Sides A, B, X, and Y are labels used for theological positions on homosexuality within some Christian churches and communities. In general, those who affirm same-sex marriage fall under "Side A", [1] while those who do not affirm it are classified as "Side B", "Side X", or "Side Y". [2] The letters A and B have been suggested to refer to the two sides of a phonograph record. [3]
While differing in their views on same-sex marriage, the four groups often address issues affecting the LGBTQ community. [2] [4] [5] [6] Side A and Side B generally oppose conversion therapy and accept LGBTQ identification, including the term "gay Christian". Side X generally affirms the pursuit of exclusive heterosexuality and supports the ex-gay movement. [7] [8] Side Y claims to be opposed to identity politics [9] [10] and affirms Christian regeneration as the primary form of transformation. [11] [12]
There are no standardized definitions for the four positions, and individuals do not always identify with these labels. Some, particularly those associated with Side Y, may prefer terms such as "Bible-believing Christian" [13] [14] or "eunuch for the kingdom of God". [15]
Many LGBTQ-affirming churches align with the perspective known as Side A and may describe themselves using terms such as "affirming" [16] or "welcoming". This view generally holds that monogamous same-sex relationships are morally equivalent to heterosexual relationships. Side A adherents may interpret the Bible through frameworks such as queer theology. Passages traditionally cited as condemning homosexuality, such as the account of Sodom and Gomorrah, are often understood within this perspective as not referring to modern same-sex committed relationships. [17]
Side A affirms same-sex monogamy [18] and maintains that refraining from same-sex relationships can be psychologically or spiritually harmful for queer people. [19] [20] Some proponents regard same-sex attraction as a natural or God-given characteristic [21] and view same-sex marriages within a committed context as consistent with divine blessing. [22]
Public figures who have expressed Side A views include Rob Bell, who in an interview stated: "I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I am for love, whether it's a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man. I think the ship has sailed and I think the church needs—I think this is the world we are living in and we need to affirm people wherever they are". [23]
Some individuals within Side A identify as progressive Christians and may hold theological positions that differ from those of conservative Christianity, such as approaching doctrinal claims in a non-literal or flexible manner or focusing on the humanitarian aspects of Jesus and the Bible rather than on its historicity. [24] [25] [26] [27] In One Faith No Longer, George Yancey and Ashlee Quosigk observe that "progressive Christians tie much of their ideology to humanistic rationality and a desire for social justice". [27] [28]
Notable proponents of Side A include Matthew Vines, [29] Justin Lee, and Randy Thomas. [30]
The Side B position opposes same-sex marriage. [4] [5] It maintains that queer Christians should pursue a “positive vocation” for their lives. [31] Advocates of the Side B position state that all Christians are called to chaste vocations [32] —defined as a specific form of sexual faithfulness and integrity through celibacy [1] or a monogamous relationship with a spouse of the opposite sex. [2] Some Side B Christians enter heterosexual marriages despite experiencing same-sex attraction (often referred to as mixed-orientation marriages). Others remain celibate, sometimes in committed same-sex celibate partnerships, [4] or living in intentional community. [33]
The term “Side B” was first explicitly outlined in 2010 by Episcopal priest Wesley Hill. [4] Notable figures associated with Side B include Hill, [34] David Bennett, [35] and Josh Proctor. [36]
Some proponents address the belief that marriage and sexual relationships are the primary or exclusive forms of deep commitment [37] by referencing biblical examples, such as the relationship between David and Jonathan, as models of nonmarital, nonsexual commitment between people of the same sex. Spiritual friendship is presented as an alternative for cultivating deep relational bonds without entering a same-sex marriage. Hill, in his book Spiritual Friendship, describes such relationships as forms of same-sex intimacy that sublimate or transform erotic passion rather than express it sexually. [38]
Views on language around sexual orientation vary among Side B proponents. [39] [40] [41] Some, such as TJ Espinoza and David Frank of the New Kinship Podcast, identify as “queer” and “non-straight,” respectively, [42] with Espinoza emphasizing that he uses terms like “queer” to describe his sexuality rather than his personal identity, in order to maintain distance between the two. [43] [44] Others, including Rachel Gilson, author of Born Again This Way, may use terms like gay or lesbian to describe people [45] [46] but avoid them as identity labels, citing concerns that such terms may be interpreted as indicating approval of same-sex relationships. [47]
Mark Yarhouse and Olya Zaporozhets, in Costly Obedience, note that some celibate gay Christians use the label “gay Christian” for clarity and simplicity. Side B proponents often describe identity language choices as pragmatic, shaped by personal or contextual considerations. [48] Proctor has described queer identity, in the Side B context, as a way to communicate one’s experiences and desires. [2]
