Ssa meaning gay

The subsequent blog post has been penned by Greg Coles and constitutes the third installment in our ongoing series, "Gay" vs. '"Same Sex Attraction:" A Dialogue. He holds a position within The Center's collaborative team, having also authored the acclaimed publication, Single, Gay, Christian. 

Little endeavor is expended by me in attempting to persuade Christians who identify as 'same-sex attracted' (or 'SSA') to adopt the term 'gay' (or 'queer,' or indeed, any nomenclature falling under the expansive LGBTQ umbrella) in its place. Primarily, it is my conviction that individuals among us who uphold a traditional biblical sexual ethic and maintain a consistent orientation toward the same gender possess matters of far greater import to address than merely the lexical preferences for adjectives. Indeed, my affection for language is profound, and its significance, in my view, is considerable. (Should you doubt this assertion, I would be pleased to elaborate on the subject of my doctoral dissertation in its entirety.) However, considering that terms such as 'gay' and 'SSA' are inherently fluid and polysemous—having, moreover, been embraced by such a diverse array of individuals across myriad settings and for a multitude of aims—it becomes an exercise in futility to assert how they will invariably operate consistently for every single person, regardless of the moment.

Linguistic expression, it must be acknowledged, is inherently complex and often convoluted. Permit no individual—least of all myself—to convince you of a contrary perspective.

Furthermore, my hesitation to advocate for individuals to identify as 'gay' stems from the fact that numerous Christians who favor the descriptor 'same-sex attracted' articulate their choice as an issue of individual moral conviction, viewing it as a means to cultivate more profound adherence to Christ within the domain of sexuality. For these individuals, the word 'gay' is perceived as personally disadvantageous, as it purportedly inclines their inclinations toward concupiscence. Should this assertion hold veracity, then I commend and respect their resolve to abstain from its usage. While I do not contend that an inclination to lust is an unavoidable outcome stemming from the word 'gay' itself—otherwise, I would refrain from employing it—I am firmly convinced that adherents of Christ are obligated to accommodate each other's differing perspectives on matters of personal conviction, echoing the magnanimity exemplified in Romans 14. (Parenthetically, it is this very spirit of forbearance that I ardently desire more proponents of 'SSA' would exhibit toward my own position. However, I am straying from the main point.)

Nevertheless, despite my lack of evangelistic zeal for 'gay' terminology, this should not be interpreted as an unreserved endorsement of 'SSA' nomenclature. A modest collection of reservations regarding 'SSA' linguistic constructs and their global ramifications exists for me. My conviction is not that these apprehensions mandate the coercion of all who hold divergent opinions into conformity. Yet, I firmly maintain that these points represent crucial contemplations for any individual desiring to possess a well-informed stance within the ongoing discourse concerning 'gay' versus 'SSA' designations.

Concern 1: Ex-Gay Baggage

Kindly pardon a moment of unreserved self-citation drawn from my published work, Single, Gay, Christian (IVP, published in 2017, pages 62-63):

The nomenclature of SSA gained widespread acceptance primarily through the Christian ex-gay movement, an entity that ardently championed the alteration of sexual orientation as the preeminent aspiration for gay Christians, notwithstanding the accumulating proof indicating the extreme infrequency of such transformations. By framing the discussion in terms of attraction, rather than as sexual orientation, proponents of the ex-gay perspective were more adeptly positioned to characterize homosexuality as a transient condition, a challenge capable of appearing and dissipating with the spontaneity of a muscle spasm.

Ultimately, the ex-gay movement failed to produce heterosexual Christians. Instead, it yielded individuals who remained disoriented, disenchanted, and persistently gay; people who had become desensitized to pledges that consistently eluded fulfillment. Were these individuals culpable for failing their divine creator, perhaps not desiring change sufficiently, or lacking adequate faith? Or, conversely, was their God the one who had failed them? Was the divine merely a malevolent tormentor, a fanciful narrative, or a popular delusion offering initial rapture only to culminate in a harsh disappointment for the populace?

The recent decline in renown—and, indeed, in certain instances, the outright dissolution—of ex-gay ministries signifies something beyond a mere shift in the prevailing cultural milieu. Rather, it testifies to numerous decades marked by human detriment, specifically individuals harmed by the unfulfilled commitment of transformation. A considerable number of LGBTQ individuals who endured ex-gay theological teachings have entirely abandoned their spiritual convictions, opting to resent the divine instead of harboring self-loathing. Conversely, some retain their belief with weary, wounded grip, much like shipwrecked individuals clutching desperately to flotsam amid a tempestuous sea, capable of upholding their faith only despite the pronouncements issued by the ecclesiastical body.

