This is critically critical to know of a Side B position, given when they report themselves as happy or advise that being happy is sanctifiable, they are not articulate about enterprise for sex with people of a same sex. They are describing an course towards appreciation and pure enterprise for people of a same sex.
This leads to a transparent problem: what is described as happy by Side B can, and should, equally request to those who are true or heterosexual. If being happy is about chemistry and cognisance with people of a same sex, and does not obligate countenance in homosexual activity, we can be true and happy during a same time. To take Hill’s instance about heterosexual chivalry, there is no reason to trust that someone who meets a Side B bargain of happy could not be high-minded in a technical sense. There is no biblical reason to advise that given we am a heterosexual masculine we can't have pure affections for, and insinuate friendships with, other men, or to advise that in certain areas we won’t “click” with masculine friends improved than my wife.
Rodgers describes her lesbianism in terms of being drawn to “self-giving love” to other women. But this is something all Christians are called to do! Other-focused scapegoat for their good is what amatory your neighbor means (WCF 26.1-2; WLC 122, 147-148; WSC 42). Certain people might be improved means in doing that, though to call that gifting “gay” or “same-sex attraction” is personification word games.
Rodgers (and Belgau and Hill and each other Christian) is called to self-giving adore to people of a same and opposite sex. Rodgers might find it easier to do so with other women than with men, though she still has a Christian avocation to adore her masculine neighbors as herself.
Simply put: Side B promotes sold facilities of being happy that are not singular to being gay, and those features, therefore, can't be deliberate decisive of same-sex attraction.
Side B and Westminster
So since is this definitional feud a problem? If a Westminster Standards learn that an course to impiety can arise from an outmost detriment of enticement to take what is good to a depraved expression, and Side B argues that being happy can be about good cognisance in same-sex friendships, what is a issue?
Belgau argues in many places that homosexuality is a exaggeration of friendship. That might be a case, though it indicates a primary of disproportion between Westminster and Side B. Westminster teaches that impiety is a defilement of God’s law. Transgressions of God’s law ensue from a depraved nature, that is truly sinful. Commonly, as in these examples, proponents of Side B pronounce of impiety as good affections misdirected, as a depraved reflection to that that is good.
If a Nashville Statement conflated tangible transgressions, a estate of sin, and a estate of wretchedness together, Side B creates an conflicting error, in that they cut out a estate of sin. There is really small confirmation that being happy could ensue from a estate of impiety rather than a estate of misery. While a condition of wretchedness might inflict a sinful, outmost disadvantage on someone, nonetheless confessional and biblical training is that impiety and depraved desires ensue from depraved corruption.
Homosexual desires and actions are therefore not merely a depraved doppelgängers of good, same- sex friendship, though tangible transgressions of God’s law that issue in depraved corruption.
Hill considers a examples of Down syndrome and Paul’s thorn in a strength in 2 Corinthians 12 as parallels to his happy identity. He uses these conditions as examples of depraved afflictions “outside of God’s blueprint”, nonetheless used by God for his people to confront his beauty and energy in a chairman of Christ. Belgau describes being happy in these terms, “Let’s contend we have something—we’ll call it X— that enables we to suffer larger inlet of cognisance and fun in pure same-sex friendships than many men. Let’s serve contend that, connected with X, is a enticement toward violations of purity with men.” In this framework, being happy is good, a present from God, that happens to embody an additional covering of enticement to it. What is healed after is not being gay, though a enticement to homosexuality. It is not being happy though a appended enticement that accompanies it that is a same- sex thorn in a flesh.
But an course divided from God’s pattern is sinful, usually as Down syndrome is sinful. Not that being a chairman with Down syndrome is an act of sin, though that it is an distress of a depraved estate of misery. Paul’s thorn in a strength might have been used by God, though it will not trouble him in a resurrection; if being happy is good in itself it can't concurrently be something that will be eventually healed by Christ. The debility that comes with being happy might be used by God to denote a energy of Christ, though that debility will be healed by him. While being gay, like Down syndrome and Paul’s thorn, might be used by God for his excellence and his people’s good, they are conditions that will be healed by Christ because they are sinful.
Now, Hill does acknowledge that Down syndrome and Paul’s thorn are unlawful analogies, though one of a poignant stipulations of them is that a same-sex course as something “outside of God’s blueprint” is an orientation to sin. This is not a box with Down syndrome or Paul’s thorn in a flesh. Those conditions might irritate a flesh, providing an event for sin, though are not themselves orientations to sin.
And that seems to be a biggest indicate of depart between Westminster and Side B. The estate of wretchedness can embody depraved outmost vigour that orients someone’s desires towards a sold disadvantage though them indeed anticipating it. For instance, someone’s good desires for same-sex cognisance could be buffeted by outmost impiety such that their desires for same-sex cognisance are oriented towards a enticement to homosexual desires though indeed anticipating homosexual sex. The estate of wretchedness might asian someone in their debility to find themselves consistently fighting depraved desires.
