore uncontemplated when Scripture was written.

The traditionalist approach to this issue seems to me copying what the Pharisees were doing: zealously making logical extensions to the literal words of Scripture without regard to the harmful consequences to others. But surely taking any approach to Scripture other than Jesus’s love-centric one is actually being unfaithful to Jesus – of what he requires of us and the example he set us.

We need to follow the Word not simply the literal words!

Why a literal approach to applying Scripture is dangerous

If we treat Scripture as simply a book of direct instructions to religiously follow like a highway code, then we diminish it to a legal textbook rather than the guide-book for life its was intended to be, to “train us into righteousness.” (2 Tim 3:16] . We will be looking desperately for rules to follow and so be tempted to follow instructions the Bible intended as temporary for a particular time and place. Consequently we'll cause harm to ourselves and others rather than the good God wants for us. Instead, we should be looking for the abiding principles behind those instructions.

And taking such a literalistic approach could even tempt us into a more liberal direction in other ways. It could encourage an attitude that “If the Bible really says nothing at all directly on an issue I’m free to do what I God damn want to about it." This would for sure not be a true surrendering to Jesus!

Instead, we should be looking for Scripture's abiding values that should inform every aspect of our lives, including ones it doesn’t directly address. For example, recreational drug use, climate crisis issues, abortion, infertility treatment, gun ownership, who and what I vote for, etc., etc.

What would it look like if we consistently applied a literal approach to the New Testament?

Imagine what it would look like if we consistently followed a literalistic “time-frozen” approach to Scripture and applied to the letter the final instructions for living either set out in the New Testament or things in the Old Testament which the New Testament never directly addressed:

There would be no democracy; we would still be ruled by a supreme monarch (in obedience to 1 Peter 2:13-17)

We would still keep or be slaves, as allowed by Paul in Ephesians 6 and 1 Peter 2:18-20 (verses used by 19th century American plantation owners to crush their slaves’ hopes of emancipation)

Women could take on no leadership roles over men in church or wider society (in obedience to 1 Tim 2:12)

Women could not preach (again in obedience to 1 Tim 2:12 )
Women would have to keep silent in church (in obedience to 1 Tim 2:11 and 12 and 1 Cor 14 )

Women would have to keep their hair long and wear hats in church (in obedience to 1 Cor 11:4-16)

Men would have to keep their hair short (also in obedience to 1 Cor 11:4-16)

We’d go around kissing everyone in our church congregation (whether invited to or not! in obedience to e.g. Romans 16:16)

We could not receive interest on our savings or pay interest on our mortgages (in obedience to Deuteronomy 23:19-20 and Ezekiel 18:12-13, not changed by the New Testament and strictly observed by the church for 1,500 years)

Women would be considered unclean during their periods when husbands must avoid any sexual contact with their wives (in obedience to Leviticus 18, upheld in Acts 15 and not mentioned by Paul in Col. 2:16)

Few of us take a literalistic approach with these issues. So why should we do so with same-sex relationships?

It can get us tied up in knots …

And if we take a literalistic approach to Scripture sooner or later we will tie ourselves in knots. That’s because to follow certain verses literally will mean directly contradicting other verses, e.g. men can’t both wear their hair long as encouraged by the Old Testament and keep it short as Paul advised! And how can we allow women to prophesy in church, as Paul encourages in 1 Corinthians 11, whilst banning them from speaking, as Paul apparently instructs three chapters later?

I believe the same-sex marriage debate is a good example of this. Traditionalists would say they are taking a more serious, higher view of Scripture in applying it in a more literal way to only accept marriage between a man and a woman and ban all same-sex sexual activities. However, in doing so they seem to directly contradict or significantly change at least two, if not three, other New Testament instructions:

Its teaching that celibacy should not be imposed on anyone but should be voluntary for those with a gift for it (Matt. 19 and 1 Cor. 7)
Extending a ban on all-male anal intercourse to ban all same- sexual acts, including between two women never admonished anywhere in Scripture
The warning not to forbid marriage to anyone (1 Tim. 4:3)

The love-centric approach is how most evangelicals interpret Scripture most of the time

The love-centric approach is how the large majority of evangelical Christians, including traditionalists, understand and apply most of Scripture today. There are those many issues we grapple with today where the Bible says nothing or very little directly: Who do we vote for? What fuel-type of car we buy? What films or TV programmes do we watch? Or do we ditch our TV altogether? Do we use contraception, have infertility treatment or an abortion? On those issues we have to take our guidance from the Holy Spirit, informed through more general scriptural principles, but especially by Christ's law of love. So, ultimately, it’s about what’s good or harmful for people in the longer term. To understand that we will consider and balance the evidence of the harm or good done by pursuing particular actions.

