This eye-catching title is from an interview at the Desiring God website. It left many asking the question “Is the Biblical view of sexual identity open for debate?” Well, it seems so. Sam Alberry, who has referred to himself as “Same Sex Attracted” speaks from respected platforms within conservative Christian circles, to present his take on homosexual desires, gender identity and the transgender movement. Alberry, is an articulate speaker, and a priest at the St. Mary’s Maidenhead Anglican Church in the UK. He is also a speaker for Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, a Guest Contributor at Pastor John Piper’s “Desiring God” ministry and a contributing editor at Timothy Keller’s “The Gospel Coalition” among other things. Due to his position within conservative Christendom, Alberry's positioning is not from the vantage point of a skeptic questioning Christianity, but is from the position of a Christian redefining boundaries.

When I read through Alberry’s Interview at the Desiring God website and listened to his lengthy talk at the RZIM event where he addresses Gender Identity, I decided to put down some thoughts about the implications of his approach because I feel a concern that the Biblical view of sexuality should not be confused in these tumultuous times.

Alberry’s strength is his understanding of the LGBTQ+ movement and matters relating to gender identity. At first blush, Alberry seems to be a Godsend. Here is a man who feels romantically and sexually attracted towards men, but remains celibate, calls homosexual sexual activity a sin and so on. Further, Alberry has been extremely clear about the Biblical position regarding homosexuality and gender identity. I do recognise that it takes courage to stand for the Biblical position in todays highly sensitised world and appreciate his stand in many public forums. With that having been acknowledged, I still have serious issues with some of the implications of what Alberry has said. This is not an attack on the man but an analysis of his method.

The Language problem. My first issue is with his continued use of the term “same sex attracted” viz “gay Christian,” When Alberry says “I am a same sex attracted Christian,”  he means one thing and in contemporary society, that same phrase means something else. In Alberry’s qualified stance it means that he feels attractions, which he does not followup up on. But the same phrase being used in today’s scenario means, one has the desires which one follows to its conclusion in homosexual sex. For him it is not his identity (but still uses it to define his position?). To the other it is their identity. A Christian leader using such terminology will miscommunicate the message when a not so astute person from the world misses the import of his qualified use.  

The Theological problem. There is no precedence to legitimise the use of same “sex attracted Christian,” in the Bible. Were there similar situations? Yes. Corinth with its promiscuity and legitimised ritual temple prostitution had a reputation for sexual laxity. To Corinthianise meant “to live a promiscuous life” (Collins English Dictionary). When people came to Christ, they left their past behind them. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:11 “And that is what some of you were.” Among the sins mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, homosexuality is also featured. So, we have a promiscuous culture which also included homosexuality among other things, we have people who are born again from this and Paul puts their past behind them. He clearly identifies their past identity with their past, not their present. He certainly did not encourage the inclusion of such things to create a more inclusive atmosphere.

 It becomes stranger still because my sinful desires are a part of my shameful past. Romans 6:21 says "What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? When sinful desires painfully remind me of who I was, I trust in who I am in Christ. It seems strange to add as a prefix something that one is supposed to be ashamed of now. Finally sinful desires are something that I count myself "dead to," and not "alive in." This is clarified by Rom. 6:11: In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Using Alberry's argument, we should be able to arrive at a whole load of new definitions. How about “I am an “occult attracted Christian,” or “I am a “sexually attracted to children, Christian” or “I am an “sexually attracted to other people's wives, Christian” and so on. All we get is a bunch of unbiblical oxymorons, a mix of the old and the new, with the emphasis placed in the wrong half. Is this the Christian hope? I think not. We are on a journey that is not backward looking but forward looking. Consider the sin of adultery. The apostle Paul, exhorts people to view “older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.” (1 Tim 5:2). Should not an adulterer's tale end thus? In Alberry's case, there is no such role of regeneration, renewal of mind and right expression, where he completes the renewal process by viewing older men as fathers and younger men as brothers in all purity.

