“I Changed My Mind on Christian LGBTQ Marriage. Here’s Why and How!” (Part 3):

“I Changed My Mind on Christian LGBTQ Marriage.

Here’s Why and How!” (Part 3):

By Gary L. Clendenon, May, 2026

Because this is “Part 3” in this series of essays, if you haven’t already, I would urge you to go and start reading from “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 2”, I covered Points number 8 & 9 that stood out to me from Alicia’s book, and so I will now pick up where I left off continuing with “Point Number 10”:

Point 10: A deeper dive into the sex laws of Leviticus opens up the possibility for a different understanding and interpretation of them.

In Acts 15, when the Jewish Elders of the early church were trying to decide what laws the Gentiles converting to Christianity would be required to follow, they settled on four laws. As laid out in verse 29, they told them to “abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.” About this Alicia says:

Some scholars believe the early church based its decision on Scripture. … In Leviticus 17 and 18, we find a set of laws that apply to non-Israelites living in Israel. The requirements extended to the Gentiles by the early church could be a summary of these rules. They even appear in the same basic order. … For all these reasons, many Adventist scholars believe Leviticus 18 still applies. They believe that Jesus and the early church used Leviticus 18 to define the meaning of sexual fornication. They believe that if Leviticus 18 applied to Gentiles even after Jesus’...resurrection, it applies to us. (1)

Seventh-Day Adventist scholars believe the laws continued in Acts 15 were “Creation Laws” versus “Redemptive Laws”. Creation laws being more permanent, and redemptive laws being more adjustable to the times and situations. But, Alicia argues, “there are no direct references to creation in either of these passages, no allusions or quotes from Genesis 1 and 2. Their connection to Adam and Eve or the creation narrative is debatable.” (2)

To flesh out this point, Alicia then takes a deeper look into the context of the sex laws of Leviticus 18. She points out that there are 20 “sex laws” in Leviticus 18, but “almost none of them apply to the original creation.” (3) 15 of these 20 laws are about prohibiting incest—an obvious challenge to the creation law idea because if these laws were followed by Adam and Eve’s children, their line would have ended! So, these obviously have to be redemptive laws, not creation laws.

Of these Leviticus 18 sex laws, Alicia says:

Leviticus 18 doesn’t return the Israelite man to an exclusive relationship with one wife. Common sexual practices were not prohibited. He is still permitted to have sex with an enslaved person, a concubine, a foreigner, or a sex worker. Neither do these laws prohibit polygamy…. These laws are not telling a man he can only have sex with his one wife.

We can quickly identify these as redemption laws. They are adaptations to the conditions of polygamy and concubines. (4)

So, based on the context of these 15 sex laws of Leviticus 18, Alicia concludes: “Leviticus 18 cannot be about restoring the creation ideal.” (5) What Leviticus 18 does do, she says, is “bring much-needed accountability for men who otherwise had none.” (6)

One of the other 5 laws about sexuality in Leviticus 18 refers to having sex with a woman on her period. Alicia points out that for most of the church’s history, it was understood that sex was for procreation and not pleasure. (7) She then makes an interesting point to think about:

If sex is unlawful while a woman is on her period because it won’t lead to a child, it is also unlawful to use condoms or other forms of birth control. … If we believe Leviticus 18 forbids same-sex sex because its not procreative, all forms of birth control should be off-limits. If non-procreative sex is sinful, it’s sinful for all of us, and Adventist teachings should adjust. (8)

To be clear, Alicia’s not advocating for this, but just using the irony to point out the inconsistency of the church’s argument.

Now, having given all that as background and context, Alicia says: “Therefore, when we come to verse 22 [of Lev. 18], ‘a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination,’ we shouldn’t rush to the conclusion that it’s related to Genesis 1 and 2. Another context connects more directly.” (9)

Alicia starts this deeper look into Leviticus 18:22 with a question: “If Leviticus 18 isn’t intended to restore the purity of Eden, then what ills was it seeking to correct?” (10) Things that are forbidden in the Bible, are forbidden for a reason, so this text must be in response to a real problem. It’s a sad, but true fact that many stop lights are there because some terrible accident happened that made it obvious a deterrent was needed.