Some celibate LGBTQ-identifying Christians have criticized the term “Side B” as too narrow to capture the diversity of perspectives on sex, sexuality, gender, and marriage, and as contributing to divisions within LGBTQ Christian communities. [4] Supporters of the term argue that it is necessary to differentiate their position from the ex-gay (Side X) approach. [4]
Criticism of Side B also comes from some Christians who reject any acknowledgment of LGBTQ identity, viewing it as incompatible with biblical teaching on sexuality. [49] For example, Rosaria Butterfield, an author and former lesbian, has censured Side B for beliefs that she views as heretical, such as their denial that temptation can be sinful [50] [51] [52] . She similarly accuses the Side B approach of syncretizing Freudian [53] [54] [55] and atheistic [56] anthropology (namely, in affirming all romantic attractions as morally neutral) with Christianity. [57] [58]
Supporters of the Side B approach state that their aim is to present alternatives to progressive sexual ethics and to provide visibility for Christians with LGBTQ experiences who adhere to their understanding of biblical sexual ethics. [59]
Side X derives its name from the term "ex-gay". [2] The position generally regard sexual orientation change efforts as an ideal or positive treatment for queer people. Some Side X perspectives pathologize the development of same-sex attraction to factors such as unmet childhood needs, including experiences of shame from a same-sex parent, [60] overidentification with an opposite-sex parent, [61] or a temperamentally based disidentification with a same-sex parent. [62] Figures associated with Side X include Joseph Nicolosi [60] and Joe Dallas. [63]
Among the four “Sides” frameworks, Side X combines conservative Christianity with conversion therapy and heteronormativity. [64] [65] Comparable positions have been expressed by organizations with Islamic (StraightWay Foundation) and Orthodox Jewish (JONAH) affiliations.
Proponents of what they call reintegrative therapy—sometimes associated with Side X—describe it as a form of trauma treatment that may or may not result in changes in sexual orientation. [66] [67] Such approaches often employ methods based on concepts including sexual fluidity, [68] neuroplasticity, [69] and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. [70] [71] Critics of reintegrative therapy argue that ideological motivations play a significant role among both practitioners and clients. [72] Supporters counter that such criticisms are also ideologically driven, and they contend that mainstream psychological research contains secular biases against religious clients and therapists. [73] [74] Reintegrative therapists often distinguish their methods from conversion therapy, [75] sometimes characterizing that term as ideologically charged and pointing to statistical analyses in support of their own treatment models. [76] [77] [78] Advocates of reintegrative therapy include Joseph Nicolosi Jr. [79] and Michael Gasparro. [80]
Individuals with theologically conservative Christian beliefs often align with the Side X position, which shares several views with Side Y. Consequently, some individuals identify with both Sides X and Y. [81] [82] Shared characteristics between these positions may include:
Side Y is also opposed to same-sex marriage. It teaches that all Christians, regardless of sexual attractions, should repent of sin and live by what proponents describe as "holy sexuality", [95] [96] characterized by chastity outside of marriage. This view is found in many theologically conservative Christian traditions that affirm complementarianism and federal headship.
Notable individuals associated with Side Y include Rosaria Butterfield, [97] [98] [99] Christopher Yuan, [95] Becket Cook, [100] Sam Allberry, [101] and Jackie Hill Perry. [102] Resources reflecting Side Y perspectives include The New Reformation Catechism on Human Sexuality by Christopher Gordon and The Holy Sexuality Project, a video curriculum by Christopher Yuan. [103] [104]
The term “Side Y” appears to have been used as early as 2016 by Gabriel Blanchard (“Mudblood Catholic”), [105] who has stated that he coined it to describe a position emphasizing identity in Christ and renunciation of sexual orientation–based identity. [106] Some associated with this position reject the Side Y label and the “Sides” framework altogether, stating that such terms imply equal validity among the four positions (A, B, X, and Y). [107]
Side Y generally maintains that the Bible is divinely inspired and without error, [108] and often emphasizes precise language use to align with its theological anthropology. [109] [110] Many adherents reject descriptors such as “gay Christian” or “sexual minority,” viewing them as inconsistent with biblical categories. They may instead use terms such as “Christian who experiences same-sex attraction” and avoid identity labels drawn from sexual orientation. [111] [112]
Rosaria Butterfield states,
Adjectives in terms of grammar are modifiers; their job is to tell me what kind of Christian you are. The problem with a term like 'gay Christian' is that it modifies Christian according to a category of the flesh. [113]
Side Y typically regards same-sex attraction as a form of indwelling sin and often adopts the Augustinian view that concupiscence—desire for what God forbids—is itself sinful, whether or not it is acted upon. [97] [114] [115] [116] Former gay rights activist Rosaria Butterfield describes unchosen sin this way:
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." [117]
This belief is connected to the doctrines of original sin, imputed righteousness, and total depravity, and is often situated within Calvinistic theology. [118] [119] [120]
In contrast to the Roman Catholic view, which holds that unchosen resistance toward God's standard of morality is not inherently sinful, [121] Side Y claims that though one may not have actively willed to sin, one can still be guilty of the internal pull toward the sin [114] [115] [122] . Therefore, they believe that Christians, by being rooted in scripture, must resist their original sin [123] (in whatever form it manifests itself) and starve their indwelling sin, such as the romantic desire for the same sex. [124]
Because Side Y does not see marriage as a biblical mandate for every single Christian, Side Y Christians do not believe that all people must become heterosexual upon conversion. At the same time, many also see complementarian marriage as a calling and option for some, and may, in those instances, positively affirm such individuals' desires to enter into a heterosexual marriage. [125] Side Y also sees lifelong singleness as an equally valuable calling, citing the examples of biblical chastity, including that of Jesus and the Apostle Paul. [126]
Despite such an acknowledgement, [127] many theologically conservative Christians simultaneously maintain that lifelong singleness is not the normative path for the majority. [128] They cite the three exchanges in Romans 1 (the truth for lies, Creator for the creature, and the natural for the unnatural) to assert that a culture increasingly barren and deficient of heteronormativity is a sign of divine judgment, [129] [130] and that its concomitant promotion of singleness and childlessness stands in direct opposition to God's design for procreative flourishing. [131] [132] In particular, Rosaria Butterfield states,
"And let's be clear: a world that grows in singleness and homosexuality is under judgment. ... So if you have a theology that helps people grow in their homosexuality or their singleness, you are actually promoting a theology that brings the Church under judgment." [133]
Mindful of the modern perception that singleness dooms one to loneliness [134] [135] and obscurity, [136] those on Side Y often stress that Christians who do not struggle with same-sex attraction have a responsibility to become the new family promised by Christ to those who leave their LGBT family. [137] Side Y Christians also often seek to dignify the calling of singleness. [138] In his book 7 Myths About Singleness, Sam Allberry writes,
"If marriage shows us the shape of the gospel, singleness shows us [the gospel's] sufficiency." [139]
Rosaria Butterfield emphasizes that Christians who do not struggle with same-sex attraction should not pressure individuals to get married [122] and clarifies that "the solution for all sin is repentance." [140] In 2016, she spoke at Liberty University, saying that although God does not promise to take away temptation in this life, God "pledges to you His kind company and power in the midst of this struggle" and will carry "the heavier part of the cross". [141] Butterfield describes each person who battles unchosen same-sex attraction in "God's way" as "a hero of the faith". [141] At the same time, she also warns that the false expectation that same-sex desires always fade away completely can make people blame God and become bitter. [142]
People on Side Y tend to practice intentionality in their word choice and thus reject words like "gay", "queer", and "LGBT", as identity markers. [143] [144] If they are same-sex attracted, they may opt for descriptors like "Christian who struggles with (unwanted) same-sex attractions". [145] [146] To describe their pre-Christian selves, they may allow for phrases like "gay identity" [147] or "life as a lesbian", [148] but then use explicitly biblical terms like "born again", [149] [150] "eunuch for the kingdom of God", [151] or simply "Christian single", [151] to characterize their current selves. Side Y's insistence on such terms comes from a commitment to a biblical anthropology and ontology, [152] [153] [154] which they deem inconsistent with the worldview implications that, according to them, come with identifying as gay. [144] [155]
Unlike Side B, which provides room for a nonmarital commitment in same-sex friendships (sometimes called "Spiritual Friendship"), [156] Side Y tends to see such unions as an appropriation of marriage and misuse of friendship. [157] Christopher Yuan, the author of Holy Sexuality and the Gospel, states,
"[Lifelong same-sex partnership] is a ceremony: [The participants] covenant together, they live together, they own property together; it's from every other [angle], same-sex marriage". [158]
Some also fault Side B for being informed by a Darwinian and atheistic view of humanity, rather than by that of the Bible and Christianity. [159] Others have also spoken against the Revoice movement for denying homoerotic desire as a fallen desire and presenting it as morally neutral [160] and presupposing an intersectional identitarianism [161] and "gender ideology". [162] Because of these worldview differences, [163] there is a growing movement among Side Y Christians toward viewing gay Christianity as a different religion altogether. [98]
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)