Four Christian Views on Sexuality

Written by Josh Proctor

Updated on October 17, 2024

Do you have update suggestions? Let us know at lifeonsidebpodcast@gmail.com

When it comes to understanding sexuality within Christianity, there is a wide spectrum of beliefs and perspectives. Today, one of the main systems which has emerged to categorize these perspectives is the “Sides” terminology which is predominantly encompassed by four Sides: A, B, Y, and X. No system of belief categorization is perfect, but it can help us better communicate nuances within the conversation.

IMPORTANT NOTES BEFORE PROCEEDING

The goal of the Sides terminology is not to pit people against each other nor to minimize their differences. People across each belief find themselves in community and fellowship with people of other beliefs. Above all, we hope unity in the essentials of the Christian faith and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The goal of this document is to simply help improve communication within a complex conversation.
This document aims to represent each Side well and accurately. It does not exist to convince anyone for or against a particular theology or to categorize people but help them be understood.
This is a living document meaning that it will be updated. Pay attention to the updated date above which will change when content changes are made beyond spelling and grammar corrections. There is a summary of the most recent changes that will be listed at the bottom. When citing this page, be sure to include the updated date.
We must understand that there is diversity within each of these views. Therefore, if a person says they adhere to a specific "Side", that does not automatically mean they agree with everything stated about the Side on this page. This is simply an overview of the general beliefs associated with each.
Each Side has influential texts listed which have made an impact on the thought of that belief. This does not necessarily mean that the author of each resource would identify themselves with that Side now or ever. Again, the goal of this document is not to categorize people.
These "Sides" specifically address issues of sexuality and do not address questions surrounding gender or the trans experience. We cannot automatically assume a person’s beliefs on sexuality communicate a specific view of gender and the trans experience.

Before delving into the detailed differences of the Sides, here are quick definitions for each one:

Side A – God intentionally created queer people as they are and therefore God blesses sex between members of the same sex within certain boundaries.

Side B – God intended sex to be reserved for a lifelong covenant of marriage between one man and one woman. Therefore, God calls all believers (queer and straight alike) to the vocation of celibacy within community or to a monogamous marriage with a member of the opposite sex. This does not equate to erasure of sexual orientation. Therefore, queer identity can be a healthy way of communicating one's experience, desires, and personality.

Side Y – LGBT+ relationships are incompatible with the Christian faith. As well, Christians attracted to the same sex should renounce LGBT+ identification and use non-identity ways for explaining their experience. All Christians are called to remain single or enter an opposite-sex marriage. Support or denouncement of efforts to change a person’s sexual attractions may vary.

Side X – Being oriented toward or attracted to members of your own gender originates from the sinful nature and developmental wounds. Heterosexuality is God’s original intent for all people. Therefore, Christians who experience attraction to the same sex should seek to address the roots of their attraction to pursue healing and heterosexuality.

To go into more detail, the differences between these four sides can be marked by their answers to the following questions:

Can sexual intercourse between two people of the same sex be blessed by God?
Is being attracted to the same sex intrinsically moral?
Can and should a person with same-sex attractions pursue changing their attractions?
Is it morally permissible for Christians with same-sex attractions to identify as LGBT+?
What relationships and family structures are highly valued?

Here is a quick chart that explains the short answer of each side to each question:

By looking at their answers to these questions, we will get a clear understanding about how the four views approach the topic of sexuality differently.

Clarification of Third Way

Before we jump into the detailed descriptions of each belief, let's discuss a growing posture in this conversation called Third Way (or Side C by some). This approach aims to focus on agreeing to disagree without resolving differences. Caution may be wise before referring to this as a "Side" or belief system all on its own within the spectrum presented here. This is primarily because it does not have detailed answers to the questions above. Instead, it often represents an agnostic or disputable matter style posture toward the conversation as a whole seeking to prioritize unity across differences over rightness of belief. Third Way has seen an increase in interest especially within church structures that desire to reduce power dynamics where only people who adhere to a specific Side can hold influence. Yet, a common challenge in the approach is how to accomplish this without erasing differences or silencing minority voices. This challenge plus its categorization of the sexuality conversation as disputable matter leads many to argue that the Third Way approach is functionally a subset of Side A because these challenges usually prioritize Side A voices. It is also worth noting that Third Way approaches rarely include Side X and Side Y voices for a variety of reasons.

Side X

History:

The Side X view on sexuality in Christianity (more commonly known in the past as the ex-gay view) was one of the most prominent views among Evangelicals during the 1970’s, 80’s, and 90’s but in recent years has begun strongly declining in many countries. The term "Side X" was not coined until the 2010's and most advocates of this view do not refer to themselves as Side X but terms such as formerly LGBT or the transformation view are sometimes used.

This belief was birthed out of the modern psychological movement in the 1960s and 1970s. The first contemporary ex-gay organization, Love in Action, was formed in 1973. Over the next decades, ex-gay ministries grew around the world and formed the largest and most famous ex-gay ministries: Exodus International and the Exodus Global Alliance. In 2013, Exodus International closed and Alan Chambers, the President, apologized for the organization’s efforts and beliefs regarding sexual orientation change. However, Exodus’ closure did not affect its member ministries nor the Exodus Global Alliance, which continue to operate. The former member ministries of Exodus International have since joined together to form different networks such as Restored Hope Network. Side X theology is highly prevalent in charismatic traditions and denominations as demonstrated through organizations like Rainbow Revival (known for the Freedom Marches) and the Changed Movement.

Influential Texts:

Ron Citlau, Hope for the Same-Sex Attracted: Biblical Direction for Friends, Family Members, and Those Struggling with Homosexuality (Bethany House, 2017).

