Born Again This Way by Rachel Gilson

An earnest, but faulty argument against same-sex relationships

Rachel Gilson works for Cru (a.k.a. Campus Crusade for Christ) on its National Theological Team, providing direction to the leadership on LGBTQ matters from a traditionalist perspective. She has an MDiv from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and her educational background is evident in the articulate and engaging way she writes her arguments in Born Again This Way: Coming Out, Coming to Faith, and What Comes Next. The book is one of the best out there for the traditionalist view on same-sex relationships. But ultimately, key conclusions fall short with significant ramifications for sexual and gender minorities.

Gilson’s interest in the topic comes from her own background. She is attracted to women, even though she is now married to a man, with whom she also experiences sexual attraction (p. 98). In other words, she is bisexual, but she prefers to avoid using labels, referring to herself as “same-sex attracted.” Her goal is to encourage Christian discipleship, which translates into life-long celibacy or a mixed-orientation marriage for gay people.

First, let me share what I liked. When it comes to ardor and devotion to basic principles of Christian theology, there is much I can agree with in Gilson's book. In fact, Gilson reminds me a lot of myself—it was like reading my own writing from a certain point in my journey on faith and sexuality, not just the content but style and passion. It’s full of earnest, heart-felt devotion to God, a willingness to sacrifice everything in the pursuit of Christ—even if it means a gay person can never marry or have a family of their own.

As I once wrote during my days in the celibate gay movement, "Jesus is the priceless pearl worth losing everything for." I still believe that. I am now affirming in my views on same-sex relationships, but I still believe Jesus is Lord of lord and King of kings. I still seek to give my whole life to him. Gilson and I share a deep love of Christ and appreciation for Christian discipleship.

But Gilson’s rich discussion of a Christ-centered life is also what makes the book concerning. It mixes the good with the not so good, making it easy for readers to swallow everything whole. Here are some critiques I have:

Spiritualization of Sex Difference

Gilson’s primary argument against same-sex relationships reiterates a faulty traditionalist interpretation of Genesis 1-2 and Ephesians 5 that treats sex-difference in a hyperspiritualized way (pp. 30-36, 38-40). Karl Barth was one of the first to propose this view, suggesting sex difference is entwined with the imago Dei (human beings were created to be the image of God, which he claimed is imaged in the male-female union). This view is also prominent in Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body. Yet this recently invented theology completely departs from Christian tradition’s understanding of imago Dei, which explicitly renounces that view as anthropomorphic. God is not male or female. To be the image of God is not about sex difference.

Given how glorified sex-difference is in the non-affirming argument now, it’s interesting to note that sex difference was considered a product of the fall by some early church fathers. When they read Genesis, they saw that sex and procreation are described in chapter 4 after the fall and, thus, interpreted male-female intercourse as an unfortunate reality. Similarly, they read the psalmist’s comment, “I was conceived in iniquity” as a negative assessment about sex. In their view, these were prooftexts indicating that sex difference, and the resulting sexual intercourse, is the result of original sin. The early church was not charmed by sex difference and yet now sex difference is glorified.

I don’t point this out to say the early church fathers were correct in their negative assessment of sex difference, but rather to demonstrate that Christians have read Scripture to draw polar opposite conclusions on the meaning of sex difference. And that should give us pause.

So what is the point of sex difference? The biblical authors and most of Christian tradition treat procreation as the purpose for male and female. I discuss this in my article "Cultural Influences on Hermeneutical Frameworks in the Debate on Same-Sex Relationships," (Interpretation, 2020). And yet if procreation is the meaning of sex difference, Gilson and other traditionalists are inconsistent when allowing infertile couples to marry. For more on sex difference see also my dialogue with Wesley Hill at the Wheaton College Streckert Lecture entitled, “Is Sex Difference Essential to Marriage?”

Depreciation of Reason and Science

In addition to problematic spiritualization of sex difference, another concern I have with Gilson’s book is it’s disregard for reason and science. An unfortunate bias against reason for ethical discernment is pervasive in evangelicalism. Gilson seems to subscribe to this: "What is the motivation to obey a law that seems nonsensical? It can only be deep trust in the one who asks" (p. 23). I understand where Gilson is coming from. I was raised to say the same thing. God’s ways are above our ways. But this is distorted theology. Scripture actually teaches critical thinking is necessary (Prov 18:17). If something is “nonsensical” and we proceed without use of reason, how can we claim to love God with all our “mind” (Deut 6:5).

Loving God with our mind involves critical thinking, including engaging with what we have increasingly learned about human sexual development. Throughout Christian tradition, General Revelation—what we can learn about theology from the world around us—has been considered authoritative as Scripture. Prominent evangelicals like R. C. Sproul have acknowledged that scientists are interpreters of General Revelation and, thus, have something to teach us about how God made the world to work.

Gilson does not give sufficient attention to insights from General Revelation that we might obtain through science (see p. 47). Her reading of Genesis seems to take the creation story as the totality of all that can be said about sexual development. In addition to ignoring science on sexual orientation, she also assumes intersexuality is the result of original sin. But it’s worth pointing out that even Christian tradition provides alternative interpretations. For example, Augustine did not consider intersex to be fallen.

