sinners having orientations does not negate moral culpability. Same-sex attraction is not special. It is sinful desire, a motion of original sin, and is always morally culpable sin. These five articles argue that same-sex attraction cannot be sublimated to holiness for 2 reasons: (1) No attraction contrary to God’s design can be sublimated to holiness. (2) No sinful desire can be sublimated to holiness.
Revoice is a yearly conference whose mission is “to support and encourage gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other same-sex attracted Christians—as well as those who love them—so that all in the Church might be empowered to live in gospel unity while observing the historic Christian doctrine of marriage and sexuality.” But instead of encouraging the church through biblical and confessional orthodoxy, they are doing great harm. Revoice claims that parts of same-sex attraction can be reordered or turned to holiness, which they call “sublimation.” Much of the error in Revoice’s discussion of same-sex attraction is their treatment of it as a “special sin,” different from other sins. Yet, sinners having orientations does not negate moral culpability. Same-sex attraction is not special. It is sinful desire, a motion of original sin, and is always morally culpable sin. These five articles argue that same-sex attraction cannot be sublimated to holiness for 2 reasons: (1) No attraction contrary to God’s design can be sublimated to holiness. (2) No sinful desire can be sublimated to holiness.
No Attraction Contrary to God’s Design Can Be Sublimated to Holiness
Sexual orientation is defined by the American Psychological Association (APA) as “an enduring emotional, romantic, or sexual attraction that one feels toward men, toward women or toward both.” If having a “sexual orientation,” an “enduring attraction,” removes one’s moral culpability for one’s desires and actions, is it also true that having a “sinful orientation,” original sin or an enduring pattern of sinful desires, means one is no longer morally culpable as well?
What is remarkable about this whole discussion is that Revoice and their “gay Christian theology” has won many Christians to their cause by arguing that they cannot remember a time when they were not attracted to the same sex.What will they do when someone says, “I cannot remember a time when I was not voyeuristic, lustful, greedy, prideful, angry,” or any other sin? Can any Christian remember a time when he did not desire sin? Does an enduring attraction or enduring desire that is contrary to God and his law remove one’s moral culpability? If the answer is “yes” for same-sex attraction, the answer must be “yes” for every sexual attraction under the sun, and for every enduring sinful desire under the sun as well. If the church creates an arbitrary category of “sinless desire” for same-sex attraction, her children will follow her logical example and do likewise for other “sinless desires” that are contrary to God as well.
Wesley Hill and Nate Collins. Wesley Hill, a member of Revoice’s Advisory Council, advocates for sublimating one’s same-sex attraction by separating one’s same-sex sexual attraction from one’s same-sex attraction, and then reordering one’s same-sex attraction to good things—acts of mercy, same-sex friendships, vocations caring for the same-sex, etc.Nate Collins, the Founder and President of Revoice, argues something similar in his book All But Invisible,
Usually, we think that the most meaningful and rewarding way to experience our sexuality is physically with a spouse. The question under consideration here is whether that is the only way to express the urges that people feel when they experience sexual desire. To answer this question, however, we need to examine the fascinating but complex notion of sublimation.