Should Christians De‑Throne Heterosexuality?

Is there really such a thing as a heterosexual, homosexual, or even bisexual person?

That probably sounds like an absurd question because sexual identity has become so central to how we view ourselves and others. But have you ever stopped to ask why this is? Have you ever wondered how and when sexual orientation became such a clear and fixed category in our minds?

Maybe an example will clarify my point. It’s a fact of history that homosexual practices were common in ancient Greece. There’s even evidence that some may have had exclusive desires for the same sex. But no one looked at such people and said, “Oh, they’re a homosexual”. As historian Robert A. Padgug explains, “Sexual categories which seem so obvious to us, those which divide humanity into ‘heterosexuals’ and ‘homosexuals’, seem unknown to the ancient Greeks.” ¹

“Sexual categories which seem so obvious to us, those which divide humanity into ‘heterosexuals’ and ‘homosexuals’, seem unknown to the ancient Greeks.” ¹

So, if the ancients didn’t differentiate people or identify them according to their sexual acts or desires, why is so much of our identity, sense of self, and personhood anchored to the direction of our sexual attractions and behaviours today?

The Invention of Heterosexuality

Today everyone just accepts as scientific fact that sexual orientation is a fixed and fundamental aspect of human nature. Christians by-and-large also accept this cultural assumption, but predominantly believe that heterosexuality is what expresses God’s original design for human sexuality. But does it?

Did you know that the term ‘heterosexual’ didn’t even exist until the late 1800s? And when it was originally coined, it was actually viewed as a form of sexual deviance because it described the pursuit of erotic passions for their own sake, detached from the biblical/traditional object of procreation and family. By the early 1900s, however, it had entered mainstream consciousness as the socially accepted standard of opposite-sex attraction. So, what caused this shift? In a word: Freud.

Like Darwin, Sigmund Freud believed that human nature could be explained by purely natural causes. For Freud, the natural driver of human nature was pleasure. And since sexual gratification was arguably the greatest source of pleasure, he concluded that humanity evolved to “seek the satisfaction of happiness in his life along the paths of sexual relations and that he should make genital erotism the central point of his life.” ¹ In Freud’s mind, human beings were essentially sexual beings whose natures were organized along the lines of their erotic desires.

Through this atheistic, evolutionary lens, sexual passions took centre stage in theories of psychological development, becoming even more important that the sexual acts themselves. Freud believed that examining inner sexual thoughts and desires held the key to truly understanding who and what people really were. This made sexual feelings, not acts, “definitive of who we are, as individuals, as societies, and as a species.” ² And with sexual feelings becoming so central to our psychological sense of self, the orientation of those feelings became vital not simply for designating kinds of sexual behaviours, but kinds of people.

Freud believed that examining inner sexual thoughts and desires held the key to truly understanding who and what people really were.

Couching his work in the language of research gave Freud’s theories an air of scientific credibility. But Freud’s work also reflected the moral sensibilities of the day. By using words like “normal” when referring to heterosexual desires, and “degenerate”, “invert”, and “perversion” when referring to homosexual desires, by the mid 20^th century, heterosexual orientation came to be seen as the scientifically validated, socially acceptable standard for healthy, normal, human sexuality.

For Christians, it was helpful that this scientifically validated form of sexuality at least bore resemblance to God’s design for sex, making the church happy enough to adopt this newly established heterosexual norm. But the resemblance was only partially true, which meant that it was also partially false.

De-Throning Heterosexuality

As Christians, it’s important that we recognize this secular origin for the concept of sexual orientation. It is an unbiblical framework for understanding sexuality, let alone our sense of identity and nature. And perhaps the best way for us to expose this, emersed as we are in our sex-oriented culture, begins with deconstructing the concept of heterosexuality.

The first thing to recognize is that heterosexual orientation (like any sexual orientation) is built on a false, Freudian, “secular anthropology”.

