Evangelical author and speaker Alisa Childers spoke at the Southern Evangelical Seminary Apologetics Conference on the “Side B” homosexuality controversy that has arisen in the Evangelical world on Oct. 10. Childers asked whether Side B and its proposed ideas of “gay Christian” and “spiritual friendship” can be understood as Biblical.
The Evangelical author recounted her friendship with a same sex attracted young man who struggled with his sexual orientation and identity as a Christian. She urged him to speak with his pastor. The pastor suggested consorting with women to re-orient him to the opposite sex. Childers prayed for the young man, and he continually repented and trusted Christ for deliverance from same-sex attraction, which did not happen. She then read Preston Spinkle’s People to be Loved, which argues that “same-sex attraction can be a product of the fall, like blindness, and yet not be a morally culpable sin. Like blindness, one’s orientation might be part of a disordered creation but still contain the positive potential for uniquely seeing the world.”
In this regard, Childers pointed out that Spinkle’s statement shows use of what is called “standpoint epistemology,” according to which a disadvantaged condition gives one unique and valuable insight into the world. With respect to homosexuality, standpoint epistemology engenders “Side B theology.” In contrast to what is called “Side A,” which advocates acceptance of homosexual behavior and full inclusion into church and society, Side B holds homosexual behavior to be sinful, but homosexual inclination to be “morally neutral.” It is not held that same-sex attraction is “something to mortify.” Rather it can be blessed by God.
A common identification people who advance Side B theology use is “gay celibate Christian.” Childers offered three reasons why Side B is “dangerous,” and “unbiblical.” First, it holds that same-sex attraction is “morally neutral.” Secondly, it is held that homosexual orientation is immutable. Same sex attracted persons therefore have an exceptionally difficult path, one that most Christians will not experience. Childers said that same sex attracted persons should rather be told to “trust in Christ and let the Holy Spirit begin the work in your life” of sanctification. Thirdly, Side B “relies heavily on standpoint epistemology.” She said that Christians should reject this. It is held by Side B’s standpoint epistemology that same-sex attraction colors one’s whole life. Denying it would effectively be denying life. Therefore, same-sex attraction should be embraced as a normal part of life.
But accepting attraction to sin “does not work” with any other sin, she said. Attraction to alcohol or drugs is not regarded something positive, but rather a burden. With homosexuality, it is the “heart posture” that is sinful, she said.
The Evangelical speaker further pointed out that while Jesus was tempted, “in his full humanity,” his temptation was not a temptation that appealed to anything in him. For a same sex attracted person, however, temptation does appeal to the sin in their nature. She drew a comparison with a romantic attraction that a married man might have to a woman at work who is not his wife. This, she said, would be understood as a sinful attraction. She pointed out that adherents of Side B may be involved in “covenanted relationships,” or exclusive, lifetime, publicly vowed celibate same-sex relationships. This is basically same-sex marriage with no sexual activity. Looser same-sex bonding are “spiritual friendships,” which are deep, emotional, but non-exclusive and non-vowed relationships between same-sex attracted persons.
While Childers acknowledged that with some people same sex attraction may never be overcome, she quoted Rosaria Butterfield as saying that homosexuality must be eliminated in “its embryonic phase.” She also pointed out that the term “gay Christian” is borrowed from queer theory, and became more common in Western culture through feminist theory. The “whole spectrum of identity categories are not Biblical.” We ought to “reject the language of queer theory.”
This writer would point out that while Childers correctly maintains that we should not organize life around sin, it is questionable whether Side B actually holds that same-sex attraction is “morally neutral.” As is clear in the quote from Preston Sprinkle above, it is understood to be a defect from the fall. The Christian life, seriously pursued, is the difficult narrow gate, made more difficult by the de-Christianization of large parts of society. The sexual abstinence required by Side B is commendable, and doubtless difficult, but exclusive covenanted relationships accommodate inclinations to what all traditional Christians understand to be sinful.
Childers then elaborated on standpoint epistemology, on which Side B ideology is heavily dependent. This is a doctrine of critical theory that “prioritizes the perspective of minority people when it comes to how truth is known when it comes to justice issues and issues that would affect that particular minority.” Members of the minority have more moral authority to comment on these issues. But she said that standpoint epistemology is “really dangerous.” In practice, it allows the ideology, in this case Side B ideology, to establish truth by virtue of its superior viewpoint. More generally, standpoint epistemology is a problem in society at large because it holds an essentially Marxist analysis of things to be the truth, viewing the world through an oppressor/oppressed lens.
More specifically, standpoint epistemology holds that 1) “your social location shapes what you can see and know,” (the more oppressed categories one falls into – racial, sexual, disabled, etc. – the more authority one has), 2) oppressed groups better understand power structures, 3) to understand truth we must “start in the margins and work toward the center, rather than start in a place of neutrality.” Good theology, in fact, is held to begin at the margins and not from a point external to the marginalized group.
