Parsing Same-Sex Attraction: A Plea for Precision
Part 2
In part one, I introduced a handful of concepts and important distinctions relevant to the debates surrounding SSA and indicated that my primary gripe is that these concepts and distinctions are woefully underdiscussed. I’ll build on that here in part two while ultimately seeking to be more constructive in the hopes of providing some positive clarity on the nature of sin and its relatives, along with discussing repentance and the mechanics of sanctification. If you don’t actually want to read through what I’ve written, you’ll still probably find the summary at the end clarifying.
In the third and final installment, I’ll lay out a model for understanding temptation “internally” in a way that is not necessarily sinful, explain how Jesus could experience genuine temptation despite not having a sinful nature, and what that means for us.
Sin, Sinning, Sinful, A Sin, A Sinful Nature
“Your orientation is temptation, not sin.”
No one really knows what this means. The reason for this is that the statement is clunky, opaque, and low-definition, smuggling philosophical and theological heavy lifting into little more than a slogan. Having said that, it stands as a helpful point of departure in exploring how we think about our own sin and relate to it.
To “sin” in the New Testament is to miss the mark of righteousness or otherwise fail to live up to God’s standards for holiness. The Greek verb for sin is hamartanō (“to fall short” or “to miss the mark”). The Greek noun for “sin” is hamartia. The Greek adjective for sin is hamartōlos, which, despite being an adjective, is most often translated as a noun (e.g., “sinners”; for the adjectival rendering—“sinful”—see Mk. 8:38; Lk. 5:8; 24:7; Rom. 7:13 et al.). Finally, the sinful aspect of who we are, sometimes (not so precisely) called our sinful nature, is often referred to as “the flesh” (Gr. sarx). Our flesh in this sense—not to be confused with usages indicating physical flesh and humanity—is that which is opposed to God and drives our sinful desires and behaviors.
To sin. Sin. Sinful. Sinful nature/flesh. So far, so good.
Now consider what immediately seems like a silly question (my son argued with me about this just last week): is water wet? Curiously, answers inevitably split between “obviously” and “no,” reflecting something important about common parlance versus technical usage. Technically—both scientifically and philosophically—water is generally not considered wet. Instead, “wet” describes a condition in which liquid comes into contact with or adheres to a surface. As such, water wets things but is not itself wet.
Who cares? Answer: the person who wants to describe the flesh (i.e., our sinful nature) or the mere existence of a struggle against sin as “sin” itself (or “a sin”). On such a view—and given that we should repent of sin, something everyone in the discussion agrees upon—we are left wondering what Christians inevitably beset with sinful natures until death are supposed to do. Even in our best moments—even when we are unconscious during surgery—our flesh is nevertheless disposed toward all kinds of evil. As with the analogy of water, Scripture suggests that our flesh—our sinful nature—is sinful but is not “sinning” or “a sin” of a kind that requires iterative repentance.
This is not to say that having an inescapably sinful nature doesn’t require repentance at all—it does. But that repentance—repentance from being by nature objects of wrath (Eph. 2:3)—is the repentance of conversion and accompanying justification. The author of Hebrews describes it as “a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God” (Heb. 6:1). This repentance is accompanied by the new birth, gloriously outlined in 2 Cor. 5:17: Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
Crucially (and sadly), the “old man” sticks around (Eph. 4:20–24), but we are given the Holy Spirit to walk in newness of life. All of this means that every Christian will have had their sinful natures, sinful desires, and sinful actions forgiven, but there is no indication that the task of sanctification involves making the flesh less sinful as Christians move through life. Indeed, such a thing is impossible.
Our sinful nature (or, more exactly, the aspect of our human nature that is opposed to God) is not like a cancerous tumor that can be shrunk, nor can it be made “less malignant.” Nor can it be eliminated in this life.
Sanctification works not by shrinking the flesh, but by the transforming power of the Holy Spirit working in us such that desires for holiness and righteousness both occur with greater regularity and “win out” over the desires produced by the flesh when conflict arises (cf. Jas. 4;1; Gal. 5:17). As we behold the glory of the Lord, we are transformed from one degree of glory to another (2 Cor. 3:18). That process will continue, as it turns out, until we end up in glorified resurrection bodies ourselves and redemption reaches its consummation. Failure to respect the endurance of sin’s potency is a recipe for moral failure after years of faithfulness.
Now, let’s zoom in.
Sexual Desires, Sinful Natures and Sin
Desires to sexually interact with—being consumed with passion for (Rom. 1:27)—the same sex are wrong because God has designed sex to be (only) between a man and a woman in the covenant of marriage (Gen. 2:24). Further, desires for actions, objects, or states of affairs forbidden by God are themselves sinful and instances of sin—they miss the mark of pure and holy desires and actions. Someone who struggles with same-sex desires has a sinful nature/flesh that—for whatever reason—produces sexual desires that are sinful, and sinful in such a way that no contextualization or caveating would possibly allow them to satisfy those desires.