Joe Dallas, Desires in Conflict: Hope for Men Who Struggle With Sexual Identity (Harvest House Publishers, 2003).

Robert A.J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Abington Press, 2002).

Leanne Payne, Healing Homosexuality (Baker Pub Group, 1996).

Anne Paulk, Restoring Sexual Identity (Harvest House Publishers, 2003).

Linda Seilers, Trans-Formation: A Former Transgender Responds to LGBTQ (Credo House Publishers, 2023).

Can sexual intercourse between two people of the same sex be blessed by God?

Side X believes that gay sexual and romantic relationships and marriages are not blessed by God but instead go against God’s intent for humanity. A core foundation of this belief is the traditional reading of the six passages in Scripture which mention same-sex relations (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 & 20, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1). They argue that these passages condemn all sex between members of the same sex.

There is overlap on this interpretation with Side Y and Side B thought. Where Side X theology most differs is in the interpretation of Genesis 19. Some Side X theologians argue that homosexuality is one of the sins for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. Robert Gagnon argues that Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6-7, 10, which refer to the sexual immorality of the men of Sodom, support this conclusion.

Beyond passages mentioned above, the transformation view grounds it belief on an archetypal reading of gender and marriage in Genesis 1 and 2. This is an often more foundational text for Side X which then is seen as supported by the passages which prohibit same-sex relations.

Some Side X theologians, as highlighted by Robert Gagnon in his book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon, 2001), will argue that homosexuality is not just sin but one of the gravest sins in God’s eyes. He says,

The prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 declare that for a man to ‘lie with a male as though lying with a woman’ is ‘an abomination’ or ‘detestable act’—in Hebrew, to’evah—something utterly repugnant to God….The indictment of same-sex intercourse is particularly severe, as suggested by the specific attachment of the label to’evah and by making it a capital offense.

Not all Side X theologians take such a severe view of this as Gagnon. Still, Side X often argues for the seriousness of homosexuality in the Bible, which is why it is an important social issue for them. The traditional family structure (i.e. two loving and committed opposite sex parents raising children) is seen as pivotal to not only the thriving of individuals such as children in their development but also of society as a whole. Therefore, the seriousness of homosexuality is seen as a hinderance for society and specifically the same-sex attracted individual to thrive as God intended.

Is being attracted to the same sex intrinsically moral?

The transformation view believes that same-sex attraction results from the sinful nature, soul wounds, and developmental trauma. Therefore, the attractions are innately sinful and a Christian should pursue to heal the roots of those attractions which would result in those attractions diminishing over time. Jesus says that lusting after another person is the same as adultery so therefore sexual attractions outside of God’s design is sin. 2 Timothy 2:22 says, “So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.” Side X sees same-sex attractions as part of this and encourages Christians to always pursue ridding ourselves of sinful desires which includes same-sex attractions.

Albert Mohler, president of the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes:

The Bible identifies internal temptation as sin. As Denny Burk and Heath Lambert argue, “same-sex attraction, not just homosexual behavior, is sinful.” We are called to repent both of sin and of any inner temptation to sin….Surely, the mortification of sin required of Christians would demand that we put as much distance as possible between ourselves and any temptation to sin (Romans 8:12-13).

Critics frequently argue that Side X advocates believe a person is not a Christian as long as they are attracted to the same sex. This is not true. Formerly LGBT individuals will often admit to persisting same-sex attractions even as they pursue healing. They assert that God's grace covers the believer as they pursue the sanctification of their desires. Where Side X Christians begin to question the orthodoxy of a person's faith is when they self-identify with their attractions (i.e. self-identify as LGBT+) and especially when they then encourage others to do the same. Side X holds that the sinfulness of same-sex sexuality makes it incompatible for a Christian to accept one's same-sex attractions as part of their identity or circumstances without the need for healing regardless of whether the person acts on their attractions, as with Side B and Side A Christians.

Can and should a person with same-sex attractions pursue changing their attractions?

Side X strongly encourages same-sex attracted Christians to engage developmental traumas and soul wounds which they believe sit at the roots of same-sex attractions. It may not always result in increased opposite sex attraction and/or diminished same-sex attraction for a person to the degree that they desire, but it should be pursued for the purpose of sanctification and healing. Former LGBT advocates see most same-sex attractions as the result of soul wounds, the internalization of spiritual lies, and developmental trauma from the formative years of the person’s life. Developmental wounds often refers to childhood experiences related to one's relationship with parents and same sex peers that impact one's internal sense of gender and relationship. Side X advocates will often emphasize that the developmental wounds are not always the same for each person but they argue that there are patterns which are consistently presently in the histories of LGBT+ and same-sex attracted individuals.

At the 2022 Restored Hope Network conference, Rev. Linda Seiler explains it this way:

It goes beyond mortification by investigating wounds in the soul that may contribute to the development of same-sex attraction things like gender insecurity, teasing, adverse family dynamics, childhood sexual abuse, trauma. Again, there's no formula but there are some commonalities of things that we see where those deceitful desires, the lies of the enemy can get lodged in our soul through trauma.

Similarly, Joe Dallas shares:

You’ll generally find [we] believe that we are created beings whose Creator had a specific plan in mind for our sexual experience, and that homosexuality, like many other human conditions, falls short of His design. That makes it a sin, certainly, but hardly insanity. You’ll also find that we do, indeed, believe in change. Change of perspective, behavior, relational skills, identity, and change in the power homosexual desires have had over us along with a belief in the potential, in many cases, of heterosexual arousal occurring as well.

Some Side X advocates admit that change in attractions is not guaranteed for all who undergo healing.

