I just thought I would clear up a misconception/error in your post, regarding Side A and Side B.
These two terms come from a now long-ago defunct website called Bridges Across the Divide.
Side A refers to "pro-gay theology." That is, that Scripture does not condemn monogamous same-sex relationships and that homosexual practise within those relationships is not sin. A1B would support Side A.
Side B refers not to bisexuality. No. Side B refers to same-sex attracted people who, perhaps like me, have spent many MANY years begging God to make them straight and the attractions never went away... but who still believe that Scripture is clear on this matter. A sexual activity outside a heterosexual marriage is sin. Scripture DOES INDEED condemn same-sex relationships and same-sex sexual activity.
As such, people who are same-sex attracted (SSA) and who claim Christ as Saviour are therefore called to celibacy. That is what "Side B" is.
I am same-sex attracted. Exclusively. But I believe gay sex is sin. I am personally Side B.
You and Laura refer to it being a burden. Sure it's a burden. I would love to have someone there to tell me he loves me and care for me. I would love to have a boyfriend. But I believe that would be sin. So I am single and celibate.
Laura states that might be too much of a burden for some. Well... that's the nature of living in a fallen world. We all have to pick up our cross and obey God's word. And God's word says that all sex outside a heterosexual marriage is sin. That's a burden. Absolutely. But to say it's too much a burden for SSA people... that that opens the door to saying that there is biblical grounds for Side A? No. We're all called to obey God's word no matter how hard it is... homosexual or heterosexual alike.
Doug, if this Side A or Side B thing still doesn't make sense, you can easily google the two terms. It's readliy available.
You're probably referring to men like Sam Allberry or Wesley Hill.
But I too share that story. I'm 50 years old. Spent 17 years in ex-gay reparative therapy to no avail. I still believe that acting on my attractions would be sin. I life a life of singleness and celibacy. And am now preparing for ordained ministry.
Laura, you wrote: "However, the only people that are truly able to answer that question are LGBTQ persons themselves, so I would encourage everyone who is not, to be open, listen, and listen some more to what they have to say about whether they feel safe in their CRC churches."
I can speak for myself here. I am exclusively same-sex attracted. I spent 17 years in ex-gay reparative therapy begging God to make me straight. I went to Love in Action's live-in program even. None of it worked. I'm sure that part of my story is true for many LGBTQ+ people who grew up in the church.... that we begged God to change us.
But even as someone who could rightly consider myself part of the LGBTQ+ community, I still hold the conservative, traditional view of Scripture. I believe that homosexual practice is sin. Always. As such, I believe that God would call those of us who are same-sex attracted and claim the name of Christ to be celibate. My "story" is welcome and affirmed among conservative-minded folk in the CRC. I wonder, however, if my story is affirmed in A1B circles because theologically I disagree with them.
Jodi, you wrote "Anyone who has taken the time to understand this group would see that they love God, value Scripture, and affirm monogamous relationships, and that they are motivated by love."
How can those who do not affirm same-sex relationships still reach out in love?
I think often there are those in the CRC who are non-affirming but want to show love to those who are LGBTQ+ but (1) don't know how; (2) do it poorly; or (3) have attempted to do so but have been met with resistance on the part of LGBTQ+ folk in the church believing that there cannot be love without affirmation.
If it's #3 above, then there's an impasse that could never be crossed. I have personally seen all three of the above... and as I have shared above, I am personally same-sex attracted and "Side B" (i.e, hold the traditional view of Scripture that homosexual practice is contrary to Scripture)... so I have personally seen/experienced all three.
The terms "Side A" and "Side B" are sometimes known and sometimes unknown to people. So thanks for pointing them out. I am indeed Side B. I guess you could say that "on paper" the 1973 and 2002 reports of the CRC affirm Side B... although there are still people out there in the CRC who would still have all of us (Side A and B) in reparative therapy and tell us we still need to "pray the gay away."
There's where the hurt came in my own journey (even after coming to the CRC in 2008, unfortunately). My previous denomination -- very much not even accepting of Side B).
We all are aware that this study committee's mandate won't be to change or re-hash the 1973 document or the Pastoral Care document. But this topic needs to be discussed on an ongoing basis. I am Canadian. Gay marriage is legal here.
Our denomination is made up of three groups of people: (1) those who affirm homosexuality and gay marriage, (2) those who want to ensure LGBT people who are welcomed in our churches without necessarily affirming their relationships, and (3) those who believe that LGBT need to be healed of their attractions (i.e., "ex-gay ministries).
These three groups of people DO need to co-exist and need to be able to have civil dialogue. I hope this study committee can tackle this. I am a delegate at Synod and I have already made it clear that I want to serve on this committee.
Fair disclosure: I am a 44-year-old single, celibate, chaste, yet openly gay man. With God's grace I intend to remain single, chaste, and celibate my whole life.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Hi Doug,
I just thought I would clear up a misconception/error in your post, regarding Side A and Side B.