In this sense, they are unlike someone who has heterosexual desires that could be satisfied in marriage (even if they happen not to be married).
But consider: John’s sinful nature, for whatever reason, produces desires for multiple sexual partners at once—one partner is boring, he claims. For as long as Erica can remember, she has had sexual desires to be dominated sexually to the point of near violence, shattering God’s intended design for sexual intimacy. Since puberty, Jackson has always struggled with strong desires to have sex with an older woman married to some poor chap who just can’t provide the thrill that he believes he could provide. Given that John, Erica, and Jackson tend to find themselves with sexual desires that could never be righteously satisfied, are they really in a meaningfully different boat than the individual who struggles with same-sex desires? Is Sadie, who has always been tantalized by voyeurism?
If so, it isn’t clear how, and the burden of proof lies strongly on the person who would treat these cases differently from the standpoint of sinfulness, sinful desire, and repentance.
Pulling Together Some Threads
When Jesus taught his disciples how to pray, he indicated that their prayers should regularly include repentance for sin and asking for forgiveness—just as often as they were thankful for their “daily bread.” Importantly, however, what he envisions asking forgiveness for are “debts” or “transgressions” understood as occurrences, not unchangeable realities about who we are in this age (i.e., “Please forgive me one more day for my sinful nature that regeneration did not remove and there is nothing I can do to eradicate”).
That we are to ask forgiveness for “things that occur” is confirmed by the corollary: “and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matt. 6:12). Christians are to regularly repent and ask forgiveness for occurrent sins. Beyond foundational repentance and justification, there is no indication that Christians are to regularly ask forgiveness for the bare fact that their sinful nature abides, regardless of what brand of sinful desires and actions that nature may produce.
The bottom line is that when Ferris desires to have sex with Winston, he should repent and ask forgiveness from God for the same reason that Shirley should repent and ask forgiveness when she finds herself desiring the moral downfall of her friend. And we should counsel John, Erica, Jackson, and Sadie above to repent of their sinful, under-no-circumstances-righteously-satisfied desires for the very same reason(s).
But if John, Erica, Jackson, and Sadie remain qualified for their respective ministries in virtue of the fact that they live in consistent victory over their sexual dispositions—all things being equal—does Ferris not as well? It is difficult to see a non-arbitrary distinction.
While there is reasonable concern that might be expressed about Sam Allberry’s career (though very clearly not his identity, contra some of his critics and unlike many Side B/Revoice folks) being largely driven by the “shape” of his sinful nature, this is question distinct from personal holiness or ministry fitness. For example, as her publications demonstrate, and despite being known for coming out of a lesbian lifestyle, Rosaria Butterfield seems like a strong example of someone who struggles against same-sex desires but fights them with utter tenacity and calls them exactly what they are—sinful.
She is qualified for ministry (obviously not pastoral ministry).
Summary
All sex not between a man and a woman within the marriage covenant is sinful/wrong.
All occurrent desires for sinful sex/stimulation are themselves sinful and are instances of “sin.”
That the sinful nature/flesh of some—for whatever reason—inclines them toward sexual desires that can never be righteously satisfied is not a challenge unique to those struggling with same-sex desires.
Not only does the flesh of some dispose them toward alternative, aberrant sexual desires, but everyone’s flesh disposes them toward certain sinful desires and behaviors that can never be righteously satisfied.
Our sinful natures are (obviously) sinful and require repentance, but that repentance and forgiveness occurs in foundational repentance and justification. Our flesh will, unfortunately, remain with us until we die.
Being unconscious such that our flesh is not producing any sinful behaviors or desires does not mean that our sinful natures have in any meaningful sense ceased. It would indeed be strange if our most God-honoring moments were in the midst of sedation. And yet, the New Testament does not suggest that we live in a constant state of “sin” as a result. Water isn’t wet even it requires remediation. It makes things wet and produces wetness.
Iterative repentance and asking for forgiveness addresses sin occurring in the run of life, whether that sin occurs at the level of desire, thought, or action.
Sanctification works not by making the flesh “less sinful,” like shrinking a tumor or making cancer less malignant. Instead, the Holy Spirit progressively transforms our hearts such that we desire righteousness more frequently and intensely. While the particular shape of our sinful dispositions may vanish entirely or experience radical reshaping, many others will stick around as patterned struggles to be progressively ruled over until we die.
When we consciously experience sinful and righteous desires simultaneously (Jas. 4:1; Gal. 5:16–17), we should seek to mortify the flesh and walk in the desires of the Spirit while repenting over the evil we desired and feeling remorse similar to how someone should feel remorse for plotting to kill the king despite not going through with it.
All this leaves open the question of what same-sex “attraction” might mean if it is not synonymous with same-sex desire, what constitutes temptation, how Jesus could be tempted internally if he didn’t have a sinful nature, and what that means for us.
Unfortunately, that will require a part three.