If the chief end of you is you – then there can be no telos beyond that. Sure a conservative vision of what that looks like may fit your framework a whole lot more snugly and neatly than a progressive vision, but really, who is to say? Who can challenge you on that? That’s why, as those who challenged the surrogacy issue among conservative gay men found out, the progressives and conservatives are on the same page.

Pink Elephants
You know the funny little trick: “Quick! Don’t think about pink elephants!”
And suddenly, a herd of pachyderm of a particular colour palette are all that you can think about. Try as you might you cannot block them out, loud and incessant as they are with all of their florid trumpeting and vaguely violet stampeding. out of your.
Go on, give it a try: Think of pink elephants and then try not to. You know that you want to.
But, if you will allow me, now that pink elephants are firmly lodged in your grey matter, let’s keep the idea of them the boil. Let’s talk about the pink elephants of conservative politics and their alignment with Christian conservatives, (and I’m nailing my own colours to the mast here).
It’s been a good year or so for conservative Christians in terms of the air cover being provided to them by a whole range of secular conservatives, including a raft of what I will call “Pink Elephants”, namely politically conservative types (in the USA the Republican Party’s animal symbol is an elephant), who nevertheless have cherry-picked the Sexular Age, albeit it’s more modest – indeed conservative expressions.
And this is something picked up by the excellent Bethel McGrew, who has just written a timely article on the matter, in which she highlights what is going to be a growing divide among a group that for a brief moment has made for strange bedfellows – gay conservatives and conservative, orthodox Christians. You can read her article here, and I’ll refer to it more later on.
But here’s the context: Christians are finding that the likes of public intellect and author Douglas Murray (English so not technically an elephant), who is a gay man, goes in to bat for freedoms that Christians need, while all the time mocking the more outlandish expressions of the progressive “woke” framework in texts like his excellent The Madness of Crowds.
Indeed at the recent conservative ARC think-tank conference in London, Murray was one of the stars. Many Christians sat listening to him with rapt attention. He has much to say that is good and wise, and above all, sensible, in an age that has seemingly lost its sensibilities.
Meanwhile over there in Pink Elephant land itself, the likes of Dave Rubin, a gay married man with twins born through surrogacy, has been making an ass out of the Donkeys on the far left of the Democrats. I love listening to Rubin, he’s got an ease of style and a skewering sense of right and wrong (well, to a point).
Both men – along with the formidable Jewish journalist, Bari Weiss, a lesbian woman who is also married and has children with her partner, have bravely gone in to bat against all sorts of critical theory nonsense, as well as the chilling of free speech and freedom of association.
And these people, are championed by Christians who often find that their own faith is Kryptonite in the public square – a case of “But of course you’d say that, you’re one of those backward believers” and the like. It’s very hard to get a voice in a secular setting if you come with a Christian megaphone. The shibboleths and the rules of engagement are against you from the start. So to have such secular, conservative public credibility in your corner (and by credibility I mean non-heterosexual credibility) when debating the crazies, seems almost too good to be true.
When Pink Elephants Go Rogue
But here’s the problem. Pink Elephants are starting to go rogue. And they’re going rogue over the one thing that – you guessed it – sets secular conservatism apart from Christian orthodoxy. While acknowledging transcendence, secular conservative is primarily fuelled by the immanent frame of the “this is all there is” campaign that secular progressives assume, and upon which they are building a case for an earth-bound utopia.
There is a coming split among secular conservatives and orthodox Christians, and it simply be another battle around the same old, same old; The Sexular Age, only this time in the politically conservative camp.
McGrew’s article reports on a growing feud among conservatives in the USA, in which several orthodox Christians in the herd called out the pinkness of the elephant, and challenged the sexual framework that was underwriting cultural conservatives who celebrated the surrogacy births of gay men. And as you read her article, you realise that that got pretty hot pretty quick on all of the socials.
A celebration of the goodness of a surrogacy pregnancy was shot down by a conservative Christian in the mix who asked why we are celebrating this at all.
As I said, read the article to get the full context, but in considering the stoush, McGrew posits this excellent query: Should all conservatives, in the post same-sex-marriage age across the West, simply leave that issue behind and get on with creating a better society according to newly minted conservative values?
Should they, according to the vision of all elephants – be they pink or grey – simply shrug their shoulders before putting those wrinkly shoulders to the wheel and then, working together, try to shift society with the cultural materials that are still permitted to us by the progressives?
Is gay marriage a real thing that we should just hold a hand up to and make a secondary issue for the conservative vision? Or is it, in the words of Douglas Wilson (who I here quote approvingly), a case of same-sex-mirage?
Read More
Related Posts:

As Side B continues to grow, Hill says it has many gifts to offer the broader church, including robust understandings of spiritual friendship and singleness. “I think we challenge the way evangelicalism has often romanticized marriage and child rearing, as though if you want to be mature, you need to be married and having children,” he said.

