Pastor Kristian A. Smith’s challenge to Christians during Pride Month deserves more attention than a viral social media quote.

During Pride Month, discussions about faith and LGBTQ+ people often become predictable. One side cites a handful of biblical passages. The other side points to the damage caused by decades of rejection and exclusion. The conversation frequently ends exactly where it began, with neither side hearing the other.

Pastor Kristian A. Smith recently offered a different approach.

Rather than arguing over identity labels, political talking points, or culture war narratives, he reframed the discussion around a concept that sits at the heart of Christian teaching: harm.

His argument is straightforward.

If sin is fundamentally connected to causing harm, and LGBTQ+ people are simply living their lives without harming others, then Christians should spend less time condemning LGBTQ+ people and more time examining whether their own actions are producing harm.

That perspective has resonated because it shifts attention away from abstract theological arguments and toward tangible human consequences.

It is a question many churches have avoided for decades.

Not whether LGBTQ+ people exist.

Not whether they deserve equal treatment under the law.

Not whether they should be welcomed into communities.

The deeper question is whether Christians have honestly examined the consequences of how they have treated LGBTQ+ people in the name of faith.

For many people, especially those who grew up hearing that they were somehow defective, immoral, or unworthy because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, that question cuts to the heart of the issue.

It is also a question that demands a closer examination of what the Bible actually says, what Christians often claim it says, and whether those are always the same thing.

What Does Sin Actually Mean?

One of the most interesting aspects of Pastor Smith’s argument is that it forces Christians to revisit a word that many assume they already understand.

Sin.

In modern religious discussions, sin is often reduced to a list of prohibited behaviors. It becomes a checklist of things people should avoid doing.

Yet Scripture presents a more complex picture.

Throughout the Bible, sin frequently involves broken relationships, exploitation, injustice, dishonesty, cruelty, pride, greed, oppression, and failures of compassion. Many of the strongest condemnations found in both the Old and New Testaments are directed not toward private conduct but toward people who misuse power, neglect the vulnerable, or harm others.

The prophets repeatedly condemned exploitation of the poor.

Jesus repeatedly condemned hypocrisy.

The New Testament repeatedly warns against hatred, cruelty, judgment, and self-righteousness.

When Jesus was asked about the greatest commandment, He did not respond with a list of forbidden identities. He pointed toward love.

Love God.

Love your neighbor.

According to the Gospel accounts, those principles formed the foundation upon which everything else rested.

That does not mean Christians agree on every moral question. They certainly do not.

It does mean that any discussion about morality should account for how people are treated.

A theological position cannot be separated from its real-world effects.

If a belief consistently produces rejection, humiliation, despair, or suffering, Christians should be willing to examine that outcome.

That is not political correctness.

That is moral accountability.

What the Bible Actually Says About Homosexuality

One of the most common statements heard in churches is that “the Bible says homosexuality is a sin.”

The reality is more complicated.

The Bible does not contain a verse that explicitly states, using those exact words, that “homosexuality is a sin.”

Instead, debates usually center around a relatively small number of passages spread across thousands of pages of Scripture.

Perhaps the most frequently cited passage is Leviticus 18:22.

Many English translations state that a man lying with another man as with a woman is an “abomination.”

Notice what the verse does not say.

It does not use the English word “sin.”

That distinction is important because Christians often treat the terms as interchangeable when they are not necessarily identical.

The Hebrew word translated as “abomination” is toevah.

Throughout the Old Testament, toevah is applied to a wide range of behaviors and practices.

Idolatry is called an abomination.

Dishonest business practices are called an abomination.

Certain foods are described as abominations.

Various ritual and ceremonial violations are described using the same term.

The word itself does not automatically settle the question of whether a particular action is universally immoral, culturally prohibited, ceremonially unclean, or associated with ancient Israelite religious identity.

Context matters.

Historical setting matters.

Translation matters.

Scholarly interpretation matters.

Yet many modern discussions skip over those complexities entirely.

Few Christians today follow every prohibition found in Levitical law.

Most eat foods prohibited in the Old Testament.

Most wear blended fabrics.

Most do not follow the extensive ceremonial requirements that governed ancient Israel.

Instead, Christians generally distinguish between laws they believe remain binding and laws they believe were specific to a particular covenantal context.

Whether one believes same-sex relationships remain prohibited today is a legitimate theological debate.

Pretending there is no debate is not.

For centuries, biblical scholars, theologians, historians, and clergy have disagreed about how these passages should be understood.

Honesty requires acknowledging that reality.

The Question of Harm

This is where Pastor Smith’s framework becomes particularly powerful.

Rather than beginning with labels, he begins with consequences.

Who is being harmed?

That question is surprisingly difficult for many people to answer.

