There is much we can do to see that believers are grounded in biblical teaching on sex as they face contrary messages and confusion, not just out there “in the world,” but in too many churches and other ostensibly evangelical Christian settings. Overall, our sexual teaching and practice must be embedded within a rich tapestry of sound theology, not treated as a separate area. However, there is a desperate need to equip believers, young and old, with sound, focused biblical teaching on homosexuality, directed at the various lies and justifications that too many are currently assaulting God’s people with.

The last several decades have brought profound shifts in beliefs and practices about sexuality among Evangelical Protestants. These changes are abundantly evident in major national surveys. I have also experienced them on the “front lines” as an evangelical college professor teaching relevant topics in marriage and family classes since about 1987. When I began my academic career, traditional Christian teachings on sexuality were embraced by the majority of my evangelical students even if they often struggled, as I did, to live up to them. That no longer appears to be the case. In fact, these days, defending biblical sexual ethics in my Family class sometimes get me “pinged” as a “bigot” even by avowedly evangelical students.
This is surprising among people supposedly committed to the most conservative forms of Protestantism, who claim to base their doctrines and lifestyles upon the clear teachings of the Bible, and to live under the Lordship of Christ. After all, the simple biblical teaching that all sex outside of marriage between one man and one woman is sinful is hardly secret or subtle. Orthodox Christianity in all major branches has never seriously questioned this. And yet, among younger people especially, it has been quite a few years since biblical beliefs and practices have been the norm among evangelicals.
With regard to beliefs and practices pertaining to heterosexual sexual activity outside of marriage among religious youth, Mark Regnerus’s Forbidden Fruit: Sex & Religion In the Lives of American Teenagers (Oxford: 2007), though a bit dated now, is a fine introduction to this admittedly distressing topic. Within the last few years, I have documented these grim realities among professing evangelicals across a broad range of ages. I have done this in material presented through the Institute for Family Studies (IFS), large portions of my book Christian Marriage: A Comprehensive Introduction (Lexham Press: 2019), research on epidemic levels of cohabitation outside of wedlock among evangelicals published in the April 2021 issue of Christianity Today and in the IFS. And my soon-to-be released After the Revolution: Sex and the Single Evangelical (Lexham Press: 2022), delves into this topic in great detail. In it, I deal with a range of sexual practices and beliefs among evangelicals, comparing them to other religious groups and to those of no religious affiliation, using hard facts, comprehensive explanations, and church-based solutions grounded in Scripture and social science.
However, other than some statistical material in an article mainly focused on Roman Catholics I did for Crisis Magazine in May 2021, I have not tackled the issue of homosexual beliefs and practices among evangelicals in any depth. My reasoning for focusing far more on heterosexual sins among evangelicals is simple: it is a much bigger problem in the church. Moreover, churches, parents and young people that think that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is acceptable, or at least turn a blind eye to it, are not in any position to uphold biblical teachings on homosexuality. To accept the one while rejecting the other is hypocrisy that should and will be tossed back into our faces. When we cave on the one, we quickly retreat from orthodoxy on the other. We must deal with first things first. But now, here, I would like to look at beliefs about same-sex sexual relations, as well as practice and sexual orientation, among professing evangelicals.1
Here, I have categorized religious groups using a standard approach called RELTRAD. This uses denominational affiliation, separating those in evangelical Protestant denominations from those who are “Mainline” or in historically Black, Protestant churches. No approach is perfect, including RELTRAD. There are certainly unsaved, uncommitted people tied to evangelical denominations, and there are some fine Bible-believing, born-again Christians affiliated with mainline churches. But it is an adequate description for those people being served by evangelical pastors and leaders, magazines, universities, charitable institutions, and so on. 2
My modest goal in this article is to provide an adequate description. An article that details the plethora of causal forces, explores the thinking of those who claim to be both faithful followers of Christ and morally accepting of homosexuality, and sets forth some possible solutions, is beyond what I can do here. However, let me note that I do tackle those issues in After the Revolution: Sex and the Single Evangelical, and in the main, most of the forces, thought patterns, and solutions I address there seem to hold in confronting error in belief, confusion, and sinful practices in the area of homosexuality as well.
Let’s see what we can learn from these highly respected national surveys.
Beliefs About Same-Sex Sexual Relationships
That homosexual sexual activity could be viewed as morally acceptable by a significant portion of evangelicals, much less an emerging majority of them, is nothing short of astounding. Personal justifications for this position are thin if not ludicrous, but I do not have space to address them here.3 Suffice it to say that I am not surprised to find people in denominations that have long ago jettisoned a high view of Scripture finding ways to approve of homosexual practice. However, part of the very definition of “Evangelical Protestant” is the belief in the Bible’s ultimate authority in matters of doctrine and action—Sola Scriptura.
Nevertheless, the GSS documents a startling movement towards increasing moral acceptance of homosexual sex among evangelicals. Figures 1a and 1b below show the percentages agreeing that “sexual relations between two adults of the same sex” are “always wrong,” versus “not wrong at all,” among respondents from different religious groups.4
Figure 1a: Percentages Indicating That “Sexual Relations Between Two Adults of the Same Sex” Are “Always Wrong.” GSS, 1977–2018, by Religious Group
Figure 1b: Percentages Indicating That “Sexual Relations Between Two Adults of the Same Sex” Are “Not Wrong at All.” GSS, 1977–2018, by Religious Group

