A growing number of progressive theologians and social commentators argue that Jesus would have supported the LGBTQ movement. Their rationale is based not on clear biblical teaching, but on selective storytelling:
Jesus was a friend of tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners. He loved the marginalized. He would have loved and affirmed LGBTQ people too.
This line of thinking appeals to the emotional instinct of justice and kindness, and implies that to love someone means to approve of their identity and behavior. By extension, to call LGBTQ people to repentance is presented as a betrayal of Jesus’ example.
But this argument commits a grave hermeneutical error: it confuses proximity with approval and compassion with compromise. The Jesus of the Gospels—fully God and fully man, the Second Person of the Trinity—is not a cultural therapist. He is the Savior-King who calls all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30).
To understand Jesus rightly, we must interpret His actions and words through the lens of hermeneutics: the faithful interpretation of Scripture.
Hermeneutics: Reading with the Author’s Intent
Hermeneutics is the discipline of interpreting Scripture rightly by:
- Honoring the intent of the original author
- Respecting historical context
- Integrating all of Scripture, not just parts
- Letting Scripture interpret Scripture
- Seeking moral and theological consistency
In this article, we will use these tools to evaluate the claim that Jesus “affirmed” sinners in their sin, and by extension, that He would affirm LGBTQ identities today. What we’ll find is not a therapeutic Jesus who validates modern identity politics—but a sovereign Christ who extends grace with a demand for change.
The Progressive Argument: Jesus Affirmed the Outcast
Those promoting LGBTQ inclusion in the church often say:
Jesus hung out with the marginalized. He ate with prostitutes and tax collectors. He didn’t condemn them—He welcomed them. Shouldn’t we do the same for LGBTQ people today?
Their key supporting points include:
- Jesus’ table fellowship with “sinners” (Luke 5:29–32)
- The woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11)
- His refusal to shun lepers or the ritually unclean
- His critique of Pharisaic legalism (Matthew 23)
These stories are interpreted to mean that:
- Jesus prioritizes inclusion over moral conformity
- Religious rules oppress marginalized people
- Repentance is optional, or at least secondary
- Modern categories like sexual orientation or gender identity are analogous to ancient social exclusion
But each of these assumptions collapses under faithful exegesis.
Hermeneutical Examination: What Did Jesus Really Do?
Jesus Loved Sinners—But Always Called Them to Repent
Jesus’ love is undeniable. But so is His call to repentance.
“I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”
—Luke 5:32
This is the very passage cited by advocates of “affirmation.” But the key word is repentance. Jesus didn’t call sinners to feel good about themselves—He called them to be changed.
The Adulterous Woman: “Go, and Sin No More”
In John 8, Jesus famously says:
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
But His final words are crucial:
“Go, and from now on sin no more.”
—John 8:11
There is no permission to continue in immorality. He disarms the mob and extends grace—but not tolerance of sin. He forgives with a demand for holiness.
Table Fellowship: More Than Inclusion
Eating with sinners in Jesus’ day was shocking—but not because of “affirmation.” It was radical mercy, designed to:
- Display God’s initiative in saving the lost
- Invite transformation (see Luke 15:1–7)
- Offend self-righteousness, not morality
When Jesus dines with Zacchaeus (Luke 19), the tax collector repents and pays restitution. When Levi follows Him, he leaves behind his corrupt profession (Luke 5:27–28). Inclusion was never the end goal—redemption was.
The Leper and the Clean
Jesus touched the untouchables—but to cleanse them, not normalize their condition (Mark 1:40–45). The idea that this act analogizes LGBTQ affirmation is a category error. Being ritually unclean (like a leper) is not the same as engaging in moral rebellion (like sexual immorality).
Jesus’ Definition of Sin and Identity
Jesus Affirmed the Law—Including Sexual Morality
Jesus did not nullify the Law. In fact, He upheld and intensified it:
“You have heard… ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you…”
—Matthew 5:27–28
He also affirmed the male-female binary:
“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female…”
—Matthew 19:4
His view of human identity was rooted in creation, not cultural categories. He reaffirmed Genesis, not deconstructed it.
The Real “Marginalized”: The Spiritually Bankrupt
Progressives define “marginalized” as:
- The sexually diverse
- The racially oppressed
- The socially ostracized
But Jesus defines the blessed as:
- The poor in spirit
- The mourning
- The meek
- The hungry for righteousness (Matthew 5:3–6)
He marginalizes the proud, not those who know their sin. Being LGBTQ is not the same as being meek or spiritually contrite. The former often demands approval; the latter seeks mercy.
The Call to Self-Denial
“If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.”