The Westminster Standards know flaw from God’s pattern in origination to tumble into one other 3 categories: a estate of sin, a estate of misery, or God’s work of beauty in emancipation wherein impiety and a abuse are degraded and origination is easy (e.g. WCF 7.2-3; WLC 30). Being happy is not partial of God’s pattern in creation, and so while God might providentially use that course for his excellence and his people’s good now, it is not a final course for any of God’s children.
The Westminster Standards see a same-sex course as bad, possibly as a depraved detriment in a estate of misery, or move from a crime of a estate of sin. A same-sex course is possibly an course to same-sex impiety or an course to same-sex temptation. Since what Side B describes as a certain aspects of being happy are duties contracting on all Christians, a Westminsterian position rejects a certain aspects of being happy as being inextricably related a temptations to homosexuality. Additionally, no Side B proponent claims to be same-sex captivated or happy in further to being heterosexual, though instead of being straight. This is mislaid on Belgau’s and Rodger’s definitions of what it means to be gay, that usually concentration on a captivate to people of a same sex, not on miss of seductiveness in people of a opposite. God’s pattern for opposite-sex course is transposed with same-sex orientation, and no volume of pure same-sex cognisance compensates for a fact that this change in course arises from a estate of misery.
This is compounded when it is deliberate that a crime of impiety infects each aspect of a tellurian person. The crime of a estate of impiety is intertwined with all of a good desires. Disentangling a good, that is merely enervated in a estate of misery, from a truly evil, is a formidable charge of repentance.
Repentance is when someone with grief and loathing for his impiety turns from it to God in acknowledgment and trust of God’s forgiveness in Christ (WCF 15.2, WLC 76, WSC 87). Repentance is for tangible transgressions, and should be finished for sold sins and not usually for a ubiquitous clarity of sinfulness (WCF 15.5). Since plea is for transgressions of God’s law, branch to God in his forgiveness final that grief and loathing for impiety perceptible in tractability to God in his law. To this indicate Side B and Westminster determine as it regards homosexuality: homosexual desires and actions are impiety and should be met with repentance.
However, penitently essay after God in tractability requires rejecting not usually tangible transgressions of his law, though facing a start of those transgressions. The estate of impiety with a hurtful inlet from that tangible transgressions ensue should be killed. Repentance of specific sins final penance of a hurtful inlet from that those sins ensue (WLC 167). This penance is scrupulously achieved by Christ and his Spirit (WCF 6.5, 13.1; WLC 75; WSC 35), though there is avocation obligatory on believers to essay opposite a physique of sin. Understanding that impiety is scrupulously anarchy leads to pointing in repentance: It means repenting over a desires themselves, given they are themselves depraved transgression. It means repenting over a crime from that those desires ensue by mortifying a physique of sin. It means repenting over your being.
Obedience to God, therefore, requires repenting of a sinfully depraved being by a penance of sin. Homosexuality as an tangible misdemeanour of God’s law contingency be repented of, and that plea final penance of a estate from that that misdemeanour proceeds. To grieve of homosexuality (in actions and desires) means mortifying a condition that produces those transgressions, namely, same-sex course or being gay. If being happy deduction from a estate of sin, it contingency be repented of. If being happy deduction from a estate of misery, it contingency be ashamed in that a course to same-sex enticement is resisted and killed. Hatred for impiety should lead a Christian to extreme penance of any enticement to sin. That’s what a sixth petition of a Lord’s request teaches us: that we ought to urge for and find salvation from enticement and any besetting immorality that leads towards enticement (WLC 195, WSC 106). Mortifying impiety should lead a Christian to urge for God’s salvation from a estate of wretchedness when that condition orients their affections towards sin. Any purported present of God that is inherently attached to a enticement to impiety is present from that God’s children need to be delivered.
A Westminster Confession-subscribing priest should be means to tell a masculine who is intimately captivated to other group to grieve of depraved desires and to kill a captivate from that they originate. Side B seems unqualified of observant this given homosexual desires are only an lavish countenance of a good affection. If same-sex course is good and homosexuality is usually an lavish (sinful) countenance of it, afterwards repenting of homosexuality does not need repenting of same-sex orientation. But tangible transgressions ensue from a sinfully hurtful nature, so a source of a homosexual desires contingency be repented of. Side B will onslaught in revelation those who are same-sex oriented to debase their desires, given they will be faced with a stupidity of disentangling a good present of being happy from a inseparably related enticement to homosexuality. A Westminsterian ensue will be means to inspire those who are same-sex captivated to debase their sinfully hurtful inlet from that homosexual desires ensue though fear of losing pure same- sex adore precisely given that adore deduction from and expresses tractability to God’s law (e.g. WLC 147-148) and does not need a same-sex orientation. Since plea includes tractability to God, plea from depraved same-sex desires or orientations should indispensably lead to pure same-sex love, that conjunction requires nor is bettered by being gay.