'Side B' Christianity: An insidious, neutered gospel that has infiltrated the church

[Michie]

As someone who once lived and identified as a homosexual man but who has been transformed by Jesus Christ, I’m burdened by an insidious, neutered gospel that has heavily infiltrated many Evangelical churches.

It’s called “Side B” Christianity, and its proponents have for many years pushed a set of deceptive doctrines about human sexuality.

For those who don’t know what “Side B” means, Tim Keller described it like this: “People attracted to the same sex, though remaining celibate in obedience to the Bible, still can call themselves ‘gay Christians’ and see their attraction as part of their identity which should be acknowledged like one’s race or nationality.”

This was in contrast to “Side A,” which fully affirms homosexuality. The Side A versus Side B debate emerged years ago among some who were grappling with identity questions, with one side saying it’s fine to embrace one’s same-sex sexuality and the other side saying it must be resisted while simultaneously asserting that same-sex sexual desires cannot and should not be counseled to change. Both Side A and Side B view the sanctifying power of God’s grace as an attempt to “pray the gay away” or “conversion therapy.”

Continued below.

'Side B' Christianity: An insidious, neutered gospel that has infiltrated the church

Side B Gay Christianity is regression and it should be wholly rejected

www.christianpost.com

 

[RandyPNW]

As someone who once lived and identified as a homosexual man but who has been transformed by Jesus Christ, I’m burdened by an insidious, neutered gospel that has heavily infiltrated many Evangelical churches.

It’s called “Side B” Christianity, and its proponents have for many years pushed a set of deceptive doctrines about human sexuality.

For those who don’t know what “Side B” means, Tim Keller described it like this: “People attracted to the same sex, though remaining celibate in obedience to the Bible, still can call themselves ‘gay Christians’ and see their attraction as part of their identity which should be acknowledged like one’s race or nationality.”

This was in contrast to “Side A,” which fully affirms homosexuality. The Side A versus Side B debate emerged years ago among some who were grappling with identity questions, with one side saying it’s fine to embrace one’s same-sex sexuality and the other side saying it must be resisted while simultaneously asserting that same-sex sexual desires cannot and should not be counseled to change. Both Side A and Side B view the sanctifying power of God’s grace as an attempt to “pray the gay away” or “conversion therapy.”

Continued below.

'Side B' Christianity: An insidious, neutered gospel that has infiltrated the church

Side B Gay Christianity is regression and it should be wholly rejected

www.christianpost.com

I've long told my wife that I believee Sin, once infecting us, cannot be fully removed. Not just the scars are there, but the Sin Inclination is there, which is, in part, Sin itself. Let me explain.

When Eve bit the apple, the nature of Sin became part of her. She willfully chose and poisoned her heart with the notion of rebellion against God's Word. From that point on, the Sin Inclination was in her, and she came to be dogged by thoughts that were independent from any pure notions that come from God's Word and Nature. The same thing happened to Adam, although the intentions were a little different, along with the consequences.

When a person, for whatever reason, becomes Gay, whether coerced or not, the Gay Inclination becomes a part of that person. It is little different from Fornication in general, in which a person commits a sexual act denied by God, whether adultery, date rape, or otherwise.

The previous life of fornication causes a person to then imagine more forbidden acts. Lust can dog the mind, producing all kinds of fantasies that need to be consciously rejected.

In the same way, a person who has lived the Gay life will be dogged by lustful imaginations of gay relationships. They also have to be consciously rejected in favor of the new Christian mind and lifestyle.

So, what does the Christian do, when he chooses to leave these bad choices behind and follow Christ with his righteousness? He becomes a new person, inspired by the Holy Spirit, but he remains dog-bit. That is, he is still dogged by the consequences of his former sinful actions, and he may, if he was gay, imagine gay sex, or if he has fornicated, may fantasize illicit sex.

The Christian, to avoid unnecessary guilt, must accept that this is a form of Sin we have to live with, choosing not to engage in any illicit acts again. We have become new people, and old temptations cannot undo that. We simply need to try to move beyond the scars and temptations that still cling to us to some degree. Over time, I think habits will form to counteract the consequences of our former lifestyle.

