Beyond LGBTQIA* Pride
Beyond Beautiful: Disability, Liberation, Love
Season 3, Episode 9 - Beyond LGBTQIA* Pride
🧭 Episode Summary
What happens when your faith and your identity collide?
In this deeply personal episode, Mandi reflects on her journey as a queer Christian, the pain of losing her faith family after coming out, and why she chose to deepen rather than abandon her relationship with God.
Mandi explores the expansiveness of God's love, the importance of cultural and historical context when interpreting Scripture, and the ways Christians have applied that context to many biblical teachings while often refusing to do so when discussing sexuality.
She also begins breaking down the passages most often used to condemn LGBTQIA+ people, including Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 & 20, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1.
This isn't an episode about changing hearts or winning an argument. It's an invitation to listen, question, and consider another perspective.
There is room for faith, questions, queerness, and your whole self.
💬 Key Themes
Queerness and Christianity can coexist
The grief of losing your faith family
Taking Scripture seriously enough to ask harder questions
The history and cultural context of biblical language
The “clobber passages”
Queer liberation as part of disability justice
🚨Partnership
Intersectional Access has a partnership with Buoy, a company that creates hydration drops designed to support people living with chronic illnesses and conditions where maintaining hydration is especially important. Before agreeing to collaborate, I reached out to my community to hear about their experiences, and many people shared that Buoy has been helpful for managing symptoms and staying hydrated. One thing that stood out to me is their Chronic Illness Support Program, which offers people living with chronic illness 35% off their orders for life. If you use my referral link, you’ll Up to 31% off + free dopp kit on first order over $40. Everyone else will receive 20% off their orders. I do earn a small commission from purchases made through the link, and that support helps sustain the podcast and the work I do to amplify disability-centered conversations. Use this Referral Link.
📜 Full Transcript
Mandi: Welcome to Beyond Disability Liberation Love. I'm Mandi, your Queer Christian Disabled host.
Buoy Advertisement
Mandi: Today's episode, I want to acknowledge a few things. First, I want to give a trigger warning, as some of the things discussed, like the topics and the language used, can be triggering for some folks. So please be sure to take care of yourselves and pause if you need to.
This conversation also isn't for everyone. Some people may not be ready to hear the things that I'm about to share. Some of you may even disagree with me, and some of you may decide this episode isn't one you want to continue listening to.
And that's okay.
The purpose of this episode isn't to change your mind or your heart. That's not my job. It isn't to win an argument or to convince anyone to adopt my theology.
Like every episode of this podcast, this conversation is offered through my own lens, my lived experience, my relationship with God, and the study that has shaped me over the last few years.
If my story helps someone else feel less alone, if it helps someone ask deeper questions, or reminds even one person that they are loved by God, then this episode has done exactly what I hoped it would do.
The content in today's episode was originally intended to be discussed in a live workshop, but as I shared with folks in my Beyond Beautiful Collective group, I had to pivot. And so this content may not go as deep as it would in a live session and will provide more of an overview and a high-level understanding of the theology that I have adopted that is both affirming to my disability identity and my identity as a queer person.
So today we're talking about faith, queerness, and breaking biblical barriers.
Coming out as queer wasn't the hardest part. Losing my faith family was.
I expected disagreement. I expected questions. What I wasn't prepared for was feeling like people looked at me as though I had become spiritually contagious, as though my queerness somehow tainted everything around me.
My relationships changed. People who had once prayed with me stopped trusting me. People who knew my heart suddenly believed they knew my soul better than I did.
That kind of rejection doesn't just hurt; it causes grief. And I experienced deep grief, especially when it comes from people you've worshiped alongside.
Many people assumed I moved away from God. But the truth is, I was moving closer to God.
My relationship with God became deeper than it had ever been, not because I abandoned Scripture, but because I immersed myself in it.
I still hold many convictions people would describe as conservative. I still take Scripture seriously, and I still believe following Jesus requires sacrifice. But I've also come to understand something beyond beautiful: that God's love is far more expansive than I had imagined. God's grace is deeper and God's mercy is wider. God's character is richer than the boxes I tried to place God in.
I didn't begin studying because I wanted permission to be queer. I studied because I wanted to know the truth.
That journey led me to question biblical translations, historical context, and how cultural assumptions influence the way we read Scripture.
One of the questions that caught my attention was why the English word "homosexual" did not appear in Bible translations until the mid-20th century. Exploring the history of that translation decision opened the door to a much larger conversation about language, culture, and interpretation.
Whether or not someone ultimately agrees with affirming theology, I think it's worth asking honest questions about how translation choices are made and how those choices shape our understanding.
One thing that challenged me was realizing how often Christians already interpret Scripture through historical and cultural context.
Most Christians don't believe we must follow every Old Testament dietary restriction. Most don't believe tattoos, mixed fabrics, or certain hairstyles automatically separate us from God. Many recognize that some biblical instructions addressed particular cultures and historical circumstances.
So I began asking: Why do we readily acknowledge cultural context in some passages but resist considering it when discussing sexuality?
That question became an invitation to study more deeply, not to dismiss Scripture, but to understand it more faithfully.
There are several passages that have traditionally been used to condemn same-sex relationships. Rather than rushing through them, I want to slow down and ask: What was happening historically? Who was being addressed? What do the original languages communicate? How have different Christian scholars understood these passages?
I'm not asking anyone to abandon Scripture. I'm inviting us to read it carefully, humbly, and with an awareness that faithful Christians have wrestled with these questions for generations.
