TJ - great to have you reading! This is helpful information - however, I think this sort of framing is not going to work. I'm a conservative in the PCA. Nevertheless, probably due to my time at Wheaton College, I basically hold a Side B view. Yet, I've never heard all the details you mention about the debate: That means you're failing to reach the more staunch theological conservatives.
If you frame a debate as Side A, B, and C ....... and way over there, side Y and side X-gay, nobody on "Side Y" is going to enter that debate. As I've heard about the debate, it has always basically been Side A and Side B - but I've been mainly in circles that are to the right of side B. How do you enter a debate that you have been written out of?
And how does Side B prevent another generation of same-sex attracted and other individuals from being raised in conservative churches where they will hear "you cannot be gay and be a Christian?" You have to reach the staunch theological conservatives; you cannot frame them out of the debate.
My intervention in this, which is just getting started, will not be operating in the Side B framing. The discussions I am having are between "Side Y" and my very conservative Side B. Then, this coming week, I'm sitting down with a less conservative Side B-er (Grant H.). So to me, the discussion should really be in that range. Side A is ethically heterodox; though I am quite willing to engage in that discussion - I am in one of those discussions with a friend and neighbor also. But I don't think the orthodox Christian discussion should be framed as, "Homosexuality? Oh, Christians disagree about whether it is ethical or not," which is how I hear the Side A-Side B framing.
I'm now in the PCA, and I don't see the anti-Side-B conservatives talking to the Side-B favorable folks. I'm trying to open up that discussion, which I think I am well situated to do, because I'm quite conservative on a great many other issues, but want to quibble with the conservatives on this one. Does that strategy make sense? Do you see where I'm coming from? Again, thanks so much for this interaction; it's really helpful.
I really appreciate the length and care of this response. I think my reply above came across as too accusatory or personal. I'm trying to formulate my approach to Side B, and you're one of the first Side B-ers I've had the chance to speak to directly. I made it sound like I was accusing you of something that I really meant as a diagnosis of a general problem. I'm sorry if it came across that way!
Now, I appreciate you sending me the links, and it has updated my understanding of the Christian discourse in question. I partly am writing in order to communicate what I, as someone sympathetic to Side B but who hasn't gone too far down the rabbit-hole (though I have gone down it a bit), has seen. And what I've experienced is that Side B's arguments are not even heard in conservative theological circles. I was the only person who made the argument at Westminster Theological Seminary in an ethics course. The professor just asserted Side Y after misrepresenting Side B. I raised my hand and argued for the legitimacy, basically, of the category of sexual orientation. In my time in conservative OPC and PCA churches over the last decade, I am the only person who I've ever heard defend Side B at all. So I don't mean to accuse Side B of not trying to discuss this. But as a Side B sympathetic conservative Presbyterian, that engagement hasn't reached me.
As a result, my concern is that Side B isn't making the strongest case it can to its more conservative fellow church-people. I think Matthew Lee Anderson might be an exception. I think Kyle Keating, to whom I've spoken, and a number of folks I know through the Davenant Institute also hold a more conservative Side B (or progressive Side Y, whatever you want to call it).
I also understand that the discussion is very personal! I just want to emphasize that my concern in this is that Side B, or at least a central Side B argument, is heard by a broader audience. For the sake of actually getting you a quicker response, I'm going to stop there for the moment! I'd love to come to Revoice, especially since it will be in St. Louis again, I'll say hello to Grant, and David has indeed reached out to me! Thanks again, TJ.
I'm also friends with some other folks like Kyle Keating, Stephen Moss, Johanna Finegan, and others who have been trying to have this conversation in the PCA. Part of the frustration that at least I've had, and I think others as well, is that our arguments seem to be falling on deaf ears, and aren't being considered very seriously. And it gets pretty wearing.
Like a lot of PCA folks still think a "spiritual friendship" is another word for what we more commonly call a "celibate partnership," which is not and has never been the definition used at the Spiritual Friendship blog. (It is something Wesley Hill muses about some in his book of the same title, but even there it isn't really how the term is defined.) People won't even read what we write because they associate it with something it isn't.
I was just at the Wisconsin Presbytery meeting this weekend where Overture 15 was voted on. The arguments in favor of O15 are a bunch of old, tired arguments, and I found they just get more bothersome as we try to explain things and yet continue to get lambasted. And the presbytery only narrowly voted down O15, with a much closer vote than last year's sexuality overtures. Things are moving in the wrong direction.
