I get labels. I understand them, I embrace them. Sometimes people just want to cut to the chase and know what you're all about. Who are you? Where do you stand? What's your deal? I'm straight. I'm an evangelical. I'm Reformed. I'm a homeschooler. Only later on you'll find out that I'm a straight person with a lot of gay friends. I'm an evangelical who is uncomfortable with evangelical culture. I'm a Reformed Christian that most Reformed Christians reject. And I'm a homeschooler with two kids in public school.
Ah, nuances. How they upset one's neatly labelled world.
I'm also "Side B." What does that mean? Well, within the realm of those who call themselves gay Christians there are generally two camps, labelled Side A and Side B. Side A gay Christians believe that God blesses same-sex marriages. Side B gay Christians believe that God calls them to lifelong celibacy.
These terms can be stretched a bit. For instance because I'm involved in the dialogue between the two groups, people often ask me which Side I hold to. Since I'm straight they are not asking about what choice I'm making for my own life, but are inquiring about my theological view. Which do I think is biblical?
Biblical. When I hear people use that term, I know I'm heading for trouble. Since I'm straight the only way I can deal with the Side A/Side B question is to imagine what it would be like if I were gay. What choice would I make? What would I understand the Bible to be telling me? Notice that this is an extremely theoretical question, having to do with me living a life that I've never actually lived, and asking myself what I would do in a situation that I've never actually dealt with. What do I think would be biblical for my own personal life that isn't actually my personal life but only exists in theory?
Yet I do try to give an answer because I don't want to chicken out, get defensive, or press my hands together in a steeple and start philosophizing about how life is full of complex questions. I feel that people deserve an honest response. I look at the Bible, I look at myself, I talk to lots of gays and lesbians and try to imagine myself in their situation. I know I hold to the traditional creation-fall-redemption-consummation view of the Bible. And I know that I'm the type of person that tends to make the hard, conservative choices for myself in my own personal life, whether in the area of marriage, women's roles, or parenting--even though I don't ask other people to make the same choices for themselves. In other words, I know that I fit the profile of someone who would choose gay celibacy.
I think if I were lesbian probably the most difficult situation for me to face would be if I met someone who was also lesbian and Christian, we got along splendidly, we were completely spiritually compatible, there was potential for happiness and spiritual health and excitement about a future for myself and for her--and yet I have this theological hang-up that gay relationships aren't biblical. I imagine I would be sorely tempted to shelve the theological conviction and move forward with the wedding bells. I might even plead with God for leniency on this point; yes, it isn't ideal but look at the spiritual good that has come out of it, that will come out of it, if we got married. And since there are a lot of good Side A arguments out there, it's possible that I might be able to put my conscience shakily to rest about it.
The point is, even when I try to picture my non-existent, best-case-scenario married life with a lesbian partner, I imagine that I would have a far greater struggle of conscience trying to live as Side A than Side B. That's why when people ask me point-blank, cut-and-dried, to put a label on myself, I spit out: "Side B."
This has caused me some problems. I have discovered that labeling myself Side B conveys the idea that I think Side A gay Christians aren't really saved, that all gay Christians should be celibate otherwise they're living in sin, and that my agenda should be to befriend Side A people for the purpose of converting them to Side B. And I have to wonder, what ever happened to respecting the consciences of others? I believe I can manage that as a Side B person. And nothing about what I believe concerning my imaginary choice as an imaginary gay person in an imaginary scenario blinds me from the reality of seeing true Christian faith in the many, many Side A gay Christians I meet all the time.
From what I've experienced I don't think the Side A/Side B divide is nearly as great as the divide between those who do and do not recognize that there are some cases where taking a "biblical" side is more about a personal choice than a cosmic mandate. I side with those who believe in strict moral convictions for themselves but much leniency and charity for others. I wish there were a label for that group.
15 comments:
You never cease to amaze me. I could have written this very same essay...except that: 1)I am actually gay, 2)the imagined scenario actually happened to me, and 3) I fall personally on the Side A theology. But I am with you in that I am "Side A, with qualifications" :)
Thanks for another thoughtful post, Misty.
This is a very impressive post, written, as always with great respect for all. In the context of my general approbation, I'd like to suggest two points.
I'm a little bit surprised at your method for figuring out what the Bible says. Don't you think that Biblical morality is the same for all? IOW whatever the Bible says about homosexuality, it says to everybody? Of course, not everybody interprets it correctly, and that is where freedom of conscience comes in. But I think that you, with "no dog in the fight," have come to a correct interpretation, so I guess your method is not as important as if it had led you astray.
You write, "I think if I were lesbian probably the most difficult situation for me to face would be if I met someone who was also lesbian and Christian, we got along splendidly, we were completely spiritually compatible, there was potential for happiness and spiritual health and excitement about a future for myself and for her--and yet I have this theological hang-up that gay relationships aren't biblical. I imagine I would be sorely tempted to shelve the theological conviction and move forward with the wedding bells."
It seems to me that a Side B believer can attempt to have a relationship with another Side B believer that provides the happiness and mutual support although the parties remain celibate. I don't know if you would call it a gay relationship, since it is an intimate relationship between gay people, or if you would not call it gay because the parties do not engage in explicit sexual activity. But regardless of the name, I think it is possible and, where achieved, beneficial.
Such an intimate celibate relationship apparently is not easy. One blogger seems to have tried it and found he failed. But if I understand the Side B organization Courage correctly, they see it as acceptable: indeed the partners can help each other remain chaste with their mutual commitment.
How about Side C?
