In her recent Christianity Today piece Bekah Mason (executive director of Revoice) encouraged the evangelical church to stop seeing ‘Side B’ Christians as threats, and to instead honour them as important members of the Body of Christ.
Reading this makes me feel that there is hope for me yet. I definitely fall into the B side of things and struggled with my same-sex “secret” all my life. Maybe there’s some hope for me yet.
I think a difference exists between singleness and celibacy. The former includes a desire to marry, whereas the latter not, either by choice or condition as Jesus speaks in Matthew 19.
Single folk generally aren't content with their lot, and so must find a marriage partner. In antiquity and in some cultures today, marriages were thus arranged. Otherwise, single folk must become intentional to actively seek a marriage partner and they can more efficiently today via a myriad of dating apps.
The thing is, if single folk become passive and remain so, inevitably they show discontent and unhappiness. They become difficult as company and often put blame elsewhere like on the church. Celibate folk are not like that. For them celibacy is a vocation freeing them to put all for the Kingdom. Their company is stimulating, enriching, and they easily fit into the church.
Side B folk likewise are either single or celibate. Few are pure SSA as Kinsey showed. If they desire to marry, side B folk don't need to be completely Kinsey 0 and can marry the opposite sex.
Thanks for your commenting :) I disagree with your categorising of singleness and celibacy as different "kinds" of being unmarried. Lots of my other posts on here are designed to interact with that so I won't rehearse the details again, but you might be particularly interested in checking out my recent two posts on Mt 19 (there is still a third part in the works).
Also, marriages in antiquity weren't arranged because people were (emotionally? psychologically? discontent with being unmarried. That superimposing a modern mindset onto a historical reality. They were arranged because they were a social and economic necessity for the individual, their family and the broader society (as they continue to be in many other parts of the world which have a different mindset to modern western individualism). You might like to check out my article here for more on that: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/december-web-only/celibacy-singleness-early-church-lessons.html
Totally agree with you about marriage being a possibility for some SSA Christians :)
I don't think your distinction between singleness and celibacy is a helpful one as such. Some people are celibate, but not single (For example, those in celibate partnerships), and I don't think singleness specifically includes a desire to marry or that celibacy does not contain this desire. I think the better distinction would be between lifelong and vocational singleness/celibacy, and transitory and incidental singleness/celibacy.
I also do not think that those who you call single (whom i'd call transitory and incidental singles and celibates), are necessarily discontent with their lot and must find a marriage partner to resolve this. I also do not think that it is their "passivity" as you put it that causes them to experience this discontentment when they do, but rather their expectation of a marriage partner under the idolatrous attitude people often exhibit towards marriage, and due to the failure of churches (and secular communities for those who aren't religious) to provide adequate pastoral support to either type of singles and celibates.
Also, Kinsey's work is rather old and unreliable, which, whilst providing a relatively useful way of understanding sexual orientation spectrums, is not necessarily the most helpful in allowing us to understand the frequency of different points on the scale. So a not insignificant amount of Side-B folk are Kinsey 0, and even if they weren't kinsey 0 marriage wouldn't necessarily be the solution (and nor is marriage restricted to those kinsey 1 and up - the kinsey scale can only measure *sexual* orientation, and marriage can and should go beyond just the sexual).
I am willing to accept that vocational singles/celibates do tend to find it easier to cope with singleness and celibacy, because their intentionality makes them more likely to find solutions outside of marriage, which transitory and incidental celibates may be less likely to pursue because the option of marriage seems more in reach. But I think that problem is down more to the idolatry of marriage and the lack of appropriate pastoral support for singles and celibates, not down to the "passivity" of transitory and incidental singles and celibates.
"But I think that problem is down more to the idolatry of marriage and the lack of appropriate pastoral support for singles and celibates, not down to the "passivity" of transitory and incidental singles and celibates."
