“I Changed My Mind on Christian LGBTQ Marriage. Here’s Why and How!” (Part 2)

“I Changed My Mind on Christian LGBTQ Marriage.

Here’s Why and How!” (Part 2)

By Gary L. Clendenon, December 2025 – March 2026

Because this is “Part 2” of this series of essays, if you haven’t already, I would strongly urge you to go and read “Part 1” HERE, otherwise what follows will make less sense—being out of context and out of order.

If you’ve read, “Part 1”, then you will know that I am attempting a “Short Version” of the arguments presented in Alicia Johnston’s 2022 book The Bible and LGBTQ Adventists. Reading this book led me, as stated in my title, to change my mind on the topic of “Christian LGBTQ Marriage”. In “Part 1”, I covered the first 7 major points that stood out to me from Alicia’s book, and so I will now pick up where I left off continuing with “Point #8”:

Point #8. The “One man – one woman” argument: You hear this a lot amongst biblical Christians: “Marriage equals one man–one woman”. The obvious challenge with this argument, as Alicia puts it, is that this means “It must be that a marriage cannot be a marriage if both spouses have the same gender.” (1) This argument is obviously completely restrictive and allows for no exceptions. Is it possible to make an argument that is less restrictive and allows for exceptions? Alicia does. Keep reading!

She goes on, “One of the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage is simply that it’s nobody else’s business. … It’s understood that for married people, their first loyalty among billions of people in the world is to each other, and society supports that ordering of priorities. This makes marriage a social institution.” (2) As a Libertarian Christian myself, I take “nobody else’s business” to mean that GOD is a God of free will; therefore Christians are free to make their own choices about their own lives within their understanding of GOD and His word in the Bible. Thus, I believe. because GOD highly values and respects free will, we, His followers, ought to do the same!

Another thought Alicia puts forward is:

None of this [what marriage is considered now in our day] was present in Genesis 2. Adam and Eve didn’t have a wedding with all their family and friends.... They didn’t sign a marriage certificate…. ... When we speak of marriage as an institution, we speak of something that has matured with the development of society and unfolded through Scripture. It wasn’t delivered in fullness in Eden. (3)

In summarizing this idea, she states: “Marriage is an institution with both remarkable universal meaning and remarkable capacity to adjust itself to the needs and values of any society.” (4)

Alicia then goes on to point out that what marriage actually is is a more substantive, complex, combination of at least 8 different foundational components (with “man-woman”) being only one of those eight! She then explains that for each of these 8 foundational-to-marriage components, there are both Biblical and societal exceptions and adaptations! Here is a portion her argument—in her own words:

None of the characteristics of marriage we’ve been talking about is always essential for every marriage. Yes, Adam and Eve are the typical, normative example of marriage. But as marriage matured beyond this embryonic point into a mature social institution, marriage took on an adaptive quality, even as it maintained its core meaning. In fact, it’s perhaps because of this adaptive quality that it has preserved its core meaning.

People in a marriage between two people of the same gender are only a tiny part of the population. We are an exception to one of the [eight] normative categories of marriage, that of gender difference. But exceptions aren’t the same as a total change. An exception that proves the rule is not a revolution or attack; it’s just an exception. Maybe there’s a good reason for the exception.

Same-gender marriage is often characterized as a precursor to the total collapse of marriage as an institution. This fear, like many other fears, is overblown. Like the death of God, the demise of marriage is repeatedly announced, even as marriage marches steadily on.

That doesn’t mean that society should welcome any and every adaptation in the definition or understanding of marriage. Some have absurdly argued that same-gender marriage will lead to child marriage or marriage to animals…. We can still use our minds. Exceptions happen for good reasons.

The point is not that we should welcome any exceptions with mindlessly open arms. The point is that being an exception, in and of itself, is not a threat. The substance and reason for the exception are crucial...[and] must have merit.