Viewed through its most straightforward lens, the idiom 'same-sex attraction' does not intrinsically constitute an affirmation of endeavors aimed at altering sexual orientation. However, language possesses a notable propensity for accruing connotations that extend significantly beyond its most literal denotation, particularly when its increased adoption is spurred by a specific socio-cultural epoch. Consider, for instance, the expression 'All Lives Matter.' By its most fundamental interpretation, this particular phrase merely conveys the notion that every human existence holds value. Yet, when uttered as a rejoinder to the 'Black Lives Matter' initiative, serving to dismiss accounts of disproportionate police violence targeting individuals of color, 'All Lives Matter' becomes appended to a distinct political platform, thereby acquiring a significance divergent from its most readily apparent sense.

The historical trajectories of words do not inherently circumscribe or constrain their potential applications in the present era. Nevertheless, by employing terms without acknowledging their historical antecedents, we incur the peril of conveying implications we never intended.

The central contention, therefore, is not that SSA terminology is exclusively and invariably linked to the ex-gay ideology. Instead, the crucial aspect is that this specific classification achieved its widespread adoption primarily due to the impetus provided by the ex-gay movement. Indeed, a significant portion of the acknowledgement for the prevailing evangelical preoccupation with sexual terminology can be attributed to the ex-gay movement. (It is worth noting that this particular fascination is, in truth, quite recent. For instance, C.S. Lewis, during earlier times, displayed no reservations whatsoever in designating a sexually abstinent man oriented toward the same sex as 'a pious male homosexual.') Upon realizing their limited efficacy in transforming individuals into heterosexuals, ex-gay organizations such as Exodus International initiated a heightened focus on the imperative of a terminological transition from 'gay' to 'SSA.' Provided that individuals ceased identifying as 'gay,' they could then be categorized as triumphs within the ex-gay discourse. Even if their sexual orientation remained immutable, their designation, at the very least, could undergo modification.

A majority of LGBTQ individuals are prone—and justifiably so, in my assessment—to recoil from anything bearing the slightest resemblance to ex-gay ideology. For numerous among us, given its background, the language of SSA evokes images of 'decades of human casualties, individuals harmed [and lives lost to suicide] due to the shattered assurance of transformation.' Is it truly possible to fault us for seeking an alternative descriptor?

Concern 2: Missional Ineffectiveness

Should you inquire of me for guidance on employing language judiciously when conveying the Christian message to individuals who have not yet embraced it—or, indeed, to those still deliberating on its acceptance—I would present no fewer than three recommendations:

1. Employ terminology that is contextually appropriate and maximally comprehensible to your audience.
2. Refrain from utilizing lexical prohibitions that needlessly obstruct the development of interpersonal connections.
3. Esches the corroboration of erroneous notions concerning Christianity that circulate among the populations you endeavor to engage.

Informed by these three proposals, I harbor a concern that SSA language offers minimal utility regarding its efficacy for evangelistic outreach. Outside the confines of ecclesiastical structures (and indeed, even within certain of these, particularly among younger demographics), the term 'gay' conveys meaning with significantly greater lucidity than 'SSA.' As demonstrated by common expressions such as 'being born gay' (which, if such a phenomenon were to manifest [i], would inherently predate sexual engagement) and 'coming out as gay' (an action frequently preceding sexual relations), the majority of individuals conversant with Western cultural narratives do not interpret the word 'gay' as inherently encompassing sexual conduct. Instead, its general comprehension aligns more closely with the concept of 'experiencing an enduring (and often exclusive) attraction toward individuals of the same gender.' Furthermore, the term 'gay' does not invariably denote a specific political alignment or an affiliation with the predominant segment of the LGBTQ community, as evinced by the very existence of figures such as Milo Yiannopoulos and Chadwick Moore. While certain LGBTQ individuals might contend that these two individuals and others of their kind represent an ignominy to the LGBTQ collective, I have, however, never encountered an assertion that the political or social inclinations of Yiannopoulos and Moore somehow negate their status as gay. To summarize, should one seek the term most widely perceived in Western societies as the most direct descriptor for same-sex attraction, then 'gay' unequivocally fulfills that role.