Robert Gagnon explains in an article he wrote after an ex-gay conference:

Speakers at the conference were quite clear that change of sexual orientation for all meant no longer living under the control of sinful desires….We recognize the possibility for some to experience some degree of change on a 0 to 6 Kinsey spectrum of same-sex attraction (as the Kinsey Institute itself did). We also recognize that God often doesn't see fit to remove sinful desires but manifests his life by empowering obedience in spite of the retention of such desires. As with Paul's discussion of the “thorn in the flesh,” God often does not remove the deprivations and difficulties of our lives, in order to show us that knowing him and his grace more than offsets these distractions.

In general, Side X Christians hold that the change of one's attractions should be at least a desired outcome in the sanctification process even though they do not always promise it will happen for everyone.

Is it morally permissible for Christians with same-sex attractions to identify as LGBT+?

Because LGBT+ identities are often rooted in the belief that one's sexual orientation is part of a person's core ontology, Side X Christians believe it is sinful to use such language in self-identification.

As Albert Mohler writes on the identity issue:

Several issues press for immediate attention. One is the identification of people as “LGBT Christians” or “gay Christians.” This language implies that Christians can be identified in an ongoing manner with a sexual identity that is contrary to Scripture. Behind the language is the modern conception of identity theory that is, in the end, fundamentally unbiblical….The larger problem is the idea that any believer can claim identity with a pattern of sexual attraction that is itself sinful. The Apostle Paul answers this question definitively when he explains in 1 Corinthians 6:11, such were some of you. But, writes Paul by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, “you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God.”

In this view, a Christian who identifies as queer or gay is no different than a Christian who identifies as a pedophile. They are both identities based on attractions which Side X believes is wrong. In place of using LGBT+ language, Side X believers normally use terms like "former LGBT+", "a person who experiences same-sex attraction", "leaving the gay lifestyle."

What relationships and family structures are highly valued?

A core tenant of Side X belief is that same sex attractions result from the internalization of spiritual lies and developmental traumas and wounds. Therefore, advocates believe God’s will for everyone is to heal those wounds with the hope if not the certainty that it will result in restored heterosexual attraction. God created humans in the Garden of Eden to be in heterosexual relationships. Therefore, restoration in the life of a person with same-sex attractions should include the pursuit to minimize one’s same-sex attractions and increase opposite-sex attractions.

Stephen Black, a Side X leader, explains this view saying,
“Concerning the goal of repentance from homosexuality, I publicly repent from repeating the statement, ‘The goal is not heterosexuality but holiness” as being the goal. This statement has misled many believing that same-sex attractions may remain in the soul and has been a segue for empowering orientation and ‘gay Christianity.’ The truth is, that the goal must be a life surrendered to the divine will of God, which is moving forward in holiness in His divine image, to be male and female, man and woman - holy sexual human beings. Therefore, the goal in real holiness is always to be realigned in His divine intent and creative design as innately heterosexual, reflecting His glory and image, which is Imago Dei, and can only be heterosexual, anything less is not the truth.”

This does not mean that all people with same-sex attractions who follow the Side X view will end up in heterosexual marriages. Marriage and chaste singleness are both viewed as godly options for people with same-sex attractions to pursue, but while there are multiple former LGBT+ individuals who end up single for life, seeing singleness and celibacy as a lifelong calling (which therefore renounces the option of marriage) is viewed with suspicion.

Side Y

History:

Side Y was the last of the four Sides to be defined which means most of its thoughts and theology is still being clarified. Gabriel Blanchard coined the term to describe Christians who renounce self-identification as LGBT+ yet also did not advocate for Side X methods to change sexual orientation.

In the wake of Exodus International's closure in 2013 and the growing divisiveness and concerns around attempts to change one's attractions, many Christians who were formerly associated with Exodus began openly rejecting the concept of changing one's attractions. Individuals such as Christopher Yuan and Rosaria Butterfield vocalized their rejection of reparative therapy and other forms of change. It is important to note that in 2022 Rosaria Butterfield recanted that rejection and reaffirmed her belief in "change-allowing therapy for undesired same-sex attraction and gender anxiety". For many of these individuals, the focus moved from "changing one's attractions" to "living a life of repentance regardless of your circumstances." This theology is found in a growing number of theologically conservative denominations, which hold to absolute inerrancy and male headship.

Because Side Y is so new and the term itself originated outside those who hold these beliefs, many of them do not self-identify as Side Y. Beyond that, there really is no self-identifying language that individuals in this group hold, which relates to some of their tenants especially around identity. Therefore, trying to define a person’s beliefs as Side Y can be difficult at times. It is rare to find someone who self-describes their theology as Side Y. The closest phrase that could be brainstormed is the "Nothing but Identity in Christ" camp because that is a core tenant of Side Y theology. Still, this is not language that they themselves use. Linda Seiler, a Side X speaker, refers to this theology as the mortification view. With time, the entire movement is developing into its own right.

Influential Texts:

Sam Allberry, Is God Anti-Gay? (The Good Book Company, 2013).

Becket Cook, A Change of Affection: A Gay Man's Incredible Story of Redemption (Thomas Nelson, 2019).

Kevin DeYoung, What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality? (Crossway, 2015)

Jackie Hill Perry, Gay Girl, Good God: The Story of Who I Was, and Who God Has Always Been (B&H Books, 2018).

Christopher Yuan, Holy Sexuality and the Gospel: Sex, Desire, and Relationships Shaped by God's Grand Story (Multnomah, 2018).

Christopher Yuan, Out of A Far Country: A Gay Son's Journey to God. A Broken Mother's Search for Hope (WaterBrook, 2011).

Can sexual intercourse between two people of the same sex be blessed by God?