Although evangelicals are generally less accepting of homosexuality than other groups (with the exception of Black Protestants), the percentages affirming that homosexuality is “always wrong” have clearly declined, while those saying it is “not wrong at all” have increased dramatically. Moreover, this includes all ages from 18 through the very old. The picture changes a lot when we compare age groups. As Figure 2 shows, younger evangelicals are much more liberal. In fact, recently most of those 18 to 29 did not think homosexual relations were “always wrong,” and 4 in 10 said they were “not wrong at all.”
Figure 2: Percentages of Evangelicals Indicating That “Sexual Relations Between Two Adults of the Same Sex” Are “Always Wrong” versus “Not Wrong at All.” GSS, 1977–2018, by Age Group

On the other hand, we must consider degrees of religious commitment. One major element of this is attendance at weekly worship. As Figure 3 shows, in the GSS, differences in moral beliefs about homosexual activity among evangelicals differs dramatically by church attendance. Even so, among those who attend weekly or more, over 10 percent said this activity was “not wrong at all.” Among even those who do so one to three times per month, only about half said it was “always wrong.” It is distressing how bad things are even among those who are pretty regular in their attendance habits.
Figure 3: Percentages of Evangelicals Indicating That “Sexual Relations Between Two Adults of the Same Sex” Are “Always Wrong” versus “Not Wrong at All.” GSS, 2016 + 2018 Only, by Church Attendance

The NSFG enables us to focus on younger evangelicals in more detail. It also lets us explore not only the role of church attendance, but another key measure of religious commitment—how important religion is in their daily lives.
Read More
Related Posts:

Practicing authentic truth and love at times means making people sad. Understanding that should be a basic requirement for anyone seeking to be a follower of Christ, and especially for those carrying ecclesiastical office. Seeking to sanctify what is a mirage is in the end neither true nor loving. We need more transcendent commitments than that.So the Bishop of Oxford has come out in support of same sex marriage – the most senior cleric in the Church of England so far to advocate for the church to bless and marry gay couples.
The bishop’s ‘journey’ on this follows a familiar path, a response that is primarily emotional, governed by the impact of his church’s decisions on the feelings of others.
“I need to acknowledge the acute pain and distress of LGBTQ+ people in the life of the Church,” he wrote.“I am sorry that, corporately, we have been so slow as a Church to reach better decisions and practice on these matters.“I am sorry that my own views were slow to change and that my actions, and lack of action, have caused genuine hurt, disagreement and pain.”
Contrast this with the more robust approach described by Carl Trueman in The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self.
If sex-as-identity is itself a category mistake, then the narratives of suffering, exclusion, and refusals of recognition based on that category mistake are really of no significance in determining what the church’s position on homosexuality should be…..

Written by I. C. Light |
Wednesday, November 10, 2021
It is clear that, regardless of whatever disclaimers they proffer, and whatever misgivings its members have expressed in the past concerning the church’s enthusiasm for partisan politics in the national sphere, the National Partnership has essentially become a political party within its own denomination. It is time that the leadership of the National Partnership at least own up to what is a clear distinction between what the emails reveal they have been doing, and what other dissimilar groups (like the GRN) do.

