One of the concerns I often hear about a celibacy (or side b) position and conferences like Revoice is that the position itself can be a “slippery slope” toward a doctrinal shift that commends same-sex sexual behavior as morally permissible (or side a).
What is interesting about this concern is that it presupposes that there is a position that adequately “protects” a person from the possibility that their view of what is morally permissible might change.
When I started my career twenty years ago an ex-gay (or side x) ministry model was much more prominent and had a larger share of the ministry space in the evangelical Christian community. That has changed.
There were many factors that led to a diminished ex-gay narrative. Although I am unable to go into too many details here (we discuss some of the reasons in the book Costly Obedience, if you are interested), some of those factors had to do with those who had been ex-gay sharing that their own experience was that the ministry model did not appear to deliver on what was promised: namely, for some individuals (or many or most, depending on who weighs in on this), their same-sex sexuality remained a part of their lives in ways that could not be reconciled with assumptions surrounding that it means to be ex-gay (or, more pointedly, could not be reconciled with the claim that they were straight).
Some individuals came to identify as ex-ex-gay. Again, without going into specific stories, a quick search with your “Google machine” should provide a few examples. Some individuals previously identified as gay. They later held a prominent place in ministry circles as ex-gay. But, in the cases I am thinking of, that was not a position they could occupy indefinitely. As they came to acknowledge their enduring same-sex attractions, some would self-identify as ex-ex-gay. In some cases, their sexual ethic shifted to a “side a” position to reflect a change in their views. For some individuals, perhaps their enduring same-sex sexuality contributed to a cognitive dissonance that was resolved not with a change in underlying patterns of attraction but with a change in their beliefs about what was morally permissible. It is hard to know how frequently a person went from ex-gay to ex-ex-gay, but we know that it has happened.
Let’s get back to the slippery slope. It’s unclear to me that pursuing celibacy is any more of a slippery slope than pursuing heterosexuality. That is, it may not be a slippery slope at all. Do we really know that the pursuit of celibacy puts a person at greater risk of changing their view away from what conservatives would describe as a traditional Christian sexual ethic? Many people who were ex-gay at one time are now affirming. If the concern from conservatives is that celibacy and the use of the vernacular to describe one’s sexual orientation (i.e., gay) is a slippery slope, there doesn’t seem to be an account for how the alternative path has also been a place from which people have launched into an affirming position.
The “slippery slope” accusation locates the discussion topographically, as though one path was located alongside a sheer cliff, as though one position was closer to falling off the edge of that cliff than the other. The reality is the people have “fallen off” that place from many different positions. It is unclear that one is closer to a downward slope, and it ignores the reality of ex-ex-gays and at least one of the reasons why the ex-gay narrative has diminished in recent years.
Now from a research standpoint, I am certainly open to the idea that one ministry position increases the likelihood of a specific outcome. But we’d have to study the experiences of those who have changed their doctrinal position. We’d want a large, representative sample of sexual minority individuals who would share the journey from where they were to where they are to see if what they moved away from was more of an ex-gay (or side x) position or more of a celibacy (or side b) position. We’d also want to take into consideration the cultural shifts that have taken place and may be reflected in ministry prominence today. (Even more ideal, we’d want to study people’s experiences going into these different ministries rather than asking them what it was like retrospectively.) Short of that, it is unclear that those who are celibate should concede that their position is a greater risk than any other position in terms of shifting views on sexual ethics.
Since I don’t think that issue will be settled anytime soon, what are thoughtful Christians to do? Rather than denounce groups of people and their attempts to live faithfully before God, it may be more helpful to look at what these two ministry paths have in common. And maybe you’d think they don’t have much in common given the current conflict over preferred models of ministry and risk to the church. However, what they share in common are some of the ongoing challenges of a desire for support and encouragement, a sense of identity and community, a place to discuss their faith journey and sexuality and the intersection of the two, a place to grapple with important questions surrounding sexual ethics and intimacy, a positive vision for a future where they could thrive, ways in which their own gifts and talents can benefit the Body of Christ, ways in which their faithful witness can be a source of encouragement to others, and so on.
The accusation of a slippery slope will only push further from the church those who are trying to live out a traditional Christian sexual ethic. It may just fray the rope they are desperately trying to hold on to.
Mark Yarhouse 
Spot on Mark Yarhouse! Now whenever you get the research design down pat to study the experiences of those who have changed their doctrinal position, then remember I am in Columbia, SC… way down south! At one time during the early 2000s I was leaning toward the ex-gay position.
No longer. That slope is very slippery for many who desire to be authentic. Our Lord has used your books to open my eyes, and to sharpen my vision too. Costly Obedience was charged to my Amazon account today, and I look forward to receiving it soon. Keep writing. You are reaching multitudes in and out of the kingdom!
“It’s unclear to me that pursuing celibacy is any more of a slippery slope than pursuing heterosexuality.”
For the male, Paul simplifies: no gift of celibacy then it’s better to marry to deal with one’s sexual energy. Forced celibacy won’t/can’t work!
Exodus failed largely because they promoted marriage as the endgame of the healing/change journey despite the reality that few ended with a 0/6 Kinsey. When guys failed there they became frustrated and that stress amplified their remaining SSA so that being side B was no longer enough.
Revoice, on the other hand, promotes celibacy but makes the error that being side B and gay means Kinsey X i.e. asexual. But when chastity becomes problematic (as it will) it won’t be enough to be side B. Guys will continue to masturbate to deal with their sexual energy (because they are not X) which will fuel their SSAs because their fantasies will all be gay. Revoice will fail because of the faulty celibacy push and their aversion to change. Revoice isn’t Paul’s voice because it fails to major on transformation.
Rather than scraping the Exodus paradigm Revoice should correct it, but not with the opposite extreme.
Thank you for this and for your voice and advocacy of ssa people who are hanging onto that rope, and for shepherding the Church. So thankful God had raised you up, and the Revoice conference, for such a time as this.
I agree with Jon Evan. Revoice isn’t on a slippery slope because celibacy is more dangerous than pursuing heterosexuality but because of their rejection of the biblical mandate given to all people (not just the sexually broken) for transformation. Beyond settling for something less than what God demands, they all too often come across as critical of those who are fighting for what God demands. As stated above, they should have worked to correct the problem from within. As long as fallen people run ministries, there will always be room for improvement. The answer isn’t to reject the good parts of the foundation the previous generation established and start over. The answer is to humbly submit to biblical authorities and prayerfully work to correct where correction is needed. Unfortunately, few are willing to make that kind of investment. It’s easier to set your own ideas up as the standard and then seek out a following of those who agree with you. And it’s easier to settle for less because it means less struggle. God never said we should strive to find a place of peace and rest in this life. In fact, quite the opposite. We are told that this life is not our final destination and that it will be a fierce battle. We are called to war against our flesh and to crucify our own desires, no matter how natural a part of us they may seem. Revoice seems to be saying “let’s embrace every aspect of our homosexual indenty as a gift from God and, as long as we stop short of the act of sex, it’s who we were meant to be and God will be pleased.” Where is the transformation in that? Where is God in that? Anyone can force themselves to be celibate if they are truly committed to it. But it takes God to completely change us from old to new ways of living. Do people sometimes fail and fall back into that old life? Yes! But that doesn’t mean we decide out of our own deceitful hearts that change isn’t possible for anyone. When we do that we are denying the power of God to work in our lives. So, as I see it, the slippery slope Revoice is on is that of denying God’s power to transform and setting themselves in opposition to any person or group who tries to proclaim that power to others.