Side Y Christians agree with Side X and Side B that God does not bless or approve sexual relations between people of the same sex in any scenario. Side Y Theologians usually present arguments in line with the traditional readings of the creation narrative and the six passages that prohibit same-sex relations as outlined above in Side X. They will also often engage with topics like Jesus' lack of statements on the issue. Beyond this, emphasis is placed on the belief that homosexuality is no different than any other sin.

Sam Allberry, in his book Is God Anti-Gay?, writes:

It is the same for us all - 'whoever'. I am to deny myself, take up my cross and follow him. Every Christian is called to costly sacrifice. Denying yourself does not mean tweaking your behaviour here and there. It is saying 'no' to your deepest sense of who you are, for the sake of Christ. To take up a cross is to declare your life (as you have known it) forfeit. It is laying down your life for the very reason that your life, it turns out, is not yours at all. It belongs to Jesus. He made it. And through his death he has bought it.

Is being attracted to the same sex intrinsically moral?

Side Y believes that same-sex attractions are part of the sinful nature and a form of indwelling sin. Advocates often embrace an Augustinian approach that concupiscence (the desire for something sin) is sinful in and of itself.

Rosaria Butterfield explains:

"Side B gay Christianity says, 'No, no, no, it's not a sin if you didn't choose it; it's not a sin if you're not physically acting on it.' But that makes no sense because in order to actually pull that off, you have to throw away the tenth commandment (Exodus 20:17)… That says, 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife,' not 'Thou shalt not take thy neighbor's wife.' … And then in Romans 7, you have probably the most majestic words in the Bible understanding indwelling sin, where Paul says, 'Why do I do what I don't want to do? It is not I; it is sin in me.' So there Paul is saying, 'it's sin; it's in me; and I didn't choose it.'"

This indwelling sin is strongly attached to the Calvinistic idea of Total Depravity, which is the belief that every person is enslaved to sin and unable to even choose salvation until Christ regenerates and calls the person to salvation. This is why Side Y highly emphasizes the mortification of sin, which is the act of putting to death (mortify) lingering sinful desires that arise within the believer's heart and to resist temptations that surface from outside. This is a form of spiritual self-denial to which Side Y believes God calls each believer in order to kill the flesh and pursue Gospel values.

Can and should a person with same-sex attractions pursue changing their attractions?

Side Y Christians rarely speak about changing one's attractions in clear terms as does Side X. Living lives of obedience regardless of circumstances is emphasized more than focusing on trying to change attractions. Christopher Yuan said in an article: “Sanctification is not getting rid of our temptations, but pursuing holiness in the midst of them. If our goal is making people straight, then we are practicing a false gospel.”

While most Side Y Christians do not openly endorse or encourage efforts to change sexual attractions, they don't always take a strong stance against it. Some even speak positively about experiences of individuals who report shifts in their sexual attraction as part of their sanctification. This is one reason why the line between Side Y and Side X can seem blurred by others. For example, Rosaria Butterfield's resources and statements have not only been associated with but have strongly influenced Side Y belief. Yet, her recent shift in belief on change efforts (as mentioned above) has made critics question what Side she technically lands on. Ultimately though, that is only a question that Butterfield can answer for herself.

Even with the diverse responses and beliefs around pursue change of one's attractions, the ultimately value of Side Y is mortifying your sinful desires and pursuing holiness regardless of attraction or circumstances.

Is it morally permissible for Christians with same-sex attractions to identify as LGBT+?

Built upon everything discussed so far, Side Y Christians do not use LGBT+ labels for self-identification. For some, LGBT+ language is simply seen as unhelpful and theologically inaccurate. Others go as far as declaring that LGBT+ identification is incompatible with the Christian faith. Beyond the use of LGBT+ identity, Side Y Christians also do not associate with LGBT+ culture.

Side Y typically maintains that the Bible is not only divinely inspired but also without error. As a result, Side Y Christians often emphasize the importance of being theologically precise in wording. To this end, sexual identity of any kind (including straight) is seen as a modern social construct which undermines a biblical understanding of humanity and therefore should be rejected.

In place of LGBT+ language or Side X language, some Side Y Christians prefer to call themselves “same-sex attracted”. Sam Allberry explains the reasoning for this:

I want to use language that can describe an aspect of what is going on in my life, but which doesn’t imply that that is what defines me, or what is the center and heart of who I am. The language of “same-sex attraction” perhaps is less familiar to people outside of Christian circles. It’s a bit more clunky. But I think it’s less prone to being misunderstood. I use it because I don’t want to imply that a particular set of sexual temptations is where I see who I am. It’s not the lens through which I understand myself. That’s why I tend to use the language of being same-sex attracted.

The rejection of identification language has led some Side Y advocates to even reject "same-sex attracted". Instead they encourage phrasing like "experiencing (unwanted) same-sex attraction" or no identifying language at all. Rosaria Butterfield often says that "homosexuality is part of my biography, not my nature" to describe her experience.

What relationships and family structures are highly valued?

According to this theology, Christians with same-sex attractions are called to live holy lives regardless of circumstances. For some this means chaste singleness while others get married, but Side Y Christians make a major emphasis that neither heterosexuality nor opposite-sex attractions should be the primary goal for Christians with same-sex attractions. Christopher Yuan once explained in a sermon,

“Heterosexuality is never mentioned in Scripture. You will never find that word in the Bible. So what is Biblical sexuality? Biblical sexuality is holy sexuality. Every person heterosexual or homosexual is called to live holy.”

