I appreciated the read - I agree that "misery" may be an important category in the conversation, and I definitely agree that sin categorization is not helpful for things such as queerness/same-sex attraction . I am Side B so I am basically on the same page with the basic points you seem to be making. I did want to say that usually, in Side B spaces, a common way to describe what you are referring to as "Side C" is to call it "Side Y" (or even "Side X" if it starts to slip into actual ex-gay territory). "Side C" in the discourse already has another meaning, typically used to refer to Third Way positions and/or uncertainty about what a person believes on the relevant questions between the sides. Additionally, Side B is not only about being celibate; we also have people married in mixed orientation marriages that are part of our movement. Basically, we encourage queer Christians to follow in the traditional Christian discipline related to sex, thus marriage between one man and one woman for life or else a celibate vocation. Some resources to consider are here related to this are here: https://www.podpage.com/communion-shalom/the-sides-in-our-conversation/ ; http://web.archive.org/web/20100716091027/http:/www.bridges-across.org/ba/sides.htm ; https://www.lifeonsideb.com/thefoursides
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.
Jan 30, 2023·edited Jan 30, 2023Liked by Joel Carini
Hello Joel - Thank you for this reply! I think my main goal in sharing these resources was to help expand your view of the landscape about the topic and the positions as they have formed as of now. I also wanted to make a correct about a definitional question: Side B is not just about the "celibate gays", some of us are also in mixed orientation Christian marriages - we have both celibate and married people among us and both should be recognized. Basically, I wanted to help show you that the conversation has a broader and longer history than you seemed to be aware of in your post. This longer and broader history is particularly from queer people themselves who are in the conversation, and not from straight people who are talking about us (often without us).
I think often the issue is not that we are not reaching "staunch theological conservatives" but that they often are not interested in listening to us nor seeking out Side B people. We often are not given space to voice our opinion - we seem too "liberal" to some and too "conservative" to others as we represent a moderating position between the other Sides of the debate. We are often seen as liabilities in their culture wars. And our position is nuanced and still in development in certain respects, so to certain types of people who want all of the propositions immediately at their fingertips for any position, we cannot give it to them – we are still developing our position in certain ways. Our numbers are also relatively few compared to Side A people or Side Y people. Thus, I think it is an odd statement when you say "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." - you put the burden on us, when I am left wondering why is the burden on us to reach them – why can they not try to reach out to us with greater intensity to understand the topic and what it might mean to be a queer person and a Christian who is trying to live in the traditional biblical sexual ethic? You expose a posture that we are ones who failed to engage the straight, staunch theological conservatives. Perhaps they failed to engage us.
I think it is also important to recognize that there is also a personal element for us in this conversation – for us to come out as queer/lgb/sssa/whatever as Christians is rife with complexities. Many of us can face exclusion from our families, churches, community as well as various sorts of discrimination from job loss to loss of housing. This topic touches out lives intimately and so many of us are not able to engage the intellectual field in an open way in the same way as some of our interlocuters and critics. This is prominent part of my life, so when you say, “you are failing to reach the more staunch theological conservatives”, I also want to it to be recognized that to engage the conversation can bring added complexities, loss, and exclusion to my life that the staunch straight theological conservatives do not have to face. It is not just an intellectual endeavour for me, or a doctrinal judgement that I can check off, but that does really impact me; the conversation deeply impacts my life, and limits how I, and others, can participate in it.
