Note the important word missing here: “lust.” The term is definitely an understatement to soften biblically sinful behavior, emotions, sexual drives, and passions. This is important to understand because it hides the sin God hates and has communicated this with the harshest of terms (Leviticus 18: 22, Romans 1: 26-28).

Where will it end?  God’s rainbow has been appropriated from its biblical significance to represent sexual immorality on a flag.  The word “gay” has been appropriated from its original definition to represent homosexual immorality, and now other sex-related forms.  The phrase “same-sex attraction” is another form of appropriation. The latter two are specifically subtle euphemistic substitutes for words too blunt or explicit.

It’s grammatically a euphemism.  Euphemisms are “…words or phrases used to avoid saying an unpleasant or offensive word” (Cambridge Dictionary). They understate or soften harsh or explicit words.  In this case, something offensive and sinful to Christians is subtly, linguistically changed in order to be agreeable or allowable, i.e., normalized.

“Same-sex attraction” terminology is currently taking precedence over “gay” or “homosexual.”  The following definition of this term deserves attention:

“Same-sex attraction refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to people of the same sex.  A person who experiences same-sex attraction may experience one or more of the following:

• • Intense attractions toward people of the same sex. (These feelings may or may not be sexual or erotic.)
  • Intense emotional involvement with people of the same sex.
  • Sexual behavior.”

Note the important word missing here: “lust.” The term is definitely an understatement to soften biblically sinful behavior, emotions, sexual drives, and passions. This is important to understand because it hides the sin God hates and has communicated this with the harshest of terms (Leviticus 18: 22, Romans 1: 26-28).

Nonetheless, let’s consider “same-sex attraction” as a phenomenon that has existed for ages and what could be its rightful and proper usage.  It relates to the vast majority of people on earth.  Think “friendship.”  From the earliest of times, friendship has existed.  In that existence, it was “same-sex attracted,” that is, girls and women primarily possessed female friendships and boys and men primarily possessed male friendships.  However, it wasn’t romantic or sexual attraction.  The “attraction” related to personality, values, talents, class, faith, or even politics.  Some emotion might have been involved, as affection is an emotion; but it was never romantic or sexual.  So, healthy, wholesome, and sinless attraction is biblically valid. In fact, God’s divine revelation promotes such friendship.  “A friend is closer than a brother” (Proverbs 18: 24).

I understand my Evangelical Presbyterian Church denomination will vote on allowing or not allowing individual churches and presbyteries to ordain “same-sex attracted persons.”  One elder calls it a subtle difference, i.e., a much more acceptable term than “homosexual” or “gay.”  What does this say about us as Bible-believing Christians? Are we not also appropriating terminology that understates—even conceals or shrouds serious sexual sin?

Let’s be honest, this currently-favored terminology distances us from God’s narrowly chosen expressions related to specific, serious sexual immorality—both propensity and deeds. They are narrow not only in description but also to God’s final judgment.  Remember what Jesus said: “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.  For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it (Matthew 8: 13-14).

The term “same-sex attraction” is quite wide as defined above.  Doesn’t it also figuratively represent “the gate” that is wide and broad biblically?

This is not a topic the writer wishes to address but appears needful in our biblical and Christian practice to resist “the world, the flesh, and the devil.”  Let ‘s not repeat Eve’s response to the devil tempting her to doubt God’s Word.

Sexual morality is an “Essential” to faith and practice.  Sexual immorality is not and should not be considered a “Non-Essential” to faith and practice.  Neither “Liberty” nor “Charity” support this issue as a “Non-Essential.”

Church leaders are responsible to protect the church and apply truth and love equally that does not nullify one against the other by embracing the world’s, the flesh’s, and the devil’s linguistic deceits comprised of euphemisms that contradict God’s divine revelation and will.  Wise discernment applied is direly needed today.

Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa.