In 2020, American civilization is witnessing a thorough-going accommodation to the LGBTQIA agenda.  [LGBTQIA=Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Queer (i.e., questioning their sexual identity), Intersex (i.e., those born gender-ambiguous), Asexual (i.e., sexuality is ill-defined)].  There is no longer significant discussion about the ethical values, virtues or standards associated with human sexuality.  There is no longer any meaningful weighing of the impact or confusion this creates for younger children or even teenagers.  The entire issue of human sexuality is now framed around the questions of rights and liberties.  The Postmodern pursuit of individual autonomy has become a near absolute.  Religious or theological considerations are completely irrelevant.

I have chosen to cite two examples of this accommodation—one political and one religious.

• First is political. Richard Grenell had served President Trump as ambassador to Germany.  But earlier in 2020, the president appointed Grenell as Acting Director of the United States National Intelligence.  Under his leadership, the US is considering cutting back on sharing intelligence with nations that criminalize homosexuality.  The goal is to prod these nations to change their laws.  Grenell is thought to be the first openly gay cabinet member, and, with the support of the Trump administration, has put anti-discrimination issues near the top of his agenda.  As ambassador to Germany he had assembled gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender groups from the US and other nations as part of the administration’s effort to change anti-gay laws.  Normally, it has been Democratic administrations which have tied human rights issues to national security issues.   But Grenell has made it a priority of the Trump administration.

Grenell argues that he has the backing of President Trump:  “We have the president’s total support.  This is an American value, and this is United States policy,” he declared.  About 69 countries criminalize homosexuality, mostly in the Middle East, Africa and Southeast Asia.  This group includes rather crucial US partners, among them Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kenya.  Grenell also has targeted discrimination within the American intelligence community:   In a recent letter he sent to the various agencies he oversees, Grenell said the intelligence community “needed to do better to detect, and respond to, discrimination and harassment of gay, lesbian and transgender people.”  This also means that Grenell is reviewing the security clearance process and the kinds of questions that contractors and FBI agents ask in background checks.  Until the 1980s, the US government denied security clearances to gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people, “under the belief that their sexual identity could be used to force them to give up secrets.”  Grenell has reached out to Stuart Milk, head of the Harvey Milk Foundation and the nephew of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official in a major American city.  Grenell and Milk want to be certain that discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people ends within the US intelligence community.

• Second is a religious example. The United Methodist Church (UMC) is organizing an official split over the LGBTQIA issue.   As Christianity Today reports, in 2019 the UMC General Conference officially strengthened its traditional position against same-sex marriage and married LGBT clergy.  This action prompted 11 liberal congregations to begin the process of leaving the denomination.  Eight regional UMC conferences have ordained clergy in defiance of that decision, and four have adopted resolutions to challenge the General Conference’s decisions.  Some congregations have withheld funding.  In the first six months of 2019, the denomination’s finances were down nearly $5 million, compared with the same period the previous year.  Several different plans have been considered by UMC officials, but it is certain that the UMC will officially divide between the “Traditionalists” and the “progressives.”  The African College of Bishops opposes any type of split, but lacks the votes to prevent it.  It now seems certain that the end of 2020, the UMC will officially decide to divide into two separate denominations—one supporting LGBT issues and one that argues the Bible does not permit legitimizing the LGBT agenda.  Doctrinal, theological or biblical teachings are subordinated by the “progressive” UMC leaders to accommodation to the LGBTQIA agenda.

How should we think about this accommodation?  Several thoughts:

• God created the human body and gender as a dimension of being in His image (Gen. 1:26-27)—“male and female He created them.” Gender is a specific, intentional feature of God’s creation.  Two complementary sexes (male and female) is the first mentioned fact in connection with the “image of God” concept.  In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus cites Genesis 1:27 as the normal pattern for marriage that God expects.  The Apostle Paul also cites Genesis 1:27 as the norm in Romans 1:23-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9.  The Creation Ordinance and both Jesus and Paul’s citation of this Ordinance strongly imply sexual intercourse as a bond between a man and a woman brought together in a “one-flesh” union.
• The LGBTQIA movement affirms that the primary identity of the human being is a sexual identity. And, gender is fluid and not singularly biological.  But, God created sexuality and the act of sexual intercourse is part of his design as well (Genesis 2:18-25).  Sin distorts and perverts everything about humanity, including sexuality and gender (see Romans 1:18-32).  God’s desire is that through His plan of salvation, we find our identity in Him—in Christ (used 216 times in Paul’s writing; 26 times in John’s), not in our gender or our sexuality.  The Creation Ordinance of God (in Genesis 1 and 2) and His plan of redemption are both anathema to the LGBTQIA agenda.
• In our Postmodern culture, Andy Crouch maintains, normative sexuality has been redefined: “From an essentially exterior reality uniting male and female bodies to an essentially interior reality expressing one’s heart, the charges of bigotry have been heard more fiercely against those who hold the traditional Christian view.  How dare we Christians speak against any person’s heart?” As Crouch argues, “both male and female bodies are of ultimate value and dignity—not a small thing given the continuing denigration of women around the world.”  It is a central axiom of biblical Christianity that sexual differentiation “(along with its crucial outcome of children, who have a biological connection to two parents but are not mirror images of either one) is not an accident of evolution or a barrier to fulfillment.  It is in fact the way God is imaged, and the way [that] fruitfulness, diversity, and abundance are sustained in the world.”
• Furthermore, the language of sexuality has been challenged. Presbyterian minister John P. Sartelle writes: “We are witnessing the deconstruction of a civilization.  Across our land, the major institutions that are foundational to any nation are in a downward spiral, whether we speak of education, government, business or the family. . . One of the characteristics of that fall is the decline in the civility of everyday language.”  The mores of culture are usually reflected in the language of that culture.  For that reason, Christians are usually out of sync with the language of culture because the mores of that culture are rejected by Christians.  The Apostle Paul understood this, for he wrote, “Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place” (Ephesians 5:4).  One of the marks of spiritual transformation in a believer’s life is the language that believer uses.  Speaking of the Corinthians, John R.W. Stott once made the point that “When believers rose up out of the environment of the ancient world, they rose up like flowers out of the mud.”  As Sartelle argues, “A morally bankrupt culture will use morally bankrupt language. . . Easy, perverse, and multiple sexual relationships have ‘dumbed’ sex down and taken our language with it.  The obscenity, vulgarity, and pornography of these lifestyles drag God-created sexuality through the sewer.  They are alien to healthy, fulfilling, and godly sexual relationships between husbands and wives.”

See Julian E. Barnes in the New York Times (23 April 2020) and Megan Fowler in Christianity Today (January/February 2020), pp. 27-28.