Effectively then, a Christian worldview is set aside, its insights subordinated to the ideology. Where standpoint epistemology is accepted, people begin using the terminology of gender ideology, and discussion and debate is biased in favor of homosexuality and transgenderism. Childers also observed that “gender” is not a Biblical category. The Bible recognizes the categories of male and female, obvious from biology, but not additional sexual categories that are based on feelings. These have appeared in contemporary society from feminist theory. We must not use categories based on unbiblical beliefs, she said. It moves people further and further away from Biblical truth and objective reality.
Biblically, justice ultimately flows from “God’s holy character,” and it must flow from an objective standard, not from personal viewpoints. Thus, Childers said that the “gay Christian” category is false. Repentance of homosexual or transgender identity is possible and is the only way to be an obedient Christian. The same message of faith and repentance applies to anyone struggling with any sin. We should not “domesticate our sins” because this seems compassionate. Doing so is likely to result in finally accepting sin. Rather we should pursue complete holiness in both thought and deed.
More from IRD:
The Darwinian Foundation of the Sexual Revolution
The Non-Christian Overculture and the Stockholm Syndrome
Comment by Qohelet on November 13, 2025 at 1:31 pm
Rick it doesn’t matter how many times these speakers make the bait and switch, it’s still false witness to claim the Bible has anything to say against transgender people. It’s just not in there.
As for the rest of the article, trying to pretend that “standpoint epistemology” is anything other than “God forbid you have to walk a mile in their shoes” is pretty silly. Trying to judge other people (which the Bible tells us repeatedly is not our role) without knowing what their lives are like is not the role of a Christian.
Comment by Gary Bebop on November 13, 2025 at 6:03 pm
Don’t trust magisterial or absolutist statements about the sweep of the Bible from the limpets at this site. These sorcerers are ever trying to truncate Scripture for their tendentious purposes. Question the questioner.
Comment by Glenn Wheeler on November 13, 2025 at 11:56 pm
Just wondering…does Side B also apply to adults who are sexually attracted to young children? But on second thought, maybe it doesn’t have to because apparently that’s ok, since the Bible does not expressly condemn it.
Comment by Qohelet on November 14, 2025 at 8:17 am
Acts 15 Glenn. Sexual immorality is forbidden. In both the Luke/Acts time and our time, that includes abusing children.
A gender change is not in itself a sexual act. There is much more to “male” and “female” than sex.
Comment by Glenn Wheeler on November 14, 2025 at 9:26 am
The Greek word in Acts 15 literally does not mean “sexual immorality;” it means “prostitution.” Translating it as “sexual immorality” is an accommodation to preexisting beliefs. Besides, what exactly constitutes sexual immorality? That depends on what each person wants it to constitute. In other words, the meaning of “sexual immorality” is subjective. You can just as easily get a condemnation of transgender out of “sexual immorality” as you can a condemnation of sex with children. It just depends on what you want/need it to say.
My point remains…the Bible does not explicitly condemn adults having sex with young children; therefore, by your own standards in your own words , “it’s still false witness to claim the Bible has anything to say against transgender people. It’s just not in there.” it is ok.
Comment by Qohelet on November 14, 2025 at 3:03 pm
No, you can’t interpret that to be a ban on transgender people because gender isn’t sex.
Being a transgender person implies nothing about a person’s sexual behavior.
It’s not honest to say that Christianity is against being transgender. American Evangelicals might be, but there’s nothing about this in the Bible they thump.
Comment by Glenn Wheeler on November 14, 2025 at 3:40 pm
I never said there is anything in the Bible against transgender. Nor did I say that Christianity is against transgender.
You are the one who basically said that if something is not expressly prohibited in the Bible, then Christianity does not prohibit it. If you take that as a rule, then you have to apply it uniformly, not just on certain things.
The word you are referencing in Acts does not mean sexual immorality, no matter what your translation may say. You will not find in the Bible a generalized word against sexual immorality for which people can impose whatever meaning onto it that they choose.
My point still stands that there is nothing in the Bible that expressly prohibits adults from having sex with young children. If you say that, from a Christian standpoint such sexual activity is wrong, then you are using the exact same reasoning process that others use to say that transgender is wrong from a Christian standpoint, just for a different situation.
Six of one, half dozen of another.
Comment by Qohelet on November 14, 2025 at 7:34 pm
So there’s a couple issues here. The first is that you’re mistranslating πορνείας. If the Bible were simply classical Greek your definition is correct but it uses that word many times to mean inappropriate sex other than prostitution (for example in one case a man having sex with his father’s wife: 1 Corinthians 5:1) So yes, I’m quite confident saying that Acts 15 forbids pedophila.