If two consenting adults form a loving, committed relationship, where is the identifiable harm?

If a transgender person seeks to live openly and honestly, where is the identifiable harm?

If a gay teenager wants acceptance from family, church, classmates, and community, where is the identifiable harm?

Many critics respond by arguing that the harm is spiritual.

That is a theological position, and people are free to hold it.

Yet when discussing social policy, public life, or treatment of fellow human beings, measurable harm still matters.

The harms experienced by LGBTQ+ people are well documented.

Family rejection.

Housing instability.

Bullying.

Workplace discrimination.

Social isolation.

Mental health challenges connected to chronic stigma.

Higher rates of homelessness among LGBTQ+ youth.

Higher rates of suicide attempts among young people who experience severe rejection.

These are not theoretical concerns.

They are observable realities.

Countless LGBTQ+ adults can tell stories about being excluded from churches, losing family relationships, hiding essential parts of themselves, or being treated as problems to solve rather than people to love.

The pain is often compounded when those experiences are justified through religious language.

That is the aspect of the conversation Pastor Smith is highlighting.

Not merely what people believe.

What those beliefs produce.

Jesus and the Fruit Test

One of the most practical teachings attributed to Jesus is remarkably simple.

“You will know them by their fruits.”

The principle is straightforward.

Look at outcomes.

Look at results.

Look at what grows from a particular belief system.

This standard applies to everyone.

It applies to churches.

It applies to religious leaders.

It applies to activists.

It applies to institutions.

It applies to individual believers.

If a teaching consistently produces compassion, healing, dignity, reconciliation, and hope, that tells us something.

If a teaching consistently produces shame, fear, isolation, self-loathing, family estrangement, and despair, that tells us something as well.

The fruit does not automatically settle every theological question.

It does, however, provide a meaningful measure of whether a community is reflecting the values it claims to uphold.

Many churches genuinely believe they are defending biblical truth.

Most are not acting out of malice.

Many congregations include people who sincerely want to follow God and serve others.

Good intentions, however, do not eliminate consequences.

History is filled with examples of religious communities defending positions they later recognized as harmful.

Christians once used Scripture to justify slavery.

Christians once used Scripture to oppose interracial marriage.

Christians once used Scripture to support segregation.

Those examples do not prove every traditional teaching is wrong.

They do remind us that religious certainty is not the same thing as moral correctness.

Humility remains essential.

Why This Conversation Matters During Pride Month

Pride Month is frequently misunderstood by people who have never experienced life as part of a stigmatized minority.

Many view Pride exclusively through political lenses.

Others see only parades, celebrations, or corporate marketing campaigns.

Its historical roots run much deeper.

Pride emerged from a struggle for visibility and human dignity.

For generations, LGBTQ+ people were told to remain silent.

Hide who they were.

Pretend to be someone else.

Accept discrimination as the price of survival.

Many lost jobs.

Many lost families.

Many lost housing.

Many lost their faith communities.

Many lost their lives.

Pride developed as a response to that history.

At its core, Pride is not a declaration of superiority.

It is a declaration of humanity.

It is a statement that LGBTQ+ people exist, belong, and deserve to live openly without fear.

Pastor Smith’s comments resonate during Pride Month because they invite Christians to reconsider where their focus should be.

Rather than asking whether LGBTQ+ people deserve dignity, respect, and compassion, perhaps the better question is why those things were ever denied in the first place.

A Challenge for the Church

Pastor Kristian A. Smith’s argument is uncomfortable because it redirects the spotlight.

For generations, many churches have examined LGBTQ+ people under a theological microscope.

Their relationships.

Their identities.

Their families.

Their lives.

Far less scrutiny has been directed toward the Church’s own conduct.

How many families have been divided?

How many young people have been driven away?

How many individuals have carried lifelong wounds inflicted in the name of faith?

How many have concluded that God hated them because people claiming to represent God treated them with contempt?

Those questions deserve answers.

Not because Christianity is inherently hostile to LGBTQ+ people.

Not because every church has failed.

Not because theological disagreements are forbidden.

They deserve answers because Christians are called to examine themselves before judging others.

Pride Month presents an opportunity to do exactly that.

When LGBTQ+ people share stories of rejection, exclusion, and spiritual trauma, the response should not begin with condemnation.

It should begin with listening.

Pastor Smith’s challenge is not really about winning an argument over sexuality.

It is about asking whether Christians have been willing to measure their actions against the standards they profess to follow.

Love.

Compassion.

Mercy.

Human dignity.

Many Christians have spent decades asking whether LGBTQ+ people are living in sin.

Perhaps the more urgent question is whether the Church has fully confronted the harm it has caused while asking that question.

If faith is ultimately measured by how people are loved, welcomed, and treated, then that examination is long overdue.