On the Nashville Statement and Gay Identity

I think there are some ambiguities in the way relevant terms are being used in this discussion, such that the drafters/signers of the Nashville Statement and Side-B Christians (Christians who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual and who hold to the traditional Christian prohibition on homosexual sexual activity) and allies are talking past each other.

First, there are a number of different claims that can all be be expressed as “I identify as x.” It could mean:

(1) “X is a term that applies to me, but I am not particularly invested in that fact.” 

(2) “X is a term that applies to me, and this has moderate significance for the way I perceive myself; however, being characterized by X is not at the core of my self-conception, nor is it an essential property of mine; I could cease to be characterized by X, and I would still be the same person.” 

(3) “X is a term that applies to me, and this is very significant for the way I perceive myself; being characterized by X is at the core of my self-conception and is an essential property of mine; I could not cease to be characterized by X and remain the same person.” 

[There are, naturally, mediating positions between (1) and (2) and between (2) and (3), as well as other, idiosyncratic claims not represented above.]

The Nashville Statement seems to assume that non-Christian gays, Side-A Christians (Christians who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual and who hold that homosexual sexual activity is morally permissible), and Side-B Christians all mean (3) by the claim “I identify as gay.” I believe this to be a significant misunderstanding. I think it’s more accurate to say that non-Christian gays run the gamut from (1) to (3), Side-A Christians are mostly claiming (3) with the odd (2) here and there, and Side-B Christians are mostly claiming (2) with the odd (1) thrown in. 

Second, the term “homosexual/gay” has a number of different meanings, including but not limited to:

(A) “Romantically and/or sexually attracted to members of the same sex” 

(B) “Romantically and/or sexually attracted to members of the same sex and pursuing and/or habitually engaged in romantic and/or sexual relationships with members of the same sex” 

(C) “Romantically and/or sexually attracted to members of the same sex and strongly inclined to close non-sexual relationships with members of the same sex and called to areas of service within and without the Church which are shaped and informed by these attractions and inclinations” 

(D) “Part of a community of people who are characterized by (A), (B), and/or (C)” (Roughly equivalent to “part of the LGBT community” for most intents/purposes)

(E) “Characterized by a culture largely constructed by a community of people who are characterized by (A), (B), and/or (C)” (Equivalent to “gay acting” or “culturally gay”) 

I understand the Statement to be taking “homosexual” in sense (A) above. I understand why the drafters/signers would see nothing redemptive or redeemable in being gay if “gay” means (A) or (B) and only picks out homosexual romantic/sexual desire or such desire and a disposition to giving into such desire. However, if “gay” is used (as I submit it is) by Side-B Christians also in senses (C), (D), and (E), it's difficult to deny that “gay” includes redemptive or redeemable elements. 

Regarding my claim on Facebook and Twitter that the Statement “throws under the bus” Side-B Christians, I chose my words intentionally and sadly. I think the world of many of the signatories, and I considered the Statement, insofar as it (as it seems to me) binds where it should loose and looses where it should bind, not worthy of them. For this reason I reached out to several of them privately. But because of the public nature of the Nashville Statement, and because I love those whom I believe the Statement uncharitably describes as contravening “God’s holy purposes,” I also, though I am of no account, oppose the signatories to their faces, believing their conduct is not in step with the gospel. May God and they forgive me if I have erred in doing so. 

I understand that there may be disagreements between many of us that run deeper than terminological clarification can solve. But I find hope that the ground of our unity is not in this, but in “one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.”