By A. N. Lal Senanayake –

Screenshot
Abstract
The recent endorsement of LGBTIQ tourism in Sri Lanka raises questions of morality, economics, and cultural identity. This article offers a Christian response through three themes: hospitality, holiness, and human flourishing. It affirms the dignity of all people created in God’s image, while upholding God’s original design for life, marriage, and family. True flourishing cannot be reduced to economics or inclusivity alone but is found in spiritual, intellectual, social, emotional, and moral development of the nation and the new life offered in Jesus Christ through repentance and transformation.
Introduction
Tourism has become one of Sri Lanka’s most vital economic lifelines, especially in the nation’s pursuit of recovery and global integration. Recently, Sri Lanka Tourism endorsed an initiative to promote LGBTIQ tourism. At first glance, this may appear progressive, inclusive, and profitable. Yet for the the larger community, such developments must be discerned not only economically but also morally, socially, and spiritually.
The Bible calls the church to be “salt and light” (Matthew 5:13–16)—preserving God’s truth, shining the light of Christ, and brining hope and transformation to our society darkened by moral decay and socio-cultural decline. This article reflects on the issue of LGBTIQ tourism through three biblical lenses: hospitality, holiness, and human flourishing. These categories allow us to affirm human dignity, uphold God’s standards, and seek the genuine well-being of our society.
Hospitality: Human Dignity and Compassion for All People
Christian witness begins with the conviction that every person is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Though this image is broken by sin (Genesis 3), the image of God in humans remains the foundation of human worth and dignity. This truth compels us to treat all people with respect, compassion, and justice. For this reason, the church must avoid hostility or discrimination against LGBTIQ persons. Our first response is always love, for Jesus taught us to love our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 22:37–39). Love and hospitality are at the heart of biblical faith. From Abraham’s welcome of strangers to Jesus’ table of fellowship with outcasts, Scripture calls us to reflect God’s generous love in our relationships.
The Christian response must therefore begin with compassion. Many LGBTIQ persons face deep struggles—stigma, rejection, depression, and isolation. In such circumstances, pastoral care, prayer, professional counseling and safe spaces for honest conversation become essential expressions of Christian love.
Holiness: God’s Design for Life and Relationships
Hospitality alone, however, is not enough. Without truth, love becomes sentimentality. The Bible presents a clear vision of God’s design for human life and sexuality. From the beginning, marriage was established as a covenantal union between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4–6). This covenant embodies intimacy, faithfulness, and fruitfulness: the gift of companionship, the shaping of character, and the blessing of procreation.
Sexual expression outside this design—whether heterosexual or homosexual—falls short of God’s intention and is consistently portrayed in Scripture as contrary to His will (Romans 1:24–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11). God’s design protects not only personal holiness but also safeguards the family as the foundation of society.
At the heart of this design is God’s holiness. Scripture declares: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty” (Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 4:8). Holiness is the moral foundation of human existence. Violation of this foundation has consequences. There is ethical demand on humanity, calling us to be set apart from sin and dedicate our lives to God: “Be holy, because I am holy” (Leviticus 11:44; 1 Peter 1:16).
Inclusivity, though a noble value, cannot redefine holiness. When societies attempt to reshape morality for economic reasons, they drift into confusion. Prophet Isaiah warned: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). If Sri Lanka embraces policies that normalize practices contrary to God’s design, it risks eroding its moral foundations and reshaping its national identity around contested values.
Human Flourishing: Beyond Economics to True Well-Being
Tourism may bring short-term financial gains, but economy alone is not sufficient for holistic well-being. Human beings, created in God’s image, are moral, spiritual, intellectual, psychological, and social beings. Economic profit cannot replace human flourishing; no GDP can heal broken families, moral confusion, or spiritual emptiness. To reduce human flourishing to mere economic profit alone strips life of its true purpose.
For a society to truly thrive, it must pursue justice, cultivate morality, nurture spirituality, and sustain psychological, intellectual and social stability alongside economic development. When financial policies ignore these dimensions, they risk undermining the very foundations of human civilization. A nation may grow richer in economic prosperity, but without morality, integrity, compassion, and purpose, it is destined to fail.
LGBTIQ tourism raises specific concerns for human flourishing:
* Continuity of Civilization: Families rooted in male–female complementarity provide the natural context where children are born, holistically nurtured, and shaped for society. Weakening this structure undermines generational stability.
* Moral Clarity: When financial incentives are allowed to redefine morality, society loses the ability to discern what fosters life and what leads to destruction.
* National Image: As Sri Lanka seeks global integration, we must ask: Is LGBTIQ tourism a sustainable and appropriate development strategy? What image will it project internationally, and how will it reshape our cultural and social identity?