There is a lot to say in response to your points, so I will try to share what I can, even if it is not comprehensive. I do not quite understand what you mean by Side Y people being "written out" of the conversation, because we are often engaging such people. I am not framing the conversation as just Side A, B, and C, as I also recognize Side Y and X positions exist, as do basically all Side B people. I, as a Side B person, am rather skeptical about Side Y positions, but I have several Side B friends who are more sympathetic to Side Y positions and actively think along with Side Y positions. Many of us, myself included, are in Side Y dominant churches. Many of us have read Side Y books. Many of us listen to and hear Side Y critiques of us. All that to say, we often engage Side Y people and recognize that they are part of the conversation, but we also think their position, posture, and sensibilities are a worse account than the one we represent. I do not think this means that we write them out, we just think they are wrong, even as we engage the conversation with Side Y or Side Y sympathetic people. We are a rival account or position for the future of the conversation around faith and queerness, as well as certain other strands, such as friendship, marriage, romance, community, etc. But to disagree with someone is not to write them out of the conversation; I am not sure why you seem to think this. They are more numerous than us and typically have more power than we do currently in US conservative churches, we recognize their power, but we are also seeking to change the conversation in ways that they do not want. So, that is the impasse in my mind, not that we are writing them out of the conversation.
However, I will say that I think that many Side B (though not all) think the main challengers for the possibility of the direction that God is calling the church to is Side A or Side B; these two options seem like "live" ones - that have actual potential to represent a flourishing, God honoring life. Side X is not seen as this, nor are Side Y positions often seen as this by Side A and B (and Side C) Christians. Thus, if Side A and Side B Christians are together, Side Y does not come up particularly often, and Side X is treated with strong skepticism. Basically, some of us, though not all of us, think the key conversations are between Side A and B, even if we recognize that questions of lesser import also exist with Side Y and others. Again, not writing them off, but definitely not prioritizing them at times.
You are welcome to contribute to the conversation if you feel so inclined (at times, I wish more "conservative" Christians would), And I am not mandating that you must do so in a “Side B framing”. But I also want you to recognize that queer Christians, Side B and others, have already been talking about this, developed a vocabulary, shaped the landscape of the discourse, and continue to do so in contemporary times. Thus, I think it is always good to recognize, *at the very minimum*, that there is already an indigenous discourse formed and developed from queer Christians and to give the relevant nods to our discourse, our positions, our strands of thought, etc. even as you may want to expand the conversation or say something from your own positionality for the goals you have in the conversation. I will say that if you do this, this would help Side B people, and other queer Christians, recognize you, I think, as more of a serious conversant in the conversation as you know how this conversation has developed among those who the conversation deeply and personally impacts.
I am aware of the conversation in the PCA, particularly through my podcast cohost, David Frank, and the Side Y and Side B + Side-B favorable folks are definitely conversing in some PCA spaces, though they might not be in every presbytery (I am not PCA, so I only know about the details through my PCA friends related to their own presbyteries). I could connect you to him if you would be interested to talk with him about this - his knows deeply about the relevant dynamics.
A final thought, I will also say as that different people in the Side B theological movement have different vocations. Some, such as my friend David Frank, have a gift to reach out to the Side Y conservatives and are doing so with much vigor, and others, such as myself, are primarily engaged in other developmental endeavours as our theological movement grows. Likely any social movement, we have multiple dynamics at play among us as we try to imagine a different world that can help queer Christian, and all Christians, flourish in the traditional sexual ethic as part of our common journey towards the Kingdom of God.
A final, final thought: I do see where you are coming from and I applaud your basic goal, but I think that your perspective would be enhanced by engaging the longer and broader way that queer Christians have talked about this, and how we have noted what we see as the central question and problems to resolve. The queer Christian perspective should be centered in this topic and not the straight conservative perspective (in my opinion of course).
I shared many thoughts above – I hope I communicated them as well as I could in a relatively short space and time limit. Questions and comments are welcome!
Say hello to Grant for me! Also come to Revoice 2023 and meet up with more Side B people if you are free in June 2023 - many of us would be down for conversations. Some of my straight friends are also coming, so there are both Side B people and Side B ally types coming. You would be most welcome!
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."
Jan 30, 2023·edited Jan 30, 2023Liked by Joel Carini
Be at peace, Joel. I am thankful you are engaging this conversation.
I definitely believe you that Side B arguments are not even heard in some Side Y spaces. Much respect to you for making Side B oriented arguments at your seminary- thank you. We are regularly misrepresented, in my experience, by all sides, and I am thankful that you stood up for more nuance in your context.