On these issues, though Scripture doesn’t directly instruct us what we should or shouldn’t do, it remains “useful for teaching and training us in righteousness” because it gives us age-abiding principles to follow. And our Holy Counsellor should help us to see and apply these to the situations we face. Taking Scripture seriously means not simply doing or not doing the things Scripture directly tells us about but, through the Spirit, finding in there truth for our lives on things Scripture doesn’t directly tell us about. Above all, as his followers, Jesus expects us to follow his purpose-driven, love-centric approach to the way we apply Scripture's instructions to these different situations we face today not directly contemplated by Scripture. In these situations, we need to ask the same essential questions Jesus asked: what does good and what does harm?

But on certain issues, and especially this one, it seems to me that many evangelicals behave like one-issue Pharisees, as I previously did myself.

Why do so many evangelicals apply a literal approach to this issue?

I’ve already identified that one of the key errors which I believe led to my erroneous traditionalist position was taking an inconsistently literal approach to a few key verses - contrary to how I and other evangelicals normally interpret the Bible. But why did I do that? And why do so many evangelicals still make this mistake? I discuss this at some length in my essay I will link again here about how, I believe, we can hear what God is saying to us through his word. I think part of the explanation is two particular traps we need to be wary of - groupthink and counter-culturalism. These were certainly powerful magnets that pulled me towards my own original traditionalist position.

Groupthink

According to Dictionary.com, “Groupthink is the practice of approaching problems or issues as matters that are best dealt with by consensus of a group rather than by individuals acting independently.” Most of us grow up with opinions on all sorts of issues - political, ethical, religious - that we seemingly absorb by osmosis from those around us: family, friends, school, church, social groups, etc. As we get older, we tend to question those opinions more. However, opinions on certain issues in certain groups are taken as a given, a red line issue, and if you step over that line, you’ll be made to feel very uncomfortable or even asked to leave.

Counterculturalism

In being prepared to "take a stand for Jesus", we need to be careful we don’t end up taking a stand against society where society happens to be standing in the same place as our Lord. We also need to be careful our fears about persecution of our beliefs don’t bend our understanding of God’s truths towards positions that conflict with society’s, even when they don’t. Ironically, we might then even end up being the persecutor rather than the persecuted.

Paul rightly observed, “It is fine to be zealous provided the purpose is good.” (Galatians 4:18). The circumcision party then arguing against him for their own brand of Christian legalism were certainly zealous in standing for what they saw as traditional biblical values - insisting all male Christians must be circumcised. In doing so they would have seen themselves as daring to be countercultural to the Greco-Roman world by taking a stand for God in refusing to accept uncircumcised believers. They were certainly zealous, but they were zealously wrong.

Being countercultural, even for God, is not necessarily a good thing. It depends on what we’re being countercultural about. We need to be careful that in taking a traditionalist countercultural position on same-sex relationships we don’t repeat the grievous errors of some of our evangelical ancestors. We can point to the likes of the evangelical Christian William Wilberforce who initially had to be countercultural in his opposition to slavery, contrary to the church’s traditional position. His Christian perseverance helped bring about the release of millions captured by the evil of slavery. But, sadly, there have also been plenty of other evangelical Christians on the wrong side of history. They took countercultural stands to defend grave injustices on the grounds that Scripture and traditional church teaching supported them.

One historical repeat offender here has been America’s Southern Baptists.

For sure, many great Christians have been and are Southern Baptists. However, on some issues they have had a quite shameful history, which most evangelical Christians today recognize as contrary to God’s truth. I’m talking here about slavery, black civil rights and the role of women. The Southern Baptists are now one of the most vocal opponents of same-sex marriage, supposedly based on God’s word. But their opposition to abolition of slavery, black civil rights and female suffrage was also supposedly based on God’s word. So, their track record should sound alarm bells ringing for anyone lining up with them to oppose the rights of another group of people who feel mistreated and discriminated against.

11. How should the Ultimate Test guide whether we accept Same-Sex Marriage?

I believe, as his followers, Jesus expects us to follow his purpose-driven, love-centric approach to the way we apply Scripture's instructions to the many different situations we face today which were not directly contemplated by Scripture - climate crisis issues, recreational drugs, infertility treatment, abortion, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, etc. etc.

With the issue of same-sex marriage I believe the relevant instructions of Scripture are:

the Levitical and Pauline commands banning men from anal intercourse with other males
Paul’s two key Thessalonian principles of sexual ethics – to not take sexual advantage of another person and to honourably control our sexual passions
the New Testament instruction that sex be kept special for the "one flesh" covenant of marriage between two people (then assumed to be between a husband and a wife).