👏👏👏
I'd suggest another element of the problem is a very much under-baked theology of singleness which informs our pastoral practices and relational intimacy within the church. Hold that thought while I finish editing my book manuscript ;)
I mean some of the strongest proponents I know for valuing OSA singleness are Side-B Christians themselves because we can often better understand the value of celibacy and are more wary of the idolatry of marriage for all people. That we talk predominantly amongst ourselves about our vocation is not pushing OSA singles out of the dialogue, but rather recognising that solidarity amongst us Bs is not only down our shared experience of celibacy (which isn't even true amongst all Bs - with some in MOMs), but also down to our shared experience of homophobia. Could we reach out and work together and talk more with OSA singles about our singleness? - sure. That would be beneficial to all of us who are harmed by and fighting against the idolatry of marriage. But we are not pushing OSAs out of the conversation, but rather forming solidarity with each other based around a shared experience of celibacy AND a shared experience of homophobia. Bekah's piece was about not rejecting Bs within the church - and that's what's important to note here. Our experiences of rejection due to the idolatry of marriage often comes hand in hand with our experience of homophobia - and so our experience therefore is different to that of OSA singles. Certainly - we can and should recognise the ways in which our struggles are similar due to the idolatry of marriage. But the experience of being considered threats and not seen as valuable members of the church (which was what Bekah's post was about) for us Bs are not limited to that which we share with OSA singles. And the factor that we do not share, homophobia, is indelibly united with our overall experience of rejection. To talk about that, and to recognise that experience as different and separate to the experiences OSA singles have, despite the commonalities, is not illegitimate. and it's not pushing OSA singles out of the conversation, because the homophobia we experience that is part and parcel of our experience of rejection does not apply to OSA singles.
Hi Matt - thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts :)
I totally agree with your comment about Side B Christians being those who can so readily understand the value of celibacy and the idolatry of marriage and so support OSA single Christians as a result. I think there is a very valuable reciprocal relationship there (hence, my framing of a "shared story" and a plea for us to write it together).
I actually wasn't trying to suggest that Side B discussions always need to acknowledge OSA single Christians or their perspectives in everything they do/say/write. (Just for the record, I hate reducing people to acronyms, but in the interest of brevity...). My plea here was a response to a specific anecdote Bekah shared in which someone (presumably not a Side B Christian themselves) identified Side B Christians as the ones best equipped to testify to others about a biblical sexual ethic in practice. My argument is that *when it comes to this particular claim* all of those who are faithfully stewarding their sexuality in singleness are equally equipped to do this. Even as they are differences and distinctions in their individual experiences, there is no better or best amongst us in terms of that particular placement and purpose.
In other words, I was seeking to make a very specific point about one aspect of the broader conversation detailed in Bekah's piece (while also give a bunch of Amens to other aspects of it). I wasn't addressing the broader conversation as a whole. Hope that helps provide some clarity :)
I can accept that - if we're talking specifically about that one anecdote then yes, I would agree, OSA single christians would be just as good (no more, no less) to talk to teens about faithfully stewarding their sexuality in a biblically mandated manner. Granted, that person may have specifically been talking about Side-B Christians when making their point because the person they were talking to, Bekah, is herself a Side-B Christian, and so they may have specifically been talking about Bs because that was most relevant in the conversation. And I likewise think that the reason Bekah used that particular anecdote specifically talking about Bs was because it was within the wider context of the article talking specifically about Bs, and so it was more relevant in that particular context to be talking about Bs exhibit that gift, and so I don't think she was specifically meaning to push OSA Christians out of the conversation. But I do agree with you that OSA single Christians would be just as good at talking to teens about stewarding their sexuality, and I do think it would be useful for both Bs and OSA single christians to work together in our shared struggle against the unbiblical idolatry of marriage.
Yeah, the key word in the reported anecdote that I was responding to was "Better":
"...she couldn’t imagine anyone BETTER equipped to talk to Christian teens about living the traditional sexual ethic than a gay Christian committed to celibacy or a mixed-orientation marriage."
So I totally get why Bekah relayed that anecdote within the context of an article designed to persuade others that SSA Christians are vital and important members of the believing community. It's just so much can be inadvertently smuggled into these kind of sentiments - such as the implication of "better" in this one.
But as I said, this was just one example amongst many of the sense in which OSA single Christians are being increasingly absented from discussions about faithful christian sexuality and singleness. Another one appeared in my newsfeed today ((https://twitter.com/PieterLValk/status/1468630219506524162) in which it was Gay celibates, those in mixed orientation marriages and married straight Christians who part of the discussion. OSA singles were again absent. If I wrote a response to this particular example (which I won't, for various reasons), people would suggest I was being too pedantic, that I was focusing in on one detail rather than the broader point (even as I largely agree with the broader point, as I did with Behak's), that there was perhaps mitigating reasons why OSA singles weren't mentioned here. And I'd understand why people might respond in that way when looking at just one example.
But my point is that these kind of examples (in which OSA singles are absent from discussions about Christian sexuality and faithfulness in the unmarried life) are now a regular feature of the discourse. Individually they can be explained or mitigated or softened. But collectively they are problematic. They communicate something about where the thinking is at. That's what my plea was designed to respond to.