The Contradiction in his statement. Alberry says “ I choose to describe myself this way because sexuality is not a matter of identity for me and that has become good news. (speech at the Church of England General Synod).” What was that again? He uses a sexually specific phrase “Same sex attracted” to identify himself and says “sexuality is not a matter of identity for me.”

Next I have issues with Alberry’s method. On one hand he speaks like a Bible believing Christian and in the same breath confuses the issue in many forums. That is my issue. My understanding of the A,B,C of the Alberry method is given below.

A - Agree with the Biblical position .
B – Broaden the issue.
C - Confuse the matter.

When Bible believing Christians hear Alberry, they hold on to the clear (though qualified) denunciations of homosexuality and gender issues and feel that he is a true spokesperson for the Faith. In some contexts, Alberry goes to Step 2  And to Step 3 and leaves the issue confused and unresolved. Here are a couple of examples to clarify what I am saying. I start with some sample quotes from the Desiring God website. Please read the full interview to get the full context. I am giving the turning points of his arguments to explain what I meant by his three step method.   .

Step 1: Agree (that homosexuality in practice is sinful) Quote: “There are not godly ways of expressing homosexual sexual desires.”

Step 2: Broaden the issue to include all Quote: “All of us experience disordered sexual desires. So all of us are sexual sinners.”

Step 3: Confuse the matter Quote: “Is same-sex attraction itself sinful?” is tricky because it depends exactly what we’re meaning by “same-sex attraction.” Are we talking about the actual acts of desire, or are we talking about the capacity for that desire?

Quote: “People often say, “It’s okay (to have homosexual desires) provided you don’t act on it.” I want to say, “Yes,” kind of, as long as we’re including mental acts in our language of ‘acting on it.’”

So, what is Alberry saying? According to the Bible homosexual sex is sin. But all of us experience sexually deviant temptations (adulterous thoughts towards a woman are sexually deviant too). Temptation is not sin and only giving in to temptation is sin. Therefore it follows that experiencing homosexual desires is not sin at the desire stage, it is sin only at the action stage.

In a way Alberry is right, in another way Alberry is wrong. It is right that sin is  accounted only when we give in. As the old songs says “Yield not to temptation for yielding is sin.” But the ancients did not claim that the temptation was neutral.  To explain the non neutral nature of temptation, I want to back up to the level above the temptation to the realm of capacity to have desires.

For fallen man, "the capacity to have desires" covers both legitimate and illegitimate desires. How do we define what is legitimate and what is not? A legitimately expressed desire is never called a lust in the Bible. Whereas the lusts, the perverted expressions are never legitimate. Let us take Eros or sexual desires for example. Eros undefiled is a God ordained expression towards the spouse. The opposite, Eros defiled is any other form of sexual expression. One does not use the word “tempted” when one is drawn to their spouse sexually. Any other form of sexual expression is Eros defiled. This is what temptation to sin is. It is a defiled perspective right from its origins, the contrary perspective, which becomes sin for us when we consent. So when Alberry says “I am same sex attracted” he is just acknowledging that he is experiencing a sinful desire. According to the Bible this is not neutral even at the 'capacity to have desire' stage.

The Bible is unequivocal about these things. It calls these desires “evil desires of youth” (2 Tim 2:22), “worldly passions” (Titus 2:12), “comes not from the Father but from the world” (1 John 2:16) “sinful passions” (Romans 7:5) and so on. Alberry in his qualified stance acknowledges that homosexual temptations are not counted sin unless followed through by the action. But to a hearer, it can be understood as as license to be homosexual as long as the desire is not followed through. This stance somehow smuggles in the unbiblical position that homoseual desire is in some sense 'neutral or legitimate.' In retaining his "same sex attracted" stance, Alberry conveys the impression that in some sense at least, homosexuality is an immutable legitimate condition.

I want to move on to the second example of what I mean by Alberry's A,B,C method. It deals with his take on the Gender Identity issue. Please listen to the  video “How can I know my gender?” posted on YouTube by RZIM. This is a long talk and I am only giving some key quotes for references along with the video timeline to explain his three step method.

Step 1: Agree that originally there were only two genders: Quote: “Male and female He created them” - Genesis 1:27 (35:58).

