In Defense of Revoice: A Response to Robert Gagnon

I originally wrote this essay during the first Revoice Conference, which took place in 2019. Since then, the celibate gay movement has continued to incur harsh treatment from ultraconservatives. Among the opposition has been the Presbyterian Church of America, a denomination that recently pushed out a *celibate* gay man with *traditionalist* views. Celibate gay Christians are often unfairly attacked by both conservatives and progressives. These sexual and gender minorities deserve our support and friendship.

The Revoice Conference is underway as I type, the first national conference of the celibate gay movement. Over the past few months I have listened with dismay to ultraconservative condemnation of the conference. The mission of Revoice is “supporting, encouraging, and empowering gay, lesbian, same-sex-attracted, and other LGBTQ Christians so they can flourish while observing the historic, Christian doctrine of marriage and sexuality.”

Even though, theologically, I affirm same-sex relationships, I have many friends in the celibate gay movement. Celibate gay Christians are among the most devout followers of Christ that I have met. They are willing to sacrifice life-long companionship and a family of their own in earnest pursuit of God. They do this despite little external support. Celibate gay Christians experience rejection from the broader LGBTQ community that does not understand their self-denial, as well as from other Christians for not fitting the expected heterosexual mold. In fact, most of the fire has come from a small, but vocal contingent of Christians.

Debate within the church is not unusual; what makes recent condemnation of Revoice so disturbing is the callous tone and mischaracterizations. Thus, I want to provide historical context for Revoice and why it exists, as well as address statements made by one critic of the conference, Robert Gagnon.

Historical Context of Revoice

The celibate gay movement sprouted more than ten years ago among ex-gays who began to realize that sexual orientation does not change for most people. When the ex-gay movement launched in the 1970s everyone was optimistic. Participants believed change was possible through Christian discipleship and healing of childhood wounds. But by the 2000s, the results were undeniable. The majority did not experience sexual orientation change. A 2007 study by evangelical Christian psychologists Yarhouse and Jones revealed that almost 80% of ex-gays did not experience conversion to heterosexual functioning (and those who did, achieved a “complicated heterosexuality”; see also this study).

In 2008, a small group of ex-gays and certain affiliated practitioners began to dialogue intentionally about better approaches to ministry (I was part of this group). We were concerned about how the ex-gay movement was not being truthful about the lack of change. Too often people who attended ex-gay support groups became disillusioned and abandoned their faith when change did not transpire. While a small minority was able to achieve heterosexual functioning, we saw a need to minister to the majority that was neglected. Thus, the celibate gay movement was founded to promote greater integrity and effective ministry. It recognized that most gay Christians would face a life of celibacy and needed honest engagement and support given that reality.

In 2010, Wesley Hill published his book Washed and Waiting. Hill, who had never been part of the ex-gay movement, testified to the evangelical world that sexual orientation does not always change. He wrote:

“Unlike some, I have never experienced a dramatic, healing reversal of my homosexual desires. In other words, God’s presence in my life has not meant that I have become heterosexual. Like Paul, I have prayed fervently, desperately, tearfully on multiple occasions for God to take away this ‘thorn in my flesh’. . . Nor has it been the experience of many gay and lesbian Christians who are silently struggling to remain faithful as they worship and serve . . .” (p. 15).

Shortly after Hill published his book, those of us who were brainstorming an alternative to the ex-gay movement connected with him. In 2011, Hill and Ron Belgau started a private blog called De Spirituali Amicitia where rich discussion occurred. In 2012, the public version known as Spiritual Friendship went live. This group of celibate gay Christian bloggers became the voice of the movement, making meaningful theological contributions on friendship and community.[1]

At the same time, the movement lacked a pastoral care component. Many of the leaders are academically inclined. They provide valuable theological discourse but haven’t had the bandwidth to cultivate support groups or conferences in the vein of the ex-gay movement. That is, until now. Under Nate Collins’s guidance, a contributor to the Spiritual Friendship blog, the Revoice Conference is filling a much needed pastoral care gap for traditionalist gay Christians.

Revoice represents a significant improvement in the evangelical church’s response to LGBTQ people, one that is honest about low rates of sexual orientation change while encouraging Christ-like obedience amid the challenges of that reality. Revoice is also providing crucial space for conversation about missional outreach to the LGBTQ community, which has largely been absent from the goals of the conservative church.

Response to Robert Gagnon’s Comments

In a recent statement protesting Revoice, Robert Gagnon made seven points. Below, I provide a quote from Gagnon, citing his objection in italics, followed by my own response. Gagnon is an astute scholar in many respects, but his approach to LGBTQ people is often caustic and his underlying presuppositions (as presented in his recent statement) are highly problematic.

1. “Inadequate engagement with the need for ‘renewal of the mind’ as regards homosexual desires. Is there any asking of: ‘What is the false narrative that gives these impulses particular strength? Why am I viewing a person of the same sex as a sexual complement or counterpart to my own sex? Why am I aroused by the distinctive sexual features of my own sex, by what I already have? Am I thinking of myself as only half of my own sex?’” 