I, and others, are also keen to provide the strongest account that we can to others around us of the variety of positions on the table, though this process is complex for a variety of reasons. Thank you again for working to ensure that certain core Side B arguments are heard by the broader audience; I truly think this is important, even if I am engaging the conversation in other ways than working with Side Y people. So glad you connected with David Frank - both of you have many commonalities. Let me know if you ever want to have a conversation on this topic virtually (or in person at Revoice in June), David Frank could organize it as needed, I think. May God bless you today!
Edit: just as an addendum - my read is that Davenant Institute is what would typically be called Side Y by Side B people, but I do not truly know as I rarely see them engage this conversation directly. Be well!
Not that anyone is weeping tears of pity for such people--though we certainly ought to--but this argument would hold for pedophiles, psychopaths, and sadists (as defined by Side C). Aside from suicide or execution, no common Christian articulation of Side C is capable of preaching the gospel, at least in good faith and comprehensively, to what human society might together call "sinners".
When we make everything actual sin, we are neither motivated nor capable of obeying God's command to be holy. Since no one will see God apart from the obedience of faith, and He has commanded us to be holy and told us that habitual sinners walk in darkness and apart from God (1 John), the notion that Christ's righteousness just nullifies all that habitual disobedience and wickedness precipitates antinomian and/or complacent attitudes among "normal" people, who think of their actual sin as less egregious than the misery "real sinners" suffer.
This is often also accompanied by conflation of demonic powers and humans, since a "beyond hope" human is little different from a fallen angel. So women are either "good mothers naturally" or "a monster", "crazy", etc., but never able to articulate the horrifying suffering that accompanies post-partum depression, for example, without risk of being judged as the latter merely for harmful ideation. So they go without aid, internalize their "monstrous nature", and drown their kids in the bathtub, with no one taking responsibility for their part in isolating a miserable human being from the aid and grace that might have saved her. They don't weep for her because, deep down, they never believe that she could have been saved.
Side Cers are then tempted to proselytize "normal" sinfulness or to join Side A, either of which "causes these little ones to stumble".
I appreciated the read - I agree that "misery" may be an important category in the conversation, and I definitely agree that sin categorization is not helpful for things such as queerness/same-sex attraction . I am Side B so I am basically on the same page with the basic points you seem to be making. I did want to say that usually, in Side B spaces, a common way to describe what you are referring to as "Side C" is to call it "Side Y" (or even "Side X" if it starts to slip into actual ex-gay territory). "Side C" in the discourse already has another meaning, typically used to refer to Third Way positions and/or uncertainty about what a person believes on the relevant questions between the sides. Additionally, Side B is not only about being celibate; we also have people married in mixed orientation marriages that are part of our movement. Basically, we encourage queer Christians to follow in the traditional Christian discipline related to sex, thus marriage between one man and one woman for life or else a celibate vocation. Some resources to consider are here related to this are here: https://www.podpage.com/communion-shalom/the-sides-in-our-conversation/ ; http://web.archive.org/web/20100716091027/http:/www.bridges-across.org/ba/sides.htm ; https://www.lifeonsideb.com/thefoursides
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.
Hello Joel - Thank you for this reply! I think my main goal in sharing these resources was to help expand your view of the landscape about the topic and the positions as they have formed as of now. I also wanted to make a correct about a definitional question: Side B is not just about the "celibate gays", some of us are also in mixed orientation Christian marriages - we have both celibate and married people among us and both should be recognized. Basically, I wanted to help show you that the conversation has a broader and longer history than you seemed to be aware of in your post. This longer and broader history is particularly from queer people themselves who are in the conversation, and not from straight people who are talking about us (often without us).