Interestingly, I find Pieter tends to be one of the better Bs when it comes to making sure that we don't see celibacy and singleness as merely or more purely something for gay people - for example here: https://twitter.com/PieterLValk/status/1462829638770733068 where he mentions in point 2 that "Churches would need to invite every straight young adult to consider committing to lifetime singleness for the kingdom", and there are other examples. But I accept that it would have been useful to have mentioned OSA singles/celibates as well in the tweet you shared.
I think one of the main reason Bs end up talking about it without mentioning OSA singles/celibates is that we end up creating internal subcultural discourse talking specifically about all the shared problems all us Bs face. We're used to talking about being a B (and within that, being celibate), to Bs as Bs because they understood all the issues Bs face better, and us Bs are sometimes shunned from the wider church. But I do agree that when talking about our celibacy as Bs to Bs that we should not allow the context of the internal subcultural discourse to bleed into our message and forget OSA Bs.
I also think that it often (falsely) feels to us Bs that we are almost rediscovering celibacy and singleness as such because, due to the curséd idolatry of marriage, we do not often see celibacy, particularly vocational and lifelong celibacy, exhibited in the lives of the straight people around us. And so we feel a sense of difference as we come to realise we are gay, and then we also end up feeling a sense of difference as we come to accept God's plan of celibacy for us and then we end up linking those, and end up seeing it, falsely, as a somewhat uniquely gay rediscovery and phenomenon, particularly since those with whom we end up discussing it with more are also Bs.
It is these things coming together - homophobia and the idolatry of marriage - that end up causing us to create our own subcultural understanding and discussion of this, in a way that means we often end up forgetting that OSA singles/celibates are just as legitimately celibate and single, and that they are likewise struggling due to that curséd idolatry of marriage.
That's not to justify that, by no means, but rather to merely explain it. I do think us Bs ought to recognise the singleness/celibacy of OSA singles/celibates as legitimate more often when talking about celibacy/singleness and the idolatry of marriage (to which I shall from now on endeavour to do). This separation as such within the discourse is unhelpful for both Bs and OSA singles/celibates in our shared fight against the idolatry of marriage, and so I thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Ah yes. But single OSA Christians only count in Pieter's framework if their singleness is permanent/chosen/voluntary/embraced/lifelong etc. In other words the value of singleness is in your attitude towards it rather than in any theological significance intrinsic to that form of life itself. That's perhaps the major point where Pieter and I disagree (not just in principle but in theology and biblical exegesis as well). That, and on a theology of vocation.
Reading this makes me feel that there is hope for me yet. I definitely fall into the B side of things and struggled with my same-sex “secret” all my life. Maybe there’s some hope for me yet.
I think a difference exists between singleness and celibacy. The former includes a desire to marry, whereas the latter not, either by choice or condition as Jesus speaks in Matthew 19.
Single folk generally aren't content with their lot, and so must find a marriage partner. In antiquity and in some cultures today, marriages were thus arranged. Otherwise, single folk must become intentional to actively seek a marriage partner and they can more efficiently today via a myriad of dating apps.
The thing is, if single folk become passive and remain so, inevitably they show discontent and unhappiness. They become difficult as company and often put blame elsewhere like on the church. Celibate folk are not like that. For them celibacy is a vocation freeing them to put all for the Kingdom. Their company is stimulating, enriching, and they easily fit into the church.
Side B folk likewise are either single or celibate. Few are pure SSA as Kinsey showed. If they desire to marry, side B folk don't need to be completely Kinsey 0 and can marry the opposite sex.
Hey Mike,
Thanks for your commenting :) I disagree with your categorising of singleness and celibacy as different "kinds" of being unmarried. Lots of my other posts on here are designed to interact with that so I won't rehearse the details again, but you might be particularly interested in checking out my recent two posts on Mt 19 (there is still a third part in the works).
Also, marriages in antiquity weren't arranged because people were (emotionally? psychologically? discontent with being unmarried. That superimposing a modern mindset onto a historical reality. They were arranged because they were a social and economic necessity for the individual, their family and the broader society (as they continue to be in many other parts of the world which have a different mindset to modern western individualism). You might like to check out my article here for more on that: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2021/december-web-only/celibacy-singleness-early-church-lessons.html
Totally agree with you about marriage being a possibility for some SSA Christians :)
I don't think your distinction between singleness and celibacy is a helpful one as such. Some people are celibate, but not single (For example, those in celibate partnerships), and I don't think singleness specifically includes a desire to marry or that celibacy does not contain this desire. I think the better distinction would be between lifelong and vocational singleness/celibacy, and transitory and incidental singleness/celibacy.