Human flourishing also requires responding to the real struggles of LGBTIQ persons. Many face stress, depression, and healthcare issues. In such a context, our response must combine truth with compassion: offering pastoral care, professional support, and the Gospel’s invitation to repentance and transformation. Apostle Paul reminded the Corinthian church: “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 6:11). This redemptive hope is available to all people.
In light of these realities, the church in Sri Lanka must:
* Provide pastoral care – creating safe, compassionate spaces for those wrestling with identity and sexuality.
* Speak prophetically – reminding the nation that inclusivity must not blur God’s moral boundaries.
* Model authentic hospitality – welcoming those affected with kindness while remaining faithful to God’s Word.
* Engage missionally – witnessing with compassion and integrity, offering the hope of new life in Christ to everyone who believes.
Responsible advocacy – urging policymakers to weigh ethical, cultural, and generational consequences when shaping national identity around contested moral issues.
Conclusion
The endorsement of LGBTIQ tourism in Sri Lanka cannot be viewed merely as an economic opportunity. While inclusivity and financial growth are important, they cannot replace the deeper realities of God’s design, moral integrity, and social responsibility. A Christian response must hold together hospitality, holiness, and human flourishing in this broken world. We are called to love our neighbors, uphold God’s standards, and seek the true well-being of individuals and society. Proverbs 14:34 reminds us: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”
As a Christian community, we are committed to praying for Sri Lanka’s holistic restoration—its leaders, its people, and its future—trusting that Christ’s truth and grace can heal, transform, and bring lasting peace to our nation.
*Dr. A. N. Lal Senanayake is the President of Lanka Bible College and Seminary (LBCS), Peradeniya, and the LBC Centre for Graduate Studies, Colombo, Sri Lanka. He also serves on the Editorial Board of the InSight Journal for Global Theological Education and has contributed several chapters and articles to internationally published volumes. After completing his undergraduate studies at LBCS, Dr. Senanayake earned his graduate degree from the University of Nottingham, UK, and subsequently earned his PhD in Educational Studies from Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois, USA.
Jit / October 4, 2025
“…..The endorsement of LGBTIQ tourism in Sri Lanka…”
As a ‘learned’ person who holds a doctorate, even in theology, have you explored the truth about that statement? What is the definition of the word ‘endorsement’ and which authority should issue it, for it to become legally valid? How legal is that ‘endorsement’ if it was issued by one person? Has it been passed by the parliament, legislature and is it the official government policy? Have you explored, researched all that, before jumping on to the keyboard?
/
LaalS / October 4, 2025
Please check this site: https://island.lk/sri-lanka-tourism-endorses-lgbtqi-travel-initiative/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
A Quote from this article: “Sri Lanka Tourism has officially endorsed a pioneering project by rights organisation EQUAL GROUND to develop and promote LGBTQI tourism in the country, recognising its potential to diversify tourism markets and position the island as an inclusive destination for all travellers.”
/
old codger / October 4, 2025
“marriage was established as a covenantal union between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4–6). This covenant embodies intimacy, faithfulness, and fruitfulness: the gift of companionship, the shaping of character, and the blessing of procreation.
Sexual expression outside this design—whether heterosexual or homosexual—falls short of God’s intention and is consistently portrayed in Scripture as contrary to His will (Romans 1:24–27; “
Ah well. Hotels have stopped insisting on marriage certificates for heterosexual couples who want to stay in one room. Will they now demand marriage certificates from two men (or two women) who wish to use one room??
So very complicated.
/
Jit / October 4, 2025
I knew that when I made my comment Lal. You still cannot fathom what I questioned you about! You jolly well know that consensual same-sex sexual acts are criminalized under the Penal Code in Sri Lanka under the current laws, carrying penalties of up to ten years in prison. Okay? And same-sex marriages and civil unions are not legal or recognized either, within the current legal framework. You know all that. That is the very reason why I asked about the validity of your long yarn you wrote BELIEVING that the Tourism Authority of Sri Lanka HAS the POWERS to change an existing law WITHOUT going through the parliamentary proceedings to change such a law! Why did you get worked up when any actions from Tourism Authority on same sex promotions are ILLEGAL under the current law, hence they become NULL & VOID?
/
LaalS / October 4, 2025
Thank you for your clarification. I am fully aware of the legal framework and the current status of such matters under Sri Lankan law. My concern, however, goes beyond the legality to the reality that exists within our society despite this legislation.
The point I was raising is not primarily about the legal authority of the Tourism Board, but about the moral and social implications of its public endorsement, which can shape perceptions and influence future policy directions.
I deeply value your insight and the legal accuracy you bring to the discussion. My intention is not to dispute the legal limits but to highlight the realities on the ground that continue to emerge regardless of those limits.