Side Y voices usually advocate for chaste singleness as a equal lifelong vocation to marriage. Marriage is not seen as a mandate so singleness has been viewed as a viable option. Recently voices like Yuan have begun cautioning against the rhetoric of "celibacy" and the concept of celibacy and singleness as a lifelong vocation which therefore renounces openness to marriage. Instead there is an increasing support for chaste singleness with the caveat of always being open to the possibility of marriage. This was a major point of discussion during an interview with Rosaria Butterfield and Christian Yuan on the Becket Cook Show.

Side B

History:

As culture war raged in the early 2000s, the Gay Christian Network was founded to be a place for all LGBT+ Christians to dialogue and grow in their faith. As stated earlier, Justin Lee and Ron Belgau wrote a series of essays online titled the Great Debate in the forum of GCN to exemplify friendly debate on the topic. At the time, belief on sexuality was divided into two camps instead of four: Side A and Side B. Side A represented the view that gay marriage was blessed by God, and Side B represented the view that God was against gay sexual relationships and therefore included all the views here divided into Side B, Y, and X. Over time as the nuances between Side B, Y, and X became more apparent, the one view was divided into three in order to give more clarity to the beliefs of each view.

In 2010, the book Washed and Waiting by Dr. Wesley Hill was published and is often credited as the first to outline a Side B theology. Side B Christians began to connect through online forums including the GCN forum. Then as Exodus International closed in 2013, many LGBT+ Christians who no longer believed the Side X view of change but still adhered to traditional church teachings on marriage sought out Side B for more welcoming community. On the other side, those celibate LGBT+ Christians who did not feel represented or welcome in Side A spaces such as GCN began seeking somewhere to belong.

This led Side B Christians to create their own community and gatherings. The most prominent being the Revoice conference which was launched in 2018 by Nate Collins and Stephen Moss. Multiple other organizations have been associated with the Side B view including Posture Shift and the Center for Faith, Sexuality and Gender. There are currently no major denominations which openly hold to a Side B view but a growing number of churches even in more traditional denominations do adhere to Side B belief.

Influential Texts:

David Bennett, A War of Loves: The Unexpected Story of a Gay Activist Discovering Jesus (Zondervan, 2018).

Greg Coles, Single, Gay, Christian: A Personal Journey of Faith and Sexual Identity (InterVarsity Press, 2017).

Nate Collins, All But Invisible: Exploring Identity Questions at the Intersection of Faith, Gender, and Sexuality (Zondervan, 2017).

Wesley Hill, Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality (Zondervan, 2016).

Preston Sprinkle, People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality Is Not Just an Issue (Zondervan, 2015).

Eve Tushnet, Gay and Catholic: Accepting My Sexuality, Finding Community, Living My Faith (Ave Maria Press, 2014).

Can sexual intercourse between two people of the same sex be blessed by God?

Side B agrees with Side X and Side Y that sexual relationships between members of the same sex is not part of God’s design. Diving into theological arguments for its position, Side B theology tends to focus less on the six "clobber passages" mentioned before. Though, they would still agree with the traditional interpretation of these verses. Some attention is given to the creation story in Genesis 1 & 2. Yet, Side B theology often focuses more on a theology of chosen family and community rather than proving gay sex is wrong.

A major theological emphasis is Jesus' vision for community in the Kingdom. Advocates note a shift that occurs in the Gospels from focused on marriage and procreation to a more diverse vision of family made up by the church which highly values non-married individuals. This often relates to the high value of intentional community in Side B and one of its key criticism of the modern evangelical church, namely what Side B voices refer to as the "idolization of marriage." On this point, Greg Coles from the Center for Faith, Sexuality and Gender says:

I think marriage is beautiful in a very distinctive kind of way, but to suggest that the only way to reach the best and truest form of human love that you can get to on earth is to be married is dangerous I think.

Even within its theology that gay marriage and sexual relationships are not blessed by God, Side B theology highly values deep committed friendships and relationships between people of the same-sex. The relationships of David and Jonathan along with Ruth and Naomi are used as evidence of non-sexual deeply committed same-sex relationships. Eve Tushnet expounds on this in her newest book, Tenderness:

The Bible uses both opposite-sex and same-sex love to teach us what love truly means....These two kinds of love are not interchangeable. They have different structures, different expressions. Whenever the Bible uses sexual love to teach us about the mutual love of God and humankind, it's always the love of one man and one woman, as in the Song of Songs or Ephesians 5. Whenever the Bible uses same-sex love to teach us about God's love for us and ours for him, it is nonsexual and nonmarital love (Scripture, unlike contemporary Western culture, does not use the terms "intimacy," "devotion," "commitment," or even "love" itself as mere euphemisms for sex.) But in Scripture, same-sex and opposite-sex love are equally intimate, equally sacrificial - equally real and holy.

Is being attracted to the same sex intrinsically moral?

The Side B view approaches sexual attraction as morally neutral or complex at its baseline. There are often two major distinctions that are made in Side B thought. The first is that sexuality involves more than sexual attraction. There is also aesthetic attraction, emotional attraction, romantic attraction, intellectual attraction, and more. These forms of attraction are believed to be morally neutral and something we experience toward people even outside romance and sex. Side B thought commonly clarifies that while sexual attraction to the same sex may be affected by the Fall, this does not automatically equate to all attraction. Nate Collins engages in this distinction in his book All but Invisible with the phrase of being "oriented to beauty". When it comes to sexual attraction as a fallen form of orientation, Side B Christians commonly describe it a burden to bear - something that a person did not choose but must learn to navigate in pursuit of holiness. A supporting Scriptural analogy that is sometimes used is Paul's "thorn in the flesh" (1 Corinthians 12) and Christ's "power made perfect in weakness."