It is beyond question that a person converting from a sinful lifestyle to Christianity will continue to experience temptations. Even Christ, sinless though he was, was oppressed from exteernal sources with temptations. It is worse for Christians who have actually lived in Sin, to avoid temptations from without because our hearts still have some toxicity and we have memories that invade our minds.

We are told to set our minds on things above. But we are also told we lie if we deny Sin continues to oppress us. We can rest in God's grace, knowing that He forgave us even before we converted. And it should inform us that being lax in our vigilance can lead to terrible consequences even if we are ultimately forgiven.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I've long told my wife that I believee Sin, once infecting us, cannot be fully removed. Not just the scars are there, but the Sin Inclination is there, which is, in part, Sin itself. Let me explain.

Thank you for your explanation, which is of course from your point of view. A Catholic perspective would differ a bit. From the Catholic perspective the scars of sin leave us inclined to sin again and tempted to sin again, but these things are not in themselves sin unless we give in to the temptations.

When Eve bit the apple, the nature of Sin became part of her. She willfully chose and poisoned her heart with the notion of rebellion against God's Word. From that point on, the Sin Inclination was in her, and she came to be dogged by thoughts that were independent from any pure notions that come from God's Word and Nature. The same thing happened to Adam, although the intentions were a little different, along with the consequences.

I really dislike the phrase 'sin nature' because we have a 'human nature' which for all of us is a 'human nature bent by sin'. Jesus had the identical human nature, but not bent by sin. He had and has the same human nature. We do not have different natures. But you are right that sin does incline us to thoughts which we should not indulge ourselves in.

So, what does the Christian do, when he chooses to leave these bad choices behind and follow Christ with his righteousness? He becomes a new person, inspired by the Holy Spirit, but he remains dog-bit. That is, he is still dogged by the consequences of his former sinful actions, and he may, if he was gay, imagine gay sex, or if he has fornicated, may fantasize illicit sex.

Yes, this can happen, and for the most part will happen. Sin has consequences.

The Christian, to avoid unnecessary guilt, must accept that this is a form of Sin we have to live with, choosing not to engage in any illicit acts again. We have become new people, and old temptations cannot undo that. We simply need to try to move beyond the scars and temptations that still cling to us to some degree. Over time, I think habits will form to counteract the consequences of our former lifestyle.

Again, the Catholic view is that sin has consequences, but the temptations are not in themselves sin. What one does about temptation can be sinful. Giving in to temptation is sinful. Dismissing temptation is virtuous. Over time we get better at resisting temptation and the temptations ease a bit.

It is beyond question that a person converting from a sinful lifestyle to Christianity will continue to experience temptations. Even Christ, sinless though he was, was oppressed from exteernal sources with temptations. It is worse for Christians who have actually lived in Sin, to avoid temptations from without because our hearts still have some toxicity and we have memories that invade our minds.

Yes, sin is toxic. The poisons of sin damage us, permanently even, long after the toxins are gone. Every little sin does that. Not just major sexual sins.

We are told to set our minds on things above. But we are also told we lie if we deny Sin continues to oppress us. We can rest in God's grace, knowing that He forgave us even before we converted. And it should inform us that being lax in our vigilance can lead to terrible consequences even if we are ultimately forgiven.

Indeed. So we stand up against temptations. We have custody of our minds, our eyes, our ears, our bodies. We resist temptations, and we continue to battle on after we fall. God is with us.

If you are curious about this, the theological term for the aftereffects of sin is called 'concupiscence'. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Concupiscence

 

[RandyPNW]

Thank you for your explanation, which is of course from your point of view. A Catholic perspective would differ a bit. From the Catholic perspective the scars of sin leave us inclined to sin again and tempted to sin again, but these things are not in themselves sin unless we give in to the temptations.