Alicia points out that a couple of verses later (from the verse we’re looking at), there is a possible clue to the background of this law: Leviticus 18:24 says, “Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled….” She says, “These laws are there because God doesn’t want the Israelites to repeat the behavior of others.” (11)

First, Alicia looks at the story of Ham, Noah’s son found in Genesis 9. It is an odd story story involving Noah’s nakedness and his sons reaction to it. Though it isn’t real clear what happened, Alicia says:

It’s fair to say there is something less than rape and more than nothing going on here. … Ham was interested in humiliating his father...that’s the indication…. By contrast, his brothers’ behavior was about restoring their father’s honor. Lesson: In the Bible and in our time, sexual acts aren’t always about sexual desire. They are often about power and humiliation. (12)

The next story Alicia cites is the story of Sodom found in Genesis 18 & 19. It could be called “Ham: Part 2” as the Sodomites were the descendants of Ham and seemed to inherit Ham’s same despicable desires! It is a familiar, but rather ugly story. When angels visit Lot’s home, Sodomite men show up and demand that Lot give over the men so that they can “gang rape them”. (13)

This story is almost always used by Bible teachers and preachers to show that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality—describing the men of Sodom as “a group of gay men” (Alicia’s words, p. 162). About this line of thinking Alicia says:

It is difficult to understand how this could be true. This group includes “the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter” (Gen. 19:4). Are we to believe that all of them are gay?

Further, Lot knows these men and offers them his daughters. As despicable as this act is, it shows that Lot was aware that these men had a sexual appetite for women. This wasn’t about sexual appetite, though.

… Sodom showed itself to be bloodthirsty and violent to strangers. They craved a reputation that would strike terror in their enemies…. Gang raping visitors was the ultimate act of humiliation and domination. …and the best way to do that was to treat a man like a woman. …nothing was more humiliating or struck more fear in the hearts of enemies than [this]. …because of the gender dynamics of patriarchy, the rape of a man was worse than the rape of a woman. This doesn’t mean same-sex marriage is wrong. They were not trying to stop same-gender marriage. (14)

So, this story in Sodom wasn’t about wasn’t about homosexual love, but completely about the evil act of humility and domination—the exact opposite of GOD-ly hospitality (as strongly contrasted in this story by Abraham and Lot (Genesis 18:1-5/19:1-3).

Referring back to the Leviticus 18 verses, and their reason for existing, Alicia sums up and concludes her argument in this way: “The moral purpose of these laws is to prevent the violence used by the citizens of Sodom to intimidate their neighbors and the behavior of Ham to humiliate his father and gain power for himself.” (15)

Alicia then moves the discussion of and the application of these laws to our times. As an example, she cites another law found in the moral code of Moses that it would be ludicrous for anyone to argue that it still applies to us today (Deuteronomy 22:8). And, not surprisingly, there is no one arguing for the enforcement of this law. Her point: “The laws at this time were not meant to be the last word; they were meant for a specific time and place. We should be aware of the limitations of uncritically applying them to our time and place. If we aren’t, we risk accidentally exporting their culture instead of God’s will.” (16)

She goes on to say:

The problem is not with the law; it’s with our desire to apply a legal code that is now 4,000 years old without understanding how the intervening 4,000 years have changed law, custom, culture, and language. … When Leviticus speaks of men having sex with other men, [the Israelites] only have one understanding of what that means. That understanding is revealed in Scripture; it’s there for all to read. It’s a power move by one man humiliating another by “lying with him as a woman”. (17)

Alicia then makes a very strong point that I must share and agree with wholeheartedly! “If we want to take Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 seriously, we should look to the prison system in the United States. This is where the acts of Sodom are perpetuated [Again, that means humiliation and domination]. We should seek justice and safety in our incarceration system. This would accomplish the purpose of these laws. Excluding same-sex marriages does not.” (18)

“What about the New Testament?” (19) This argument was started by looking at Acts 15 and what the new church decided was to be required by the Gentiles who joined it. Alicia says this about that:

While the Adventist Church encourages vegetarianism, eating a steak is not [considered] sinful. We treat vegetarianism as an ideal, but violating the laws from Acts 15 by eating meat with blood doesn’t disqualify anyone from membership or ministry, except in the most legalistic environments. We don’t think this part of Acts 15 is universal.

