ABXY on LGBTQ
How —or can—we label a stance on sexuality?
June, 2024
Discussions of sexuality and gender are inevitable in the modern world. Even a response within the boundaries of Scripture is subject to interpretation and debate. Sexuality is nuanced in some ways, and not as complicated as we make it in others. Defining words so everyone's on the same page is a grueling hunt for concise explanations. The topic is hard to boil down to simple sentences, let alone a few words. But the general debate over the Bible and homosexuality has generated four letters—just letters—which attempt to summarize the major viewpoints.
Of these four, three are possibly within the bounds of the Bible; the other is explicitly contrary to Scripture. Each of the semi-biblical options has its own weaknesses and concerns. In brief, the four views are as follows:
"Side A" embraces all aspects of homosexuality as moral, healthy, and blessed by God.
"Side B" considers all same-sex acts a sin, but notes that being tempted is not sin, itself. This stance accepts labels such as "gay Christian" for those who abstain from intercourse but feel permanently attached to those urges. Some on Side B also approve celibate, covenant-style relationships between members of the same sex.
"Side X" considers same-sex activity a sin. This view rejects the concept of intrinsic same-sex orientation; in other words, homosexual attraction can usually be overcome. This view believes everyone should seek to establish heterosexual attractions. Some believe the attractions, themselves, are sins, which would strain a Biblical view of temptation.
"Side Y" believes that all same-sex actions are sin; yet it seems to fall outside Scripture by suggesting that homosexual temptation itself is a sin. Side Y rejects Christians using identifiers such as "homosexual." Yet it accepts the idea that sexual orientation is almost impossible to change, so same-sex-attracted believers are most likely called to celibacy.
So, which of the four do I choose: which is my personal identification? None of the above. That's not a dodge, but a reminder that each has multiple claims. A person who subscribes to one of those views might argue that I haven't fairly described their individual stance. And that's because each point is independently true or false. Different people will have their own views, but this is where I fall on those questions:
Knowing how to biblically, lovingly care for those attracted to the same sex is tough. But Scripture's stance on sexuality is clear. Silly arguments aside, the universal view of Christianity and Judaism for some five thousand years has been that same-sex acts are sinful. For believers, Side A and any "endorsing" view is a non-starter.
Our views of temptation impact on how we interact with those who are tempted. Sides X and Y seem to imply that same-sex attraction is a sin, itself. But the Bible doesn't equate temptation with sin. Jesus was tempted but did not sin (Hebrews 4:15). We can respond to any temptation without sinning (1 Corinthians 10:13). Even staunch believers can experience temptations of all kinds (Romans 7:21–25).
Lust and coveting involve a choice: to dwell on a thought or deliberately engage it. Lustful impulses and intrusive thoughts aren't sins if one immediately responds by setting their mind elsewhere. The "second look" or a lingering, imaginative mind is lust. Thinking, "that would be nice to have" about a neighbor's luxury car isn't immoral—if you're content with your own vehicle and aren't unhappy because you can't have theirs. Feeling jealous, bitter, or imagining ways to steal the car would be coveting. Otherwise, every relationship, purchase, or effort towards success is immoral.
Few people ever totally erase a temptation. Many have found that with the Holy Spirit's help, they aren't enslaved to those urges anymore. Christians ought to be wary of views which equate temptation with deliberate sin. At least on those points, I can't fully embrace either Sides X or Y.
The modern concept of "personal identity" isn't directly addressed in Scripture. But something feels off about adding an explicitly sinful qualifier to one's faith. If someone said they were a "drunk Christian" or a "thieving Christian," we'd assume that meant actively engaging in sins. Even saying "alcoholic Christian" or "kleptomaniac Christian" blurs the lines between how we're tempted and who we are in Christ. In a modern context, of course, "gay Christian" will almost always be interpreted to mean someone who approves and embraces that view.
The Bible identifies those who refuse to repent of their sins with those sins, themselves (1 Timothy 1:8–10; Revelation 22:15). Those who have been saved are said to have "once been" such things (1 Corinthians 6:9–11). Temptation towards those sins might still exist. There are "born-again believers battling alcoholism" and "Christ followers struggling with pornography" and "Christians dealing with same-sex attraction." Pinning a sin directly onto one's faith identity teeters on the edge of dismissing or accepting that sin. I can't endorse that facet of the Side B view.
Likewise, it seems dangerous to endorse something like a "celibate gay marriage." Unmarried heterosexual couples occasionally live together but claim they're waiting for marriage to have sex…and no one believes them. Whether a tiny percentage really do so is irrelevant; it's a tiny percentage at best. The same would apply to any relationship where sexuality is a reasonable possibility. Celebrating same-sex "covenants" isn't a slippery slope, it's leaning over the cliff: guaranteed to lead to complete rejection of Scripture on that subject.
Base attractions will never change for some, perhaps even for most. God may call people to a life incompatible with marriage (Matthew 19:10–12). Some temptations can be eliminated; others can't. We can't expect heterosexual orientation as the result of a saving faith in Christ. Injuries physically scar our bodies; we can heal, but there may be lasting effects. Spiritually, the same applies. Those who overcome sin by the power of the Holy Spirit aren't immune to its temptations. Those of us who've overcome addictions know the greater part of God's rescue is the strength to avoid a temptation against which we'll always be weak. It's the ability to dodge spiritual bullets, not invincibility. The Side X insistence on changing orientation can become unreasonable and unspiritual.
Does all that make me Side-Y-with-a-footnote? Side-B-with-concerns? Side-X-substitute-part-of-B? Who knows. I see the value in those categories, but don't think we need to embrace them the way many do political or denominational names. To the best of my ability, I follow what Scripture says (Acts 17:11; 1 Corinthians 4:6). None of the popular views fits well enough for me to accept as shorthand for my understanding of the Bible. Many others are in the same state; I share in your tension.
Rather than nitpick over what color to paint the car, I'd rather focus on it having the right moving parts. These issues are personal and complicated. The person who needs to know about Christ's offer of forgiveness and renewal isn't helped by knowing which team's jersey I put on.
If you're one of those struggling with these temptations: yes, all of this is hard. You're not the only one who thinks it's difficult. Living in a fallen world means being dragged into these battles. Some paths are harder than others. Those struggles don't go unseen, or unappreciated. Those who assume easy solutions to these experiences are foolish. But it's well worth it to follow God's will, even when it's challenging, or impossible to summarize with a single letter.
-- Editor