When two people of the same gender have a wedding, make vows, and share a life, do we recognize this as a marriage? I argue that it is easily recognizable. It takes intentionality to deny this is a marriage. Recognizing it as a marriage comes naturally, even if it feels new and strange for those who are unaccustomed. (5)

In concluding what I am calling “Argument #8”, Alicia points out that all marriages demand “compromise, loss of autonomy, and a level of selflessness” (6), but that S.D.A. “same gender marriages embody these challenges in unique ways” due to having to face life “without the support of friends, family, church, and community”. (7) “To love the other [then] requires more faithfulness, not less.” (8)

She then challenges us, the readers, with these words:

“God blessed the church with gay, bisexual, and transgender people to give us an opportunity for other-centered love. … My challenge: ...apply this love of the other to LGBTQ people. Learn to love the love you see in us. Learn to support marriages that are different than your own. Don’t close your eyes to the genuine love of people who are different.” (9)

She then concludes this section with these words:

“I understand the fear and hesitation based on current biblical understanding. I don’t want to diminish or ignore that. ...[but] I’m convinced that Jesus would want us to take a moment and think about the burdens we are placing on people whose only interest is to love and support one another.”

“People don’t want to be different and despised. They don’t want to be unnatural and excluded. … The church has an opportunity to respond with other-centered love.” (10)

Point #9: “But, What about God’s Law?” This question, for the most part, comes from two specific texts found in the book of Leviticus—the fourth book of the 5 books called “Torah”, a word which is translated as “Law”. About this, Alicia points out rightly: “When Biblical writers refer to the law...they are not necessarily referring to the legal code with its rules.” (11) If you’ve read from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, then you know that there is a whole lot more going on in these books than just rules!

So, for the Hebrews and Jews to call all of that the “Law” must mean something different than what we have in mind when we read that word. Alicia puts it this way:

...the Hebrew concept of law is dramatically different from our own concept. Their concept is Hebrew; ours is Roman. …

Hebrew legal code isn’t the same as modern legal code. It’s not intended to be applied impartially and context-free. No congress passed these laws. No judicial branch enforces them; that was never their intention. We have no example anywhere in Scripture of rules being applied that way. …

To use the legal codes as a set of modern statutes is to misunderstand them. (12)

You may have heard that within the “Law” (the 5 books of the Torah), there are 613 rules. This is true, but what you may not know is that these 613 rules were pulled out and compiled from the Torah between the third and sixth centuries A.D.—hundreds of years after all the New Testament and thousands of years after most of the Old Testament Bible stories happened! So, the Biblical understanding of Torah or Law included these rules, yes, but within the context of everything else that was happening in those 5 books.

As alluded to earlier, two of those 613 rules say the following: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22), and “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them” (Lev. 20:13).

These two “laws” sit among the other 611 rules in the Torah. Some of the other laws are about cleanliness, health, executing people, legally enslaving people; women, rape, and marriage; the always quoted “eye for an eye” principle, exploiting foreigners, and even genocide! About these—some very challenging to us—laws, Alicia candidly points out:

No moral person today would approve of these practices. It doesn’t matter how adamant someone is about taking the plain word of Scripture without interpretation. It makes no difference how firmly they believe God gave us every word of Scripture. The face value of these passages has no hearing. No one is interested in entertaining the idea that raping a woman is only a problem when she’s engaged, that she should marry her rapist, that slavery is acceptable, or that genocide is God’s will. ... No matter what the Bible says, it’s not changing what people believe on these topics today. And there is good and biblical reason for that. (13)

“And what is that good and biblical reason?” you might ask. Alicia answers with a deeper look at the topic of slavery:

Let’s say we studied the Bible and concluded that slavery was biblically moral…. This isn’t a crazy conclusion to draw if one emphasizes the plain meaning of Scripture on the texts that speak about slavery. It’s been the most common conclusion for most of Christian history. If we did that study and determined the Bible supported slavery, would we then support slavery? … No, we wouldn’t.

…we see the moral absurdity and degradation of humanity that is slavery. We consider it evil. … We understand that everyone deserves basic human rights. We wouldn’t even entertain the idea that slavery is acceptable.

We outlawed slavery because of human dignity and compassion. Compassion is biblical; dignity is biblical.

On subjects like slavery, we automatically ignore the surface meaning of the [Bible] texts because of the moral principles of compassion and human dignity.