I will live as I feel God will have me live, and allow others the same privilege.
Jack, I don't know if you'd seen it before, but "side C" actually has precedent in this way. The (seemingly now defunct) Bridges Across used it - http://web.archive.org/web/20110630064151/http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/sides.htm . From my understanding, using BA terminology, Misty would be a "side C-ish side B" person.
Their terminology has mostly been eclipsed by the Gay Christian Network, who also use "side B" a little differently than BA did. Under BA's terms, an ex-gay who believes that even homosexual attraction is wrong and can/should be changed would be "side B," whereas GCN considers such a person "side X." The people that GCN calls "side B" also fit the BA definition of "side B," so BA's definition is broader.
Isn't it funny how even terms created to clarify things ended up getting used inconsistently?
Anyway, terminology aside, this is a well-written post. Thanks for sharing where you're at!
Thanks for this post!
You're entitled to your view, but no matter how you hedge it around with praise of the gay people you know, you're still saying to them "you're broken and twisted and your love is sin".
What that means for me is that you don't really respect us, so your nice words about your gay friends take on overtones of condescension, superiority and even pity. "Oh it must be so hard for the poor things", you're saying. "I can turn a blind eye to their sin because if I were in the same position I'd probably succumb too. Phew, thanks for making me normal and not all messed up and broken like them, God!"
With patronising friends like you, who needs enemies, I wonder?
Skandar, you write , "What that means for me is that you don't really respect us, so your nice words about your gay friends take on overtones of condescension, superiority and even pity." My, my, itching for a fight, aren't we? Quick to take offense where none is intended. Quick to give offense where none is deserved. If you want to see real overtones of of condescension, superiority, and contempt, look in the mirror and into your heart. Misty didn't deserve this from you or anybody else!
Itching for a fight, no. All I'm really trying to do is let you know that the vast majority of the LGBT community isn't interested in your patronising, condescending "love".
Accept us as we are, affirm our basic human right to seek an intimate relationship or be treated as someone that most of us just don't want to know.
It's a pity you don't wear some kind of visible distinguishing mark or sign. At least then we'd be able to spot you coming and cross the street to avoid you. I don't mind you holding your beliefs but I do mind when you try to apply them to me. So the best solution is just to avoid you completely. That way conflict can never happen. You get on with your life and you let us get on with ours.
Unfortunately, that will never happen, will it? Because the real distinguishing mark of the conservative is his desire to control the lives of others. You're not happy unless you're telling someone else how to live and what to believe. This is what I loathe more than anything else and what makes me leave a room whenever a conservative walks in. You can't accuse me of spoiling for a fight - in fact I avoid them assiduously. I virtually never come face to face with conservatives and you can't fight if you don't talk. Online conversations like these are the exception and I only really indulge in them to send a very simple message message: Leave us alone, mind your own business and go and deal with your own sin before worrying about ours.
This entire blog is offensive. Misty Irons has nothing of value to say about homosexuality because she's not gay. Why doesn't she start a blog dealing with issues that concern her? Has she ever wanted to slap her child when he was being particularly annoying? Why not start a blog to muse about child abuse? Has she ever had lustful thoughts about a man other than her husband? Why not pontificate on the issue of adultery? Why does she attempt to insert herself into our community and our issues? So she can divert attention away from her own sin by talking about someone else's? She's intruding where she's not wanted and she needs to know that.
Get thee hence and deal with your own logs, Mrs Irons. Trouble us no more and we won't trouble you.
Skandar, you have absolutely zero right to tell Misty what she may blog about. If you don't like what she says, well isn't that just too darn bad? She's here. Get over it.
I have the right to say whatever I choose, so why don't you get over that?
I can express my opinion and tell Misty Irons why her interference is unwelcome and offensive. If she chooses to continue blogging on subjects that don't concern her, I certainly can't stop her. But at least she now knows how much offense she's causing. Not that that would bother you, Mr or Mrs "Natural Law". You'll do and say what you like because your right to impose your beliefs on everybody trumps all other rights, doesn't it?
Oh well, you'll die one day just like all of us and then your vicious bigotry will be no more. And as there are fewer and fewer of you with every year that passes, one day we'll all be able to live in harmony. I'll never see it of course, but the fact that future generations will gives me cause for hope.
Hate on, bigot.
An amazing post Misty. You've once again helped me clarify my own thinking. Being a "conservative" christian with two gay children, I live in a world of gray. Labels just don't do it very well for me. My son and his boyfriend are living with me and I celebrate their love! My daughter is dating an amazing women, who I adore. Heck if I know what I would do if I were them! I don't know, but do I have to figure all that out? All I know is God is in this and I am along for the ride and, even with all the gray, it is all a beautiful thing!
Misty - thank you for this post. It's really great to read your heart and see your compassion for our community. Believe me when I say the struggle between Side A / B is a tough decision. It's something that my wife and I have prayed over, fasted over and continue to place before the Lord.
My reality is that I am a Christian lesbian married to a Christian woman. Before our wedding we earnestly sought the Lord for His will in our lives... Our commitment to each other was never about sex. It was about Commitment - to loving each other through the storms, to sharing our lives together and to living each day putting God first and each other above all else.
Side A/ Side B - Just like salvation that is a personal choice. One that comes with convictions. One that comes with consequences. One that comes with a sweet burden of Trust, Truth and Triumph.
If this is the cross that has been chosen for me - I'm thankful that being gay is all that I've been giving; because even though it's tough - I live in a generation where we're beginning to see each other in the light of love and compassion. This article is another example of that. Thank you.
Post a Comment