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.
I really appreciate your writing and thoughtfulness Joel. I like your take here, but I’m confused by your point about the PCA’s ad interim report. It seems to be saying much the same thing you’re saying here, and not anything like what Rosaria’s saying.
Thanks, Nicholas! I don't find that to be the case; I see elements in the report that lead to, or straightforwardly express, the more "conservative" Side Y view, that same-sex attraction is sin and a Christian shouldn't describe him or herself as having a sexual orientation. I wrote about in my post, "Tim Keller and Kevin DeYoung Miss the Nature of Sexual Desire": https://open.substack.com/pub/joelcarini/p/tim-keller-and-kevin-deyoung-miss?r=k9yk0&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web.
It can be exemplified in the Report's discussion of temptation in general, and of Christ's temptation in particular - I'm actually going to write about this in the second, more in-depth post later this week. The report attempts to draw the line between active and passive temptation. Yes, Satan placed certain objective "temptations" before Jesus, but there was no inclination, no subjective movement of Jesus' soul or desires toward those objects. Um - so Jesus "was tempted," but without - you know - being *tempted*?
In the section on temptation generally, we read: "We affirm that Scripture speaks of temptation in different ways. There are some temptations God gives us in the form of morally neutral trials, and other temptations God never gives us because they arise from within as morally illicit desires (James 1:2, 13-14). When temptations come from without, the temptation itself is not sin, unless we enter into the temptation. But when the temptation arises from within, it is our own act and is rightly called sin."
This only confirms my suspicions. "Passive" temptation is described as "morally neutral trials" in which no desires are mentioned. "Active" temptation is elucidated as arising "from within as morally illicit desires." I listened this week to an interview with James Linehan, who did not experience a natural puberty, due to a disorder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ5Iy9r0fY4&t=2392s&pp=ygUXYmVuamFtaW4gYm95Y2UgaW50ZXJzZXg%3D.
If you placed a bunch of pornography in front of him as a teenager, this would supposedly be "passive" temptation, a morally neutral trial, because while it is technically an opportunity to lust, nothing arises from him in terms of desire.
That CAN'T be a correct account of the aspect of our nature that makes desire and temptation possible without condemning us - the aspect of our nature that Jesus shared. Jesus underwent puberty; he was not like Linehan. He had desire, etc. I emphasize this in my article about DeYoung and Keller; they don't acknowledge a dimension of desire that is natural, and not directly subject to moral evaluation, except as original sin. There's more to say, but I said some of it in that article and will say more, I think, Thursday!
I do think that you and Misty are on to something here. SSA (it strikes me) certainly seems to sit between misery and sin, unchosen (in a way irreducible to sins of omission) and chosen. It seems "structural" to use phenomenologist Julian Marias' language; though certainly in a way that does not negate the reality other structures (i.e. being sexed (and thus inextricably related and even oriented to the opposite sex). This gets into what we were discussing elsewhere re: limits. There are created limits (built in at creation) and fallen limits (that come with the fall). And we deal with these "built in" limits differently than deliberate sin.
I believe I read this a while back and am only now re-reading it after receiving an email from you.
I'm thankful for the work you're doing in breaking down the nuanced topic of same-sex-attraction. As a same-sex-attracted person myself, I heave a sigh of relief now that I have these categories on which to describe and attribute my fallen desires.
I’m so grateful you found it helpful! Thanks for sharing, that’s the reason why I wrote. I was very encouraged when a couple of people said the same when I visited Revoice. I’m thinking of putting the essays on same-sex attraction into a mini book, if you would find that helpful!
I really appreciate your writing and thoughtfulness Joel. I like your take here, but I’m confused by your point about the PCA’s ad interim report. It seems to be saying much the same thing you’re saying here, and not anything like what Rosaria’s saying.
Thanks, Nicholas! I don't find that to be the case; I see elements in the report that lead to, or straightforwardly express, the more "conservative" Side Y view, that same-sex attraction is sin and a Christian shouldn't describe him or herself as having a sexual orientation. I wrote about in my post, "Tim Keller and Kevin DeYoung Miss the Nature of Sexual Desire": https://open.substack.com/pub/joelcarini/p/tim-keller-and-kevin-deyoung-miss?r=k9yk0&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web.
It can be exemplified in the Report's discussion of temptation in general, and of Christ's temptation in particular - I'm actually going to write about this in the second, more in-depth post later this week. The report attempts to draw the line between active and passive temptation. Yes, Satan placed certain objective "temptations" before Jesus, but there was no inclination, no subjective movement of Jesus' soul or desires toward those objects. Um - so Jesus "was tempted," but without - you know - being *tempted*?
In the section on temptation generally, we read: "We affirm that Scripture speaks of temptation in different ways. There are some temptations God gives us in the form of morally neutral trials, and other temptations God never gives us because they arise from within as morally illicit desires (James 1:2, 13-14). When temptations come from without, the temptation itself is not sin, unless we enter into the temptation. But when the temptation arises from within, it is our own act and is rightly called sin."
This only confirms my suspicions. "Passive" temptation is described as "morally neutral trials" in which no desires are mentioned. "Active" temptation is elucidated as arising "from within as morally illicit desires." I listened this week to an interview with James Linehan, who did not experience a natural puberty, due to a disorder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ5Iy9r0fY4&t=2392s&pp=ygUXYmVuamFtaW4gYm95Y2UgaW50ZXJzZXg%3D.
If you placed a bunch of pornography in front of him as a teenager, this would supposedly be "passive" temptation, a morally neutral trial, because while it is technically an opportunity to lust, nothing arises from him in terms of desire.
That CAN'T be a correct account of the aspect of our nature that makes desire and temptation possible without condemning us - the aspect of our nature that Jesus shared. Jesus underwent puberty; he was not like Linehan. He had desire, etc. I emphasize this in my article about DeYoung and Keller; they don't acknowledge a dimension of desire that is natural, and not directly subject to moral evaluation, except as original sin. There's more to say, but I said some of it in that article and will say more, I think, Thursday!
I do think that you and Misty are on to something here. SSA (it strikes me) certainly seems to sit between misery and sin, unchosen (in a way irreducible to sins of omission) and chosen. It seems "structural" to use phenomenologist Julian Marias' language; though certainly in a way that does not negate the reality other structures (i.e. being sexed (and thus inextricably related and even oriented to the opposite sex). This gets into what we were discussing elsewhere re: limits. There are created limits (built in at creation) and fallen limits (that come with the fall). And we deal with these "built in" limits differently than deliberate sin.
I believe I read this a while back and am only now re-reading it after receiving an email from you.
I'm thankful for the work you're doing in breaking down the nuanced topic of same-sex-attraction. As a same-sex-attracted person myself, I heave a sigh of relief now that I have these categories on which to describe and attribute my fallen desires.
I’m so grateful you found it helpful! Thanks for sharing, that’s the reason why I wrote. I was very encouraged when a couple of people said the same when I visited Revoice. I’m thinking of putting the essays on same-sex attraction into a mini book, if you would find that helpful!