I think often the issue is not that we are not reaching "staunch theological conservatives" but that they often are not interested in listening to us nor seeking out Side B people. We often are not given space to voice our opinion - we seem too "liberal" to some and too "conservative" to others as we represent a moderating position between the other Sides of the debate. We are often seen as liabilities in their culture wars. And our position is nuanced and still in development in certain respects, so to certain types of people who want all of the propositions immediately at their fingertips for any position, we cannot give it to them – we are still developing our position in certain ways. Our numbers are also relatively few compared to Side A people or Side Y people. Thus, I think it is an odd statement when you say "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." - you put the burden on us, when I am left wondering why is the burden on us to reach them – why can they not try to reach out to us with greater intensity to understand the topic and what it might mean to be a queer person and a Christian who is trying to live in the traditional biblical sexual ethic? You expose a posture that we are ones who failed to engage the straight, staunch theological conservatives. Perhaps they failed to engage us.
I think it is also important to recognize that there is also a personal element for us in this conversation – for us to come out as queer/lgb/sssa/whatever as Christians is rife with complexities. Many of us can face exclusion from our families, churches, community as well as various sorts of discrimination from job loss to loss of housing. This topic touches out lives intimately and so many of us are not able to engage the intellectual field in an open way in the same way as some of our interlocuters and critics. This is prominent part of my life, so when you say, “you are failing to reach the more staunch theological conservatives”, I also want to it to be recognized that to engage the conversation can bring added complexities, loss, and exclusion to my life that the staunch straight theological conservatives do not have to face. It is not just an intellectual endeavour for me, or a doctrinal judgement that I can check off, but that does really impact me; the conversation deeply impacts my life, and limits how I, and others, can participate in it.
There is a lot to say in response to your points, so I will try to share what I can, even if it is not comprehensive. I do not quite understand what you mean by Side Y people being "written out" of the conversation, because we are often engaging such people. I am not framing the conversation as just Side A, B, and C, as I also recognize Side Y and X positions exist, as do basically all Side B people. I, as a Side B person, am rather skeptical about Side Y positions, but I have several Side B friends who are more sympathetic to Side Y positions and actively think along with Side Y positions. Many of us, myself included, are in Side Y dominant churches. Many of us have read Side Y books. Many of us listen to and hear Side Y critiques of us. All that to say, we often engage Side Y people and recognize that they are part of the conversation, but we also think their position, posture, and sensibilities are a worse account than the one we represent. I do not think this means that we write them out, we just think they are wrong, even as we engage the conversation with Side Y or Side Y sympathetic people. We are a rival account or position for the future of the conversation around faith and queerness, as well as certain other strands, such as friendship, marriage, romance, community, etc. But to disagree with someone is not to write them out of the conversation; I am not sure why you seem to think this. They are more numerous than us and typically have more power than we do currently in US conservative churches, we recognize their power, but we are also seeking to change the conversation in ways that they do not want. So, that is the impasse in my mind, not that we are writing them out of the conversation.
However, I will say that I think that many Side B (though not all) think the main challengers for the possibility of the direction that God is calling the church to is Side A or Side B; these two options seem like "live" ones - that have actual potential to represent a flourishing, God honoring life. Side X is not seen as this, nor are Side Y positions often seen as this by Side A and B (and Side C) Christians. Thus, if Side A and Side B Christians are together, Side Y does not come up particularly often, and Side X is treated with strong skepticism. Basically, some of us, though not all of us, think the key conversations are between Side A and B, even if we recognize that questions of lesser import also exist with Side Y and others. Again, not writing them off, but definitely not prioritizing them at times.
You are welcome to contribute to the conversation if you feel so inclined (at times, I wish more "conservative" Christians would), And I am not mandating that you must do so in a “Side B framing”. But I also want you to recognize that queer Christians, Side B and others, have already been talking about this, developed a vocabulary, shaped the landscape of the discourse, and continue to do so in contemporary times. Thus, I think it is always good to recognize, *at the very minimum*, that there is already an indigenous discourse formed and developed from queer Christians and to give the relevant nods to our discourse, our positions, our strands of thought, etc. even as you may want to expand the conversation or say something from your own positionality for the goals you have in the conversation. I will say that if you do this, this would help Side B people, and other queer Christians, recognize you, I think, as more of a serious conversant in the conversation as you know how this conversation has developed among those who the conversation deeply and personally impacts.