Honestly, this discussion feels a lot like trying to have a discussion with someone about whether to get a Covid vaccine. Group polarization seems to be playing a stronger role than actual reasoning, and I've found it only seems that getting to know individuals in person can break through that, not theological arguments, however well-reasoned. I think PCA folks tend to overestimate the degree to which we're actually driven by sound reasoning, and underestimate the ways that biases, group dynamics, etc. affect human cognition. Those are lessons I've definitely had to learn myself. But I've become less and less convinced that solid theological arguments can move the needle, because I think we're dealing with something that is more a heart issue than a head issue.
Thanks for this reflection. I realize that I'm coming to the discussion late, but on the other hand, this will only continue. I suspect that there is more hope than it feels like. This is an issue where there will be generational change. More millennials and Gen Z folks, and younger, will know people who are gay and will reflect on the issue more sympathetically. Of course, this will also mean that lots of people will give up on a traditional sexual ethic. But I think that the failure to persuade the more conservative half of the PCA is not the final word, by any means.
Now, I've seen a small amount of success in getting a hearing that most Side B folks don't get. At Westminster Seminary, in a Christian Ethics class, the Side Y was presented as basically the orthodox view, and I raised an objection. I guess sixty or so people heard that, however it affected them. Several years later, two of my friends - conservative ministers in the OPC - commented to me that my comment in that class had stuck with them and tempered their own views on the subject.
Ironically, I am currently attending one of the most conservative PCA's in St. Louis. I've raised my objections to the Side-Y approach several times, earning a hearing from very conservative ministers that they might not otherwise afford to a Side B perspective. This is partly because I'm so conservative on other issues and happy to be in their congregation.
More to say, but that's a start! What do you think? Fool's errand?
Also, I just read and really appreciated your piece on the "Spiritual Friendship" blog.
Yeah, I'm not saying to give up, and thanks for doing what you're doing! I was just explaining why I've been focusing less on persuasion in the public sphere lately. In a more private setting when I have the opportunity, I'll still try to share and help people understand.
The generational change is real. In my experience, one of the primary reasons straight people give up on a traditional sexual ethic is that they see it as being based in prejudice. So when they see gay people attacked even when they are following that ethic, it just offers confirmation. And I think visible examples of gay people following that ethic, such as Greg Johnson, are among the most powerful ways to stem the tide and let people see that orthodox Christian theology is compatible with recognizing the phenomenon of sexual orientation as it actually exists. Even my friends with more side A views have a lot more respect for the traditional sexual ethic knowing me. So one of my worries is how to stem the tide of younger folks abandoning orthodoxy, and something like Overture 15 is exactly how you exacerbate it instead. But older folks have trouble seeing that.
So I think it's important to persuade; I just have gotten very frustrated with how poorly it seems to go when it's a public conversation.
Yes, thank you for speaking up! The Side Y arguments lack the nuance you have provided above, and I feel like I've not seen my straight brethren apply their perspective/critique towards their own inner-workings. They raise it just sufficiently enough to critique and dismiss those who are actually trying to apply it to their lives, so I thank you for being ready to stand out. Politics of association all too often determine whether someone would decide to raise their voice, that is, people are afraid of being "liberal" and so don't want to associate with the Side B community. And folks like Greg Johnson or myself can get easily dismissed for catering theology to personal biases or overemphasizing pastoral matters (it often feels like Reformed boundary keepers want to create a neat box with their theological expression, and ask that everyone just fit their spiritual development and pastoral application into this box. Maybe that's ungenerous and lacks nuance?).
I can agree that a large swath of Side B voices are quite disengaged from careful theological work. I don't put that blame fully on them, and it's a group that spans many denominations. I've found that Side B folk who are PCA, Anglican, Orthodox and Catholic have the most theologically and Biblically thoughtful contributions (the PCA voices at Revoice brought the heat!), and I hope to continue to offer what I can.
I found very intriguing your point that Side Y (anti-Side B conservatives) subtly lay the groundwork for an Ex-Gay narrative; while they would always deny the Ex-Gay narrative explicitly, they keep insisting on the need for repentance and the expectation for sanctification of the affections.
I would love to connect and discuss some other thoughts on the dynamics at play in this conversation. Many arguments are "identity" related, and while your argument is a helpful move to identifying with misery and not merely sin, I have come to believe this is an elephant-rider (to borrow Haidt's metaphor) situation, and we might be trying to reason with a rider who is not in control. davidfrank.mn@gmail.com
PS, I might commend a parenthetical note (or a footnote) when you introduce "Side C" in your first paragraph with something like: "The Side B community may recognize this as Side Y."
