Suffering from Original Sin: Misty Irons on Same-Sex Attraction

The category of "sin" includes an entire dimension of what we are subject to, rather than what is subject to our wills: We suffer from the malady of original sin.

One of the first topics I wrote on at “The Natural Theologian” was same-sex attraction and the Christian life. While I do not experience same-sex attraction myself, I found that the predominant conservative evangelical narrative on same-sex attraction was unduly harsh to those who do. My post “Same-Sex Attraction and the Misery of Our Condition” found an audience with Side B readers, that is, readers in the community of celibate, gay Christians (leading to my being interviewed here). This was partly because I argued that the claim that same-sex attraction and sexual orientation are sin is not theologically well-grounded, because it ignores the category of “misery” in Reformed theology:

“Into what estate did the fall bring mankind? Into an estate of sin and misery.” - Westminster Shorter Catechism Question 17

Recently, the podcast Communion and Shalom interviewed Misty Irons, a Christian woman who has long been involved with ministry to and among same-sex attracted Christians and non-Christians. Halfway through, one of the hosts ask Irons about what she thought of my categorization of same-sex attraction or orientation more in the “misery” category than the “sin” category. She responded with very thoughtful comments about the way in which same-sex attraction sits at the boundary between the two. She resisted simply putting it fully in the “misery” category. She argued that same-sex attraction is somewhat uniquely situated on the boundary of sin and misery.

In her response, Irons assumed that I meant to put same-sex attraction entirely in the “misery” category rather than the “sin” category. That isn’t exactly what I meant, but that’s okay, because she then launches into the kind of nuanced answer I meant to be giving. My intention was to say that, in seeking to give a theological and biblical account of same-sex attraction, we shouldn’t ignore the biblical category of misery. We are not more biblically faithful the more harshly we condemn an experience like same-sex attraction as “sin.”

Sin and Misery: The Boundary Blurs

The Bible actually teaches, and the Westminster Shorter Catechism summarizes, that our fallen condition is one of sin and misery, resulting from sin. Misery, i.e. suffering, includes all the effects of the curse on mankind, suffering, pain, death, and hell, but more generally, everything that is not right with the world. Sin, on the other hand, is subdivided into original sin and actual sin, that is, inbuilt corruption, and the acts of sin that we commit because of that corruption.

Now, the fact is that these categories overlap in certain ways. Because misery includes everything that is not right with the world, it includes a lot of sin. Being sinned against is part of the misery of our condition, as is being subject to sinful desires, attractions, and habits; that is, being subject to original sin is itself a kind of misery. Adam wasn’t so subject; he sinned without already being corrupted. This means that the category of sin also includes an entire dimension of what we are subject to, rather than what is subject to our wills. We suffer from the malady of original sin. Would that we were not subject to inbuilt corruption and sinful inclinations!

What this means is that it isn’t entirely unique to same-sex attraction and orientation to blur the boundaries of sin and misery. The Reformed and ultimately Augustinian doctrine of original sin blurs the boundaries of sin and misery. Sin isn’t just what we do, which would be the Pelagian position. It’s also something we can’t help but do, something with which we are born, like a sickness - that’s the Augustinian position (and therefore, the Calvinist one, and the Thomist one).

Same Sex Attraction: Actual or Original Sin?

Then, the other day I read this on Twitter:

How are we supposed to understand this kind of sentiment? The thing about the word “sin” is that, outside of a theological context, “sin” means actual sin, almost without exception. When in ordinary discussion you call something “sin,” you are blaming a person for it. You’re accusing him (or her) of actual, active sin of which he must repent. This means that when anonymous Twitter theo-bro, “Smash Baals” says, “Same sex attraction is sin,” it is obviously not intended to communicate, “technically, in Augustinian theology, even in-built inclinations over which we have no control fall under the rubric of “sin,” “original sin.” No, it is to say that anyone who is subject to same-sex attraction needs to repent of that very subjection, and if such people describe themselves as “gay” or “lesbian,” they must also repent of (accurate!) self-description.

But given that the Augustinian position is that sin includes inbuilt propensities to sin that are prior to actual sin, labelling one of these propensities as “sin,” i.e., actual sin, is to depart from Augustinianism into - what else? - Pelagianism. It’s striking that this means the position on same-sex attraction of Rosaria Butterfield, the PCA Ad Interim Report, and many online, Reformed “Theo-Bros,” is actually heretical, especially by Reformed standards. It’s a kind of Pelagianism.

I spelled out the argument for this conclusion several days ago on Twitter:

I’ll leave it there, to answer some questions and to raise others. More to come on same-sex attraction later this week.