I really dislike the phrase 'sin nature' because we have a 'human nature' which for all of us is a 'human nature bent by sin'. Jesus had the identical human nature, but not bent by sin. He had and has the same human nature. We do not have different natures. But you are right that sin does incline us to thoughts which we should not indulge ourselves in.

Yes, this can happen, and for the most part will happen. Sin has consequences.

Again, the Catholic view is that sin has consequences, but the temptations are not in themselves sin. What one does about temptation can be sinful. Giving in to temptation is sinful. Dismissing temptation is virtuous. Over time we get better at resisting temptation and the temptations ease a bit.

Yes, sin is toxic. The poisons of sin damage us, permanently even, long after the toxins are gone. Every little sin does that. Not just major sexual sins.

Indeed. So we stand up against temptations. We have custody of our minds, our eyes, our ears, our bodies. We resist temptations, and we continue to battle on after we fall. God is with us.

If you are curious about this, the theological term for the aftereffects of sin is called 'concupiscence'. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Concupiscence

Thank you for your explanation, which is of course from your point of view. A Catholic perspective would differ a bit. From the Catholic perspective the scars of sin leave us inclined to sin again and tempted to sin again, but these things are not in themselves sin unless we give in to the temptations.

I really dislike the phrase 'sin nature' because we have a 'human nature' which for all of us is a 'human nature bent by sin'. Jesus had the identical human nature, but not bent by sin. He had and has the same human nature. We do not have different natures. But you are right that sin does incline us to thoughts which we should not indulge ourselves in.

Yes, this can happen, and for the most part will happen. Sin has consequences.

Again, the Catholic view is that sin has consequences, but the temptations are not in themselves sin. What one does about temptation can be sinful. Giving in to temptation is sinful. Dismissing temptation is virtuous. Over time we get better at resisting temptation and the temptations ease a bit.

Yes, sin is toxic. The poisons of sin damage us, permanently even, long after the toxins are gone. Every little sin does that. Not just major sexual sins.

Indeed. So we stand up against temptations. We have custody of our minds, our eyes, our ears, our bodies. We resist temptations, and we continue to battle on after we fall. God is with us.

If you are curious about this, the theological term for the aftereffects of sin is called 'concupiscence'. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Concupiscence

That was, I think, a very good and thoughtful answer. And I can't say I really disagree with any of that. You may think I veer away from the "Catholic position," but I don't think I do (although I'm not a Catholic).

I may simply have not provided a good enough explanation of what I meant. When I say the temptation becomes Sin in us, I'm not saying that the temptation itself is necessarily Sin. I'm just saying that we are all infected with Sin so that inevitably we Sin to some degree when we are tempted with thoughts.

For example, I may have engaged in fornication in my past. And though I've repented fully now I'm still hounded by lust when I see "sexy" women. When the temptation hits me to visualize something illicit, for a brief time I actively indulge this visualization until the Holy Spirit convicts me that this isn't right.

Then I dismiss the temptation as something I don't want and intend to resist. But for that brief moment, the Sin Nature within me floods my Human Nature with a Sin Inclination to the point where my latent Sin is necessarily activated. If I had no Sin Nature I wouldn't have to ever Sin. But we do have to Sin to some degree, or it couldn't be said that we have a Sin Nature at all.

Perhaps you disagree with the idea of a Sin Nature? If you say that is the "Catholic" position, then I would disagree with that. But thanks for your thoughts.

Temptations can be neutral, but when they hit us they will yield a limited measure of Sin which we biblically "overcome." If we didn't have the Sin at all with the temptation we wouldn't have to "overcome" it is my thinking.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That was, I think, a very good and thoughtful answer. And I can't say I really agree with any of that. You may think I veer away from the "Catholic position," but I don't think I do (although I'm not a Catholic).

I may simply have not provided a good enough explanation of what I meant. When I say the temptation becomes Sin in us, I'm not saying that the temptation itself is necessarily Sin. I'm just saying that we are all infected with Sin so that inevitably we Sin to some degree when we are tempted with thoughts.