With appreciation and respect,
Lal
/
LankaScot / October 4, 2025
Hello Jit,
The learned Doctor has forgotten the Elephant in the Room – Sri Lanka is not a Christian Country. Christians make up less than 8% of the population.
Best regards
/
LaalS / October 4, 2025
Let us approach one another with understanding rather than intolerance toward the beliefs and practices of others. The more sensitive issues—the ‘elephant in the room’—can be discussed in a more suitable forum. For now, let us be gracious enough to recognize that even the remaining eight percent deserve opportunities for learning and growth.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / October 5, 2025
LS:
According to a Daily Mirror report dated 4 Oct relating to this issue,
“The Mahanayaka Theras of the Malwathu, Asgiriya, Amarapura, and Ramanna Chapters on their part had written to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake expressing strong opposition to what they described as efforts to promote LGBTQ lifestyles and amend the Penal Code to outlaw corporal punishment.
In the letter, the chief prelates said certain groups were attempting to normalise homosexual conduct and related practices and warned that such moves undermine Sinhala Buddhist cultural values.”
Therefore this is not just a Christian issue. These “Sinhala Buddhist cultural values” probably originate from the Victorian era as, so far as I am aware, LGBTQ lifestyles are not condemned in the Buddhist scriptures. I am not an authority on Buddhist scriptures, so I may be wrong on this.
While I would consider such lifestyles to be contrary to sound morals, I do not think they ought to come within the purview of criminal law but nor should governments promote them.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / October 5, 2025
While agreeing with the author’s basic thesis that in true progress and development moral standards cannot be subordinated to economics or inclusivity and that the latter cannot be achieved at the expense of the former, I write to comment on the following statements in the article:
“Christian witness begins with the conviction that every person is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Though this image is broken by sin (Genesis 3), the image of God in humans remains the foundation of human worth and dignity.”
The phrase “image of God” in Genesis 1:27 is interpreted in a number of ways by exegetes. One interpretation, which this author apparently subscribes to, is that the image of God refers to a perfect, sinless nature that Adam and Eve were originally created with but which they lost by their disobedience described in Genesis 3– the so called “Fall.” To this is normally added the attributes of moral, spiritual and intellectual capacities of humans and their ability to relate to God.
Continued.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / October 5, 2025
Continued from above post.
One problem with this interpretation is that it is purely arbitrary and even contrary to the biblical data. The biblical account of Adam and Eve depict them as having being created in a child-like state of innocence but yet possessing moral discrimination, called “the knowledge of good and evil” in Genesis 2.
A better interpretation is that the image of God refers to man being God’s vicegerent or representative on earth. Humans have been given power to share in God’s rule or administration of the earth’s resources and creatures. This is brought out the very first time the expression “the image of God” occurs in the Old Testament: “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth'”(Genesis 1:26).
Continued.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / October 5, 2025
Correction: “The biblical account of Adam and Eve depictS them as having BEEN created in a child-like state of innocence….”
This is what happens when you write CT comments late in the night just before going to bed!
/
Leonard Jayawardena / October 6, 2025
Sorry, another correction.
“but NOT yet possessing moral discrimination…”
/
Leonard Jayawardena / October 5, 2025
The third and concluding post.
In this verse (Genesis 1:26), “the image of God” is clearly related to man’s DOMINION over the rest of God’s creation. This interpretation is further confirmed by Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.” That is, as God’s representative man, has delegated power to carry out capital punishment.
Finally, the clearest confirmation of the correctness of this interpretation is provided in the New Testament by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:7. In affirming the hierarchical order of authority between men and women, he writes, “For a man ought not to have his head covered [by a veil when praying or prophesying]. For he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.” In verse 3 he had said, “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” This subordination of the woman to man is symbolically reflected in the way Eve is created out of Adam (Genesis 2:21-23): Eve is taken out of Adam’s body (his side) while he remains the head.
/
JonnyG / October 5, 2025
Thank you Leonard for your elaboration on the “image of God”. It seems that you put quite some emphasis on the hierarchy of men over women and the ruling power of man as God’s representative on Earth.
When looking at the original Hebrew text, the “image” (tselem) is explained as an outline or shadow of the original and “likeness” (demuth) is related to “blood” (a son from the blood of his father resembles his father).
Man may be the “vicegerent” of God and the “head” of the woman. However, it is important not to forget that the “head” doesn’t get anywhere without the body and the “vicegerent” has no more acting power when he is no longer considered to be worthy of it…
Personally, I appreciate the thought of a mirror. Mankind mirrors God’s character (and ruling power) on Earth. But when the mirror gets hit (and man or woman gets hurt), the “image of God” is distorted and needs the corresponding care as Dr. Senanayake has pointed out mindfully.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / October 5, 2025
JonnyG: “When looking at the original Hebrew text, the “image” (tselem) is explained as an outline or shadow of the original and “likeness” (demuth) is related to “blood” (a son from the blood of his father resembles his father).”