The first thing to recognize is that heterosexual orientation (like any sexual orientation) is built on a false, Freudian, “secular anthropology”. As Christopher Yuan points out, it encourages seeing sexual desires as a “legitimate way to categorize people”. It further encourages us to identify ourselves by “our sexual desires and behaviours.” ³

But the true, biblical definition of personhood is “image bearer”. ⁴ As image bearers, exercising our sexuality is instrumental to bearing God’s image. But it isn’t essential. Meaning that our sexual passions have the potential to glorify God both through faithfully exercising them in biblical marriage and withholding their exercise in singleness. Go and read 1 Corinthians 6:19,20, and Romans 12:1 and let that sink in.

Second, the fact that heterosexuality as an orientation also encompasses things like adultery, fornication, lust, porn use, rape, romantic fanaticizing, etc., should tell us just how bankrupt the sexual orientation framework is for shaping a biblical view of sexuality. It should be plain to see that the mere fact that our sexual desires qualify as heterosexual is no benchmark for God-honouring sexuality. We need a different lens to look through. And we have one. It’s called holiness.

Recovering a Biblical Orientation Framework

Christopher Yuan recovers what I think is a truly biblical framework for God honouring sexuality. Not heterosexual vs. homosexual, but sinful vs. holy. He says, “Holy sexuality consists of two paths: chastity in singleness and faithfulness in marriage. Chastity is more than simply abstention from extramarital sex; it conveys purity and holiness. Faithfulness is more than merely maintaining chastity and avoiding illicit sex; it conveys covenantal commitment. Both of these embody the only correct biblical sexual ethic and unambiguously articulate the exact expression of sexual behaviour that God blesses.” ⁵

…if we continue using the secular categories of sexual orientation, we will also inadvertently import the false belief that the object of our sexual desires tells us something fundamental and important about who and what God made us to be.

But if we continue using the secular categories of sexual orientation, we will also inadvertently import the false belief that the object of our sexual desires tells us something fundamental and important about who and what God made us to be. This can cause no end of angst and error for Christians who feel their continued struggle with same-sex attraction. But it can also deceive Christians with opposite-sex desires into believing their sexuality automatically meets with God’s approval so long as they save sex for marriage. But how can this be when apart from Christ none of our desires are free from the impact of sin? Yes, marriage is God’s intended arena for holy sexuality. But merely confining sex to marriage does not automatically make it holy. Even in marriage Christians must take seriously the daily work of putting sinful sexual desires to death and replacing them with holy ones.

Holiness: The Great Equalizer

So, in answer to our opening question: “No, God does not want us to be heterosexual.” That might sound strange and maybe even heretical, but hopefully by now you’re beginning to see the truth in it. Apart from Christ, all sexual desire, like every other desire, is born from our sin nature. The only orientations for self-understanding life in Christ then are sin-orientation vs. holy-orientation.

This wonderfully levels the playing field for the important discussions regarding sex and sexuality we need to be having in the church. There’s no room for grading, grouping, or differentiating Christians by their sexual attractions. We’re all sexual sinners. Therefore, our sexual desires fall into the same program as every other desire that belongs to our sin nature. We put them to death, submitting ourselves instead to the Holy Spirit who wants to remake and re-purpose every aspect of our being for His holy purpose, namely the glory of Jesus. (cf. Romans 8:13; Colossians 3:5). This creates a single sexual program for every believer regardless of where they are starting from. Not heterosexuality, but holiness, which to quote Yuan again means “chastity in singleness and faithfulness in marriage.”

Notes

1. Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, trans. James Strachey (New York: W.W.Norton, 1989), 56.
2. Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, p. 242.
3. Christopher Yuan, “What is the Opposite of Homosexuality? – Why Marriage is Not My Mission”, desiringgod.org, Jan 12, 2019.
4. Genesis 1:26,27; 9:6.
5. Christopher Yuan, Holy Sexuality: Sex, Desire, and Relationships Shaped by God’s Grand Story, p. 47.