Gagnon subscribes to a social developmental theory for the causation of same-sex attraction. He assumes it results from people thinking of themselves “as only half of [their] own sex” and thus becoming “aroused by distinctive sexual features of [their] own sex.” This view is a psychoanalytic hypothesis popularized by psychologists Elizabeth Moberly and Joseph Nicolosi. That is, people are attracted to the same-sex because they are disconnected from their own gender. Moberly and Nicolosi believed that once the disconnection is repaired, same-sex attraction disappears or is greatly diminished. This developmental hypothesis was foundational to the ex-gay movement.

The problem with this view is that it lacks sufficient peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support it. The celibate gay movement arose as a corrective when it became clear that this problematic hypothesis failed to address the pastoral needs of Christians with same-sex attraction. Eventually, the ex-gay movement collapsed in 2013 as more leaders began to acknowledge this reality.

The truth is most people do not experience change even after attempting to repair alleged childhood wounds and gender insecurities. Evidence shows that at least some are gay because of prenatal factors. One study that has been replicated multiple times and across cultures demonstrates that men with older biological brothers are more likely to be gay, the percentage increasing with the number of older brothers. This is called the Fraternal Birth Order Effect. It has long been hypothesized that this effect is the result of a mother’s immune response to male fetal proteins while pregnant. A study this year provides preliminary confirmation: mothers with gay sons have higher percentages of related antibodies than mothers with straight sons.

Our sexuality develops in utero just like the rest of our bodily parts and functions. Prenatal hormones affect the way our brains and genitals take shape. In fact, the alleged gender insecurities that the ex-gay movement sought to address are actually related to innate gender atypicalness. One predicator of adult same-sex attraction is childhood gender non-conformity that is evident as early as preschool. This non-conformity is inherent to the child as a result of sexual development in the womb. Unfortunately, parents and other adults have assumed something is wrong because the child is not performing in gender expected ways. Thus, efforts have been made to repair the supposed psychological problem when such characteristics can have prenatal causation.

When Gagnon suggests to gay people that they are attracted to the same-sex because they believe a false narrative about their gender, he is causing tremendous damage. It promotes the idea that being gay is simply mind over matter, a choice. Gagnon reluctantly concedes that attractions may not change, but as soon as he offers that concession he retracts it by stating the attractions can be “disempowered by exposing the lie that lies behind attempts to gratify same-sex desire.” The truth is that scientific evidence does not support this old psychoanalytic theory. Gagnon’s views are a relic of the ex-gay movement, which is dying out. We are sexual beings. Most people cannot eliminate sexual desires apart from chemical castration. Ultraconservatives are making an impossible demand that gay people make themselves either asexual or heterosexual.

2. “The adoption of terminology for self-identity that cannot be sanctified and inevitably brings in the whole “LGBTQ” baggage (‘sexual minority,’ ‘gay,’ ‘transgender’).” 

Gagnon’s objection to certain terminology follows his view of the causation of same-sex attraction. He doesn’t believe there is a prenatal basis for the homosexual condition. Rather, it is a psychological or spiritual condition. Thus, to give that condition a name (i.e. “gay” or “lesbian”) is to prevent a person from moving past it and becoming heterosexual. But this is like refusing to call a person “paraplegic” because God’s ideal is for everyone to walk—the paraplegic should conceive of himself as able bodied. Yet, this prevents the paraplegic person and his community from making the adjustments necessary for the paraplegic to thrive with the condition he has. Whatever heaven may bring, we still need wheelchair ramps on earth. (Note, I do not necessarily believe that same-sex attraction is a congenital disability. It can be viewed as natural human variation, but I am arguing from the standpoint of the celibate gay movement.)

Gagnon says it is telling that celibate gay Christians do not support such terminology for pedophiles and polyamorists. Yet, the conflation of exploitative sexual desires (child rape or promiscuity) with desires for a faithful life companion is both inaccurate and cruel. Either straight or gay people can have exploitative sexual desires; these are distinct from the sex drive itself to couple with someone and build a family.

3. “A greater focus on a victim mentality than on the need for disengagement with the LGBTQ agenda (hence their refusal to sign the Nashville Statement).”

Gagnon actually suggests that celibate Christians with a traditional sexual ethic and deep devotion to Christ are people with a “victim mentality” who are engaged with the “LGBTQ agenda.” This flawed statement should render any reasonable thinker speechless. Gagnon complains that celibate Christians don’t regard same-sex relationships as a “particularly severe violation” worse than other sins. It is not enough for them to call homosexuality sin, he wants them to proclaim it among the worst. He also makes the unfounded leap that celibate gay Christians' belief that sexual orientation is morally neutral (while actions are sin) is tantamount to encouraging affirmation of same-sex relationships. The truth is celibate gay Christians have been unequivocal about their beliefs that same-sex relationships are sin.

