Can Loving the LGBTQ+ Community Come With Conditions?

Baylor University reversed its decision last week to receive a grant studying LGBTQ+ individuals and women who have experienced trauma within the church.  The study could have provided a much-needed curriculum to help both groups with their trauma. Since that decision was announced, a plethora of columns and conversations have emerged about the university’s relationship with its LGBTQ+ students, alumni and neighbors.

As I read, listened, and watched these conversations unfold, I began to notice a recurring argument coming from Christians advocating for a “traditional” or “biblical” view on human sexuality. Since the debate about Christian scripture and its application has stalled between non-affirming and affirming folks, and culture at large has become more affirming of LGBTQ+ people, an attempt to rephrase the discussion is emerging that I find both interesting and concerning.  

I’m hearing the following more and more from the non-affirming side: “This is a matter of different scriptural interpretations. My belief does not make me a bigot nor an agent of hate.” Hmmmm … interesting.  

The rephrasing of the conversation appears to be an attempt to shift the dialogue away from the ethics of human sexuality and gender identity to a debate on the equivalence of beliefs.  

Non-affirming Christians want their “traditional” or “biblical” belief to be held in equivalence to an affirming belief. They want to claim that a non-affirming belief can have “unconditional love” for the LGBTQ+ community, while at the same time stating the Bible condemns homosexuality—a rejection, in my opinion, of someone’s personhood.  

Non-affirming Christians are growing increasingly frustrated with affirming Christians’ inability to understand how non-affirming beliefs can hold love and condemnation alongside one another. I know that was confusing, so let me restate it.  

Non-affirming theology seeks to argue that it can conditionally practice unconditional love. There is a distinct disconnect in this type of logic. How can love be separated from belief and action?  

The Apostle James wrote: “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Surely that faith cannot save, can it? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,’ and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (2:14-17).

James appears to argue that faith (the Greek word pistis, meaning belief) is proven through one’s works (the Greek word ergon, meaning actions). In the apostle’s reasoning, faith (belief) and works (actions) cannot be separated. Non-affirming and affirming beliefs will be known by their works.  

Jesus said it this way: “You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit” (Matthew 7:16-17).

Now, at this point, I need to make some clarifications. I do not think every non-affirming Christian is a bigot or a bad person. The ones I know personally are wonderful and genuine people.  

However, I do hold to the claim that their theology is flawed, one based on privilege, superiority and exclusion.  

When Jesus gave the world the Great Commandment, he said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind and your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27).

For Jesus, love was not just a belief; it was an action proven by the fruit it bears. Love cannot just be a verbal declaration; it must be demonstrated through both divine and human interactions.  

And what kind of love is Jesus talking about?  

Eros? No.

Philia?  No.

Agape? Yes.

And what is agape love? Unconditional.

Merriam-Webster defines unconditional as “absolute and unqualified.” And here is where we find even more conflict.  

Non-affirming theology claims it can hold unconditional love for the LGBTQ+ community, while placing conditions on accepting them into their churches and institutions. Doesn’t that sound like a contradiction at best or hypocritical at worst? Doesn’t it sound like non-affirming theology wants to make the claim it loves unconditionally (which we’ve already proven is both belief and action), while placing conditions on it?

Herein lies one of the primary reasons I walked away from the theological gymnastics of placing conditions on unconditional love. For me, it simply did not square with my understanding of God or the teachings of Jesus.

Therefore, can non-affirming and affirming theologies stand beside one another equally? Is it really just a difference in biblical interpretations?

For me, they are not equal and go far beyond a simple difference in interpretation. We either love unconditionally or we don’t.

I’ve chosen to love unconditionally, which for me, simply means accepting and affirming the LGBTQ+ community without any conditions or qualifications. Loving them unconditionally means accepting and affirming them as part of my community.

God created my LGBTQ+ family and friends perfectly without flaws, so who am I and who are you to say otherwise?