Comments on: Ex-gay – Do terms matter?

By: ken

ken — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:24:37 +0000

I realize this discussion is a bit old. But I think this link is relevant. Pay attention to the introduction and how the newscasters describe the “Love Won Out” conference.

Also, take a look at some of the related links and how other news broadcasts described the conference. How well do you think “Love Won Out” is conveying the message about what it is they do?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30ocfYzdrwk&NR

By: Warren

Warren — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 19:30:14 +0000

Jim Burroway is covering this ground a bit over at Box Turtle Bulletin - he even has a survey.

By: Eddy

Eddy — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:03:49 +0000

Michael, I was completely in accord with your last comment until you assumed and assigned motives…or reading more into the situation than what is there. Yes, I did say that the term ‘ex-gay’ was intended to be ‘provocative’ but I did not say or mean that it was intended to ‘provoke’ as you suggested. Ex-gays then and now found themselves victimized by the media. If we made a charismatic sounding statement, we were portrayed as mindless chandelier swingers; if we tried to accommodate psychology’s terminology, they’d use those soundbites to make us sound schizo. It’s called “spin”. We didn’t aim to provoke in the sense of make angry or agitate; instead we wanted to provoke a deeper discussion…we wanted people to ask us what we meant by ex-gay so we could explain our faith and the rather unique challenges that faced us. We knew people brought pre-conceived notions to the table, that’s why we needed a new term but, as I said before, some pre-conceived notions run so deep that there’s no sensible way to deal with them. I still remember one honest question: So, are you a regular Christian or are you one of those born-again types? Think about it. The questioner obviously had notions of what they thought was a ‘regular Christian’ and what they thought was a ‘born-again’ and yet they were under the impression that they were asking a fair and open question. I think that may be the crux of it. We felt that the questions themselves were baited, biased and begging for a particular response. Most of us opted to speak from a faith framework under these circumstances. Our detractors would always choose to misunderstand but those who shared our bibical view would hear enough to pique their interest. Yes, we wanted media attention…but it wasn’t for money or personal gain, we simply wanted our network of like-minded sojourners to grow. Color me guilty!

One important thing has changed, though. Exodus has now begun making statements in political forums. Now, there isn’t just the confusing collision of psychology and christianity but politics is thrown into the mix. This is another area where I tend to agree with you. I wish Exodus would stay out of the political arena. I worry about sheep among wolves but I also see the tremendous potential for miscommunication and misinterpretation. I have shared my concerns with Alan Chambers at Exodus. I could not persuade him to my point of view and, while I can understand his motivations for political involvement, I still disagree.

Michael, I’ve got to tell you that the first part of your last comment was right on the mark. Not only accurate but also extremely well said. I only take exception to the ending as I elaborated above.

And Jim, thanks! Mine ‘dove-tailed’ with yours so closely that I felt I needed to clarify that I was actually responding to the one preceding it. But it did feel good to know that a few of us were starting to think and communicate along the same lines. Feels like progress to me! Time to go and enjoy the blizzard!

Peace all!

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:35:42 +0000

Ed,

When I read your comment (#11070), I actually thought you were using my comment as a jumping off point…

They say great minds think alike. I won’t tell anyone otherwise if you don’t. 😉

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 16:41:24 +0000

Responding to Ed: So “ex-gay” seems to have both a public and a private usefulness. One (the public use) is a “provocative” use of the word to attract media attendtion. The other is used to describe a wide variety of Christian individuals (celibate, bisexual or still homosexually oriented — but not straight) who need a way to refer to themselves in light of their commitment to be obedient to what they believe is God’s law.

Ex-gay doesn’t refer to a change from gay to straight or even the lessening of gay attractions. Instead, the term refers to a new “identity”, a different way of defining oneself and responding to homosexual impulses — even if sexual orientation never changes. It reminds me of various “rights of passage” in which a member of a group is given a “new name” to refer to a new status and purpose.

Read between the lines and Ed sounds like Dr. Throckmorton — Ed is not talking about changing people’s sexual orientation but just helping folks to live in accordance with their values. But that’s kinda boring, and it doesn’t attraction much media attention, huh Ed? For that reaction you need to switch to the “public use” and “provoke” the media with the still misleading term “ex-gay” — whether it is your intention to mislead or not..