—Luke 9:23
This is the anti-affirmation verse. Jesus doesn’t validate inner desires. He tells us through Paul to crucify them (Galatians 5:24).
This includes:
- Sexual desires contrary to God’s design
- Gender dysphoria
- Identity built on feelings or social categories
Created Design and the Misuse of “Marginalization”
Biology Still Speaks: Form Reflects Function
To say that LGBTQ people are marginalized like lepers or the disabled is not only hermeneutically false—it ignores biology.
God designed male and female with:
- Complementary sexual organs
- Reproductive compatibility
- Distinct but complementary roles in family and society
Same-sex relationships, while emotionally sincere, do not align with the body’s created purpose. This has real consequences:
- Male-male sexual acts often result in tissue damage, exposure to fecal bacteria, and elevated risk of STDs.
- Female-female unions simulate what was not designed to occur, often requiring substitutional or artificial sexual expressions.
- Transgender transitions medically violate the body’s created form, often resulting in sterilization, irreversible damage, and long-term psychological trauma.
God’s design is not arbitrary. The body affirms what Scripture reveals: male and female were created to unite, not to interchange or replace.
Marginalization Doesn’t Equal Righteousness
Jesus indeed ministered to the broken, but He never suggested that being outcast from society made one righteous in God’s eyes.
He did not:
- Excuse the woman at the well’s sexual sin (John 4)
- Overlook the man healed at Bethesda (John 5:14—“sin no more”)
- Ignore the rich young ruler’s idolatry (Mark 10:21–22)
Marginalization often exposes sin—it does not justify it.
Regeneration and the New Birth: Jesus’ True Invitation
The ultimate error in the LGBTQ-affirming reading of Jesus is the failure to understand His goal. He did not come to:
- Validate our self-understanding
- Affirm our identity as defined by culture
- Normalize desires that flow from a fallen nature
He came to make us new.
“Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
—John 3:3
To be born again is to:
- Receive a new heart (Ezek. 36:26)
- Be spiritually transformed (Titus 3:5)
- Bear the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23)
- Walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4)
This includes leaving behind sinful identities, not integrating them into our theology.
The LGBTQ Identity vs. Christian Identity
Our culture says:
“Your sexuality is who you are.”
Jesus says:
“Whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.”
—Matthew 16:25
A born-again believer does not keep an identity associated with his sin in addition to Christ. He takes on a new one: in Christ.
Paul didn’t say:
“Such are some of you…”
He said:
“Such were some of you. But you were washed, sanctified, justified…”
—1 Corinthians 6:11
Rebuttal Summary
Let’s revisit the core claim:
“Jesus affirmed the marginalized, including LGBTQ people.”
Progressive Assumption:
- Inclusion = Affirmation
- Compassion = Validation
- Sin = Social Construct
- Identity = Inner Desire
Biblical Truth:
- Inclusion = Call to Repentance
- Compassion = Call to Holiness
- Sin = Rebellion Against God’s Design
- Identity = Image-Bearing Redeemed in Christ
Jesus welcomed sinners—but never affirmed their sin. He reached down to lift people up, not to leave them where they were.
Conclusion: A Loving Call to Repentance
Yes, Jesus loved the marginalized. But He loved them enough to call them out of darkness and into light.
- He came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10)
- He preached repentance and faith (Mark 1:15)
- He gave His life to redeem sinners, not to comfort them in rebellion
The narrative that “Jesus would affirm LGBTQ people” is not found in Scripture. It is found in a culture that wants Christ without the cross—a kingdom without a King.
The real Jesus:
- Touches the leper—and cleanses him
- Dines with sinners—and converts them
- Dies for sin—and destroys its power
Let us love sinners like Jesus did:
- With open arms
- With truth-filled speech
- And with a gospel that transforms, not just includes
There is hope. There is mercy. But there is also a call:
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matt. 4:17)
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
MMXXV
christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com
RELATED CONTENT
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
If I have listed the content, I think it is worthwhile viewing to educate yourself on the topic, but it may contain coarse language or some opinions I don’t agree with.
Realize that I sometimes use phrases like “trans man”, “trans woman”, “transgender” , “transition” or similar language for ease of communication. Obviously, as a conservative Christian, I don’t believe anyone has ever become the opposite sex. Unfortunately, we are forced to adopt the language of the left to discuss some topics without engaging in lengthy qualifying statements that make conversations awkward.
“Progressive” is another such word. I don’t believe that “Progressives” are a positive movement. “Progressive” is a euphemism for wokeness, Neo-Marxism, or “political correctness”.
“Progressive” in this sense is actually corruptive and harmful to mankind. “Progressive Christianity” is an anti-Christian movement that reflects apostasy.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots. You can always send me an email at christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.
I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.