The second distinction is the difference between attraction and action. Sin relates to how a person acts regarding to their attractions. Whether by having sex outside of marriage, looking at a person to lust after them, or watching pornography, these are all decisions. A person cannot control who they are attracted to, but they can control their decisions. Hebrews says even Jesus himself was tempted in every way we were tempted yet he did not sin. This must have included sexual attraction (regardless of orientation). Temptation (which includes sexual attraction) is not viewed as a sin.

Can and should a person with same-sex attractions pursue changing their attractions?

Side B Christians strongly believe attempting to change a person’s attractions is unnecessary and at times harmful.

Wesley Hill writes in Washed and Waiting,

“As I would later write in a letter to a friend, ‘A sexual orientation is such a complex and, in most cases, it seems, intractable thing; I for one cannot imagine what ‘healing’ from my orientation would look like, given that it seems to manifest itself not only in physical attraction to male bodies but also in a preference for male company, with all that it entails,’ such as conversation and emotional intimacy and quality time spent together.”

In this way, many Side B voices emphasize that a sexual orientation is about more than simply wanting to have sex with another person. It is a relational orientation. A person with a queer orientation is also geared toward more meaningful friendships with members of the same sex. Therefore there can be good in a person’s orientation even though the Fall has made it sexual.

Side B strongly believes that therapies and interventions which try to change sexual attractions do not work based on reports from multiple ex-gay leaders who later left their spouses and returned to gay relationships. A study done by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse, whose work is greatly influencial in Side B, argues that only 18 percent of people who completed conversion therapy reported that their sexual attractions had changed. After the study was published, multiple people who had originally claimed they had experienced a change in their attractions later renounced those claims. Based on the lack of evidence for conversion efforts, Johanna Finegan, a writer for the Spiritual Friendship’s blog, said during her talk at the Spiritual Friendships pre-conference at Revoice 2018:

“The rarity of change can no longer be seen as an unspeakable thing that we cover over with sentimental talk about how with God all things are possible. God can do anything he pleases, but wisdom demands that we pay attention to how he is typically pleased to act in the lives of those same-sex attracted believers who surrender their sexuality to him.”

Side B Christians also cite multiple health organizations such as the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Medical Association which report that conversion efforts can have very negative effects on LGBT+ individuals. Because of these reports, Side B Christians feel conversion efforts are harmful to LGBT+ people in most situations and condemn churches which encourage LGBT+ people to go through it.

As said before, even while a person has attractions to the same sex, the Side B view believes opposite sex marriage can still be a possibility if the person desires. This is rooted in understanding of sexual orientation as a spectrum and that all people experience varying degrees of same-sex and opposite-sex attraction.

Is it morally permissible with same-sex attractions to identify as LGBT+?

Side B Christians encompass a wide spectrum of comfort levels with using LGBT+ language for self-identification. There are many people who would identify as Side B but also do not feel comfortable with LGBT+ identities and therefore identify as "same-sex attracted". The major difference here with Side Y is that Side B Christians see it as a matter of personal conviction. In general, LGBT+ identity is believed to be a legitimate form of expressing one's personality, desire and/or experience.

Some Side B people may use LGBT+ identities, though not necessarily as the core part of their identity, but as a simple way to describe aspects of their life that stand out as contrary to the normative. Beyond the connotation of being attracted to the same sex, queer identity also may be used to encompass how someone understands themself, how they relate to others, how they process emotions, and even how they connect with hobbies, interests, talents. This includes some people who are in opposite sex marriages who identify as bisexual, pansexual, or even gay. Still others use LGBT+ language because they see sexuality as an ontological part of their being.

There are two main reasons Side B Christians advocate for using LGBT+ identities. First, using other terminology like “same-sex attracted” is not understood outside the church like the LGBT+ identities. Johanna Finegan shares in a sermon, “If you tell a non-Christian, ‘I struggle with same-sex attractions,' they will look at you with a dead stare. The phrase has no significance outside the walls of the church.”

Bridge Eileen Rivera, author of Heavy Burdens, also explains, “Let’s imagine telling an unbeliever, ‘I’m not gay. I’m same-sex-attracted.’ The obvious question is, ‘What do you mean?’ When translated, you literally just said, “I’m not attracted to the same sex. I’m attracted to the same sex.” That’s like me saying to a friend, “I’m not a woman. I’m just a mujer.” I literally just said, “I’m not a woman. I’m just a woman.” Congratulations to me on successfully sounding both pretentious and crazy at the same time.”

The second reason is that Side B believers argue that LGBT+ identity is not about affirming same-sex marriage. It is a cultural identity and an explanation of shared experiences.

What relationships and family structures are highly valued?

Celibacy and opposite sex marriage (referred to in Side B circles when involving queer people as "mixed orientation marriages") are both viewed as godly and viable options for queer people who are Christians.

Along with emphasizing obedient living, Side B Christians also emphasize the importance of finding community and commitment especially for those who decide to pursue celibacy, which is often associated with being alone. They emphasize that the church has a responsibility to be chosen family beyond the structure of the nuclear family. Bridge Eileen Rivera wrote:

Healthy Christian community offers a celibate gay person relationships deeper and more meaningful than anything a secular marriage could give. In fact, it offers this to everyone. Ultimately, the family of God reflects the type of relationships found in paradise — spiritual relationships where no one is married (Matt. 22:30). Imagine a world where you are loved more deeply by your friends than you were ever loved by your spouse (John 15:12-13). If such a world seems impossible to you, then perhaps you’ve never experienced Christian community.

Similarly, Bekah Mason, a cohost of the Life on Side B podcast and former Executive Director of Revoice, explains in an article:

We want future followers of Jesus to know that flourishing as a gay Christian is not only possible but life-giving. We want to model what it means to embrace the idea of chosen family and belonging that isn’t inherently connected to sexual relationships. Why? Because the Bible tells us this sort of intimacy and connection is what we’ll all experience in eternity (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25).

