On Sexuality, Part 1: Finding A Common Definition for Sexuality and Homosexuality

Recently, my church did a sermon series on the topic of love and sexuality. Prior to that, it had been a solid seven years since the previous time I had heard any sermons about it (our leadership was simply led to focus on other topics). In both cases, though, the vast majority of the sermons were more about deconstructing the larger-picture beliefs (and lies) that we as a society have come to believe about love and sex (and God). My perception of the goal of the series arc was to begin more general and get more specific, to aim at deconstructing some of the larger lies that we've been led to believe as a society over the course of decades, and ultimately get to some of the core topics around love and sexuality that also have become unpopular and polarizing over time. Unfortunately, due to the coronavirus epidemic, my church, along with thousands of others, shut down and reverted to "online church." Not only that, but the sermon series was immediately scrapped in favor of another one that was more apropos for our time. As a result, I don't think my church quite was able to get to the core topics as promised.

Off of the "Love and Sexuality" sermon series, which ultimately spanned two and a half months, I felt led to examine some things on my own, both from Scripture and from the world, but also from my own experience and reflection. What I will share over the next few posts is a culmination (to date) of these thoughts and reflections in my head. To any Christian brothers and sisters reading this, I wish to remind you that I’m not a pastor. But even so, I won’t let that stop me from examining the sources from which much discord has been brought up. I cannot pretend that I’m trying to bring peace. Like what Jesus said, I likely am carrying a sword. But my hope is that my weapon slices away the lies and not the people affected by these lies. I cannot promise that this mission will go successfully, but I will try. Here we go...

Homosexuality is a difficult topic, for many reasons. The first reason is that we do not even agree on the definition of homosexuality. In fact, we do not agree on the definition of sexuality. Bring up the word in a typical American Evangelical church, and you’ll hear one definition. Bring up the word in a gay community, or heck, even a liberal/progressive place of worship, and you’ll get a completely different definition.

On Dictionary.com (insert link here), the official definition reads:

homosexuality (noun) 1. sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one’s own sex.

The definition provided is simple, but it is not clear. Here, it offers both: "desire or behavior.” But depending on who you talk to, the answer will be one or the other. Not both.

For kicks, here is the official definition of sexuality (insert link here):

sexuality (noun)

1. sexual character; possession of the structural and functional traits of sex. 
2. recognition of or emphasis upon sexual matters. 
3. involvement in sexual activity. 
4. an organism's preparedness for engaging in sexual activity. 

Ah. We see more layers to the word. Whereas “homosexuality” appears to have only one definition, “sexuality” somehow has four. Let’s take them point by point.

Definition 1: first off, "sexual character” sounds ambiguous to me. If I had to read into it with my frail human mind, “character” to me reads as one’s morality: “Does this person cheat?" "Does this person lie?" "Does this person steal?” And so on. One’s character to me means the content and quality of one’s heart. Now, let’s add the “sexual” context. Going off the same presumption that has been established about character (I mean, why would anyone not do the same?), I start thinking questions like: “Does this person cheat on the person they’re intimate with?” (i.e. commit adultery) “Does this person abuse the person they’re intimate with?” And so on.

[Some of you may be wondering why I'm using a looser definition of couplehood, such as "person they're intimate with," instead of "marriage partner." The short answer is that at this time I'm choosing to delve in slowly regarding some of the points that I will hit later in this blog series. Today, my aim is squarely to parse out the differences in the definitions of sexuality and homosexuality, and I'm willing to adjust some of the other terms to not excessively trigger those for whom I'm trying to make a case for the Bible.]

But those questions are important. I then go to the second half of that line: “possession of the structural and functional traits of sex.” Already sex is boiled down to only its physical parts, neglecting completely its emotional and spiritual components. The other thing that jumps out to me is that is feels disjointed from “sexual character.” Almost as if it is trying to dictate to us, the readers, what it thinks sexual character is, instead of what I believe it actually is (which I’ve covered up above, and will return to further down in this post). My guess is that this particular definition of “sexuality” seems to refer to one’s ability to have sex. "Have man parts? Have woman parts? OK, great, you have the ability to have sex with someone.” If I’m not mistaken, it seems to be a great definition for “sexuability,” but not “sexuality.” (???)

Definition 2: "recognition of or emphasis upon sexual matters.” So, another considered definition of sexuality is recognizing or emphasizing sexual matters. This is somewhat closer to the truth from the first definition, but its wording is still confusing, even after I boil it down a bit. According to this definition, I could choose to recognize or emphasize my own sexual matters, or that of someone else’s, and therefore that is considered my sexuality? (Hey, it doesn’t say “whose” sexual matters!) Regardless, this definition seems to tell me that as long as I recognize or emphasize anything that vaguely could be considered sex-related, that’s somehow considered part of my sexuality. (???)

Definition 3: “involvement in sexual activity." Here, one’s sexuality refers to the direct act of having sex. That’s the most clear definition I’ve seen. There is a minor ambiguity regarding the fact that it doesn’t specify that said activity is with another person or in isolation.

