Is same-sex attraction sinful? This question has been a major theological flashpoint in recent discussions of sexuality among evangelicals. One group (e.g., Rosaria Butterfield, Christopher Yuan, Denny Burk) maintains that same-sex attraction is sinful, regardless of one’s response to it, while another group (e.g., Preston Sprinkle, Greg Coles, Wesley Hill) insists that same-sex attraction is not sinful; it only becomes sinful when one responds to it in an ungodly way (e.g., lust).
The purpose of this paper is to consider what the Puritan theologian John Owen might contribute to the debate over the sinfulness of same-sex attraction. This essay will be an exercise in theological retrieval. Three factors make Owen a helpful conversation partner. First, when exploring theological questions, it is often helpful to listen to voices outside of our present context in order to hear perspectives we might miss. Second, Owen wrote three treatises addressing the doctrine of sin: “Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers” (1656); “Of Temptation: The Nature and Power of It” (1658); and “The Nature, Power, Deceit, and Prevalency of Indwelling Sin” (1667). Finally (and surprisingly), Owen’s work hasn’t played a major role in recent discussions. Appropriation of Owen–when it happens–often seems oriented to how Owen might support a previously-arrived-at conclusion rather than what he might uniquely contribute.
I will argue that Owen makes two important contributions to this debate. First, he draws our attention to two different ways the Bible speaks about sin: indwelling sin and actual sin. Indwelling sin names the corruption of human nature as the result of the fall (which remains in believers even after conversion) while actual sin names specific desires, thoughts, words or actions that are contrary to God’s will. While Scripture identifies both as “sin,” these two types of sin call for differing responses. As followers of Christ, we pray for strength to resist the power of indwelling sin while we repent from, and seek forgiveness for, actual sins. Thus, when someone asks “Is same-sex attraction sinful?” Owen prompts us to consider whether we are talking about indwelling sin or actual sin. Second, Owen offers a thick theological and pastoral account of temptation. Much ink has been spilled over how we think about same-sex attraction in relation to temptation and when particular temptations should be considered sinful. One group insists same-sex attraction presents a sinful temptation while another insists that we distinguish the experience of temptation (which is not sinful) from yielding to temptation (which is sinful). Owen speaks helpfully to both groups. On the one hand, Owen teaches that indwelling sin is a source of temptation in the life of the believer. On the other hand, he also alerts believers to the fact that there is an important moral difference between experiencing temptation and giving in, even when a temptation arises from indwelling sin.
In the final section of the paper, I return to the question that prompted this essay: “Is same-sex attraction sinful?” I suggest it is important to distinguish the presence of same-sex erotic attractions from the capacity to experience them. We will offer differing answers to the question, “Is same-sex attraction sinful?” depending on whether we are thinking about the latter or the former. In conversation with Owen, I argue (1) that involuntary attraction to someone of the same sex represents a temptation arising from indwelling sin; (2) same-sex erotic desire, like any other fallen desire that orients us toward sin, is an actual sin to be confessed and repented from; and (3) the capacity to experience same-sex erotic desire represents a disordering of sexual desire is an expression of indwelling sin, which presents a temptation to resist rather than an actual sin to confess.