The second is that you’ve turned my argument into a straw man: that every sin need be listed in the Bible. That of course is absurd. But don’t you think that for someone to make a bold statement like Christianity doesn’t allow the transgender lifestyle there should be SOME scriptural basis for it? Like there’s nothing against wire fraud in the Bible but we know we’re not supposed to steal. How can Christianity oppose transgender people when we have zero scriptural basis for it at all?
Comment by Glenn Wheeler on November 14, 2025 at 8:21 pm
Qohelet,
You do not know that the reference in 1 Corinthians 5:`1 does not refer to prostitution. Just look at the text and forget what people have told you it means or what you think it should mean…just look at the text. It could very easily mean exactly what it says…prostitution. Just because you see in a lexicon or Bible dictionary that the word can mean “anything related to sex except between a married heterosexual couple” does not mean that’s what that word means. I am also well aware that the main evangelical “authorities” (who you say you don’t like) take the position that the word in question condemns anything other than sex between a married man and woman, but that’s purely their creation, i.e., what they want to believe. Were they in the writer’s mind and know that this word does not mean what it means; rather, that the author meant for it to mean what is not written? Why do you assume that if the writer meant something else, or a broader meaning, that the writer would not have used another word? It really amazes me how people can take a text written 1900 or so years ago and tell us that although the author used a certain word, they actually meant something else.
One of the things that has gotten these evangelicals (as well as mainline and RC) in trouble over the years is that they have never realized one of the most important points in biblical interpretation, which is that you cannot take a word and assume meanings you do not know the biblical authors intended.
You are doing the exact same thing with the Bible that you criticize the evangelicals for doing–you are reading things into the Bible that are not clearly stated there, simply because you want for it to say that. You have no more warrant for saying you’re sure that Acts 15 condemns adults who have sex with young children than Joe Evangelical has for saying that the Bible condemns transgender.
If you really expect people to take you and your arguments seriously, you have to come up with something better than that.
Comment by Glenn Wheeler on November 14, 2025 at 8:36 pm
And by the way, I’d like to see you do that!
Comment by David on November 15, 2025 at 8:49 am
Deut. 22.5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.
Transgenderism might be condemned based on this verse. Of course, what constituted male and female dress changed over the years. In ancient times, men sometimes wore skirts. In China, women wore pants in the first millennium BCE. The role of clothing in transgenderism tends to be minimized these days.
Comment by Qohelet on November 15, 2025 at 6:01 pm
Glenn, you’re talking yourself in circles here. 1 Corinthians 5:1is about the immorality of sleeping with your mother or stepmother. That’s not prostitution. Your claim that the word could mean prostitution in this context would be like our modern calling someone a “wh*re” for something we think of as promiscuous, even if they’re not selling sex. But that’s the basic point. If you use the word πορνείας over and over again for a more general type of sexual immorality, then it acquires that meaning. That’s why every translator since the Vulgate has taken this position.
David, interesting point. I will have to think harder on this verse and read some commentary on it. I think a transgender person would point out that they’re actually trying to honor the verse though. Gender dysphoria is having a strong belief that you are in the wrong body. By presenting themselves as the gender they believe themselves to accurately be, they’re being more, not less honest.
Comment by Glenn Wheeler on November 15, 2025 at 7:02 pm
In other words, Qohelet, you go not with what the Bible actually says but what other people tell you it means or what you think it should mean. By all means keep on doing that, just quit judging and condemning your fellow evangelicals who also do it. You’re just like the ones you judge and condemn.
Comment by Qohelet on November 16, 2025 at 9:00 am
You’ve missed the point of everything Glenn. Textual debate isn’t about condemning or judging.
It’s about what does God want us to do with our time on this planet. I think the Holy Spirit is telling me very different things about God’s will than I’m seeing Evangelicals post. But debating the meaning of scripture is a centuries old process. It’s the basis of the Talmud.
Do I use tradition to inform me? Of course. It’s the Methodist quadrilateral: scripture, supported by reason, tradition, and experience. So I do feel confident in my argument about πορνείας since it is widely accepted. But it’s also obviously true from the context. Your reading of Corinthians just doesn’t make sense without the wider Biblical meaning
Comment by Different Steve on November 16, 2025 at 1:21 pm
George Costanza:
Jerry, just remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it.
Comment by Different Steve on November 16, 2025 at 3:02 pm
I couldn’t find any credible source confirming that exact quote: “gender dysphoria is the only delusion the rest of the world is required to accept.” Here’s what I found, and what the evidence suggests about where this may have come from or how it’s distorted:
Paul R. McHugh — Much of the rhetoric you’re referencing aligns with views expressed by Dr. Paul McHugh, a former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins.