Definition 4: “an organism’s preparedness for engaging in sexual activity.” A couple red flags with this definition here: first, it reduces an adult human being to “an organism,” thereby stripping that person of his or her identity. I remember learning in middle school science that we all were considered organisms, but because the teacher didn’t harp on it, and because I wouldn’t consider myself saved at that point, I didn’t care. I care now because one of the main teachings I’ve been taught at the churches I’ve been to regularly is that God created us, and we matter to Him. Among other things, it means everyone has an identity. Not just “man” or “woman,” but a personality, character, quirks, gifts, dreams, etc.

The second red flag comes with the subsequent word, “preparedness.” Does this then imply that if one is not prepared for sex (a dubious claim in and of itself), that person has no sexuality? (???)

I originally had said a “bunch of red flags” came up with this definition, but the reality is that the other red flags come up when I look back on the previous definitions after seeing the last one. If one isn’t prepared for sexual activity (somehow), does that mean then that this person also has no sexual character, does not possess the functional traits of sex, and cannot recognize sexual matters in general, that of one’s own or that of others (I have already noted my confusion on that earlier). Given in this day and age with the #MeToo Movement, as well as cases of child sexual abuse coming to light (even children as young as mere months old!), it would seem to me that to the abuser, there is no age minimum. It also screams that, in the perspective of the abuser, there is no minimum threshold of sexual readiness. Yes, a very warped perspective, and I should also say that in no way do I ever support what these abusers do. My point in even bringing this up is that, because of sexual abusers, people who would otherwise be considered "sexually unready” still end up having sex, because of the abuses they were forced into.

What stands out to me is that a person should have the right to choose, specifically to say “no,” and it can be for any reason whatsoever. That is one of the main (although not the ultimate) boundaries, as far as I see it, regarding anything remotely representing one’s “preparedness for engaging in sexual activity.” If I were to even come up with a case of “sexual unreadiness,” it would be predicated on a person’s preference and desire not to engage.

The more I go through these definitions of the word “sexuality,” the more abundantly clear not only how confusing the word itself is, but also why so many are confused and offended when one suggests that the true definition of this word refers — and only refers — to the act of sex itself in regards to who one has it with.

I understand words and definitions of words naturally change over time. Before 2004, “friend” was always a noun; never a verb. (Thank you, Facebook…) But what saddens me is how a person can read the Bible and get upset over a word when the reality is that the word in the Bible is not the same word that said person has come to understand it to be. “Homosexuality” in the Bible simply does not include “who you are attracted to,” even if that’s more or less the definition the world has come to. And before I can move forward in even attempting to clarify what the Bible is actually saying, we have to get our definitions right.

So here is the definition of Biblical homosexuality, plain and simple, from five passages I found where it comes up (the emphases in bold are mine):

"Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” Leviticus 18:22, NIV

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Leviticus 20:13, NIV

"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” Romans 1:27, NIV

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NIV

"We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.” 1 Timothy 1:9-11, NIV

In summation, the definition of homosexuality in the Bible is plain and simple: “men who have sex with men.” That’s it. In the Bible, it doesn’t talk about all the other things that the world wants to bring up in the discussion about any kind of sexuality, let alone homosexuality. To be clear: when the Bible uses or refers to the words "sexuality" or "homosexuality," it doesn’t talk about attraction, it doesn’t talk about romance, and it most definitely doesn’t talk about the identity of the aforementioned men. It doesn’t even talk about whether the sexual act was consensual or not. All it refers to is the act of sex itself, and often in context with other acts of sex. Particularly in Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20, if you read the context, you’ll notice that there are other sexual “don’ts” listed, including quite a few about which members of the opposite sex one should not have sex with. As far as I can tell, when I read those Bible passages in their proper context, it is clear that God doesn’t “pick on the gays."

The last bit of context I feel I need to point in this post specifically, is that everything I’ve talked about here is only about sex. Marriage is a different topic, but it is also one that overlaps, because, well, married people do tend to have sex. With each other. And that is not only OK, but approved by God. As a Bible-believing Christian, I do believe God invented sex, just like He invented and made the universe. And the reality is that, because He made the universe, including the earth and all of us, He gets to make up the rules, and we have to follow them. So when I draw a line and use Scripture, my whole point is going to very much include pointing the conversation back to the question of whether there is a God or not. Because in a godless world, anything goes. (“It’s our world and nobody else’s!”) But if we are truly in a world — in a universe — where not only is there a God but it’s the God of the Bible, then any idea of engaging in sexual activity with another member of the same sex, or anyone else that is not our opposite-sex life partner for that matter, it pisses God off. It hurts Him. He cares about us, even when we don’t care about Him. Punishing us and sending us to hell for our wounds against Him is something He will only do as a last resort, but He will do it if we repeatedly say “[bleep] you!” to Him.

While my church chose, in their sermon series on love and sexuality, to start general and ultimately move toward the specific as the series went on, I have chosen to do the opposite. A part of this is because a friend of mine had expressed displeasure over my church's method, wanting instead to know what my church's stance on this topic instead of appearing to beat around the bush. My intent with this series on sexuality is to start with this topic, and then go outward. I will at some point hint at why, personally, I have chosen to do it this way.

In future posts, I will also address Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20; I will address the the tunnel vision around homosexuality (a result of the confusion of the definitions of the terms) and how it's prevented us from being able to see God's sexuality on the whole; and I will also address the real issue around marriage and how it has devolved over time to where it is now.