Inaccurate Portrayal of Sexual Orientation Change

The ex-gay movement used a mantra “change is possible” to argue that gay people can heal their sexual orientation and become straight. But after four decades, the movement collapsed when it became clear that the majority of gay people do not experience change in sexual orientation. While Gilson doesn't use the mantra "change is possible," she does claim heterosexual marriage "is possible" for the gay person (p.92). It’s common for traditionalists to now propose that even if sexual orientation cannot change, it’s still possible to become attracted to one person of the opposite sex. Gilson writes, “God could bring about different surprises, like an attraction toward the one opposite sex person he calls you to marry.”

I’m old enough to remember the devastation the ex-gay movement caused in providing false hope to so many gay people that they could achieve a heterosexual life—something we all so desperately wanted. All of us wanted to be “normal” with the ability to successfully marry the opposite sex. I wish she had acknowledged that research shows the vast majority of gay people do not experience change in attractions that would allow heterosexual functioning—even after years of trying.

Gilson neglects to mention the higher divorce rate among gay people who marry the opposite sex. While she gives brief mention here or there that it won't work for everyone, she spends lengthy discussion on her own successful marriage (without fully taking into account her bisexuality). And she makes claims about a friend of hers who happened to experience, what she describes as, a spontaneous change from gay to straight. Yet such anecdotes don’t outweigh the research on sexual orientation change efforts, which provide a more accurate accounting. Her anecdotes also do not distinguish between sexual fluidity vs. sexual orientation change vs. bisexuality.

Lack of Transparency about Life-Long Celibacy

Gilson doesn't adequately address life-long celibacy. It's assumed anyone can accomplish this because Christ is sufficient (p. 107). She acknowledges our needs for family but also says Jesus will never leave you if you don't have anyone. There is truth that God is always with us. But Scripture itself makes clear that God alone is not enough for human flourishing. Adam did have God for companionship, and God still said, "It is not good for the human being to be alone." God designed us with a familial drive to form our own kinship unit.

Most of Christian tradition agrees life-long celibacy is not possible for everyone. But Gilson does not acknowlege that history. Instead, she champions self-control as a reflection of a Spirit-led life. But she neglects to address Paul's statement "If they cannot control themselves they should marry" (1 Cor 7:9). Paul never suggests the Spirit overrides all aspects of the body God has given us. That is also why Paul doesn't counsel married people to simply pray harder if they are tempted to adultery. He tells them to steward their sexual energy within marriage.

Relatedly Gilson says, "Nowhere in Scripture is earthly marriage promised to any of us" (p. 92). That is true. But Scripture does have an expectation that you should get married to steward your sexual desires if you cannot live celibate. I would like to see her address this expectation.

Caricaturing of Same-Sex Relationships

Gilson sets up a straw-man against marriage for gay couples by conflating it with cultural ideas of marriage (only for companionship, pleasure, romance), implying that marriage for gay couples is based on superficial foundations. But then she proceeds to describe Christian marriage in terms of love, commitment, durability, and a way to communicate the gospel. Much of what she describes of Christian marriage equally applies to the quality of Christian gay couples who base their relationship on covenantal love and self-sacrifice.

She only makes two real claims for distinguishing between marriage for straight couples versus gay couples. First, the spiritualization of sex difference—a recently invented theology that is not consistent with Christian tradition or the Genesis 1 author’s originally intended meaning of imago Dei. Second, procreation—yet she and other traditionalists allow for infertile couples to marry.

Lack of Engagement with Affirming Scholarship

Gilson seems to have not read affirming scholarship. For she says, "As far as I can tell, most people change their minds on this issue out of deep sympathy" or that the affirming view "best matches the love songs and movies" that people crave and so give in. Gilson needs to, at least, read and respond to Brownson's, Bible, Gender, and Sexuality or my book Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships or Robert Song's Covenant and Calling or Mark Noll's Civil War as a Theological Crisis (for its hermeneutic discussion) to name a few. Even if one does not agree with these, it's quite false to suggest there are not solid biblical reasons for why people change their minds.

Conclusions

To conclude, I appreciate Gilson's clear devotion to Christ. But she doesn’t tell the full story. Thus, her book is not honest. I’m not suggesting that is deliberate on her part. I believe she is sincere. But the fact is the book doesn’t tell the truth about Christian tradition’s long understood meaning of imago Dei or the truth about sexual orientation change rates or divorce rates for mixed orientation marriage or the truth about Christian tradition’s view on life long celibacy or the truth about Christian gay marriages that are covenantal and self-sacrificial or the truth about Scripturally based affirming arguments.

Finally, Gilson is not honest with herself about her motives for writing the book. She says her story is just "one among many, and it's not intended to be weaponized against anyone else" (p. 12). She attempts to distance herself from the way her story will inevitably be used. Yet the truth is, she wants her story to confront. In fact, Gilson explicitly contradicts her opening congenial statement later in the book. She says it is not enough to concede "Your life your choice; my life my choice . . . the ministry that same-sex attracted Christians have to the church and the world must go beyond this individualistic stance. The costliness of our obedience to God's word makes demands on others—they can, and should, find it unsettling" (p. 65).

Gilson is a public figure who is speaking and writing about faith and sexuality. I wish she would be honest with herself that she is not just sharing her story, she is proactively and publicly pushing a message. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. Unfortunately, the message she is promoting is not truthful, and not because she holds a traditionalist viewpoint, but because her arguments don’t tell the full story.