Side B Christians emphasize that in order to support LGBT+ people who decide to follow Christ by living celibate, the church needs to help them find deeply committed community. Side B Christians pursue an array of different types of chosen family and committed community structures. This includes intentional communities made up of multiple people, often both married and celibate (or something reserved only for celibate individuals), who commit to do life together, as well as committed friendships often between queer celibate Christians. It is important to note that committed friendships are not exclusive to queer celibate Christians and may include married or straight individuals. Committed friendships are also diverse in what commitment entails (i.e. mutual rules of life or living together).

Some Side B Christians also choose to pursue celibate partnerships, categorized as a type of committed friendship. In general, these partnerships almost always involve two same-sex individuals who make lifelong commitments to prioritize each other in a variety of ways. Still, celibate partnerships, as a form of committed friendship, vary immensely on a case by case basis and usually involve other forms of community as noted in a report written by Greg Coles. It is also worth noting that not all Side B Christians endorse or support celibate partnerships as an appropriate form of community. It is sometimes warned against as a slippery slope toward Side A theology.

Side A

History:

The Side A view on sexuality in Christianity (more commonly known as the affirming view) has been growing over the past few decades. During this time, some new specifically affirming denominations were created including the Metropolitan Community Church, which is geared toward affirming queer Christians. This view reached new popularity in the States with the creation of the Gay Christian Network (now the Q Christian Fellowship) in the early 2000s by Justin Lee. While majority affirming, the Gay Christian Fellowship was meant to support the faith of all queer Christians regardless of holding a traditional or affirming belief. This vision was represented through the Great Debate, an online friendly debate between Justin Lee and Ron Belgau in the forum of GCN where the terms Side A and Side B were originally coined. Later on, the Side A view rose in popularity even more with a video released by Matthew Vines arguing for the Bible’s approval of gay marriage. He later founded the Reformation Project which aims to work with churches to move towards an affirming view of gay sexuality and marriage. Since that time, Side A has grown with conferences like the Q Christian Fellowship and the Reformation Project now drawing thousands of attendees each year.

Multiple mainline denominations of Christianity adhere to a Side A belief including sections of the Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and Methodist churches. As Side A continues to evolve, there has been growing conversation on whether all of the beliefs represented within can be classified as a singular Side or if it should be divided into Side A (for Affirming Theology) and Side Q (for Queer Theology). The Q Christian Fellowship is much more associated with Queer Theology whereas the Reformation Project adheres strictly to Affirming Theology. For now, both views are represented here in Side A and discussed further in the response to the first question.

Influential Texts:

Justin Lee, Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays-vs.-Christians Debate (Jericho Books, 2013)

James V Brownson, Bible Gender Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same Sex Relationships (Eerdmans, 2013)

Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships (Convergent Books, 2015)

Karen Keen, The Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships (Eerdmans, 2018)

David and Constantino Khalaf, Modern Kinship: A Queer Guide to Christian Marriage (Westminster John Knox Press, 2019)

Christopher B. Hays and Richard B. Hays, The Widening of God's Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (Yale University Press, 2024)

Can sexual intercourse between two people of the same sex be blessed by God?

Side A believes that the Biblical passages regarding sexual relations between members of the same sex do not apply to modern gay relationships for various reasons. For example, some Side A scholars argue that the homosexual relationships found in the ancient world during the composition of the Bible did not include monogamous romantic relationships. Therefore, the authors were not referring to monogamous same-sex relationships.

As Justin Lee, the founder of the Gay Christian Network, argues in his famous article entitled “The Great Debate”:

The passages that mention those acts (often called “clobber passages,” but I don’t care for that term) could be interpreted in two ways. They might condemn only those specific acts and situations, or they might condemn all homosexual behaviors for all time, regardless of situation. For instance, when the Bible speaks negatively of “tax collectors,” we realize that it’s not talking about modern IRS agents. Tax collectors in Jesus’ day were frequently corrupt and cheated people out for more money than they owed. So when the Bible talks about “tax collectors,” it’s not condemning all tax collectors for all time; it’s condemning the specific behaviors of the tax collectors at that time.

Another popular argument is that the biblical writers condemned homosexuality because they believed all people were inherently heterosexual. Therefore, according to this argument, since modern scientists are concluding that homosexual attraction is inherent, their condemnation of homosexuality no longer applies. James Brownson puts it this way in his book, Bible, Gender, Sexuality:

It is clear that Paul is not operating with the modern sense of sexual orientation here. Rather, he speaks of those who “leave behind” what he regards as their own true nature, which should direct them to relationships with those of the opposite sex. It would probably be inscrutable to him to speak of people who were “naturally” attracted to others of the same sex. . . . If this analysis is correct, however, it also suggests that the whole modern concept of sexual orientation and the contemporary evidence of its deeply rooted persistence . . . represent an important range of empirical data about the natural world that was not considered by the ancient Jewish or Christian writers. (229, 230)

Built upon similar arguments of cultural contextualization, the 2023 documentary titled 1946 highlights an argument that the use of the word "homosexual" is a mistranslation in passages including 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10.

While Side A Christians holistically agree that God does not intrinsically condemn same-sex relationships, there is diversity of thought within Side A related to sexual ethics. It can be argued that just as the traditional view (the belief that sex is reserved for marriage between a man and a woman) encompasses three different viewpoints (i.e. Side B, Side Y, and Side X), in the same way, the affirming view has a similar diversity. One way these belief differences have been described within Side A circles is the contrast of Affirming Theology and Queer Theology. These perspectives do not simply outline differing beliefs on sexual ethics (which will be discussed in the last question). Instead, they each represent contrasting approaches to theology.