I am aware of the conversation in the PCA, particularly through my podcast cohost, David Frank, and the Side Y and Side B + Side-B favorable folks are definitely conversing in some PCA spaces, though they might not be in every presbytery (I am not PCA, so I only know about the details through my PCA friends related to their own presbyteries). I could connect you to him if you would be interested to talk with him about this - his knows deeply about the relevant dynamics.
A final thought, I will also say as that different people in the Side B theological movement have different vocations. Some, such as my friend David Frank, have a gift to reach out to the Side Y conservatives and are doing so with much vigor, and others, such as myself, are primarily engaged in other developmental endeavours as our theological movement grows. Likely any social movement, we have multiple dynamics at play among us as we try to imagine a different world that can help queer Christian, and all Christians, flourish in the traditional sexual ethic as part of our common journey towards the Kingdom of God.
A final, final thought: I do see where you are coming from and I applaud your basic goal, but I think that your perspective would be enhanced by engaging the longer and broader way that queer Christians have talked about this, and how we have noted what we see as the central question and problems to resolve. The queer Christian perspective should be centered in this topic and not the straight conservative perspective (in my opinion of course).
I shared many thoughts above – I hope I communicated them as well as I could in a relatively short space and time limit. Questions and comments are welcome!
Say hello to Grant for me! Also come to Revoice 2023 and meet up with more Side B people if you are free in June 2023 - many of us would be down for conversations. Some of my straight friends are also coming, so there are both Side B people and Side B ally types coming. You would be most welcome!
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."
Be at peace, Joel. I am thankful you are engaging this conversation.
I definitely believe you that Side B arguments are not even heard in some Side Y spaces. Much respect to you for making Side B oriented arguments at your seminary- thank you. We are regularly misrepresented, in my experience, by all sides, and I am thankful that you stood up for more nuance in your context.
I, and others, are also keen to provide the strongest account that we can to others around us of the variety of positions on the table, though this process is complex for a variety of reasons. Thank you again for working to ensure that certain core Side B arguments are heard by the broader audience; I truly think this is important, even if I am engaging the conversation in other ways than working with Side Y people. So glad you connected with David Frank - both of you have many commonalities. Let me know if you ever want to have a conversation on this topic virtually (or in person at Revoice in June), David Frank could organize it as needed, I think. May God bless you today!
Edit: just as an addendum - my read is that Davenant Institute is what would typically be called Side Y by Side B people, but I do not truly know as I rarely see them engage this conversation directly. Be well!
Not that anyone is weeping tears of pity for such people--though we certainly ought to--but this argument would hold for pedophiles, psychopaths, and sadists (as defined by Side C). Aside from suicide or execution, no common Christian articulation of Side C is capable of preaching the gospel, at least in good faith and comprehensively, to what human society might together call "sinners".
When we make everything actual sin, we are neither motivated nor capable of obeying God's command to be holy. Since no one will see God apart from the obedience of faith, and He has commanded us to be holy and told us that habitual sinners walk in darkness and apart from God (1 John), the notion that Christ's righteousness just nullifies all that habitual disobedience and wickedness precipitates antinomian and/or complacent attitudes among "normal" people, who think of their actual sin as less egregious than the misery "real sinners" suffer.
This is often also accompanied by conflation of demonic powers and humans, since a "beyond hope" human is little different from a fallen angel. So women are either "good mothers naturally" or "a monster", "crazy", etc., but never able to articulate the horrifying suffering that accompanies post-partum depression, for example, without risk of being judged as the latter merely for harmful ideation. So they go without aid, internalize their "monstrous nature", and drown their kids in the bathtub, with no one taking responsibility for their part in isolating a miserable human being from the aid and grace that might have saved her. They don't weep for her because, deep down, they never believe that she could have been saved.
Side Cers are then tempted to proselytize "normal" sinfulness or to join Side A, either of which "causes these little ones to stumble".