Doctrinal Triage and Human Sexuality

 

I’ve listened with appreciation to Gavin Ortlund’s discussions surrounding doctrinal triage. Like him, I think it is important to distinguish between primary, secondary, and tertiary differences. But I was surprised when I heard him say that human sexuality is a secondary issue. In fact, he clarified by saying that whether a person affirms the traditional view of marriage as between one man and one woman is not a primary issue but a secondary one—important, but not essential.

I understand the impulse to limit the list of essentials to things like the doctrine of the Trinity, the virgin birth, the atonement, and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, for example. But—assuming I have understood him—is he right?

If human sexuality is a secondary issue, then it is a difference we can live with, something like baptism. Think about that for a moment. We have Baptist and Presbyterian denominations because the differences between us on baptism—as on other issues—are important and cannot simply be set aside. And yet we have no difficulty coming together for missions and prayer. We do conferences together, and when there is opportunity we worship together.

But is all that true with respect to human sexuality?

There are those who profess faith in Jesus who are LGBT affirming. Is this a difference we can live with? Can we join together in missions and evangelism? Can we pray together and worship together?

To me the answer is obvious: not at all.

On this subject the Bible is patently clear and has been clear to Baptists, Presbyterians, and virtually all Christian denominations for generations.

But there is something more at stake. One of our essential truths is that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Those who are saved are those who look to Jesus for deliverance from sin. They are those who have more than the faith of demons who believe and tremble. They believe and repent. So when professing Christians are LGBT affirming, they are touching the doctrine of salvation itself. They are affirming that which the Bible tells us we need to be delivered from. Imagine an adultery-affirming Christian. How could you possibly bring together Christians who believe what the Bible teaches on adultery and those who, on the other hand, believe husbands may share their bed with other women? Both profess faith in Jesus, both insist they are loyal to Him, both call Him Lord, but only one actually lives in obedience to Him. What’s worse, those who affirm these things affirm the very things from which Jesus came to set us free. In doing so they deny the very gospel itself. Which is why it sounds ludicrous to speak of an adultery-affirming Christian.

And so, even if I shudder when I hear pejorative terms directed toward LGBT people, and even if I think we should be as kind toward them as we are toward anyone else, I don’t understand how we can affirm these things—nor do I understand how this can be anything less than a primary issue.

Perhaps someone might answer by pointing out that some Baptists think infant baptism is sinful, and some Presbyterians believe withholding baptism from the children of believing parents is similarly sinful. Or someone might point out that Christians are divided on the Sabbath—also a sin issue—and yet still manage to come together. So what makes human sexuality special?

I am not sure that human sexuality is necessarily special. But it falls into a category different from baptism, the regulative principle, or even the Sabbath. Even if there was once more consensus than there is now, Christians have debated the Sabbath for centuries… but I do not believe you will ever find a born again believer who does not ordinarily prioritize and prize Sunday worship.

Remember, the Spirit of God dwells in believers. Old things have passed away and all things have become new. Their mind, will, and affections have all been changed by God, who helps them to understand the Bible, and who helps them to love what He loves and hate what He hates. So I simply do not believe you will find a born again believer who can affirm an LGBT lifestyle.  They may genuinely want to affirm and love the person, but they will do so without affirming the sin. 

Which brings me to Side B Christianity. While I appreciate the gracious tone of some of those who take that position, I will admit I cannot understand them. I believe they mean well, but there is something profoundly inconsistent—and unbiblical—about their reasoning.

If I understand them correctly, they would tell us that a person may be same-sex attracted so long as they are celibate. The issue, then, is the behaviour, not the orientation. I believe they would admit that lust—in that form—is also sinful, but they allow for the orientation and do not hesitate to identify themselves either as “same-sex attracted” or even “gay” Christians. But in doing so they have introduced a category essentially unknown in previous generations.

As a child of God, I identify myself not by what I was but by who I am now. And if for even a moment I find in my heart a bent, an orientation, or an attraction toward anything other than that which is holy and lovely and Christlike, I eschew it. I mortify it. I pray about it. And I set my mind and heart again upon Him.

We all struggle with sin at some level, and each of us has areas that we might call besetting sins, or sins to which we seem more prone… but we do not identify ourselves by those sins or the temptation toward those sins. We want nothing to do with them. While I expect Side B Christians would speak of eschewing homosexual forms of lust, for example, if the Spirit of God is within me and Christ is before me, don't I want to eschew even the beginnings of attraction or desire?  Finding in my heart the very beginnings of an orientation toward anything displeasing to God should horrify me. So what could possibly possess me to embrace a term that told the world this was something in my heart? Wouldn’t I rather be praying and fasting for deliverance from that very “orientation,” “attraction,” or desire?

Some may point to Jesus who was tempted yet without sin and suggest that the temptation itself is not the issue. I agree, which I suppose is one reason why Jesus, though tempted by Satan, never identified Himself by those temptations. But even if Side B Christians frame the issue in terms of temptation, I struggle to see it that way. Temptation is not sin until it is embraced or entertained within us. Yet the language of many Side B Christians speaks not merely of external temptation, but of an inward orientation so enduring and so foundational that it becomes part of their very identity. At that point I don't think we are merely speaking about temptation anymore.

If I were writing about any other category of sin, I expect Christians everywhere would agree with me. That there is disagreement when it comes to LGBT issues suggests we are trying to find a middle way for which there is no precedent in Scripture.

I don't believe Gavin Ortlund holds to Side B Christianity, but I think his categorization of human sexuality as a secondary issue is at least as dangerous. I do appreciate him—and particularly his gracious approach to issues and people—but on this point I believe he is mistaken. Whether a person affirms the traditional view of marriage as between one man and one woman is a gospel issue, and because it is a gospel issue, it is an essential of the faith.