Think back to Jesus’s Sabbath day healing of the man with the withered hand. If you like, he stands for LGBTQ+ folk today. Like that man they are also asking us for a divine blessing - not through a physical healing but through accepting any committed same-sex partnerships they may have as marriage. The questions I believe Jesus is asking now - not of the Pharisees but of the church today - are these:

"Which is the right lawful position to take about how we apply to same-sex couples today Scripture's instructions for sexual conduct and marriage? To apply these in a way that will do good or do harm, save life or destroy it?"

I believe Jesus is also saying to us today: "if accepting committed monogamous same-sex partnerships as marriage today overall does good and saves life rather than does harm and destroys life, then you should accept them, regardless of what a literal interpretation of the words of scripture might suggest.” BUT “if accepting such partnerships as marriage today overall does harm and destroys life rather than doing good and saving life, then you should warn people against them, whatever you or society might instinctively feel.”

The two competing paths

So, I believe, to know whether it’s God’s will today that we accept or reject same-sex marriage we have no choice but to examine the evidence for which of these two competing paths for applying Scripture does overall harm or good.

1. The traditionalists' path of applying the words of Scripture in banning male anal intercourse not simply literally but also zealously by extending them to ban all other sexual acts between men and to all-female sex too.

Some would argue, like Mathew Vines, that traditionalists actually modify the New Testament’s teaching about celibacy from something advocated to be voluntary for those with a gift for it to something obligatory for all gay people. In doing so, some would say they also seem to be going directly against Paul’s warnings in Scripture by forbidding marriage to a particular group. (So, in the end, is it really even a literal application of Scripture?)

However, traditionalists would counter that, even if this is quite a zealous and seemingly harsh application of Scripture, there are good Scriptural reasons why same-sex sex and “marriage” are harmful, rather than for our good: because the way God made us means only a man and a woman together can complement each other physically and psychologically to make sex and marriage work so that they’re beneficial rather than harmful. Consequently, if people cannot change their sexual orientation, it’s better for them to live celibately and harmful for them to form same-sex sexual relationships, even faithful, permanent ones. They would also argue when Paul warned against forbidding marriage he was obviously only talking about marriage of a man and a woman since that’s all anyone had ever known.

2. The revisionists' path of applying the words of Scripture in a less literalistic, more flexible, love-centric, purpose-driven way. Understanding that the purpose behind those instructions, like the Sabbath laws, was to prevent harm and promote good - to stop men indulging in lustful, promiscuous, often abusive, sexual acts with other males and to keep sex special for marriage.

They would argue that refusing to accept same-sex marriages and sex within such marriages today applies scriptural instructions in a way that defeats their original purpose and causes harm rather than good, just like refusing to heal on the Sabbath. That’s because it denies something Scripture recognizes most people need and should not be refused – marriage with the person of their choice. They also argue that accepting same-sex marriages and sex within them should fulfil the original purposes behind these commands and do good rather than harm.

They further argue that, as with healing on the Sabbath, we are being asked to apply the Bible's instructions to a new situation not envisaged by the Scriptures we have received - people having a same-sex orientation who want to marry a person of the same sex. Therefore, just as with Jesus's healing on the Sabbath, to do good rather than harm we should apply Scripture's instructions about sexual conduct and marriage in a purpose-driven, love-centric way. This requires accepting the same blessings and responsibilities of marriage expected for heterosexual couples are available to same-sex couples.

With healing a man's withered hand on the Sabbath day, it was pretty obvious which approach to Scripture caused good and prevented harm, and which the opposite. It’s not so obvious with the current issue. This requires a rather more detailed exploration of the evidence of the good or harm the alternative teachings lead to.

But before we look at the evidence we need to decide - will we accept the verdict based on that evidence?

As committed followers of Jesus are we prepared to faithfully follow the approach to Scripture that he and the other heroes of our faith took? The love-centric, purpose-driven approach that asks - which interpretation does harm or good, which saves lives or destroys them? Probably the approach we take with most other issues.

Or on this issue (and perhaps this issue alone) will we refuse to follow our heroes of faith and go with the zealously legalistic, literalistic approach to Scripture taken by Jesus's enemies, the villains of the faith, the Pharisees?

But remember, even if we have previously been a bit of a Pharisee on this issue, we don’t have to remain that way. After all, perhaps Jesus’s greatest apostle, Paul, had been a very zealous Pharisee whose eyes had viewed life through the lenses of many laws. But then Jesus spoke to him and gave him fresh eyes - quite literally! (Acts 9) - to see life through the one lens of the law of his love in which all other laws are fulfilled (Romans 13:9-10).

