The word “gay” should not be used by Christians to identify their sexual orientation, according to a ruling by the Council of Bishops from the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA).
ACNA is closely linked to the conservative parts of the Anglican Church in Australia, through the Global Anglican Futures Conference (GAFCON) movement. Think of them as kind of like the Sydney diocese (region) with some country conservative Catholic-style Anglicans thrown in, plus a lot of charismatics.
A very long pastoral statement by the ACNA Council of Bishops announces that those who are conservative Christians with a same-sex orientation should not call themselves “gay”. The term “same-sex attracted” will not do either.
Instead, the bishops “commend the usage of ‘Christians who experience same-sex attraction.’” (NOTE: This is a discussion between conservative, mostly evangelical Christians and is seperate from the wider questions of whether Christianity should shift from its traditional position on human sexuality.)27 JAN 2021 2:05PM
The ACNA, like all churches who take the conservative and traditional view that the Bible condemns same-sex activity, does include members who have lesbian or gay sexual orientation.
For example, Wesley Hill is Associate New Testament Professor at ACNA’s main seminary, Trinity School For Ministry, as well as an Associate Priest at Trinity Cathedral, Ambridge, Pennsylvania – and identifies as a “Side B” gay man. Eternity has interviewed him here.
“Side B” is a description of LGBT persons who are celibate because they are Christian. Many Side B christians feel pushed out of or rejected by the church.
Sydneysider David Bennett, who is completing his doctorate at Oxford, writes: “I’m personally deeply grieved with the ACNA’s statement on human sexuality. Yet again conservatives and progressives make it harder and harder for a safe place to exist in the Church for LGBTQI+/SSA Christians to work out our conscience on a deeply important part of our lives before Christ through scripture, reason (of which experience is a vital part) and tradition. We aren’t even permitted the terms ‘gay’ or ‘SSA’ and yet they use them entirely throughout [the ACNA Council of Bishops’ statement]! I probably will reserve my comments for now but lamenting the continued incompetence of the Church in loving us. Thankful its Lord isn’t anywhere the same.”
This is an argument about language.
“No doubt the issue of the use of language to describe our identity in Jesus is urgently pressing in our current cultural milieu. Identity has become a kind of idolatry wherein one is taught to choose, nurture, and proclaim a certain type of personhood. This then becomes a sacred position that cannot be questioned.”
“Amid the resulting personal destruction of such an idolatry comes the great gift of the Gospel. Jesus has saved us from making our own identity; he has given us his identity. As bishops, we recognise the urgency to bolster this life-giving proclamation and to bring biblical clarity wherever this may become confused. To insist on the adjective ‘gay’, with all of its cultural attachments, is problematic to the point that we cannot affirm its usage in relation to the word ‘Christian’.
“We also recognise that neither of the identifying phrases is ideal, and we know that the language of same-sex attraction carries potential grief for some. Nevertheless, the theological and pastoral misgivings we share with regard to the terms ‘gay Christian’ and ‘same-sex attraction’ are significant. This language skews how scripture identifies Christians in the direction of orientation or attraction, whereas the Bible places identity in Christ, faith in Him, godly commitments and communities, and in service. We are concerned that the result in this subtle shift from identification in Christ by modifying our Christian identity with personal orientations and attractions has the potential for leading youth in the wrong directions at a time when above all we need the clarity of definition in Christ alone. We are attentive to the potential trajectory of this language wherein future generations may not employ it with the same orthodox convictions that some brothers and sisters do now.”
Side B responds:
Wesley Hill writes on his “Spiritual Friendship” site in answer to similar criticism: “I can’t tell y’all how weary I am of hearing that criticism from my fellow traditionalist Christians.”
