Same-Sex Attraction and the Misery of Our Condition
The bare fact that one’s sexual attractions are for members of the same sex is a part of the misery of our condition.
My fellow theological conservatives commonly hold that the “Side B,” celibate gay Christian position does not have scripture and the confessions on its side. Side B’s use of the word “gay” is thought to make too many concessions to the cultural and political movement that would transform sexual relationships across Western countries. Specifically, it is alleged that this way of speaking makes out same-sex attraction to be sinless, as opposed to admitting that having same-sex sexual desires is itself sinful. This form of conservative response I will call “Side C.” (The Side B community may recognize this as “Side Y.”)
However, the classification of the temptations and the psychology of a Christian short of sinful action is not as clear as Side C makes out. In particular, features of the disorder of our desires and of our psychology that lead us to sinful action belong in the category of “misery,” the suffering that is the result of the curse upon sin, the “natural evil” to which we are subject after the fall, to be distinguished from the moral evil that comes from our hearts. This is so even as they qualify as sin as original sin, and not as actual sin). Not everything in a person’s psychology belongs to the category of action; hence, if it is not in line with God’s original design, it may not belong in the category of actual sin, but of misery.
1. Misery
Let me introduce the idea of misery itself. The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks into what estate the fall brought mankind, and replies that it brought us “into an estate of sin and misery” (WSC Q17). “Sin” includes actual sin, but also the corruption of our nature that engenders sinful desire, which includes or is included in the theological category of original sin (WSC Q18). Misery is every part of the suffering of human life, what the novelist calls “the tragic conditions of existence,” everything from minor inconvenience to hellish suffering, death, and hell itself (WSC Q19).
2. The Passions
But the possibility of a sort of overlap or ambiguity at the boundary of these two is not often recognized. Chiefly, we have the longstanding term of ancient and Christian psychology, “passion,” which describes what we often now call desires and emotions as something with respect to which we are passive rather than active, by way of contrast with action. And secondly, we have the categories of personality and psychology which describe the raw materials of human motivation and disposition that precede not only action, but even desire.
Think: For a long time, emotions and desires were thought of as passions, psychic impulses that came upon a person, rather than arising from any will or intention. Much of Ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, represented most memorably by the Stoics, saw the task of the philosophical person as ridding himself of these passions, or being less and less affected by them. These thinkers did not excuse a person for being affected by the passions; quite the contrary. But they did view them as something with respect to which the person was fundamentally passive. It was in fact part of human nature, the given constitution of humanity, such that to be free of passion would be to be, to that extent, divine. After all, human beings never chose to be subject to the passions; the opportunity for human action only arises in the context of subjection to the passions.
Christian teaching did not fundamentally reject this Greek understanding, nor should it have. We might think that it should be rejected because of Christ’s teaching that what comes out of us comes from the heart, and because of the doctrine of original sin. But even the doctrine of original sin can be understood to have exactly the opposite implication. The whole point of the doctrine is that there are aspects of sin that precede individual choice and are inherited and given to us. Likewise, the teaching of original guilt, even by its most ardent proponents, is understood in terms of imputation: We are not guilty for having original sin in our members; we are imputed guilty for Adam’s sin - a sin which was not preceded by original sin. (Hence, the question of why Adam sinned in the first place.) To that extent, the doctrine of original sin can and should temper our judgments of others, as even the secular philosopher Alain de Botton has eloquently argued.1
3. Psychology and Personality
Now consider a different category at the boundary of sin and misery: “Psychology” and “personality.” These terms are, unlike the idea of the passions, irredeemably modern. But they similarly characterize aspects of human experience that precede action; likewise, knowledge about another’s psychology or personality usually softens our judgment of them as we recognize that their actions come from aspects of themselves that were given to them. While our psychology and personality have some level of malleability, they are something with respect to which we are passive, especially at any point in time. We do not ever simply choose them.
Still, as affected by the fall, human personality and psychology will be included in the theological category of original sin. Nor are they an excuse: We are not off the hook for being led to certain sins by features of our psychology and personality. Nevertheless, we are not directly culpable for them. In fact, there can be no better way to be faithful to God with respect to our flawed psychology than, rather than blaming ourselves for it, to begin to figure out how to live in light of it. In my own case, a (once) very introverted Christian may cultivate skills of interpersonal communication that do not come naturally to him, in order to express Christian love to others. Feeling terrible about oneself for being subject to that particular challenge is not especially helpful. Recognizing it as the hand one has been dealt is perfectly appropriate, and then thinking about how to be faithful to God to play the hand one is dealt.
Now, my argument is not that the category of sin should be restricted to the domain of action. It is to recognize that the original sin that precedes action is also to be categorized as part of the misery of the condition into which man fell. After all, we look forward to a day not when we will be infinitely strong against incessant temptation, but to the cessation of temptation, freedom from original sin, a perfected nature. Just as it is suffering to be subject to temptation and original sin, it would be great blessing to be free of it, though that is beyond our control - it is eschatological.
4. Sin and Misery in Relation to Same-Sex Attraction
Let me throw out a couple of things that I think should be understood as exemplifying the misery of our condition. First, to be subject to lustful desires for a person of the same-sex is a form of misery – at least, as recognized by a Christian in that position. The Christian is to deny and not to indulge such desires, even when they remain within the realm of the mind or heart; on this, there is an exact parallel with the situation for a Christian who experiences lustful heterosexual desires. In both cases, being subject to lustful desires is a form of misery – would that we were not subject to such desires! Of course, at the same time, such lustful desires are aspects of original sin, “the corruption of [man’s] whole nature,” from which proceed actual transgressions (WSC 18).