I now recognise that for 30 years I myself used to view this issue rather like a Pharisee. Then I had my own (rather less dramatic) Damascus Road conversion to see this issue through fresh, love-centric lenses – Christ’s lenses, I believe.

It might be that evidence shows generally requiring all gay people to keep celibate will help them become more holy and live a better, freer life. But does it? Remember we are not talking about giving gay people licence simply to go off and have sex with anyone and everyone. We’re talking about enjoying a sexual relationship within the faith and discipline of marriage but to include within marriage covenanted same-sex relationships

And remember ... both paths - traditionalist and revisionist - are extending Scripture beyond its actual words

In my view, we are kidding ourselves if we think that taking the traditionalist approach must be the “safest” option because it involves no change to Scripture’s literal instructions. Whether we take the traditionalist or revisionist path we will be extending Scripture well beyond the New Testament’s literal instructions. But it seems to me that it's only the traditionalists who are in denial about this.

I believe traditionalists do this by:

insisting on celibacy for gay people regardless of their gifting
extending a ban on all-male intercourse to any same-sex sexual activities
arguably, by forbidding gay people to marry the person they love.

For a group whose case rests on taking a “higher view” of Scripture this now seems to me problematic and inconsistent.

Nearly all revisionists would willingly acknowledge they are extending Scripture beyond its literal words to apply the blessings and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples as well as opposite sex couples. They would argue this is entirely in keeping with their love-centric, purpose-driven approach to Scripture to apply the Bible’s age-abiding principles to new situations not directly envisaged by Scripture. They would also argue that, unlike the traditionalists, their approach involves no direct contradiction of Scripture - once we recognise what behaviour Paul was actually talking about in his “clobber” passages.

12. The Relevance of How we’re Wired to the Ultimate Test

When looking at the good or harm of same-sex relationships, I believe it will be helpful to have in mind the way human beings are made and what positive or negative outcomes you might expect as a result. This should inform our interpretation of the evidence.

As we explored earlier, I believe the scientific evidence is now clear that people’s sexual orientation is nearly always due to complex biological processes, mostly happening as we're “knitted together” inside the womb - neurological, chromosomal, hormonal, genetic and epigenetic. It’s part of who we are made to be, like having autism or ADHD or an extravert or introvert personality.

So, gay and bisexual people are wired differently to heterosexuals like me for who they’re sexually attracted to. But are they otherwise not like me in their basic human needs? To quote Shylock the Jewish moneylender in the Merchant of Venice, “If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?" And do most gay people not also have the same needs as most heterosexual people for sex and life-companionship with someone they are sexually attracted to?

What result might we expect – good or harm – if we force someone to do/not do something against their nature? – an able-bodied child forced to live in a wheelchair or a lion in a cage?

The traditionalist take on “gay” wiring

But if traditionalists like Robert Gagnon are correct all same-sex sexual relationships are very different to this. They are a distortion of nature. Consequently, they are ultimately harmful to both the partners involved and wider society and they do not and cannot fulfil that basic human need for a unique life partner whose union can be sealed by sex. That’s because, whether you interpret Genesis 2 literally or figuratively, only a man and a woman can re-make the original model for humankind to join up the male and female sides of humanity – only a male and female have the necessary complimentary parts to do that. Two women or two men are too similar to achieve that.

Hence Robert Gagnon’s “androgenous Adam” theory: that the original “Adam” of Gen 1:26-2:18 was a sexually undifferentiated/androgenous human being, who later divided into two people, a male and a female. You need both a man and woman united or “re-united” in marriage together to express the whole divine image of God in humankind in a “one flesh union” – the re-creation of the original whole human being, the original sexually-undifferentiated Adam.

They argue that this is ultimately seen in the sexual union of men and women and how their body parts physically fit together in intercourse. It is also mirrored by the way the different male and female personality types naturally complement each other – “men are from Mars, women are from Venus”, etc.

They argue a man and a woman together is what’s required to provide a “suitable helper”, because the focus of Genesis 2 is on that physical and spiritual complementarity of Adam and Eve as male and female. This means only a man and woman can be married.

Therefore, they say, any attempt to bring two men or two women together in such a partnership is bound to fall short. If you like, neither an “Adam and Steve” or an “Adah and Eve” are ever going to cut it. Only an “Adam and Eve” can fulfil what’s required in a marriage. This is why, they claim, heterosexual partnerships are so much more successful than same-sex partnerships.

