Dear Editor,
I felt Charles Raven’s account of the so-called sexual civil war in GAFCON really misconstrued the underlying Biblical issues. I saw no evidence of misunderstanding between the American and Nigerian brothers; I think the Nigerians understand all too well.
It has become common to try to accommodate Christians with sinful sexual desires by defining a category called ‘attraction’ which separates a desire to commit a sinful act from the act itself. Effectively the Nigerians have pointed out that this is not a Biblical category, and its adoption has led to a watering down of our understanding of sin. The desire and the act may not be the same thing (to quote Charles Raven), but Scripture makes it clear (Matt. 5: 21-22; 27-28; James 1:14; etc.) that the desire or lust is also sinful. To deny this is one of the roots of Pelagianism.
If a man directs a look of desire towards a woman who is not his wife, he cannot just rename it an ‘attraction’. It is not just an external temptation, but the inward personal (Gk. idios) desire of which James speaks – a sin to be mortified by the grace of God and in the power of the Holy Spirit. The same must apply to those whose looks are directed at their own sex. The sins of desire and action may not be equal in their effects, and we should be thankful when they do not act on their desires. But the unhappy result of the new terminology is that celibacy is deemed to be not only necessary but also sufficient. The organisation Living Out, for example, says ‘same-sex attraction continues to be part of all our stories’ and offers little expectation that the Holy Spirit could change their desires. An ‘attraction’ to a ‘beautiful man’ is handled by making it a question of God-created aesthetics. But, again, a man looking lustfully at a woman cannot make it all about appreciating natural beauty, let alone try to make it a matter of praise to God! When Paul says to the Corinthians ‘such were some of you’ he surely meant inward desires and not just actions. Rosaria Butterfield, whose story is well-known, clearly sees it this way: ‘Conversion did change my heart and my mind, … I began to see that my desires for women were not a reflection of who I really was, but … an indwelling sin.’
Finally, an advantage claimed for the ‘attraction’ terminology is that it doesn’t ‘elevate sexual orientation into an identity’ such as ‘gay Christian’, to quote Charles Raven again. Yet if you Google ‘Living Out’ the website strapline is ‘Living Out: Christian and gay’. It seems to be a distinction without a difference. I suggest the Nigerians have noticed this as well.
Yours sincerely,
Professor Colin Reeves Coventry