TJ - great to have you reading! This is helpful information - however, I think this sort of framing is not going to work. I'm a conservative in the PCA. Nevertheless, probably due to my time at Wheaton College, I basically hold a Side B view. Yet, I've never heard all the details you mention about the debate: That means you're failing to reach the more staunch theological conservatives.
If you frame a debate as Side A, B, and C ....... and way over there, side Y and side X-gay, nobody on "Side Y" is going to enter that debate. As I've heard about the debate, it has always basically been Side A and Side B - but I've been mainly in circles that are to the right of side B. How do you enter a debate that you have been written out of?
And how does Side B prevent another generation of same-sex attracted and other individuals from being raised in conservative churches where they will hear "you cannot be gay and be a Christian?" You have to reach the staunch theological conservatives; you cannot frame them out of the debate.
My intervention in this, which is just getting started, will not be operating in the Side B framing. The discussions I am having are between "Side Y" and my very conservative Side B. Then, this coming week, I'm sitting down with a less conservative Side B-er (Grant H.). So to me, the discussion should really be in that range. Side A is ethically heterodox; though I am quite willing to engage in that discussion - I am in one of those discussions with a friend and neighbor also. But I don't think the orthodox Christian discussion should be framed as, "Homosexuality? Oh, Christians disagree about whether it is ethical or not," which is how I hear the Side A-Side B framing.
I'm now in the PCA, and I don't see the anti-Side-B conservatives talking to the Side-B favorable folks. I'm trying to open up that discussion, which I think I am well situated to do, because I'm quite conservative on a great many other issues, but want to quibble with the conservatives on this one. Does that strategy make sense? Do you see where I'm coming from? Again, thanks so much for this interaction; it's really helpful.
I really appreciate the length and care of this response. I think my reply above came across as too accusatory or personal. I'm trying to formulate my approach to Side B, and you're one of the first Side B-ers I've had the chance to speak to directly. I made it sound like I was accusing you of something that I really meant as a diagnosis of a general problem. I'm sorry if it came across that way!
Now, I appreciate you sending me the links, and it has updated my understanding of the Christian discourse in question. I partly am writing in order to communicate what I, as someone sympathetic to Side B but who hasn't gone too far down the rabbit-hole (though I have gone down it a bit), has seen. And what I've experienced is that Side B's arguments are not even heard in conservative theological circles. I was the only person who made the argument at Westminster Theological Seminary in an ethics course. The professor just asserted Side Y after misrepresenting Side B. I raised my hand and argued for the legitimacy, basically, of the category of sexual orientation. In my time in conservative OPC and PCA churches over the last decade, I am the only person who I've ever heard defend Side B at all. So I don't mean to accuse Side B of not trying to discuss this. But as a Side B sympathetic conservative Presbyterian, that engagement hasn't reached me.
As a result, my concern is that Side B isn't making the strongest case it can to its more conservative fellow church-people. I think Matthew Lee Anderson might be an exception. I think Kyle Keating, to whom I've spoken, and a number of folks I know through the Davenant Institute also hold a more conservative Side B (or progressive Side Y, whatever you want to call it).
I also understand that the discussion is very personal! I just want to emphasize that my concern in this is that Side B, or at least a central Side B argument, is heard by a broader audience. For the sake of actually getting you a quicker response, I'm going to stop there for the moment! I'd love to come to Revoice, especially since it will be in St. Louis again, I'll say hello to Grant, and David has indeed reached out to me! Thanks again, TJ.
So I'm another PCA person who has been trying to make these arguments for years. For example, a year ago I wrote this detailed response to questions about sanctification: https://spiritualfriendship.org/2022/01/05/sanctification-is-usually-not-orientation-change-but-its-still-real/
I'm also friends with some other folks like Kyle Keating, Stephen Moss, Johanna Finegan, and others who have been trying to have this conversation in the PCA. Part of the frustration that at least I've had, and I think others as well, is that our arguments seem to be falling on deaf ears, and aren't being considered very seriously. And it gets pretty wearing.
Like a lot of PCA folks still think a "spiritual friendship" is another word for what we more commonly call a "celibate partnership," which is not and has never been the definition used at the Spiritual Friendship blog. (It is something Wesley Hill muses about some in his book of the same title, but even there it isn't really how the term is defined.) People won't even read what we write because they associate it with something it isn't.
I was just at the Wisconsin Presbytery meeting this weekend where Overture 15 was voted on. The arguments in favor of O15 are a bunch of old, tired arguments, and I found they just get more bothersome as we try to explain things and yet continue to get lambasted. And the presbytery only narrowly voted down O15, with a much closer vote than last year's sexuality overtures. Things are moving in the wrong direction.