Most traditionalists would now accept gay people can’t help being that way e.g. Mike Winger does. They would say, sadly, something has gone seriously wrong with their wiring so that they cannot enjoy marriage and sex within it in the way God intended. And most traditionalists today would accept that generally it’s not possible to re-wire them “straight”. Despite that, it will do them more harm than good to pursue same-sex relationships, even “fake” same-sex marriages. That’s because it’s just not possible for two men or two women, even gay ones, to supply what each other needs in a life/sexual partnership.

As Robert Gagnon says on his website: “Complementarity is not just a question of parts fitting. It is also about moderating extremes in, and filling in the gaps of, the sexual 'other'. For example, the fact that women on average manufacture only about one-seventh the amount of the sex-hormone testosterone each day that men do accounts for significant interpersonal differences between men and women, such as the intensity of the sex drive and the kind and amount of interpersonal communication needed. Putting two testosterone-driven males together in a sexual union, or two females not so driven, significantly changes the dynamics of the sexual relationship—usually for the worse. Sexual gaps are not filled and extremes are not moderated.”

So, for traditionalists same-sex marriages are fake marriages, because true marriages can only be between a man a woman.

The revisionists’ response

I believe we saw earlier that Robert Gagnon’s interesting “androgenous Adam” theory (my label not his!) in Genesis 2 is unscriptural, because it runs contrary to the Hebrew language used. This seems to make clear the original Adam was created as male not “sexually undifferentiated”. I’m sure Professor Gagnon would sincerely disagree with me, but to my own untrained eyes it seemed this theory has much more in common with Greek myth than Scripture. I believe we saw that this compatibility was not based on complementary difference but similarity and equality. This only changed after the Fall and the curses that followed. But I believe Scripture is clear that Christ lifted those curses and has ultimately brought about full equality of the sexes.

13. The devil’s deception – who’s he tricked this time?

Marriage is clearly a good thing by which God intended to bless humankind – both the individual partners and wider society. But can committed same-sex partnerships qualify as that “good thing” of marriage, as revisionists claim? Or, as traditionalists maintain, are they dangerous fake “marriages” that are ultimately harmful to both the individual partners and wider society?

Like most bad stuff in the world, are they just another dangerous deception of the devil? Or is the devil in fact deceiving traditionalists into rejecting same-sex marriage in order to harm both gay people and the church?

Scripture tells us, the devil, “prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8). As “the father of lies” (John 8:44) the devil does this primarily through his lies that deceive us into our own self-destruction. This has always been his tactic right from our beginning in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2/3). And yet he often comes disguised “as an angel of light” (2 Cor 11:14). Therefore, he is able to deceive even the best of Jesus’s own followers.

When Simon Peter described him as “prowling around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour”, he was talking from painful firsthand experience. Despite Jesus naming Simon Peter as the rock on which he was building his church, Satan’s serious deception of his thinking had once provoked Jesus’s stinging rebuke, “Get behind me, Satan!” (Matt 16:23). Yes, this was before Peter had received the Holy Spirit to "guide him into all truth" (John 16:13). But having the Holy Spirit didn’t stop Peter being deceived later, this time inviting Paul’s rebuke – see Galatians 2:11-14.

Likewise, all of us (for sure including me!) will have been taken in by Satan’s lies on some things at some time, because there are so many of his lies out there. This is especially so now he and his princes are able to spread lies so much more quickly through the “fake news” of social media.

And so the reason why I’ve written this website is to fight what I believe to be the devil’s strongholds of lies on this particular issue to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God …” (2 Cor. 10:4-5)

For I’m convinced that these lies are harming not just LGBTQ+ individuals but damaging the gospel of Christ and distorting the true knowledge of God. I fully appreciate that many speaking in support of the traditionalist view sincerely and faithfully believe they are doing the same. All I can say is we cannot both be right!

And to work out who’s right and who’s been deceived on the issue of same-sex marriage we need to “test the spirits”, as John encouraged us (1 John 4:1). As I’ve argued here, I believe, we need to do this by carefully examining the evidence to test the alternative same-sex marriage teachings against Jesus’s ultimate test of love: Does accepting or rejecting same-sex marriage do good - the place where God’s truth should always lead us? OR does it do harm – the place where the devil’s lies always lead us?

As an evangelical Christian, I believe that to find the truth in all matters we should look to the Holy Spirit to guide us (John 16:13), but especially by instructing us through Scripture’s age-abiding truths (2 Timothy 3:16). So, to decide whether or not committed same-sex partnerships should be accepted as part of God’s good gift of marriage we need to remind ourselves – what are the standards and purposes for sex and marriage that the Bible sets? These will help inform the questions we need to ask to test whether same-sex relationships can be true marriages that God intends for our good or are just fake marriages the devil devised for our harm. What should those questions be? That's what we’ll look at next.