Throughout the past month or so, I have been asked many times what I think about the conference and the critiques it is receiving. This coincides with a personal questioning of sorts of where I belong in this conversation, if anywhere, over the last year or so. As I’ve thought and prayed, I’ve identified a few places where I feel like I need to clarify and even alter the way I’ve talked about things in the past. So what follows is my attempt to lay out where I am at personally as clearly as I can.
Side A and Side B
The first area of clarification has had to do with the language of Side A versus Side B. For those familiar with the conversation, you’ll know that Side A refers to the belief that monogamous same-sex sexual relationships are NOT contrary to God’s revealed will in scripture and therefore can be blessed and pursued within “marriage”. Side B, on the other hand, refers to the belief that same-sex sexual activity is forbidden in scripture, and that marriage is defined as between one man and one woman.
Many of us have never loved the terminology of Side A versus Side B. Especially on the Side B side, it has always seemed like a pragmatic shorthand that has become more mainstream than many of thought it ever would. For that reason, I’ve used the language of Side B to describe my beliefs. And those beliefs haven’t changed. In fact, if anything, my confidence in the traditional view of marriage and sexual behavior expounded over 2000 years of church teaching and revealed in scripture has only increased. The Bible is clear on the matter in several different ways.
However, I have become less comfortable with even the pragmatic usage of the term. Even within the Side B camp, there is disagreement about what level of issue Side A versus Side B is. In other words, is sexual activity a matter of first order importance about which Christians cannot disagree and remain faithful? There are many within the Side B camp who would say that it is not a first order issue, and that faithful Christians can disagree and remain confident in their faith. Indeed, the very language of Side A versus Side B can lend itself to the thought that these two beliefs are two sides of the same coin, and that both positions can be legitimate Christian positions, even if one is right and one is wrong.
I do not agree that both are Christian positions, which I wrote about here. I realize that it is not inherent in Side B belief that this issue is not of first order importance. But I have a growing unease about aligning myself with a position where that is even a possibility.
So what does that mean for my usage of the term? Well, I’m not sure. On the one hand, I don’t see this issue as two different sides of the same Christian coin. Side A and Side B is a bad description. The problem is that I don’t know of a different shorthand phrase that I can substitute for Side B. There doesn’t seem to be another good option for a quick, summary term that can identify my beliefs on this matter. Maybe “traditionalist”? But no one really knows what that means for sure. What I do know for sure is that this is not a secondary issue, and Side B does not capture that well.
Does that mean you CANNOT be faithful while using the language of Side B? No. More on that below.
Identity and Labels
One of the main areas of public controversy surrounding Revoice, as well as the Spiritual Friendship pre-conference, has to do with LBG labels and identity. Many of the critiques charge that if one uses the label “gay” in any way then a sinful identity is inherently present which should be fought, not embraced.
I disagree with this charge, and this is the primary way that I feel Spiritual Friendship and Revoice have been unfairly represented. Usage of the term is, admittedly, all over the map. But the use of the term “I am gay” does not necessitate the adoption of a sinful identity. Indeed, speaking for myself as one who has occasionally used the term “gay”, I've used it only to describe the experience of a pattern of attractions over time. This is the difference between phenomenological labels versus ontological labels. When I've used the term “gay” I was in no way making an ontological claim about my being. Indeed, my identity—the core of who I am—is “male, made in the image of God, united to Christ my savior”. It is out of that identity that I live and move and have my being (Acts 17:28). When I've said “I am gay”, the only meaning is that I have a pattern of attractions toward the same sex. That’s it. It is like saying “I am allergic to ragweed” to describe the pattern of reaction when pollen enters my nose. Of course my identity is not found in my allergy. Neither is it found in my attractions.
However, I do agree that there are potential dangers in the labels that we chose to use (see the first point). While I don’t think the label “gay” inherently signals a sinful identity, I think it can lead to a sinful identity. In other words, for those who use “gay” in some capacity, it is only wise to identify and acknowledge the ways that chosen language can lead us into sin. If the belief that sexuality does define an identity creeps in, if gay becomes a marker not simply of what I experience but of who I am, then a line has been crossed. And I do believe the label can lead in that direction.
Of course, one does not avoid this danger simply by casting off the label. A person who only uses “same-sex attraction” can still find their identity in their sexuality. And I find it interesting that no one I know of has ever probed the exclusive usage of “same-sex attraction” for its own potential dangers. For example, if “gay” can lead to a sinful ontology, only saying “same-sex attraction” can lead to sinful self-righteousness. If the one who uses LGB language can become the prodigal son by adopting a sinful identity, the person who says “I will only ever say same-sex attraction” can become the older brother (Luke 15:11-32) who was self-righteous all along. The danger with “Only SSA(!)” is not with being the tax collector, but the Pharisee (Luke 18) who says, “I thank God that I am not like that sinner who uses the word gay. I fast twice a week, I give a tenth of all that I have, I only say SSA, and that makes me righteous.” Now the chosen label has led in the other direction toward its own particular sin—not of license, but of legalism.
Is everyone who rejects the term gay and only uses SSA language guilty of the sin of self-righteousness? Of course not. But neither is everyone who uses the word gay guilty of adopting a sinful identity. Both labels can lead into their own respective sins. There is no label that is free from danger, there is no descriptor that cannot lead off into a ditch one way or another. So what then? Should we just refuse labels altogether? This is impossible. Better instead to place the usage of labels firmly in the realm of wisdom and prudence informed by specific contexts. Better to identify the dangers of all labels, actively fight against those dangers, work towards clarity and charity, and walk humbly before our God.