“In the first place, it takes no account of the way we ‘Side B’ folks have qualified — again and again and again and … — what ‘gay’ means to us. David [Bennett] himself qualifies it carefully in his book [A War of Loves: The Unexpected Story of a Gay Activist Discovering Jesus]:
“To call myself a celibate gay Christian specifies both my sexual orientation and the way I’m choosing to live it out.” – David Bennett
“The word gay does not necessarily refer to sexual behaviour; it can just as easily refer to one’s sexual preference or orientation and say nothing, one way or the other, about how one is choosing to express that orientation. So, whereas ‘stealing Christian’ describes a believer who actively steals as an acted behaviour, ‘gay Christian’ may simply refer to one’s orientation and nothing more. This is why I rarely, if ever, use the phrase gay Christian without adding the adjective celibate, meaning committed to a life of chasteness in Christ. To call myself a celibate gay Christian specifies both my sexual orientation and the way I’m choosing to live it out.”
N.T. Wright, who wrote the introduction to Bennett’s book, makes these points: “There are, inevitably, places where we will agree to differ. David uses the language of LGBT and a few other initials as well; having lived in a world where those on the margins found a peer group with whom they could share sorrows and fears, he does not wish to turn his back on folk for whom that self-description is something of a lifeline. I have come to regard the list of initials LGBTQI as problematic, since each refers to quite different phenomena, sets of circumstances, assumptions, and challenges, and to lump them all together can, from the outside, look like a way of saying, ‘We’re just going to live by whatever impulses we feel whenever we feel them.’ I stress from the outside: I greatly respect David’s insider viewpoint and will, I hope, continue to learn from him.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: Eternity’s position on language matches David Bennett’s although, as editor, I believe we arrived at it separately. (We regard David as a friend of our paper/website). Eternity uses “Celibate Gay Christian” usually together, or in close proximity, to describe traditional Christians like David. Where we talk about the broader LGBT community, we avoid joining the descriptors.
“As the people of God, we commit to praying for those who experience same-sex attraction …” – ACNA Bishops
The deeper argument
There is a related, deeper argument – which essentially says that people like Hill and Bennett, who identify as both celibate and gay, don’t fit within Christianity.
The ACNA bishops do not go that far. They draw back. “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).”
“As the people of God, we commit to praying for those who experience same-sex attraction, knowing that some will experience a change in their feelings, while others may experience a change in their will, and still others may face an ongoing struggle but with a change in their hope – that hope of the resurrection which empowers us now and promises a life eternal where our suffering will be ended. We live by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that we may be transformed into the likeness of Christ from ‘one degree of glory to another’ (2 Corinthians 3:18).”
They summarise the “Side B” position with some precision.
“Going deeper, some employ a very nuanced argument that while gay lust is sinful, gay attraction in itself need not be lustful but can represent an aesthetic appreciation of beauty and a desire for chaste friendship.”
This ACNA statement is in contrast to other conservative Christian positions. For example, the Nashville Statement – produced by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) – takes a hard line. It’s article 7 says: “We deny that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption.” This places anyone who regards themselves as gay, no matter if they are celibate, in the category of defying God’s purposes.
The conservative Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) adopted the Nashville Statement in 2019, following months of controversy after a Side B conference called “Revoice” was held in a PCA church.
Testing out the language
As described above, this is an argument over language. Sometimes the argument is made that we don’t use modifiers such as”alcoholic Christian”. Hill argues “even in traditional Christian theology that views same-sex sexual behaviour as sinful, being gay is crucially different than being an alcoholic, a racist, or a slanderer.”
To test the Bishops recommended usage “Christians who experience same-sex attraction” –
In the US, where black and white Christians vote differently and often attend different churches, should we say “Christians who experience Blackness/Whiteness”?
If we talk about wealthy Christians, should we say “Christians who experience lots of money”?
In Australia, should we talk about “Christians who experience First Nationhood”?
Somehow the clunky phrasing is unlikely to catch on. Is it mean to say only Anglican Bishops would come up with this?
Ah, how wonderful. Now a whole new arena of issues for Christians to fight about. Not sure who is the worst bomb thrower here: homosexual Christians who want to be Christians the way they want it to be, or the ACNA by releasing the 3,733 word treatise that says a lot but at the same says nothing about our identity being in Christ. Just Pathetic,.
“the 3,733 word treatise that says a lot but at the same says nothing about our identity being in Christ.”
You must not have read it, because that is the explicit foundation of the statement.
“Explicit foundation” is not the same as saying it in plain clear English, which if they had done and did on a consistent basis would lead to fewer 3,733 word documents that next to no pew sitter will ever read.