In a legal brief, McHugh described gender dysphoria as a “delusion … a fixed, false belief which is held despite clear evidence to the contrary.”
He argued that treating gender dysphoria by affirming a person’s “false beliefs” (e.g., via hormones or surgery) is unwise — comparing it to treating an anorexic’s delusion by encouraging weight loss.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, he said:
“This intensely felt sense of being transgender … is simply mistaken — it does not correspond with physical reality.”
No exact match for your quote — The exact wording you saw (about “the only delusion the rest of the world is required to accept”) does not appear in any of McHugh’s published work, scientific papers, or interviews that I could find.
Potential source of misquote — The wording seems to be a paraphrase or a social-media-style spin on McHugh’s position. For example:
On Twitter, users have attributed a similar quote to McHugh: “Transgenderism is the only mental illness demanding the rest of society adopt the patient’s delusion as part of the patient’s treatment.”
There’s also a Facebook post with very similar wording.
However, neither source links to a peer-reviewed medical paper or a direct transcript of McHugh saying those exact words.
McHugh’s own clarification — In an article, McHugh claims he does not use the word “crazy,” and in his writing he makes a distinction: while he sees the distress of gender dysphoria as real, he argues it “does not change bodily reality.”
Medical consensus — The mainstream medical view is different from McHugh’s framing. For example, the American Psychiatric Association defines gender dysphoria as a clinical diagnosis characterized by “marked incongruence” between one’s assigned sex at birth and one’s gender identity.
And professional guidelines (e.g., from WPATH) generally support gender-affirming care as a valid treatment — in other words, many in the medical community reject the “delusion” framing.
Conclusion / Take-Away
The quote you saw is not a verified verbatim quote from a Johns Hopkins doctor (at least not in peer-reviewed or publicly documented medical work).
It echoes the views of Dr. Paul McHugh, who has said things that could be paraphrased into that kind of statement — but the exact wording seems to come more from social media / secondary sources than from McHugh himself.
Because the quote is likely a paraphrase or misattribution, it’s important to be cautious using it as a “direct quote” in serious discussion — especially given how sensitive and complex this topic is.
Comment by Different Steve on November 16, 2025 at 3:54 pm
In mainstream Christian theology, it is not an unforgivable sin to be skeptical of another person’s claim that “the Holy Spirit told them something.”
Longer explanation:
1. The “unforgivable sin” isn’t about doubting other people
Christian tradition holds that the only “unforgivable sin” Jesus mentions is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31–32).
But in context, this refers to:
Attributing God’s work to evil, knowingly and willfully, with a hardened heart — not to questioning what other humans claim God told them.
Being cautious about human claims is not the same as accusing the Holy Spirit of evil.
2. Scripture encourages discernment — including testing claims
Both Old and New Testaments teach that believers should test spiritual claims:
“Test the spirits to see whether they are from God.” (1 John 4:1)
“Examine everything carefully; hold fast to what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
“By their fruits you will know them.” (Matthew 7:15–20)
In other words, skepticism isn’t a sin — it’s a command.
Blindly believing every spiritual claim is discouraged in Christian teaching.
3. Humans can be mistaken — even sincerely
Most Christian traditions acknowledge:
People can misunderstand inner impressions or emotions as the Holy Spirit
People can mix divine guidance with personal desires
Some may claim divine authority to avoid accountability or debate
So a healthy, respectful kind of skepticism is normal and prudent, not sinful.
4. When could it become problematic?
Only if skepticism turns into:
Contempt for the idea that the Holy Spirit guides anyone at all
Deliberate rejection of God’s truth after clear conviction (a hard-hearted stance)
But even then, theologians emphasize that ordinary doubt or caution is not the unforgivable sin; the unforgivable sin refers to a much deeper, willful rejection.
5. A safer, faithful posture:
You can say:
“I’m open to the Spirit’s work, but I need to test this claim carefully.”
“I respect your experience, but I also need discernment, as Scripture teaches.”
That is spiritually healthy and biblically supported.
Conclusion
Being skeptical of a person claiming special revelation is:
Not an unforgivable sin
Not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
Actually encouraged as part of Christian discernment
You can be cautious without sinning — and without dismissing God’s ability to speak.
Comment by Skipper on November 18, 2025 at 2:55 pm
The Bible is so very clear on this subject. It is so wrong. You can either follow God’s rules and be rewarded, or make you own rules and suffer the consequences. Sin has been called the Number One obstacle of grace, and we all need it. Adrian Rogers said when God says, “Thou shall not” it means “don’t hurt yourself.” Miles McPherson said “if you want a good relationship with God, follow the rules. If you don’t want a good relationship with God, don’t worry about the rules.”