If anyone says differently, I challenge them to advocate for the same treatment of meat-eaters in the church that they give to people in same-gender marriages: fire employees, disfellowship members, and refuse to baptize the rest. Most of us would recognize this as fanaticism, and some of us have (sadly) learned that some think this way.

Three laws in Acts 15 may come from Leviticus 17 and 18. Two are related to food sacrificed to idols and to blood. They are categorically not considered applicable to all time. Perhaps that means even according to New Testament standards, we aren’t supposed to apply Leviticus 17 and 18 uncritically, directly, and literally to all situations. (20)

Alicia then points out that the connection between Leviticus 17 and 18 isn’t even certain. “Some doubt it,” she says. Then she adds to this point this by stating that Jewish interpreters don’t associate Leviticus 17 and 18 with laws for Gentiles and that Jews today don’t rely on Leviticus for laws for Gentiles. (21) She goes on:

...the Jerusalem Council was not trying to give universal moral laws for behavior. It was trying to figure out how to function as a community.

In other words, by assuming that Acts 15 intended to encompass all the commands of Leviticus 17 and 18, and by assuming that these laws were meant to be applied universally and literally, we’ve been missing the forest for the trees. We got so technical that we missed the point. We tried so hard to make solid and irrefutable rules that we missed the purpose of the rules in the first place. By doing so, we misunderstood the whole thing, much to the harm of LGBTQ people.

I hope this gives us pause about the simplicity of applying passages in literalistic ways. In the Hebrew Bible, they used a deliberative process to understand the law. The law came with a [story] that supported it. That [story] teaches us that Leviticus 18 addressed behaviors described in Genesis 19. Namely, it forbade the use of rape to humiliate men by treating them as women. There was a moral purpose behind these laws. They showed God’s justice.

In the New Testament, believers also used a deliberative process. … They understood the Hebrew Bible correctly. … They came up with something that made sense and “seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit”.

We can learn from their decisions and how they made them. This same process applies to the questions we ask now about same-gender marriage and transgender identity. Striking parallels exist between the inclusion of Gentiles and the inclusion of LGBTQ people. The question of LGBTQ inclusion today threatens to tear churches apart, just as Gentile inclusion threatened to tear the early churches apart.

We can seek God and deliberate now as they deliberated then. We must read the text carefully as they did. We must remember the character of God and the intent of the law as they did. If we keep the main thing the main thing, instead of trying to create universal rules from specific scenarios, we can trust God with our conclusions just as they did. (22)

I gotta say, this Alicia woman makes some very strong arguments! That’s the end of “Part 3”, but wait there’s more! Stay tuned for “Part 4”.

FOOTNOTES:

1. Alicia Johnston, The Bible and LGBTQ Adventists, p. 155, emphasis mine.

2. Ibid, p. 156.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid, p. 157, emphasis mine.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid, p. 158.

7. Ibid. Also, Alicia points out that the Adventist Church has a very accommodating official statement that is not anti-birth control at all.

8. Johnston, p. 158.

9. Ibid, p. 159.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid, p. 160.

12 Ibid, p. 161.

13 Ibid, p. 162.

14 Ibid, p. 163, emphasis mine.

15 Ibid, p. 164.

16 Ibid, p. 166.

17 Ibid, emphasis mine.

18 Ibid, p. 167, emphasis mine.

19 Ibid, p. 169.

20 Ibid, p. 171, emphasis mine.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid, p. 172-73.