These two terms come from a now long-ago defunct website called Bridges Across the Divide.
Side A refers to "pro-gay theology." That is, that Scripture does not condemn monogamous same-sex relationships and that homosexual practise within those relationships is not sin. A1B would support Side A.
Side B refers not to bisexuality. No. Side B refers to same-sex attracted people who, perhaps like me, have spent many MANY years begging God to make them straight and the attractions never went away... but who still believe that Scripture is clear on this matter. A sexual activity outside a heterosexual marriage is sin. Scripture DOES INDEED condemn same-sex relationships and same-sex sexual activity.
As such, people who are same-sex attracted (SSA) and who claim Christ as Saviour are therefore called to celibacy. That is what "Side B" is.
I am same-sex attracted. Exclusively. But I believe gay sex is sin. I am personally Side B.
You and Laura refer to it being a burden. Sure it's a burden. I would love to have someone there to tell me he loves me and care for me. I would love to have a boyfriend. But I believe that would be sin. So I am single and celibate.
Laura states that might be too much of a burden for some. Well... that's the nature of living in a fallen world. We all have to pick up our cross and obey God's word. And God's word says that all sex outside a heterosexual marriage is sin. That's a burden. Absolutely. But to say it's too much a burden for SSA people... that that opens the door to saying that there is biblical grounds for Side A? No. We're all called to obey God's word no matter how hard it is... homosexual or heterosexual alike.
Doug, if this Side A or Side B thing still doesn't make sense, you can easily google the two terms. It's readliy available.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
You're probably referring to men like Sam Allberry or Wesley Hill.
But I too share that story. I'm 50 years old. Spent 17 years in ex-gay reparative therapy to no avail. I still believe that acting on my attractions would be sin. I life a life of singleness and celibacy. And am now preparing for ordained ministry.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Question:
Laura, you wrote: "However, the only people that are truly able to answer that question are LGBTQ persons themselves, so I would encourage everyone who is not, to be open, listen, and listen some more to what they have to say about whether they feel safe in their CRC churches."
I can speak for myself here. I am exclusively same-sex attracted. I spent 17 years in ex-gay reparative therapy begging God to make me straight. I went to Love in Action's live-in program even. None of it worked. I'm sure that part of my story is true for many LGBTQ+ people who grew up in the church.... that we begged God to change us.
But even as someone who could rightly consider myself part of the LGBTQ+ community, I still hold the conservative, traditional view of Scripture. I believe that homosexual practice is sin. Always. As such, I believe that God would call those of us who are same-sex attracted and claim the name of Christ to be celibate. My "story" is welcome and affirmed among conservative-minded folk in the CRC. I wonder, however, if my story is affirmed in A1B circles because theologically I disagree with them.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Question:
Jodi, you wrote "Anyone who has taken the time to understand this group would see that they love God, value Scripture, and affirm monogamous relationships, and that they are motivated by love."
How can those who do not affirm same-sex relationships still reach out in love?
I think often there are those in the CRC who are non-affirming but want to show love to those who are LGBTQ+ but (1) don't know how; (2) do it poorly; or (3) have attempted to do so but have been met with resistance on the part of LGBTQ+ folk in the church believing that there cannot be love without affirmation.
If it's #3 above, then there's an impasse that could never be crossed. I have personally seen all three of the above... and as I have shared above, I am personally same-sex attracted and "Side B" (i.e, hold the traditional view of Scripture that homosexual practice is contrary to Scripture)... so I have personally seen/experienced all three.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
The terms "Side A" and "Side B" are sometimes known and sometimes unknown to people. So thanks for pointing them out. I am indeed Side B. I guess you could say that "on paper" the 1973 and 2002 reports of the CRC affirm Side B... although there are still people out there in the CRC who would still have all of us (Side A and B) in reparative therapy and tell us we still need to "pray the gay away."
There's where the hurt came in my own journey (even after coming to the CRC in 2008, unfortunately). My previous denomination -- very much not even accepting of Side B).
Posted in: Are We Fully Equipped?
We all are aware that this study committee's mandate won't be to change or re-hash the 1973 document or the Pastoral Care document. But this topic needs to be discussed on an ongoing basis. I am Canadian. Gay marriage is legal here.
Our denomination is made up of three groups of people: (1) those who affirm homosexuality and gay marriage, (2) those who want to ensure LGBT people who are welcomed in our churches without necessarily affirming their relationships, and (3) those who believe that LGBT need to be healed of their attractions (i.e., "ex-gay ministries).
These three groups of people DO need to co-exist and need to be able to have civil dialogue. I hope this study committee can tackle this. I am a delegate at Synod and I have already made it clear that I want to serve on this committee.
Fair disclosure: I am a 44-year-old single, celibate, chaste, yet openly gay man. With God's grace I intend to remain single, chaste, and celibate my whole life.