Step 2:  Broaden the issue: So many of us have body body image (gender related) issues Quote: “The physical world is busted up, it is out of joint (44:56) we see the same frustration with our bodies with a whole range of body image struggles that so many of us face today (56:49).

Step 3: Confuse the issue: (David had gender dysphoria and Jesus had it too). Quote: “Many people would have looked at David and say David must have gender dysphoria.” (1:08:21 ff) “As David was introduced to us in 1st Samuel we are told that he was beautiful and the Hebrew word used only ever to describe women.”… David was a pretty boy” (1:08:27). “David played the harp and wrote songs. So some would say that David must have had gender dysphoria…”

Quote: “He (Jesus) knew what it was for His body to cause Him enormous pain… He had body image issues because Isaiah tells us that people turned their faces away from Him… His body image issues weren’t in his head they were real…” (1:13:56) “There is no greater dysphoria when he who knew no sin became sin for us…”

What is Alberry saying? He starts by saying God created only two genders “Male” and “Female.” But in a broken world, gender dysphoria is something that all of us feel in some form. So by inference, categories such as man and woman are not totally definitive and there is gender dysphoria of some sort in all, be it physical or mental. But then he implies that’s O.K. David had it and the Lord Jesus had it.

Is Alberry right? Of course not. Gender dysphoria is not felt by all. The distress we feel because of sickness that affects our bodies is not the same as distress felt by someone because they feel that they live in a body that belongs to another gender. My distress is because of body degeneration not body substitution. Further it is blasphemous to say that the perfect sacrifice of God, the lamb without blemish was a victim of gender dysphoria.

Alberry's other claim about David having gender identity issues is contrived. He starts with 1 Samuel 16:12 and 1 Samuel 17:42 where David is described as beautiful and handsome. According to Alberry, the word “beautiful” (yə·p̄êh) is a word used only ever to describe women. That is not true. In Psalm 48:2 that same word refers to the beauty of mount Zion “beautiful in elevation” In Jeremiah 11:16 the word refers to an olive tree “beautiful” in fruit. In Ezekiel 31:3 that word “beautiful” describes branches of a tree. In Ezekiel 33:32 “beautiful” refers to a singer’s voice and so on.

This is where his narrative starts to depart from Biblical scholarship to the positioning of a propagandist with an agenda. This becomes more evident in the way he has reviewed a book titled “The Best Man” by Richard Peck. Before I present Alberry’s take on the book, I want to draw a counter reference from the far left “New York Times Book Review” (Sunday Book Review August 28, 2016) for the same book. The reviewer acknowledges that “it was "normalizing a variety of flavors of gay and straight masculinity for the first generation raised in a world in which gay marriage is the law of the land, “The Best Man” is political.”  So a far left reviewer acknowledges that this book targeting children aged 8-12 is a political work with an agenda to normalize a variety of flavours of gay and straight masculinity. But what has Alberry to say about this? Using his platform at the Gospel Coalition where he is a contributing editor he has reviewed this Gay propaganda book targeting children. Alberry has a lot of warm recommendations for this book though he acknowledges that “there is tacit approval” (of the gay lifestyle). But goes on to say “It is a charming story with strong themes and likeable characters.” He has the audacity to liken this propaganda material to accidentally resemble the Bible, which also begins with a wedding at the start and a wedding at the end!! Of course in the Best Man it is a gay wedding!!

Such kinds of contributions from Alberry will not further a Biblical orthodoxy but a confused heterodoxy. Over time all these ministries will live to regret the method that Alberry is introducing from their platforms. It will prove to be a kind of trojan horse in their midst. Featuring this kind of material may earn a few brownie points from the far left, but will certainly earn the displeasure of God. There is no middle ground where we can please both God and man. Paul writes of this in Galatians 1:10 where he says “Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.”

Dear people of God, let us continue to engage with true love and humility with the world around us by bringing the Good News to those who are lost and hurting. Meanwhile let us “... test everything; hold fast what is good.” (1 Thess 5:21). Shalom.

I have also written an article about the current charge that the Church is not "Inclusive and loving." To access it  Click here >>.