Conversely, 'SSA' lacks any comparable degree of semantic transparency. For some listeners, it comes across as inscrutable Christian jargon—not necessarily malevolent, but certainly not language intended for their comprehension. LGBTQ individuals situated outside ecclesiastical communities who are possess an awareness of SSA language will, in all probability, be acquainted with it through its association with ex-gay organizations—and this, as previously articulated, scarcely represents a commendable implication. Irrespective of whether proponents of 'SSA' intend it as an implicit acknowledgment of the merit of altering one's sexual orientation, it is routinely interpreted as such by members of the LGBTQ community. What rationale would compel me to employ a descriptor that gratuitously causes affront among the very individuals with whom I am striving to establish a dialogue?

Lastly, concerning the propagation of erroneous notions: I am acquainted with an excessively high number of LGBTQ individuals (indeed, would not even a single instance be considered excessive?) who have been told, and have come to believe, that coexisting as both gay and a disciple of Jesus is an impossibility for them. By openly identifying as gay, I am afforded the distinct advantage of directly challenging the misconception that embracing a 'gay identity' irrevocably places an individual beyond the divine affection. In this particular regard, the utilization of SSA terminology represents a squandered chance. By declining to embrace the self-descriptor 'gay,' we not only create an emotional chasm between ourselves and others, but we also run the hazard of tacitly validating the judgment for which Christianity has, regrettably and deservedly, garnered widespread notoriety.

Concern 3: Insufficient Critique of the Christian Status Quo

It is conceivable that my previous discourse has suggested that 'SSA' is a superior mode of communication for evangelical Christians who are firmly established in their beliefs, while 'gay' holds greater efficacy among other demographics. To a certain extent, this observation holds undeniable veracity: 'SSA' is assimilated with considerably less resistance by the evangelical establishment, whereas 'gay' often functions as a provocative or unsettling term within these very same communities. However, I wish to submit for consideration that the unsettling effect produced by the word 'gay' is, in fact, remarkably beneficial for these entrenched evangelical believers.

By disposition, I am not one to incite discord. This constitutes one of the underlying rationales why, as previously stated in my preceding blog entry, the part of my persona inclined towards compliant evangelicalism would have favored identification as SSA. Nonetheless, a significant peril inherent in selecting terminology that integrates overly seamlessly within a particular communal context is its propensity to encourage the perpetuation of existing conditions. When the language we employ is characterized by diminished direct challenge, we consequently become less apt to automatically question the prevailing attitudes and customary practices within our evangelical communities—even those aspects that are truly deserving of scrutiny.

The language of SSA integrates smoothly into ecclesiastical frameworks wherein the state of being unpartnered is considered subordinate to matrimony. It also aligns perfectly with church structures that prioritize the nuclear family, frequently leaving individuals who are not married yearning for profound emotional connection. Furthermore, this language finds an agreeable home within ecclesiastical paradigms where individuals oriented toward the same sex are exhorted to undertake endeavors aimed at altering their sexual orientation, and where the degree of their purported affection for Jesus is gauged by their perceived achievement or non-achievement in these undertakings.

In essence, SSA terminology harmonizes effortlessly with conventional evangelical Christianity, and this prevailing form of evangelical Christianity persists in its culpability concerning all the aforementioned issues.

To ensure unequivocal understanding, I am by no means asserting that individuals who employ SSA language are perpetually implicated in the contemporary challenges facing the church concerning sexual minorities. Indeed, I am acquainted with numerous admirable adherents of Jesus Christ who identify as 'same-sex attracted' and yet vociferously object to these particular aspects of the prevailing Christian norms. My gratitude for these companions runs deep, and I wholeheartedly encourage them in their commendable endeavors. Nevertheless, I occasionally ponder whether their election of a less provocative designation might, on occasion, cause the profound potency of their message to elude those who receive it.

When I choose to identify as 'gay' within evangelical settings, I am, in effect, performing the Christian-cultural equivalent of activating an emergency warning system. The term 'gay' unapologetically asserts the probable enduring nature of my condition throughout this earthly existence, simultaneously highlighting the imperative for Christian congregations to genuinely confront the reality of individuals like myself within their congregations. At the precise instant it is articulated, the word 'gay' inevitably serves as a critique of the prevailing evangelical order. Regardless of the specific approach, I would be delighted to witness an increasing number of my same-sex-attracted brethren and sororal companions join me in sounding this alarm.

Explore Grace/Truth!
An intimate group educational program specifically crafted to assist Christians in fostering dialogues concerning belief, sex, and identity.