On other subjects, we apply the surface meaning universally…. But it’s not the texts that are changing. We are changing our approach to the text based on the moral code we bring to the text. …

We’ve been changing our hermeneutic [interpretation] based on how we feel about the content. I suggest we learn to read Scripture consistently. … Our hermeneutic should be consistent enough to make us opposed slavery even when slavery is culturally [and Biblically] acceptable. …

It’s easier to use compassion and dignity as our moral compass on a subject with no modern ethical debate. It’s entirely different on a topic for which there is debate. On these subjects, we tend to talk a lot about compassion and dignity in our attitude but are reticent to allow these principles to touch our theology. (14)

According to Alicia, this idea of looking at the deeper principles when studying the Bible is not some “newfangled” Theology. She says it this way:

Fortunately, this idea is not foreign to the Hebrew Bible itself. According to the Torah, it should be applied in a deliberative way. We should sift out its meaning. We should understand the impact of what we are doing and not blindly follow the letter of the law. This is what God’s people people have been doing from the beginning. (15) …

Even when the laws of the Torah were fresh and modern, they were not consulted as judicial law is today. The Torah is supposed to be different than the modern legal system. The strict application of the Torah as a modern objective legislative code is unbiblical. This is an approach to the law used by Romans many centuries later. It wasn’t the Jewish approach then or now. (16)

In her book, Alicia then goes on to give several examples of how Moses, the author of “The 5 books”, made exceptions and changes to the laws he himself had written down! She then states: “The interpretation, application, and specifics of the laws were modified. In some of the cases, it was because the law was not comprehensive enough to cover new situations. In other instances, direct exceptions were called for by context.”  (17)

On this topic, Alicia quotes from one of her university professors, Roy Gane, whom she describes as “one of the top Christian theologians on Old Testament law, not only among Adventists, but in the world.”  He was her professor at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, and she also points out, “editor for the book that was published by Andrews University opposing same-sex marriage [and] ...one of the earliest voices to speak out against same sex marriage in the Adventist Church.” (18)

It was from Professor Gane that Alicia learned this concept of principled Hebrew law. Giving further evidence for this, Alicia quotes from Gane’s published book Old Testament Law for Christians:

How could the O[ld] T[estament] law be normative if they were not comprehensive and if they can be flexibly applied to individual cases? ...when problems arise, the laws are to serve as a starting point for deliberation of cases that are related, but present variables. ...while the letter of the law was important, it was to be sensitively and contextually applied in light of the spirit of the law as a whole, recognizing that no law can explicitly account for all the complexities of the human life. (19)

Responding to Gane’s quote, Alicia says, “There we have it. The laws are not to be applied inflexibly, but flexibly. …‘as starting points for deliberation.’ I can’t emphasize the importance of this enough. Deliberation is crucial absolutely crucial.” (20)

Given this understanding of the law, Alicia points out, helps us understand and make sense of Jesus, in His “Sermon on the Mount” being “willing to modify the legal code (Matt. 5:38-48) while maintaining adamantly that He was not changing one iota of the law (Matt. 5:17, 18).” (21) Thus, an “eye for an eye” became “turn the other cheek”: a principle-based change based on the higher command to “Love one’s neighbor”.

Alicia then goes on to argue that applying this “deliberation” of Biblical principles to the topics and Bible texts relating to same-sex marriage and transgender identity can actually lead us to a position of affirmation. She says, “All I need to do to arrive at affirming same-sex marriage and transgender identity is apply these principles.” (22)

The problem with the Biblical position that opposes same-sex marriage and transgender identity, Alicia says, “...is that [Biblical] conservatives haven’t been consistent on this topic. On this particular subject, a literalistic approach is used that is not used on other subjects. I think it’s simply a blind spot, to which we’re all prone.” (23)

This is the end of “I Changed My Mind on Christian LGBTQ Marriage. Here’s Why and How! (Part 2)”. Stayed tuned for “Part 3” where we’ll dive deeper into this topic!

FOOTNOTES:

1. Alicia Johnston’s 2022 book The Bible and LGBTQ Adventists, p. 115, emphasis mine.

2. Ibid, 116, emphasis mine.

3. Ibid, p. 116-117.

4. Ibid, p. 117.

5. Ibid, p. 123-124.

6, 7, 8: Ibid, p. 132.

9. Ibid, p. 133-135.

10 Ibid, p. 135.

11 Ibid, p. 139.

12 Ibid, p. 139-140.

13 Ibid, p. 141-142.

14 Ibid, p. 142-143.

15 Ibid, p. 144.

16 Ibid, p. 145.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid, p. 144.

19 Ibid, p. 146.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid, p. 148.

22 Ibid, p. 147.

23 Ibid.