Let's start with Genesis 19, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
In its traditional interpretation, many Christians have been taught that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality. The men of Sodom surround Lot's house and demand, "Bring them out to us so that we may know them." Some people interpret "know" to have a sexual connotation and conclude the passage condemns same-sex relationships.
When I studied this passage more deeply, I noticed something.
The story isn't describing two adults in a loving, mutual relationship. It's describing an attempted gang rape.
Throughout the ancient Near East, rape, especially of men, was often used as a weapon of domination, humiliation, and violence.
The sin isn't intimacy. It's violence, abuse, power. It's inhospitality toward vulnerable strangers.
Later Scripture tells us why Sodom was judged. In Ezekiel 16:49–50 we read, "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."
Notice what's missing. There's no mention of loving same-sex relationships. Instead, the prophets repeatedly condemned Sodom for injustice, arrogance, exploitation, and violence.
If Genesis 19 isn't describing a covenantal same-sex relationship, then maybe we need to be careful about using this passage to condemn one.
Let's next look at Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. These are probably the verses most people immediately think of: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman."
Many conclude this permanently forbids all same-sex intimacy.
Leviticus sits within the Holiness Code. This section also contains commands about eating, menstruation, fabrics, agricultural practices, ritual purity, hair, and beards.
As Christians, we already recognize that we don't follow every law in Leviticus. In the same way, the question becomes why Israel was called to be distinct from surrounding nations.
Many scholars believe these laws addressed ritual purity, idolatrous worship, and preserving Israel's identity. There are also discussions about gender hierarchy in the ancient world.
Some scholars argue the prohibition reflects concerns about treating a man like a woman, which carried cultural shame within a patriarchal society. Others disagree and see the prohibition as universally moral.
This is one of those places where faithful Christians reach different conclusions.
What challenged me wasn't simply the verse. It was realizing that Christians already discern which Old Testament laws continue under the New Covenant and which don't.
That made me ask deeper questions.
Now let's look at Romans 1.
This is often considered the strongest New Testament argument. Paul describes same-sex acts as "against nature," and many conclude that this settles the discussion.
Romans 1 is part of a larger argument that continues into Romans 2 and Romans 3. Paul spends chapter one describing pagan idolatry, then immediately turns toward religious readers and essentially says, "You think this is about them? Let's talk about you."
Romans 3 concludes, "All have sinned." Paul's larger argument is universal human need for grace.
Many scholars note that Paul's cultural context included temple prostitution, exploitative relationships, pederasty, sexual excess among elites, and idol worship.
There is debate over whether Paul had loving, lifelong same-sex partnerships in view. Some scholars say yes; others argue no.
One thing I kept asking myself was: Would Paul have imagined two Christians entering a lifelong covenant marked by love, fidelity, and mutual submission? Or was he describing the exploitative sexual practices common in the Roman Empire?
1 Corinthians 6:9 introduces one of the most debated Greek words Paul uses: malakoi and arsenokoitai.
Malakoi literally means "soft." Elsewhere it refers to soft clothing. It was also used culturally to criticize men viewed as weak or lacking self-control. Its meaning is debated.
Arsenokoitai—this word is extremely rare. Paul may have coined it because it appears so infrequently. Scholars disagree on its precise meaning.
Proposed translations include male exploiters, economic exploitation, sexual exploitation, and men who have sex with men. There isn't universal agreement.
The English word "homosexual" wasn't used in many Bible translations until the mid-20th century. That doesn't prove affirming theology, but it does remind us that translation is interpretation.
Words matter.
Now let's look at 1 Timothy 1:10. Again, the word arsenokoitai appears. The same interpretive questions remain.
Many scholars believe Paul is condemning exploitative sexual behavior. Others believe he is broadly prohibiting same-sex acts.
This is another place where Christians faithfully disagree.
None of these passages describe what I understand healthy relationships or even marriage to be. None describe two people entering a lifelong covenant marked by love, faithfulness, mutual sacrifice, and commitment to Christ.
That realization changed everything for me.
The Bible never discusses sexual orientation the way we understand it today. Ancient writers certainly discussed same-sex sexual acts, but they did not have a modern concept of sexual orientation or identity.
For me, this wasn't about finding loopholes or asking less of Scripture.
It was about whether I had inherited interpretations that reflected God's heart or whether I needed to return to the text with fresh humility.
I didn't stop taking the Bible seriously.
I started taking it seriously enough to ask harder questions.
Thank you so much for tuning in to this episode.
You may have noticed that I've been gone for a while, and I did not start the introduction of the show acknowledging that this episode was actually recorded back in June. But I had to take an unexpected hiatus this summer from podcasting.
So thank you to everyone who has caught up on episodes and is looking forward to upcoming shows.
I'm really excited to share that I am now back and will continue to alternate between solo reflections and guest interviews this season. We'll wrap up with Episode 13, so you can expect a few more episodes in Season Three.
Then I'll take a two-week pause and come back with Season Four, where we'll have exciting new guest interviews and even more opportunities to discuss disability justice and all that intersectionality includes.
I'm really looking forward to hearing your reflections and your thoughts, and I'm so grateful to everyone who has reached out over the summer to check in on me and who has taken the time to catch up on previous episodes.
And remember, disability, liberation, love are always beyond beautiful.
💌 Stay Connected
You’re invited to join the Beyond Beautiful Collective on Facebook or follow along on Instagram at Intersectional_Access. This podcast is built in community, and your voice belongs here.
Comments