By: Shafer Parker

I’ve been meaning to write about Side B Christians ever since I first encountered the concept last December in an article by Revoice executive director Bekah Mason entitled “Side B Christians Like Me Are An Asset Not a Threat.” She may or may not be right, but what concerns me most is not so much her argument, but her use of language. I found myself thinking, “On the surface she appears to be defending a brave stand for basic, Biblical morality, while at the same time her words and illustrations undermine everything she apparently affirms.” This, by the way, is typical of too many modern Christians who know the truth but have no real appreciation for it.

I will demonstrate all this in the next paragraph. But first, terminology. According toan article published by the Religion News Service, Side B Christians are “openly LGBTQ Christians who, while embracing their sexual orientation, also believe God designs sex and marriage to occur exclusively between a man and a woman. The group, called “Side B” (as opposed to Side A Christians who openly celebrate same-sex marriage and sex), is a largely virtual community that sits in a rare liminal space between two sides of a culture war.”

So-called Side A Christianity is a non-starter. In light of several Scriptures, including Mat. 19:4-9; Rom. 1:18-32 and I Cor. 6:9-11, celebration of same-sex sex is condemned as fornication and a form of idolatry. The only message faithful Christians can offer Side A is a call to repentance. Side B, on the other hand, cannot be so easily dismissed. Nevertheless, its growing popularity means it must be examined.

So, join me as I take a look at Bekah’s article. She begins by relating a story about a “gay friend” who was “heartbroken” because he felt pressure to “change something that [Jesus] hadn’t changed yet.” Either that, he said, or he was being told by church leaders to “lie to people and just say that I’m not gay anymore.” He was distraught in part because he “thought the yoke of Jesus was supposed to be light.” Two sentences later Bekah will affirm her “steadfast commitment to live in obedience to the sexual ethic presented in the Bible as God’s design for all people, regardless of attractions or orientations.” Yet, her sympathetic portrayal of her friend makes it difficult to believe she sees basic Christian morality as anything more than a grinding effort to please a joy-killing God.

GIVE TODAY!

If Bekah’s goal was to demonstrate the glory of such a lifestyle, then why not respond to her “friend” with a simple corrective, such as telling him that all such statements are comparative. Compared to the soul-rending, body-destroying effects of homosexuality—or any other form of sexual sin—Jesus’ “yoke” is always easy. But it might be even more important to remind him that he had misquoted Jesus. It’s Jesus’ “burden” that is “light,” while it is his “yoke” that is “easy” (Mat. 11:30). This is not a minor difference. Jesus’ yoke is symbolic of our being trained into his service, while a light burden references the joy of knowing that our sins are forgiven. Jesus is promising that in following him we will be called and trained in work for which we are fitted, and that, thanks to God’s grace, the work we do will be several orders of magnitude lighter than anything we attempt to do in opposition to him.

But the subtleties of Bible study are lost on Bekah. Instead, she writes, “From conservative commenters, we hear that any acknowledgement of same-sex attraction is sinful.” I wish she would name at least one or two of those commenters. I suspect that she did not because they do not exist. Without exception, the churches, and pastors I know, and the commenters I read, would never say such a thing. Rather, the consistent message is that to one degree or another all of us wrestle with sinful sexual desires, but that a merciful God stands ready to forgive and redeem our pitiful lives and make them useful in his service.

For example, the Nashville Statement, to which she links, says this: “We affirm that sin distorts sexual desires by directing them away from the marriage covenant and toward sexual immorality—a distortion that includes both heterosexual and homosexual immorality.” Quite honestly, I relate to half that statement, and I can confess that at various times in my life sin’s distortion of my desires was horribly effective and felt like an almost unbearable burden. But the idea of finding similar sufferers with which to form a community of commiseration would simply have never occurred to me. What I needed, and in my better moments wanted, was someone to help me change the subject.

Speaking of changing the subject, here is a segment from “Sexuality and Identity: A Pastoral Statement from the (Anglican) College of Bishops,” also linked in Bekah’s article.

We cannot guarantee to Christians who are same-sex attracted, or to anyone, that their own desired future will occur if they follow Christ. We can promise that in Christ, there is a secured future of love, forgiveness, and power. And we must continue to teach all people that to follow and imitate Jesus is to live a life of full and glad surrender which daily requires us to take up our cross (Matthew 10:38).

This is powerful, and very loving in tone and purpose. But I suppose it fails to rise to Bekah’s standard of acceptance because it refuses to find anything unique about the struggles she and her friends endure.

Eventually, Bekah moves to her three reasons for staying in a conservative church that refuses to “affirm” homosexual lifestyles. First, she says, she stays “because of [her] commitment to the faithfulness of Scripture.” She believes, she says, “that Jesus is better than sexual fulfillment.” That’s great, but one wonders, then, why she has difficulty accepting the official statements of so many Christian churches and denominations—statements she supposedly supports.

Second, Bekah stays in a conservative church because of her principles. She has “stuck it out” she says, “because of my deep conviction that my life as a celibate gay Christian was just as much a walking picture of the gospel as any of the marriages I encountered at church.” I want to respond to that with a hearty, “Amen,” but I think I’ll reduce it to a more reserved, “Good for you.” It seems to me that if she is really convinced that her life needs to be “a walking picture of the gospel,” then I could wish there was a little more “Glory, hallelujah” in her tone.

Thirdly, Bekah stays in the church to be a witness to God’s saving grace. She mentions a friend who was thanked by a student after giving his testimony. “You’re the first person I’ve met in church who is really giving something up for Jesus,” the student said. I have to ask, does Bekah really believe that same-sex attracted people are the only ones who “really give something up for Jesus?” Really? Has she never heard of Chinese Christians who daily risk everything for their confession? What about the thousands of doctors and nurses who’ve given up prominent and profitable careers because they refuse to perform abortions or have anything to do with Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD)? Does she not know any Christian school teachers who work hard for half pay just for the privilege of teaching where they do not have to deny their faith? I need to stop, but I must say this; it’s time for the Bekahs of this world to be reminded they are not the only ones with problems, and certainly not the only ones who make sacrifices for the kingdom.

I will finish with Bekah’s final flourish. “If we want the next generation to believe that sex and marriage are not the ultimate sources of Christian community,” she writes, “the church would do well to ensure we are not rejecting those whose very existence demonstrates that fact.” Again with the short-sightedness. Do any churches teach that sex and marriage are the ultimate sources of Christian community? Can she point to one? My real fear is that her true purpose for staying in the church is to open the door, first for sympathy, but ultimately, for full acceptance of practicing homosexuals. I suspect that as far as her intentions go, Bekah is not acting with malice. Nevertheless, in my view she, and others like her, represent a real danger to the kingdom.

Other Related Topics