Is it ever wise to use the term “gay”? Perhaps. Perhaps not. That is a conversation I am willing to have all day long. Same with the wisdom of Side B. But what that conversation requires is acknowledging that there are real dangers. So to my brothers and sisters who, like me, have used some sort of usage of LGB labels at different points: know the dangers. You are not your sexuality, as you know. Your attractions do not define you, as you know. But calling oneself gay can lead you there! Don’t let the label you use to describe your attractions become the definition of who you are. You are a new creation in Christ. The new has come, and the old has passed away (2 Corinthians 5:17; Colossians 3:1-2). Become who you already are by fighting against same-sex sexual temptations and striving to live a holy life before God and man. Nail your flesh to the cross, where it has been crucified with Christ (Galatians 5:24) and continue to nail it there until it finally dies when we see him face to face (1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24). Continue to cultivate vital, deep friendships in the body of Christ where you can experience pure, chaste love and intimacy. And in all these ways show a watching world that Jesus is better than any sexual desire we could ever experience.
Orientation and Attractions
I have talked before about how I view same-sex orientation (SSO) as a stable pattern of attractions. This pattern of attractions falls under the biblical category of “weakness” (ἀσθενείᾳ). It is a result of the fall, owing to sin in the world, and not the way it’s supposed to be. This is the same category as a disability or disease. Paul uses this word to describe his thorn in the flesh given to him by God through Satan (2 Corinthians 12:9) and the very nature of our fallen bodies (1 Corinthians 15:43). Here is how John Piper says it:
“Same sex desires and same sex orientation are part of our broken and disordered sexuality owing to God’s subjection of the created order to futility because of man’s sin… same sex desires and same sex orientation are in that category of groaning — waiting for the redemption of our bodies. Which means they are in the same broad category with all kinds of disordered bodies and minds and emotions. If we tried to make a list of the kinds of emotional and mental and physical brokenness of the human family the list would be unending. And all of us are broken and disordered in different ways. All of you are bent to desire things in different degrees that you should not want. We are all disordered in our emotions, our minds, our bodies.”
So if this is the case, what about the different desires that arise within this experience of attraction? After all, not all the desires that I experience are sexual. Some are, but some are desires to serve, befriend, and sacrificially love. I have written about this here. The gist of that piece is that along with sexual desires present within an attraction, there are also non-sexual desires for friendship, service, and chaste love, and that these desires are not inherently disordered. Although I still agree with the substance of that essay, I feel I have been unclear in how I talked about it. Here is how I would want to say it now.
I still agree that desires for friendship and love and service are not bad desires in and of themselves. Furthermore, same-sex attracted folks should be encouraged to cultivate friendships with the same sex that display these very things. Where I have been unclear is that if those desires arise from a weakness, a fallen reality, a disordered attraction as described above, then there needs to be a step before they can be faithfully pursued. In other words, if the source of a potentially good desire is an attraction that is disordered, then even if it is a potentially good desire it will end up in a disordered place. Disorder does not magically result in order. So the desire needs to be detached from the disordered source and rightly ordered toward the God glorifying end it is intended for. It is here that the biblical language of “taking every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5) can be helpfully applied to our desires. I take the desire captive, put it to death as it were, and resurrect it from a pure heart that seeks the pure telos (or end) the desire is intended to be oriented toward.
To be clear, this “putting to death” does not mean that these desires must go away completely before a friendship can be pure. I’ve argued before, and still agree, that this would make friendship impossible because the friendship is then held captive by the seeming randomness of the rise and fall of attractions. Instead, what I am saying is that if a particular desire begins with a disordered attraction, then—following the pattern of our very selves in Christ—the desire must die in Christ and come back to life in Christ so that it can be faithfully pursued in Christ (Romans 6; Colossians 3:1-4). I must take the desire captive and say to myself, “This desire for friendship, love, service, etc. cannot be pursued from a disordered attraction. Instead, I put it to death in my death with Christ, and resurrect it in my life in Christ from the source of a pure heart and a clean conscience (1 Timothy 1:5) where the desire can be rightfully fulfilled in its proper end.”
There might be about two seconds between the desire being birthed from the flesh, put to death in Christ, and resurrected toward its proper end. The lived experience with the other person does not need to change! But this way of talking makes it clear that every godly desire for chaste love, sacrificial service, and pure intimacy, being rightly pursued, does not originate in a disordered weakness of the flesh. It comes from the Spirit, who helps all of us put to death the desires of the flesh and cultivate the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:16-24).
Conclusion
None of these clarifications are drastic shifts for me. Nor do they signal a greater or lesser alignment with certain critics of Revoice and Spiritual Friendship. I still do not believe that same-sex sexual desires are automatically morally culpable sin in need of repentance, but rather temptations that can be fought and overcome by the Spirit before they become lust, which is a work of the flesh (cf. Matthew 5:27-28; Galatians 5:16-19). I still view orientation as a pattern of disordered attractions that need not be repented of any more than a disability or disease. And I still occasionally use the word “gay” to describe my attractions. I simply felt I needed to offer clarity because many of these matters are at the heart of the current controversy.
Perhaps these clarifications will highlight disagreements with certain people. But I hope that the faithful brothers and sisters who disagree with me, both in the direction of my Side B friends AND in the direction of those like Denny and Owen, will view my disagreements charitably as a brother in Christ who is seeking to be faithful to Christ and the Bible. That is most certainly how I view all of them. And I pray that Christ will lead us all into greater and greater unity in the coming days until we see him face to face. Lord Jesus come!