Second, the bare fact that one’s sexual attractions are for members of the same sex is a part of the misery of our condition. This is evident in that it is a form of suffering to find that one’s pattern of attraction is not in alignment with the created order, leading one towards marriage and the bearing and rearing of children. This is a trial.
Now Side C frequently insists that this pattern of attraction is itself sinful and needs to be repented of. But there is an important ambiguity here between the several elements of same-sex attraction. First are lustful desires themselves. These must be put to death. Side C then wants to insist that any attempt to distinguish something underlying same-sex lustful desires will not pick out something that is free from sin. Hence, same-sex attraction, in the sense of the whole pattern of attraction to the same-sex within which particular lustful desires arise, is itself also sinful and must be repented of. But it is not clear what Side C means by “same-sex attraction.” Any particular desire for an illicit end, not only erotic but romantic, will have to be classified as a sinful desire. And, while this is correct, it remains at the level of desires, and does not reach to anything that underlies desire itself.
On the other hand, here is something that does not fit neatly into the class of desires: the bare fact that, when attraction arises in person, it is for the same sex. A fact, let it be noted, is not a desire.2 “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed” (Col 3:5). The same-sex attracted Christian can put to death sexual immorality (Check!), impurity, in the form of every impure action and desire (Check!), lust (Check!), evil desires (Check!) and greed (Check!). In the process of obeying all of Christ’s commands, it may remain a (bare) fact that, when attraction arises in this saint, it is for the same sex. Not a single desire or inclination of a person is being classified as other than sinful. A mere fact that the desires and inclinations and attractions to which a person is subject have one object rather than another is distinguished from these sinful actions, desires, inclinations, and attractions.
This mere fact, I submit, is what many Christians indicate when they call themselves “same-sex attracted,” or even “gay.” This mere fact is, again, not an action. Neither is it a desire. In fact, it is not so much as a motion of the same-sex attracted Christian’s nature. For these reasons, it must be carefully distinguished from these rather than confused.
Does it still belong in the category of original sin? Yes. But consider: Is the fact that my nature is corrupted in the category of original sin? Of course, but it is neither an action nor a desire; it is not so much as a motion of one’s nature. Again, are we blameworthy for the fact that we have a corrupted nature? No, how could we be? Original guilt comes by imputation. (And not mediate imputation.) Christian doctrine does not require that we hold people responsible for the inheritance of original sin, though it does require that we hold that people are both corrupt and guilty.
An important point: For all Christians, it is tragic, a form of suffering, a trial, a bit of misery, to be born with original sin. Original sin itself fits into the category of misery. (The Shorter Catechism includes a wide category of “the miseries of this life.” Being subject to original sin is one of those miseries, or rather, many of them.) Adam was not subject to original sin - what a better position to be in than our own!
Just as a Christian cannot repent of possessing original sin, a Christian cannot repent of the bare fact that, when attractions arise, they are for the same sex.
Consider then this statement from the Ad Interim Committee: “The experience of same-sex attraction is not morally neutral; the attraction is an expression of original or indwelling sin that must be repented of and put to death” (p. 8). This statement must be read as either ambiguous or as depending on a misunderstanding of what is meant by “same-sex attracted.” As we have argued, no motion of the soul is morally neutral, whether action, desire, inclination, or attraction. But by saying that he is “same-sex attracted,” someone means to highlight not his being subject to so many motions of the soul, attractions, but the same-sex directedness of those attractions (desires, and inclinations). As I have put it, he means to highlight the bare fact that, when he experiences attraction, it is for the same sex. Is this morally neutral? That is not a helpful question. More helpful questions would be, how it fits into the biblical and confessional categories of actual and original sin, sinful desire and temptation, and the miseries of this life. As we have argued, it is not actual sin, nor is it sinful desire. It is an aspect of original sin, to wit, the corruption of our whole nature, which is corrupted differently in different people. But it is not a desire, inclination, or attraction - a motion of the soul which is also actually sinful. It is the mere fact of a certain mode of a person’s corruption and an aspect of the misery of his or her condition. In neither case is it something that even can be repented of and put to death. One cannot put to death facts about oneself.
Now we come to see the real consequences of the conservative error on this point. What comes of downplaying or neglecting the misery of our condition? As Side B has rightly pointed out, the Prosperity Gospel. Having just said that one can’t put to death facts about oneself, there is no denying that God can change facts about us! But as we must realize, God does not promise to change particular facts about us in this life. Especially, forms of suffering and “thorns in the flesh” may remain to make us rely upon the grace of God. When Side C insist that same-sex attracted Christians must repent of their “same-sex attraction,” they risk saying that same-sex attracted Christians should expect to be freed in this life from this affliction. The intention, I know, is to say that every desire, inclination, and attraction for an illicit object must be repented of. But same-sex attracted Christians in the PCA do not argue the contrary. If Side C is to be understood as disagreeing with the Side B in the PCA, then they are heard as subtly offering the same prosperity gospel that Ex-Gay therapy offered: If you are faithful to God, you can and will be free of same-sex attraction in this life, a promise that, I submit, God has not made.
I encourage my fellow theological conservatives to meditate on the notion of the misery of our condition in relation to same-sex attraction.
For more on same-sex attraction, check out my series on a Christian theology of sexuality. Here’s one highlight:
https://www.preachingtoday.com/illustrations/2018/march/british-atheist-loves-concept-of-original-sin.html
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/.