For example, I may have engaged in fornication in my past. And though I've repented fully now I'm still hounded by lust when I see "sexy" women. When the temptation hits me to visualize something illicit, for a brief time I actively indulge this visualization until the Holy Spirit convicts me that this isn't right.

Then I dismiss the temptation as something I don't want and intend to resist. But for that brief moment, the Sin Nature within me floods my Human Nature with a Sin Inclination to the point where my latent Sin is necessarily activated. If I had no Sin Nature I wouldn't have to ever Sin. But we do have to Sin to some degree, or it couldn't be said that we have a Sin Nature at all.

Perhaps you disagree with the idea of a Sin Nature? If you say that is the "Catholic" position, then I would disagree with that. But thanks for your thoughts.

Temptations can be neutral, but when they hit us they will yield a limited measure of Sin which we biblically "overcome." If we didn't have the Sin at all with the temptation we wouldn't have to "overcome" it is my thinking.

I’m saying we have a ‘human nature, albeit a ‘human nature deformed by sin’. I think it is Christology necessary to say we have the same basic human nature as Jesus does, but ours has been damaged. Original sin and all of that. I am not at all saying we aren’t fallen. It’s obvious that we are fallen. But we are fallen humans with human natures.

Had we never sinned, we would still have temptations but we could dismiss them quickly rather than having them mess with our desires. Jesus was tempted. But he could set the temptations aside. We really struggle with that. But struggle we must. And in the end we win because God is faithful if we do not give up on Him.

 

[RandyPNW]

I’m saying we have a ‘human nature, albeit a ‘human nature deformed by sin’. I think it is Christology necessary to say we have the same basic human nature as Jesus does, but ours has been damaged. Original sin and all of that. I am not at all saying we aren’t fallen. It’s obvious that we are fallen. But we are fallen humans with human natures.

Had we never sinned, we would still have temptations but we could dismiss them quickly rather than having them mess with our desires. Jesus was tempted. But he could set the temptations aside. We really struggle with that. But struggle we must. And in the end we win because God is faithful if we do not give up on Him.

1st, I apologize--I meant to say I can't really "disagree" with any of what you said. I corrected the statement above. Most of what you said I do agree with. I do tend to agree with the "Catholic" position on this.

I agree that Human Nature is good and neutral with respect to temptations that come from without. I know you know we're "fallen," and have Sin in us. You jus don't want to confuse a so-called "Sin Nature" with "Human Nature."

And I do fully appreciate the distinction. Sin is not so much a part of our nature that we're unable to be ourselves without sinning. We can certainly do a lot of good without producing an equivalent amount of Sin!

The Sin that is in us has been mitigated, both by Christ's New Nature being produced in us and by our own choice to vacate independent tendencies, apologizing where we lose it.

We do not *have to* Sin in that regard. We only have to show the vestiges and remnants of Sin that remain with us while we turn our vehicle around and get on the right road. The car may be imperfect and show a few problems. But the important thing is that the car is driving on the right road. I trust I'm not misrepresenting this?

 

[chevyontheriver]

1st, I apologize--I meant to say I can't really "disagree" with any of what you said. I corrected the statement above. Most of what you said I do agree with. I do tend to agree with the "Catholic" position on this.

I agree that Human Nature is good and neutral with respect to temptations that come from without. I know you know we're "fallen," and have Sin in us. You jus don't want to confuse a so-called "Sin Nature" with "Human Nature."

And I do fully appreciate the distinction. Sin is not so much a part of our nature that we're unable to be ourselves without sinning. We can certainly do a lot of good without producing an equivalent amount of Sin!

The Sin that is in us has been mitigated, both by Christ's New Nature being produced in us and by our own choice to vacate independent tendencies, apologizing where we lose it.

We do not *have to* Sin in that regard. We only have to show the vestiges and remnants of Sin that remain with us while we turn our vehicle around and get on the right road. The car may be imperfect and show a few problems. But the important thing is that the car is driving on the right road. I trust I'm not misrepresenting this?

I think we are on the same page. Or at least we are in the same chapter.