One of the more intriguing classes I took as a nascent undergraduate in business school was a two-credit-hour primer on common law. The instructor – a practicing attorney – availed himself of several opportunities to illustrate a concept that legal practitioners well understand namely, that activities which may be legal may not always be ethical.  For our purposes, one may assume that whatever abides by the letter of the law is legal, and that which abides by the spirit of the law may be considered ethical.  For the sake of my interest today, there’s another considerable aspect to the political-moral calculus – that of norms.  Norms are those conventions we adhere to in the social sphere that signal to others that we’re engaging them in good faith.  We do it as a means of reducing the burden of anxiety among all members of the group. For example, although it’s rarely codified, every culture has its own conception of what “personal space” means, and it makes us nervous when someone broaches ours.
The National Partnership, while established in “confidence,” is a clearly organized political apparatus within the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). The recently unveiled trove of 9 years’ worth of email communication among its members demonstrates at least this much.  No, it doesn’t reveal anything nefarious, per se, as one of its members pointed out in a blog post. And perhaps there is nothing unethical revealed, either. But it clear that the members of the National Partnership have expediently eschewed the political norms of the PCA in a way that doesn’t bode well for the seemliness of the church’s future political timbre – especially if their particular brand of politics becomes normalized in the PCA.
Another categorical distinction needs to be made, given that National Partnership members have publicly espoused the belief that their organizing efforts amount to nothing more than garden variety denominational politics. But many of us disagree on that point. There are politics and then there is realpolitik. Politics, writ large, is founded on principles that are essentially moral or ideological in nature. The one who engages in realpolitik, on the other hand, usually claims to be motivated by certain tenets, but doesn’t shrink back from questionable methodology so long as it achieves practical goals – even if long-held norms may be violated in the process. The manifold principle which undergirds PCA politics is that we be “Faithful to the Scriptures, True to the Reformed Faith, and Obedient to the Great Commission” – all well and good.  But realpolitik is what’s happening within the National Partnership, despite its many disclaimers to the contrary.
Browsing the emails in the leak, I was struck by the apparent lengths that the members of the National Partnership have gone in their own minds to convince themselves that they are not a political party. Its cognoscenti repeatedly assert that their purpose is not to function as a bloc. Given the blowback likely generated after one of the organization’s helmsmen made the bold proclamation: “if unified, we can win every vote [at this year’s GA]!” – it would have been a mere matter of future prudence to disclaim any intention to facilitate bloc voting. Apparently, they acknowledge that bloc voting is frowned upon in our ecclesiastical context, and it behooves such a group to ward off any accusations of impropriety or partisanship, especially since our milieu ought to be thoroughly animated by spiritual concerns.
But elsewhere in the of emails, the pretense that the NP disavows the practice of bloc voting was blown to smithereens by a terse plea from its leadership. Agitated by the loss of key votes during a meeting of the General Assembly, NP leadership emailed its members with an urgent plea for reinforcements: “Get into the hall and be counted!” Now, ask yourself – would you send out such an unmistakable signal if you weren’t certain that the recipients of such an email would vote along with you? (Hint: this is realpolitik.) The point is that the National Partnership doesn’t need to facilitate bloc voting because it is already assumed that its members will vote according to the “advice” issued ahead of the assembly, without respect to whether its members have any knowledge of or interest in the individuals for whom they are voting.
Another disturbing characteristic of the National Partnership, at least as far as it is represented in in the emails, is a conspicuous reference to miscellaneous “NP Presbyteries.”  This is the sort of ad-hoc terminology a person utilizes when he sees institutional capture as a legitimate means to the advancement of his agenda.  The emails also reveal that NP leadership make a regular habit of analyzing their numerical strength on various boards, committees, and presbyteries so as to prioritize where they ought best to marshal their resources for maximum political advantage. One particular email even boasts glowingly about the NP’s perceived ability to alter the composition of the Standing Judicial Commission in a way that they wouldn’t be able to, absent their activism (and bloc voting).  Again, this is realpolitik. 
In all fairness, realpolitik is exactly what we expect of our elected representatives.  We expect them to operate according to the agenda of whatever constituency supports them. But everyone knows that, while a governor may claim to want to “be a leader who governs on behalf of all Gondorians,” it is clear that their principles and mission stand in opposition to those of competing groups.  That is the norm in secular politics – it’s what you expect from your rotary club, HOA, or the United States Congress. But it is not, and ought not be the norm in the PCA – at least, that is, if we’re all going to carry in common the banner of being “Faithful to the Scriptures, True to the Reformed Faith, and Obedient to the Great Commission.”  And given the high ethical standard becoming of the members of Christ’s church, it could be unethical for churchmen to embrace realpolitik.
An NP member recently blogged that the content of the emails revealed much ado about nothing – that they merely confirmed what we’ve all known about the National Partnership for a long time.  I agree with him in substance, but I would say this is a bad thing, not a good thing. There is more at play in the emails than whether one statement or another crosses the “Ninth Commandment” line.  The question is not one of whether NP members brazenly broke the law of the Church, but one of the kind of ethics and norms the church should embrace. This should not be a logical leap for those who preach about living according to the spirit rather than the law.
