A recent controversy within evangelical Christianity has once again brought a difficult question to the forefront: How should Christians understand same-sex attraction in light of Scripture? The issue gained renewed urgency following the resignation of Sam Allberry, a prominent pastor, author, and Christian apologist, from Emmanuel Church in Nashville after acknowledging an inappropriate relationship with an adult man. The news prompted differing responses from Christian organizations, revealing a deeper divide that extends far beyond one man or one ministry. At the heart of the debate is a theological question with significant implications for the church: Is same-sex attraction itself a sinful desire that must be mortified, or can it rightly be understood as a “sinless temptation” so long as it is neither embraced in lust nor acted upon? As evangelical Christians continue to wrestle with questions of sexuality, identity, temptation, and holiness, the ultimate standard cannot be cultural sentiment or personal experience. The question must be brought before the authority of God’s Word: What does Scripture actually say?
What Is Side B Theology?
Side B theology is basically a response to Side A. Side A is the idea that you can be a Christian and still be a fully practicing, fully immersed homosexual, living a homosexual life. Side B says that you cannot control your desires—what proponents call same-sex attraction—but you can control your decision to lust and your decision to act. So, it is not a sin if you are not lusting and not acting; rather, the idea is that same-sex attraction itself—the desire within you—is not a sin.
First, to understand where this came from, we have to remember that Sam Allberry is an Anglican. I say this as a reminder that, in the Anglican world, there has historically been a close relationship with Catholic theology. Although Anglicanism is much closer to Protestantism than to Roman Catholicism in important respects, it still retains certain theological connections to Catholic thought. Within this framework is the idea that a sin is only a sin when it is consciously willed by the person. If I have thought about it and “willed it” forward, then it is a sin. If I am not willing it—if I do not desire it and yet it is there—it is not a sin.
However, the Reformation brought renewed emphasis to the doctrine of the sinful nature, reflected in Luther’s theology and in what the Puritan John Owen would later call “indwelling sin”—that is, sin that is in our minds and hearts whether we desire it to be there or not, and whether we willed it to be there or not. The Reformers and Puritans believed that if there is something in our minds and hearts that is anti-God and violates His law, then we need to mortify it. As John Owen famously stated, we must be “killing sin, or it will be killing us.”
If we are to remain faithful to the Scriptures, we must remember that Colossians 3:5 commands us to “consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.” This verse does not regard a forbidden desire forbidden only when it is consciously willed; the sin is named and its death is commanded.
What Is “Lifelong Celibacy”?
Proponents seem to argue that this position allows them to acknowledge the reality of their same-sex feelings while remaining committed to what they call traditional biblical ethics. They believe they can do this through what is known as “lifelong celibacy.”
But is lifelong celibacy, as presented in this nuanced position, legitimately supportable from an honest apologetic perspective? Where did this idea come from, and how is it thought to resolve the underlying theological problem?
Obviously, there is nothing wrong with remaining single and therefore celibate, but Scripture speaks of celibacy as a gift (1 Corinthians 7:7). However, just after that, Scripture says very clearly that if you burn with passion, you ought to get married (1 Corinthians 7:8–9).
The argument, then, is this: “I can’t legitimately be married because I’m not attracted to the opposite sex.” Here is where the nuance becomes clear. I do not see a command in Scripture that says, “You must absolutely burn with passion for the opposite sex.” Scripture does not give that command. But there is a clear condemnation of attraction to the same sex as sinful. We find this in Romans 1:26, where the passions themselves are described as dishonorable.
This is important because, in the Greek, the phrase essentially refers to “passions of dishonor.” Just before this, Paul explains that humanity’s great offense against the Lord is that people did not give Him thanks or honor. Therefore, describing these passions as dishonorable is a severe condemnation of the passions themselves. We also find this in 1 Corinthians 6:9, where it is not only the homosexual who is condemned, but the “effeminate” as well. The issue becomes even clearer in Colossians 3:5, where Scripture speaks of desires themselves as evil.
So, it matters why you are celibate. If you are celibate because you have been given the gift of celibacy, that is permissible. If you are celibate despite the fact that you are burning with passion—and, on top of that, burning in a dishonorable, effeminate, or evil way—then that is not permissible.
Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin If You Did Not Ask for Those Feelings or Willfully Desire Them?
Denny Burk and Heath Lambert published a book titled Transforming Homosexuality, and in it they put their finger on the core issue of this entire conversation. Consider the Tenth Commandment: “You shall not covet.” Burk and Lambert argue that the Tenth Commandment prohibits not merely intentional desire for adultery, but all desires for adultery, without respect to the voluntary or involuntary nature of the desire.
This applies to everyone. If a straight man is walking around, sees a woman who is not his wife, and finds himself attracted to her, isn’t that a sin? Yes, it is. Some people believe it is not a sin until we create a fantasy or scenario in our minds. Once the scenario is created—once we develop a story about what we would like to do that is sinful—then, they argue, it becomes sin.
What we do not want to admit is that we have this flesh—that is how Scripture refers to it—and this flesh continually pushes us toward desires that are anti-God. Once such a desire enters our minds and resides in our hearts, whether we have created a scenario or not, and whether we wanted that desire to be there or not, does not change its moral character. We are harboring within us a desire that is anti-God.
But This Desire Is Just a Temptation, Right? Being Tempted Isn’t Wrong, Is It? Even Jesus Was Tempted.
Some believe they experience same-sex attraction outside their own control and therefore outside their own responsibility. They might say, “Temptation is not the same as sin. Jesus was tempted in every way, yet without sin.” Here, however, is the problem. Many people think that the account in Matthew 4:1–11, where Christ is tempted by Satan, is primarily about Christ’s experience of temptation. From this, they conclude that Christ’s experience of temptation is the same as our experience of temptation. That is not what the account is about.
For Christ in the wilderness, the temptations came from outside Himself. Sin was offered to Him externally. Internally, Christ was sinless. The problem is a theological one. James is very clear about this in chapter 1, explaining that when we are tempted, we are drawn away by desires within ourselves. We are enticed from within. Christ had nothing within Him that would draw Him toward sin. We do. Christ was tempted as One without a sinful nature. His temptation demonstrates His sinless nature and how that sinless nature responds to temptation. Yes, He was tempted in every way as we are, yet He experienced temptation as One without a sinful nature.
The point is not experiential similarity. The point is to demonstrate that the Second Adam is better than the first Adam, that the Second Adam will not fail us, and that the Second Adam is doing what we cannot. The moment we confuse this and think the account is primarily about some kind of experiential similarity, we miss the point of the story entirely.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the question of same-sex attraction cannot be settled by cultural pressure, personal experience, or even the shifting consensus of evangelical Christianity. It must be answered by the authority of Scripture. The Christian life is not a call to rename sinful desires, accommodate them, or make peace with them, but to bring every desire under the lordship of Christ. The hope of the gospel is not that believers will never struggle with indwelling sin, but that through Christ they are no longer called to surrender to it. Whatever form sinful desire takes, the biblical command remains the same: mortify the flesh, pursue holiness, and trust in the sufficient grace of Jesus Christ.