I also do not think that those who you call single (whom i'd call transitory and incidental singles and celibates), are necessarily discontent with their lot and must find a marriage partner to resolve this. I also do not think that it is their "passivity" as you put it that causes them to experience this discontentment when they do, but rather their expectation of a marriage partner under the idolatrous attitude people often exhibit towards marriage, and due to the failure of churches (and secular communities for those who aren't religious) to provide adequate pastoral support to either type of singles and celibates.
Also, Kinsey's work is rather old and unreliable, which, whilst providing a relatively useful way of understanding sexual orientation spectrums, is not necessarily the most helpful in allowing us to understand the frequency of different points on the scale. So a not insignificant amount of Side-B folk are Kinsey 0, and even if they weren't kinsey 0 marriage wouldn't necessarily be the solution (and nor is marriage restricted to those kinsey 1 and up - the kinsey scale can only measure *sexual* orientation, and marriage can and should go beyond just the sexual).
I am willing to accept that vocational singles/celibates do tend to find it easier to cope with singleness and celibacy, because their intentionality makes them more likely to find solutions outside of marriage, which transitory and incidental celibates may be less likely to pursue because the option of marriage seems more in reach. But I think that problem is down more to the idolatry of marriage and the lack of appropriate pastoral support for singles and celibates, not down to the "passivity" of transitory and incidental singles and celibates.
"But I think that problem is down more to the idolatry of marriage and the lack of appropriate pastoral support for singles and celibates, not down to the "passivity" of transitory and incidental singles and celibates."
👏👏👏
I'd suggest another element of the problem is a very much under-baked theology of singleness which informs our pastoral practices and relational intimacy within the church. Hold that thought while I finish editing my book manuscript ;)
I mean some of the strongest proponents I know for valuing OSA singleness are Side-B Christians themselves because we can often better understand the value of celibacy and are more wary of the idolatry of marriage for all people. That we talk predominantly amongst ourselves about our vocation is not pushing OSA singles out of the dialogue, but rather recognising that solidarity amongst us Bs is not only down our shared experience of celibacy (which isn't even true amongst all Bs - with some in MOMs), but also down to our shared experience of homophobia. Could we reach out and work together and talk more with OSA singles about our singleness? - sure. That would be beneficial to all of us who are harmed by and fighting against the idolatry of marriage. But we are not pushing OSAs out of the conversation, but rather forming solidarity with each other based around a shared experience of celibacy AND a shared experience of homophobia. Bekah's piece was about not rejecting Bs within the church - and that's what's important to note here. Our experiences of rejection due to the idolatry of marriage often comes hand in hand with our experience of homophobia - and so our experience therefore is different to that of OSA singles. Certainly - we can and should recognise the ways in which our struggles are similar due to the idolatry of marriage. But the experience of being considered threats and not seen as valuable members of the church (which was what Bekah's post was about) for us Bs are not limited to that which we share with OSA singles. And the factor that we do not share, homophobia, is indelibly united with our overall experience of rejection. To talk about that, and to recognise that experience as different and separate to the experiences OSA singles have, despite the commonalities, is not illegitimate. and it's not pushing OSA singles out of the conversation, because the homophobia we experience that is part and parcel of our experience of rejection does not apply to OSA singles.
Hi Matt - thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts :)
I totally agree with your comment about Side B Christians being those who can so readily understand the value of celibacy and the idolatry of marriage and so support OSA single Christians as a result. I think there is a very valuable reciprocal relationship there (hence, my framing of a "shared story" and a plea for us to write it together).
I actually wasn't trying to suggest that Side B discussions always need to acknowledge OSA single Christians or their perspectives in everything they do/say/write. (Just for the record, I hate reducing people to acronyms, but in the interest of brevity...). My plea here was a response to a specific anecdote Bekah shared in which someone (presumably not a Side B Christian themselves) identified Side B Christians as the ones best equipped to testify to others about a biblical sexual ethic in practice. My argument is that *when it comes to this particular claim* all of those who are faithfully stewarding their sexuality in singleness are equally equipped to do this. Even as they are differences and distinctions in their individual experiences, there is no better or best amongst us in terms of that particular placement and purpose.