A rift occurs when one group, having convinced themselves that they (and not others) are the true defenders of the “founders’ vision of the PCA.” This implicit claim, of course, is an unfalsifiable appeal to the authority of men (many of whom are no longer with us) who likely would have disagreed among themselves if they’d been asked what a faithful manifestation of their vision might look like 50 years later. (I remain unpersuaded that even the most “missional” among them ever envisioned that it might include ministers who identify themselves as “gay” in the public square, but that’s another story.)  But when members of a group adopt such a lofty self-conception as the National Partnership has, it’s not long before such a group becomes convinced that “denominational health” (how I wearied of seeing that phrase in the emails that I read!) ultimately depends upon the throughgoing implementation of one’s own high-minded agenda. The ends justify the means. After all, if others cared about reaching the lost as much as we do, then they would certainly agree with our methods.
There seems to be no openness within the National Partnership to the possibility that a broader conception of “denominational health” – one which reflects the opinions of the whole church, rather than the vision of the anointed few – might mean that certain aspirations in the National Partnership agenda are rejected according to the providential will of God.  There seems to be no room in the mind of NP leaders for a category of presbyter who knows his American church history and understands that small doctrinal compromises today will give way to larger compromises down the road, and that if we sacrifice orthodoxy for mission then eventually both will be lost – regardless of whether that sacrifice is misidentified as “contextualization.”
It is clear that, regardless of whatever disclaimers they proffer, and whatever misgivings its members have expressed in the past concerning the church’s enthusiasm for partisan politics in the national sphere, the National Partnership has essentially become a political party within its own denomination. It is time that the leadership of the National Partnership at least own up to what is a clear distinction between what the emails reveal they have been doing, and what other dissimilar groups (like the GRN) do.
In all fairness, having an annual fellowship dinner (like the NP does) that anyone can attend is open and aboveboard.  Conducting a webcasted conference (a la the GRN) in which speakers openly defend their positions on ecclesiastical matters, seeking to persuade others to think likewise, is also open and aboveboard. And as long as democracy is our modus operandi there will always be friends talking amongst teach other, exhorting one another to vote for the “good guy” whom they are assured will do a good job. This is normal in the course of politics as such.  Engagement with PCA polity in good faith means attending GA with the openness to having your mind changed by floor debates, and considering abstention from voting for men whom you know nothing about (or have only heard about from one group’s “advice”). This is organic engagement with the process according to its simplest possible conception in the trust that whatever providence comes about in the outcome of the process is truly God’s will and not the product of the sort of realpolitik which has become the norm in the secular sphere.
Secular politics is always subject to shifting norms, because it is usually a zero-sum game and its participants don’t share the same mission or presuppositions. This generates constant political innovation as each side tries to get an edge on its opponent. It also necessitates all manner of 2nd and 3rd order regulations to govern the use of these instruments so that matters don’t break down entirely.  But in the PCA, any inclination to establish an apparatus within the denomination – believing that, in so doing, a group can wield an outsized influence over the actual majority – ought to be resisted for the sake of the “denominational health” which National Partnership members claim to desire. Health, after all, is about the integrity with which the body works as a whole, not just what a subset of its high-minded members want.
The National Partnership ought to cease the realpolitik which they have thus far embraced, and they ought to do it publicly.  If the National Partnership really wants the “healthy denomination” they claim to want, they should abandon whatever political machinery they’ve thus far constructed, and its members should – in “good faith” – return to engaging the body politic according to the simplicity for which it was implemented.
Either that, or they should just go ahead and declare themselves to be a political party in order to alleviate the concerns of impropriety shared by those who would otherwise organize to oppose them. In other words, if realpolitik is going to be the norm, then let’s go ahead and formalize it.  Continued assertions that what the NP does are within the established norms of the PCA only turn the temperature up.  Again, nobody is asserting that what they’re doing is illegal in terms of the laws of the church, but it should be clear to all that they are at least in violation of norms that we’ve all embraced, at least until recently.
So far, many in the PCA who oppose the National Partnership’s agenda (including ranking members of the GRN) have expressed their distaste for these controversial and decidedly un-Presbyterian methods and declined to adopt them in tit-for-tat fashion.  But it stands to reason that if the National Partnership persists, then power politics of the most naked sort will inevitably become the modus operandi of the PCA’s courts. How would we feel about filibusters and cloture as part of our parliamentary procedure?  What about constant, obnoxious abuses of parliamentary procedure by those who well understand Robert’s Rules but believe that their vision of “denominational health” is just too important to God’s cause to abandon merely because it’s opposed by the majority?

C. Light is a member of the Presbyterian Church in America in the greater Dallas, Texas area.