It’s sort of strange. Growing up in conservative Christianity, I gave quite a bit of thought to the ‘gay’ issue. Most of it involved affirming a ‘traditional’ point of view, based on the infamous clobber passages. Significantly less of it involved reflections on a ‘theology of marriage’. But essentially none of it focused on the actual experiences of LGBTQ+ people.
And, I get it. ‘Experience’ often plays a subservient role in shaping evangelical belief. But I think one of the most important things I’ve ever done is to develop meaningful relationships with queer people.
It took the presence of these relationships for me to even begin to ask questions like: “What constitutes ‘temptation’ instead of ‘sin’? How are those lines drawn? And who is drawing them?” or “What outcomes do the scriptures claim ‘obedience’ brings?” or “What ought spiritual growth to look like?”
I had never once thought to apply these questions to the question of LGBTQ+ identity and Christian faith.
So, this is my first attempt to press into those questions in any sort of organized fashion. As such, it may be messy, and there may be points to edit, clarify, or refine. More than having a ‘perfect’ reflection on these matters, my desire is to offer up a conversation starter. As such, I invite feedback and ask for grace.
First, ‘sin’ and ‘temptation’:
Elsewhere I have discussed the rise and fall of the ‘ex-gay’ movement in evangelical Christianity. Those reflections can be found here.
The collapse of the ex-gay approach (despite some resurgences), has led to a variety of alternative frameworks.
Some of these, like large streams of the ‘celibate’ gay Christian movement, would seek to make a distinction between ‘orientation’ and ‘behavior’. Proponents like Wesley Hill would see one’s orientation as ‘morally neutral’, with only same-sex lust or activity constituting ‘sin’. Similarly many churches who pursue a “welcoming, but not affirming” approach, conceive of a gay person’s enduring pattern of attraction toward members of the same sex as ‘temptation’; this temptation would only lead to ‘sin’ in the case of pursuing actions/behavior.
Yet another contemporary approach can be found in the stories of people like Christopher Yuan, Sam Allberry, and Rosaria Butterfield. This perspective largely rejects the claims of the ex-gay movement (all of them generally repudiating conversion therapy, with Yuan and Allberry acknowledging continuing to experience same-sex attraction), but it also stands in contrast to the celibate gay movement.
Figures like Yuan, Allberry, Butterfield, and Jackie Hill-Perry all reject the idea of a Christian gay identity (irrespective of behavior/actions). Butterfield in particular rejects the idea of sexual orientation, believing that all sexual desire is rooted in either holiness or indwelling sin. This (admittedly broad) group adds to the complexity about how one might distinguish between temptation and sinful sexual desire.
Having surveyed the main streams of contemporary evangelical thought around LGBTQ+ issues, let us consider how they fit with both the scriptural evidence and the lived experiences of queer people:
One major problem for the “welcoming but not affirming”/celibate gay Christian perspective (or any perspective that makes a strong distinction between ‘sin’ and ‘temptation’ on this matter) is that the New Testament itself does not provide much room for differentiation between sinful ‘acts’ and the inward ‘inclination’ toward such acts.
Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount makes it clear that impulses to sin that arise from within oneself are manifestations of sinfulness that one is morally culpable for (consider his teaching on lust and adultery). As James Brownson points out, one’s inner evil impulses “are seen in Scripture as manifestations of a sinful nature and are to be resisted in the same way that sinful actions are to be avoided (see Matt. 26:41; Mark 14:8; Luke 22:40, 46; 1 Cor. 7:5; Gal. 6:1; 1 Tim. 6:9).”
One could attempt to follow Wesley Hill’s distinction between a morally neutral ‘orientation’/enduring pattern of desires and a sinful lust that such desires could give rise to. In which case, one would read the New Testament passages as pertaining to only lustful desire. But it is hard to argue that desires that are understood to be inherently ‘disordered’ could have some manifestation that was not somehow sinful.
Nor does the ancient understanding of sexual desire (which likely informs Paul’s thinking) provide opportunity for same-sex desire to arise out of anything other than lust/passion run amok (consider Paul’s language of “sinful desires” and “shameful lusts”).
Ultimately, the scriptural evidence regarding temptation, immoral desire, and sin, does not seem to leave us in a place of confidence to affirm clear moral distinctions between ‘orientation’ and ‘behavior’.
And, as we will see, the matter does not become less complex as we turn our attention to the topic of ‘obedience’.
(Part 2 of this post can be found here)
Caught Between 