Many of the biblical arguments above are rooted in Affirming Theology, which often focuses on Bible interpretation because it builds its basis on the authority of Scripture. Queer Theology takes a different approach. Queer Theology utilizes principles of queer theory and liberation theology to create a vision of queer thriving within Christian spirituality. It is less focused on Bible passages. Instead it views most of the norms of our society especially modern Christian thought as rooted in Western colonial and oppressive structures which should be removed. In practice, it seeks to echo the subversive nature of the Kingdom by working against cultural norms for the pursuit of challenging the status quo. An example of this is using sexual language such to describe the relationship within the Trinity as highlighted in Marcella Althaus-Reid's book The Queer God.

Is being attracted to the same sex intrinsically moral?

Side A believes God creates people with same sex sexual attractions as part of his original creation and therefore it is intrinsically good at its core. It is no more fallen or misguided than heterosexual attraction. Matthew Vines shares:

There’s something terribly unseemly about straight Christians insisting that gay Christians are somehow inferior to them, or broken, or that gay people only exist because of the fall, and that God really intended to make everyone straight like them. But you know, I am a part of creation, too, including my sexual orientation. I’m a part of God’s design. That’s the first thing that I learned growing up in Sunday school – that God created me, that God loves me, that I am a beloved child of God, no more and no less valuable than anyone else.

Especially within the Affirming Theology camp, it is acknowledged that our desires or attractions are not always perfect guides. For example, we may experience attraction to someone who is not our spouse, but the key is that the gender of the person we are attracted to does not change the morality of our sexual expression.

Can and should a person with same-sex attractions pursue changing their attractions?

No, because Side A advocates that it is harmful and dangerous. If God created a person to be LGBT+, then it would be damaging to try and change their sexual orientation just as it would be damaging to try and change a straight person’s sexual orientation.

Side A advocates also point to multiple health organizations such as the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Medical Association who report that conversion efforts can have very negative effects on LGBT+ individuals.

Side A couple, David and Tino Khalaf, who personally went through conversion therapy themselves, write their thoughts on the topic in an article saying:

It isn’t that we automatically reject the truth of some of these [conversion therapy] testimonies; we believe God is capable of anything, and that if it is His desire to change someone’s sexual orientation, then it is well within His power. But even if some of these stories are true, there’s a glaring problem with writing about them: They are the outliers. The vast majority of men and women who seek to transform their sexual orientation see virtually no change. Those who focus on the outlying gay conversion stories are like those who focus on the dearth of scientists who deny climate change—it’s a conscious rejection of the preponderance of evidence. All of which is to say, it’s irresponsible and dangerously negligent.

David and Tino list five reasons why they believe the conservative church’s focus on trying to change a person’s sexual orientation is wrong.

Conversion therapy testimonies focused on changed attractions neglect the experiences of the majority of LGBT+ Christians.
Conversion therapy testimonies subtly push the view that those who have changed their orientation are better than LGBT+ individuals
Conversion therapy testimonies causes LGBT+ people who have pursued change but not experienced it to feel extreme shame and damnation.
Conversion therapy testimonies deny the experience of bisexual individuals, which according to statistics is the largest population of LGBT+ people.
Conversion therapy testimonies many times exploit vulnerable subjects who would rather remain private.

Is it morally permissible for Christians with same-sex attractions to identify as LGBT+?

LGBT+ dignity is a major value within Side A. It emphasizes that queer people are not simply dignified in spite of their sexuality. It is believed to be part of how queer people reflect God's Image. Therefore, to deny your sexual orientation is to suppress a part of who you are as an Image bearer of God and can be damaging. Many would still acknowledge that sexual identity is a modern construct but one rooted in recent scientific findings that were not understood previously.

What relationships and family structures are highly valued?

As Side A believes that God blesses sexual relationships between members of the same sex, the queer Christian may pursue relationship and marriage with whomever regardless of gender. More importantly, Side A resonates with the broader LGBT+ value of chosen family. While marriage is available for those who desire it, there is no limit to who can be your family.

This is where another difference between Affirming Theology and Queer Theology is highlighted. There is difference of belief among Side A Christians about the parameters in which sexual activity is permitted which changes the family structures which are valued. Some Side A Christians believe sex is reserved for marriage. Others believe it is permissible within committed relationships regardless of marriage. Still, others believe sex is permissible within a broader scope of mutually agreed upon consent and respect. Side A also encompasses similar diversity of belief on topics such as polyamory. For those who believe polyamory is a viable option, this can include sexually open relationships, multiple romantic and sexual partnerships, or polyfidelity (committed relationship units involving more than two people, i.e. a throuple).

Final Reflections

There is a lot of information here and you probably did not read everything which is understandable. I encourage you to take some time to reflect on the following questions.

What made you the most uncomfortable as you read? Something said about a Side you disagree with? Something that was said about a Side you agreed with? Maybe the description of Third Way? What about it makes you uncomfortable?
Is there something you were surprised to find you agree with about a Side that you previously didn't think you would?
If you skipped over a section, why did you do so?

My hope is that through this document you have maybe learned something new about someone different than yourself that helps you understand them better and that you build aware of how you approach this conversation. Above all, I pray that we be led by the Holy Spirit into deeper relationship with God, others, and ourselves.

Theological discussions are ever evolving which means these descriptions can quickly become outdated. Have suggested updates for this page? Let us know by commenting below.

MOST RECENT CONTENT UPDATE

October 17, 2024 | A complete revision and second edition of the original document was published with major changes, updates, and structural changes across the entire document.