Honestly, this discussion feels a lot like trying to have a discussion with someone about whether to get a Covid vaccine. Group polarization seems to be playing a stronger role than actual reasoning, and I've found it only seems that getting to know individuals in person can break through that, not theological arguments, however well-reasoned. I think PCA folks tend to overestimate the degree to which we're actually driven by sound reasoning, and underestimate the ways that biases, group dynamics, etc. affect human cognition. Those are lessons I've definitely had to learn myself. But I've become less and less convinced that solid theological arguments can move the needle, because I think we're dealing with something that is more a heart issue than a head issue.
Jeremy,
Thanks for this reflection. I realize that I'm coming to the discussion late, but on the other hand, this will only continue. I suspect that there is more hope than it feels like. This is an issue where there will be generational change. More millennials and Gen Z folks, and younger, will know people who are gay and will reflect on the issue more sympathetically. Of course, this will also mean that lots of people will give up on a traditional sexual ethic. But I think that the failure to persuade the more conservative half of the PCA is not the final word, by any means.
Now, I've seen a small amount of success in getting a hearing that most Side B folks don't get. At Westminster Seminary, in a Christian Ethics class, the Side Y was presented as basically the orthodox view, and I raised an objection. I guess sixty or so people heard that, however it affected them. Several years later, two of my friends - conservative ministers in the OPC - commented to me that my comment in that class had stuck with them and tempered their own views on the subject.
Ironically, I am currently attending one of the most conservative PCA's in St. Louis. I've raised my objections to the Side-Y approach several times, earning a hearing from very conservative ministers that they might not otherwise afford to a Side B perspective. This is partly because I'm so conservative on other issues and happy to be in their congregation.
More to say, but that's a start! What do you think? Fool's errand?
Also, I just read and really appreciated your piece on the "Spiritual Friendship" blog.
Yeah, I'm not saying to give up, and thanks for doing what you're doing! I was just explaining why I've been focusing less on persuasion in the public sphere lately. In a more private setting when I have the opportunity, I'll still try to share and help people understand.
The generational change is real. In my experience, one of the primary reasons straight people give up on a traditional sexual ethic is that they see it as being based in prejudice. So when they see gay people attacked even when they are following that ethic, it just offers confirmation. And I think visible examples of gay people following that ethic, such as Greg Johnson, are among the most powerful ways to stem the tide and let people see that orthodox Christian theology is compatible with recognizing the phenomenon of sexual orientation as it actually exists. Even my friends with more side A views have a lot more respect for the traditional sexual ethic knowing me. So one of my worries is how to stem the tide of younger folks abandoning orthodoxy, and something like Overture 15 is exactly how you exacerbate it instead. But older folks have trouble seeing that.
So I think it's important to persuade; I just have gotten very frustrated with how poorly it seems to go when it's a public conversation.
Yes, thank you for speaking up! The Side Y arguments lack the nuance you have provided above, and I feel like I've not seen my straight brethren apply their perspective/critique towards their own inner-workings. They raise it just sufficiently enough to critique and dismiss those who are actually trying to apply it to their lives, so I thank you for being ready to stand out. Politics of association all too often determine whether someone would decide to raise their voice, that is, people are afraid of being "liberal" and so don't want to associate with the Side B community. And folks like Greg Johnson or myself can get easily dismissed for catering theology to personal biases or overemphasizing pastoral matters (it often feels like Reformed boundary keepers want to create a neat box with their theological expression, and ask that everyone just fit their spiritual development and pastoral application into this box. Maybe that's ungenerous and lacks nuance?).
I can agree that a large swath of Side B voices are quite disengaged from careful theological work. I don't put that blame fully on them, and it's a group that spans many denominations. I've found that Side B folk who are PCA, Anglican, Orthodox and Catholic have the most theologically and Biblically thoughtful contributions (the PCA voices at Revoice brought the heat!), and I hope to continue to offer what I can.
I found very intriguing your point that Side Y (anti-Side B conservatives) subtly lay the groundwork for an Ex-Gay narrative; while they would always deny the Ex-Gay narrative explicitly, they keep insisting on the need for repentance and the expectation for sanctification of the affections.
I would love to connect and discuss some other thoughts on the dynamics at play in this conversation. Many arguments are "identity" related, and while your argument is a helpful move to identifying with misery and not merely sin, I have come to believe this is an elephant-rider (to borrow Haidt's metaphor) situation, and we might be trying to reason with a rider who is not in control. davidfrank.mn@gmail.com
PS, I might commend a parenthetical note (or a footnote) when you introduce "Side C" in your first paragraph with something like: "The Side B community may recognize this as Side Y."