At one point in his statement Gagnon points to Julie Rodgers as an example of someone who gradually came to affirm same-sex relationships because of laxity in theology. But he overlooks the fact that Julie came to realize, while working at Wheaton, that nothing she (and other gay people) did would ever be good enough to please ultraconservatives. Being celibate and devoted to Christ was not enough. Just having a gay orientation, something she could not change or control, was the offense. The burden on the back is unbearable. Like other conservatives, Gagnon shoots and drives away the sheep.

4. “Support for ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ laws that lead to the persecution of Christians and the erosion of the church’s own standards.”

I know of celibate gay Christians with traditionalist views who have been barred from jobs just for having a homosexual orientation that they don’t act on. This discrimination has usually occurred in Christian contexts. Gagnon seems untroubled by this and more concerned with protecting his own freedoms. I am not saying religious freedom is unimportant, but this zero-sum game approach is highly problematic. LGBTQ people should be able to have jobs, receive basic services, and keep a roof over their heads. Of all people, conservatives ought to be the most understanding of the dangers of a particular demographic being singled out for discrimination.

5. “An apparent aversion to any thought of developmental influences on any homosexual attraction and discouragement of any who seek help for reducing the intensity and direction of same-sex sexual attractions.” 

The celibate gay movement does not tell people what treatment to receive or not. Rather, it seeks to proclaim truthfully that same-sex attraction can have prenatal causes, orientation change rates are very low, and reparative therapy is not effective for most. The experience of forty years of the ex-gay movement and scientific evidence have demonstrated these facts. The question is why Gagnon and other ultraconservatives are so resistant to accepting this evidence. The answer seems to be, in part, the culture war. Conservatives know that if they admit sexual orientation cannot change for most, it hinders their fight against LGBTQ equality legislation.

6. “A formulation of spiritual friendship that looks an awful lot like marriage minus the sex.”

Gagnon’s statement seriously mischaracterizes the theology of the celibate gay movement. You only have to read Wesley Hill’s book, Spiritual Friendship, the primary textbook on the subject to recognize Gagnon’s statement is false. In fact, celibate gay Christians distinguish between spiritual friendship and celibate partnerships. Sarah and Lindsey are key spokespeople for the latter. Sarah and Lindsey have been explicit that they have no sexual attraction for each other. Rather they have chosen to be family. In any case, a platonic covenant with a friend cannot be considered sin. In fact, the practice has precedence in Christian tradition (adelphopoiesis). Celibacy is not enough for Gagnon, he wants to take away even platonic forms of kinship that provide much needed familial support.

7. "A greater affinity to 'gay Christians' who are in, or looking to be in, a committed homosexual union (the Justin Lee 'Gay Christian Network' type) than with Christians involved in Restored Hope Network who operate with ex-gay transformation ministries (Stephen Black of RHN had his registration money for the Revoice Conference returned and his attendance revoked).

Justin Lee does not harass celibate gay Christians. Restored Hope Network and Stephen Black are adversarial toward celibate gay Christians. Do the math. Gagnon states, “Does this show that their ‘gay’ identity means more to them than their Christian identity?” No, it shows they prefer not to hang out with people who attack them.

Conclusions

Gagnon offers these closing thoughts: “A bit more critical reflection is in order. It is just possible that the Spiritual Friendship people can learn something from those who have gone before them and who have had a longer track-record of being faithful to the cause of the gospel.”

In addition to claiming spiritual superiority, Gagnon also gets his history wrong. He seems to believe the celibate gay movement arose because the founders were unaware of an older, more faithful response to the issues. In fact, it was people who were part of the ex-gay movement who came to see its significant flaws and sought a more honest and faithful approach. The celibate gay movement has learned from history; Gagnon and other critics of Revoice have not.

____________________________________

Postscript: It will be interesting to see where the celibate gay movement goes from here. I have been a supporter for many years (even after becoming affirming), but the movement has lost some of its early theological cohesion. I am particularly concerned about the way the movement has become bogged down in debating whether or not same-sex desire itself is sinful (in reaction to ultraconservatives who say an attraction itself and not just action is sin).

The early movement had no problem saying attraction and action are distinct in the same way temptation and sin are distinct. But now some celibate gay Christians are providing a problematic apologetic that offers a concession to ultraconservatives. They are splintering sexual orientation into parts—some aspects are deemed sinful and others not. To be honest I find this a strange and unpersuasive argument. Sexual orientation is certainly multifaceted, but I don't think it can be splintered in the way they are attempting to do. 

__________________________

[1] Around 2010, I shut down my own blog on faith and sexuality to take a break from the public conversation and focus on postgraduate work. I was also beginning to wrestle with my views on same-sex relationships and felt it best that I contribute to the conversation in a less formal role. For that reason I opted not to be one of the official Spiritual Friendship bloggers (once it went live), but I frequently engaged the conversation in the comment section.