“The arguments of these posts serve to fill out this affirmation and denial, both of which clearly stand in contradiction to the fundamental, systematic theology which undergirds the Revoice Conference. One cannot sign onto the Nashville Statement while continuing to endorse Revoice, because Revoice does not define self-conception as male and female by way of God’s “purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture,” but does adopt a SSA self-conception for its conference and theology that conflicts with creation order, redemption, and a biblical approach to sanctification.”
This article is part 5 of a 5-part series entitled Revisiting Revoice
(Chris Bolt – Founders Ministries) The end of Revoice theology is the belief that what is wrong with same-sex attraction is not that it is sinful, but that others are sinfully opposed to it. If Adam experienced the desire to sin prior to the Fall, and Christ experienced the desire to sin after it, we must not expect anyone else to be capable of mortifying the desire to sin, whether in this life or the life to come….
Thus the same-sex attracted individual will remain such for all eternity. This is why SSA is associated with suffering, and costly obedience, and a struggle, and a push for positive rights for ‘sexual minorities.’ Nobody can help SSA. Not even Christ. So Revoice theology points us toward a Christianity with no rest from SSA, which is perfectly consistent with the suggestion that good gifts of explicitly gay culture will find their way into the New Creation. The most egregious portions of the Revoice Conference are fixed in its foundations regarding whether we understand SSA as morally culpable sin to be repented of, or an indelible gift from God. There can be no neutrality between these two parties, where one believes SSA is morally culpable sin, while the other believes the aforementioned belief is morally culpable sin.
Same-Sex Attraction and Sanctification
But what if someone with Revoice does consider SSA sinful, and does not bother with any of the arguments detailed in previous posts here. Is it nevertheless fine for him or her to embrace a SSA conception of the self in sanctification? No. Whether we conquer our temptations to sin in this life or not, we fight against our sins, not according to secular sociological schemes, but according to the gospel.