In other words, I was seeking to make a very specific point about one aspect of the broader conversation detailed in Bekah's piece (while also give a bunch of Amens to other aspects of it). I wasn't addressing the broader conversation as a whole. Hope that helps provide some clarity :)
I can accept that - if we're talking specifically about that one anecdote then yes, I would agree, OSA single christians would be just as good (no more, no less) to talk to teens about faithfully stewarding their sexuality in a biblically mandated manner. Granted, that person may have specifically been talking about Side-B Christians when making their point because the person they were talking to, Bekah, is herself a Side-B Christian, and so they may have specifically been talking about Bs because that was most relevant in the conversation. And I likewise think that the reason Bekah used that particular anecdote specifically talking about Bs was because it was within the wider context of the article talking specifically about Bs, and so it was more relevant in that particular context to be talking about Bs exhibit that gift, and so I don't think she was specifically meaning to push OSA Christians out of the conversation. But I do agree with you that OSA single Christians would be just as good at talking to teens about stewarding their sexuality, and I do think it would be useful for both Bs and OSA single christians to work together in our shared struggle against the unbiblical idolatry of marriage.
Yeah, the key word in the reported anecdote that I was responding to was "Better":
"...she couldn’t imagine anyone BETTER equipped to talk to Christian teens about living the traditional sexual ethic than a gay Christian committed to celibacy or a mixed-orientation marriage."
So I totally get why Bekah relayed that anecdote within the context of an article designed to persuade others that SSA Christians are vital and important members of the believing community. It's just so much can be inadvertently smuggled into these kind of sentiments - such as the implication of "better" in this one.
But as I said, this was just one example amongst many of the sense in which OSA single Christians are being increasingly absented from discussions about faithful christian sexuality and singleness. Another one appeared in my newsfeed today ((https://twitter.com/PieterLValk/status/1468630219506524162) in which it was Gay celibates, those in mixed orientation marriages and married straight Christians who part of the discussion. OSA singles were again absent. If I wrote a response to this particular example (which I won't, for various reasons), people would suggest I was being too pedantic, that I was focusing in on one detail rather than the broader point (even as I largely agree with the broader point, as I did with Behak's), that there was perhaps mitigating reasons why OSA singles weren't mentioned here. And I'd understand why people might respond in that way when looking at just one example.
But my point is that these kind of examples (in which OSA singles are absent from discussions about Christian sexuality and faithfulness in the unmarried life) are now a regular feature of the discourse. Individually they can be explained or mitigated or softened. But collectively they are problematic. They communicate something about where the thinking is at. That's what my plea was designed to respond to.
Interestingly, I find Pieter tends to be one of the better Bs when it comes to making sure that we don't see celibacy and singleness as merely or more purely something for gay people - for example here: https://twitter.com/PieterLValk/status/1462829638770733068 where he mentions in point 2 that "Churches would need to invite every straight young adult to consider committing to lifetime singleness for the kingdom", and there are other examples. But I accept that it would have been useful to have mentioned OSA singles/celibates as well in the tweet you shared.
I think one of the main reason Bs end up talking about it without mentioning OSA singles/celibates is that we end up creating internal subcultural discourse talking specifically about all the shared problems all us Bs face. We're used to talking about being a B (and within that, being celibate), to Bs as Bs because they understood all the issues Bs face better, and us Bs are sometimes shunned from the wider church. But I do agree that when talking about our celibacy as Bs to Bs that we should not allow the context of the internal subcultural discourse to bleed into our message and forget OSA Bs.
I also think that it often (falsely) feels to us Bs that we are almost rediscovering celibacy and singleness as such because, due to the curséd idolatry of marriage, we do not often see celibacy, particularly vocational and lifelong celibacy, exhibited in the lives of the straight people around us. And so we feel a sense of difference as we come to realise we are gay, and then we also end up feeling a sense of difference as we come to accept God's plan of celibacy for us and then we end up linking those, and end up seeing it, falsely, as a somewhat uniquely gay rediscovery and phenomenon, particularly since those with whom we end up discussing it with more are also Bs.
It is these things coming together - homophobia and the idolatry of marriage - that end up causing us to create our own subcultural understanding and discussion of this, in a way that means we often end up forgetting that OSA singles/celibates are just as legitimately celibate and single, and that they are likewise struggling due to that curséd idolatry of marriage.
That's not to justify that, by no means, but rather to merely explain it. I do think us Bs ought to recognise the singleness/celibacy of OSA singles/celibates as legitimate more often when talking about celibacy/singleness and the idolatry of marriage (to which I shall from now on endeavour to do). This separation as such within the discourse is unhelpful for both Bs and OSA singles/celibates in our shared fight against the idolatry of marriage, and so I thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Ah yes. But single OSA Christians only count in Pieter's framework if their singleness is permanent/chosen/voluntary/embraced/lifelong etc. In other words the value of singleness is in your attitude towards it rather than in any theological significance intrinsic to that form of life itself. That's perhaps the major point where Pieter and I disagree (not just in principle but in theology and biblical exegesis as well). That, and on a theology of vocation.
Appreciate all your thoughts above :)