I share your frustration with the long-winded way that these things end up being discussed and phrased. But I think they had a lot of specific concerns to address and they wanted to be pastoral. I thought they did a pretty good job all things considered. But perhaps next time they could provide an executive summary…
What problem are they trying to solve here? I guess that is my point. The 2,000 year witness of the Bible gives a very clear picture about Sexuality and Sexual Morals. The Rev. George Woodliff in the TEC Diocese of Mississippi wrote a much better treatise on this and published it on a website known as Stand Firm in 2004. A very, very, orthodox treatment with a lot of clarity.
But it matters not. I left ACNA over 2 years ago because I could see this whole Sexual Morality, Social Justice wave coming in just like it did in TEC.
It is a disease in Institutional Christianity.
Take a look at Bp. Todd Hunter. Proving that a splintering over this issue is not just coming. It’s here.
Yes, I see that. And I do agree. I personally believe that our problems flow backwards to the matter of women’s ordination because arguments were adopted and hermeneutics tweaked to arrive at a particular outcome then and the same ones have been employed here. So, like you say, it’s the same road, just a little further behind on it. I am still hopeful however because I think there is a genuine desire on the part of most within ACNA to be faithful according to understanding, and I think that is a contrast with TEC where things are so disingenuous.
But I do still think that pastoral language is called for because there is such a lack of understanding in the general population now, and especially among young people. “Speaking the truth in love” is very important in this matter.
No matter how much Bp. Hunter puts Mad Dog 20/20 or Thunderbird into his new wine skins, it’s still rot gut. Note: Bota bags are properly filled with sloe gin.
Incredibly ill-informed column. Fr. Hill is not in ACNA but is in TEC, and if you don’t know that, maybe don’t write a column about gay Anglicans.
Thank you, I will correct that (on the original)
Still not corrected.
Also Trinity is not affiliated with any one Anglican body – while it may be seen as the “main” seminary from the A.C.N.A.’s perspective, it does not belong to the A.C.N.A. in any way. The way it is phrased makes is sound as if the two are joined at the hip.
I really appreciate knowing that. I’ve read a number of pieces by Wes Hill but understanding how he is positioned within the Anglican world makes a difference. Thank you.
Defining people by their temptations or sins is not the best way to define them.
“Until then I was celibate, despite some women (usually not overly-attractive) trying to seduce me.” That has to be the most patronizing disgusting statement about celibacy that I have ever read. David takes no responsibility for his being tempted, and denigrates not only the behavior but also the appearance of many women. Don’t look at the speck of sawdust in your neighbor’s eye, until you have removed the board from your own!
To avoid people deliberately misconstruing what I wrote I have simplified my comment.
This needs clearly to be titled as a pro/con piece.
I realize it seems tiresome to many, but I think this discussion is long overdue. Language matters, especially in a world where a newly coined phrase or a redefined word carries a great deal of power to win hearts and minds. Our culture has made it impossible to use the language of “gay” without implying attraction, identity AND activity – as though these are things that cannot be separated one from another, let alone overcome.
Those who speak to these issues regularly (like Wed Hill) will naturally have arrived at the language that they feel works best for purposes of clarity and engagement, and that is authentic to their own experience of the matter. But I think it is wrong for those who agree on the traditional Christian moral understanding to give in to the idea that a Christian’s sexual inclinations continue to be a defining identity marker. It seems to me that some of these arguments are laying the groundwork for later concessions…
““Celibate Gay Christian” No such thing……
First of all, a Christian would not put the fact that they are celibate before that of Christ. Christians who are not married are all to remain celibate
Secondly “Gay” is a misnomer. There is nothing pleasing about being separate from Christ because of a failure to surrender one’s sin. One is not repenting of one’s sin if they use it as a title to refer to themselves.
Thirdly, a homosexual is not Christian. If one reads:
1 Corinthians 6:9-11English Standard Version (ESV) 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
You will see that God is placing homosexuals in Hell. God does not place Christians in Hell. Homosexuality is a sin, period. Sinners proudly displaying their sin do not go to Heaven.