(RNS)—When Grant Hartley first discovered he was gay at age 13, he adopted what he calls an “ex-gay mindset.” He saw his attractions as a sort of test, something he could overcome with faith. But no amount of prayer changed him.
“I started to think of it more as a gift, as a strength,” said Hartley, now 28 and openly gay. “Maybe there is something about the beauty I am able to see that straight men are not able to see.”
This kind of evolution isn’t unusual among the roughly 4-million LGBTQ Christians in the U.S. But perhaps less commonly, since coming out, Hartley has also chosen to pursue celibacy. While grateful for the experience of being gay, Hartley sees his gay identity as something that goes beyond just sex — “I never say that I’m grateful for same-sex sexual desire,” he said — it also includes aesthetics, culture and worldview.
Hartley is part of a small group of openly LGBTQ Christians who, while embracing their sexual orientation, also believe God designs sex and marriage to occur exclusively between a man and a woman. The group, called “Side B” (as opposed to Side A Christians who celebrate same-sex marriage and sex), is a largely virtual community that sits in a rare liminal space between two sides of a culture war.
Despite their relatively small numbers, the group is experiencing its own renaissance, with thought leaders (like Hartley) producing podcasts and publishing books and group members gathering at conferences.
Many credit Episcopal priest Wesley Hill, now an associate professor of New Testament at Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Michigan, with being one of the first to outline a “Side B” perspective in 2010. As Side B discourse was finding its way into online forums, the flagship Christian ex-gay organization Exodus International closed its doors in 2013 after decades of using conversion therapy on LGBTQ individuals. Many LGBTQ Christians who had been harmed by the ex-gay approach — but still held to traditional church teachings on marriage — turned to Side B for a more accepting community.
At first, Side B was mostly offering a theological pathway for Christians to both accept LBGTQ as a God-given identity and uphold a traditional stance on sex and marriage. Now, Hartley said, the group has taken on a cultural weight.
“Over time, Side B has felt less like a theological position and more like a distinct sub subculture,” he said.
Many Side B Christians feel called to celibacy, and a select few are in celibate same-sex partnerships or mixed-orientation marriages where one party is straight and the other is not. These experiences have led Side B Christians to develop alternate models of belonging that honor single, celibate lifestyles.
One such model, Hill says, is spiritual friendship, a deeply committed relationship that’s more spiritual vocation than casual Facebook acquaintance. Hill says these sorts of intentional, celibate friendships deserve public recognition and support. Side B folks also find community by creating chosen families — mutual support systems made up of non-related members — or, in the case of Eve Tushnet, through communal acts of service.
“There’s a wide range of ways to give and receive love,” said Tushnet, a gay celibate Catholic writer and speaker with a forthcoming book. “For me personally, my friendships are a huge part of that, and my volunteer work. I volunteer almost exclusively with women. That was the first thing I sought out, when I was trying to figure out, how am I going to lead a life that is in some ways shaped by the love of women.”
Read More

There is a position that when a man makes it public that he has homosexual desires to have sexual relations with other men, and he practices celibacy because he believes that change is possible (although unlikely), and because he mortifies this sin every day, and because he is of good character in every other way, then he is qualified to hold office in the PCA.

I recently contributed an article about the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) decision on the complaint against Missouri Presbytery (The Recent SJC Decision and Side B2 Homosexuality).  I believe I muddied the waters somewhat by stating the positions of others when some readers thought that those were actually my views. I apologize for that.
It’s time to be perfectly clear.  There are three positions on the status of those men who have made it public that are same-sex attracted (SSA),  that is, have homosexual desires to have sex with other men, but practice celibacy. Should they be allowed to hold an office in the PCA?
First, there is the position that when a man makes it public that he has homosexual desires to have sexual relations with other men, this automatically disqualifies him from holding office in the PCA.  Even though he practices celibacy, he is not qualified for the office of either elder or deacon. This sin is both an abomination to God and contrary to nature; therefore, he is not above reproach either with those inside the church or those outside the church.  Many of those who take this position regarding the ineligibility of such men to hold office in the PCA have already left the PCA, except for me and maybe a few other people.
Secondly, there is a position that when a man makes it public that he has homosexual desires to have sexual relations with other men, and yet he practices celibacy, this may disqualify him from holding office in the PCA.  If he remains celibate, but he believes that he was born this way and that there is no hope of change, then he is not qualified to hold office in the PCA.  These men most often believe their sin is no different than any other sin; for example, that of the lust that men have for women not their wives, a dry alcoholic, or the temptation to gamble. They may even believe that their condition is just like a person with a genetic disease.  A person with Down’s Syndrome cannot change his genetic inheritance, and neither can he.
Thirdly, there is a position that when a man makes it public that he has homosexual desires to have sexual relations with other men, and he practices celibacy because he believes that change is possible (although unlikely), and because he mortifies this sin every day, and because he is of good character in every other way, then he is qualified to hold office in the PCA (this is contrary to my view, but it is the position of most PCA elders).  Some of these men already hold office in the PCA, and they will continue to do so.  They are in good standing with either their own session or their own presbytery. Others like them will soon find a home in the PCA.  I call this man the third man.
The proposed changes to the BCO would allow for the third man to hold office in the PCA, after careful examination by his session or presbytery.  The PCA Study Committee on Human Sexuality states that there is nothing to prevent the third man from being eligible to hold office in the PCA. The recent Standing Judicial Commission decision made it legal for the third man to hold office in Missouri Presbytery.
There you have it. Pretty straight, I hope.  I would add one more thought.  The PCA is a little like the South during the Civil War which believed in states’ rights.  All local presbyteries and sessions have the right to determine their own membership. Regardless of the result of the proposed changes to the BCO, the conclusion of the PCA Study Committee, and the SJC decision, individual sessions and presbyteries will continue to apply the teaching of the Word of God and Westminster Standards to these issues, as they see fit!
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.