According to the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, the root of the Hebrew word for “image,” tselem, is SLM (sade, lamed, mem), which means “to cut out,” and tselem means “something cut out,” which is what an image is. Strong’s concise dictionary of OT Hebrew words says that tselem comes “from an unused root mean[ing] ‘to shade’…a representative figure, especially an idol.”
Outside the book of Genesis, tselem occurs twelve times in the Hebrew Old Testament, ten times out of which it refers to a pagan idol. In Psalms 39:6 and 73:20 the word is used somewhat differently.
pesel, another Hebrew word used many times in the OT to refer to idols, comes from the verb pasal–pronounced the way the plural sinhalese word for “school” is pronounced!– which means to “hew, hew into shape.” This is the word Isaiah uses to refer to pagan idols.
Continued.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / October 5, 2025
Correction.
I wrote:
“pesel, another Hebrew word used many times in the OT to refer to idols, comes from the verb pasal….”
Rather, pesel is cognate with pasal.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / October 5, 2025
Continued from above comment.
There’s no difference between “image” and “likness” in passages referring to the creation of man. They mean the same in Genesis 1:26, which is literally, “…[L]et us make man in image of us, in likeness of us….” This is an example of what is called synonymous parallelism in Hebrew. Note also Genesis 5:1: “… In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.” “[L]ikeness” translates the same Hebrew word in Genesis 1:26. The fact that the Hebrew word tselem is omitted in Genesis 5:1 shows that the two words are synonymous and interchangeable. The idea is that man being in God’s image (=likeness) resembles God in some sense and that sense is having dominion over his creation as can be inferred from the words’ immediately following context in Genesis 1:26. Thus, effectively, he is God’s representative on earth.
Continued.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / October 5, 2025
Continued from above comments.
In the New Testament, when Christ is said to be in the “image of God” (Colossians 1:15, Gr. eikon tou theou) it means that he shared God’s moral/holy character. God has also “predestined [those whom he elected] to be conformed to the image [Gr. eikon] of his son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters” (Romans 8:29). Therefore the word “image” here bears a spiritual sense and believers are to be like God in sharing his righteous character. They are, as it were, “little gods” on earth in that sense.
/
JonnyG / October 6, 2025
I guess, we don’t really disagree Leonard. Except that you quote Brown-Driver-Briggs and I refer to Jeff Benner’s work.
However, this conversation has derived quite a bit from the original topic. And putting to practice what Dr. Senanayake has lined out is not as easy as words can tell. And I try to learn on a daily basis to deal with my opposite in respect and remembrance of “God’s image” whether it be “cut out” or in the form of a broken mirror.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / October 7, 2025
JonnyG:
“I guess, we don’t really disagree Leonard.”
No, there is absolutely no agreement between the interpretation I advocate for Genesis 1:26-27 and that of the author of this article, with which you think you agree. I stated that at the outset in my comments. I understand the “image of God” in that verse to refer to the DOMINION given to Adam over the creation only and NOTHING ELSE.
Your analogy of a “broken mirror” assumes that Adam was created in some perfect spiritual state and the Fall, which have no biblical support. Adam and Eve were created in a child-like state of innocence but without possessing moral discrimination, called “knowledge of good and evil” in the Bible. This faculty is a characteristic of God (Genesis 3:22) and as Adam and Eve did not possess that at creation they clearly could not have shared God’s nature or character. To be righteous or evil you need to be able to distinguish between good and evil. Little children like animals are neither righteous nor evil. Have you heard of a “righteous
infant” or “evil viper”?
Continued.
/
Leonard Jayawardena / October 7, 2025
I referred to the “image of God” in Colossians 1:15 in a comment for the sake of completeness of the discussion of this phrase but that passage has no bearing on the interpretation of the image of God in Genesis 1:26-27, which refers ONLY to Adam’s dominion over God’s creation.
You: “However, this conversation has derived [sic] quite a bit from the original topic.”
I think you meant to say “drifted.”
The author wrote this: “Christian witness begins with the conviction that every person is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Though this image is broken by sin (Genesis 3), the image of God in humans remains the foundation of human worth and dignity.”
It is this wrong understanding of “the image of God” that impelled me, as someone who knows a thing or two about the Bible, to write the above comments to provide a correction. The author really did not have to base Christian morality on his wrong understanding of this Genesis passage because it (Christian morality) stands independent of one’s interpretation of this passage.
/