You’re absolutely, without a doubt, right, Timothy.

I give up. You win.

Point 1

Regarding your point #1 – the Christian worldview says we live in a fallen, imperfect and sinful world. People can’t escape being wounded by that sin in some way.

That was not at all what I was talking about. I was pointing out that the assumption that everyone has a “wounding that lead to false beliefs” that can be healed is a “one size fits all” idea that is doomed to failure. When you find those without these wounds that you assume exist, you aren’t prepared to deal with reality.

When faith runs into fact, it isn’t always fact that’s wrong. The history of Christianity is filled with those who had a “Christain viewpoint” and then went on to do evil and harm. Please don’t let your predetermined viewpoint outweigh the mind that God gave you.

Point 2

I know you think that you have defended your position. But – to my own (admitedly biased) perspective – you have actually illustrated my point.

I discussed the problems I have with ministries that go out and use language that has different meaning than what the hearer hears. And your response was to use more of this language. Please realize, Karen, that it really is improper to change the meanings of words like “orientation” and then use them in a public setting without explaining the change. It’s very very similar to Bill Clinton telling the public he didn’t have sex with that woman, but not telling them that he had redefined the word sex. It’s frustrating. And I believe that it is wrong because – intentional or not – it is deception.

I have no problem with using the term “same-sex attracted” and in this venue I generally do. However, you have to realize that there are persons who are same-sex attracted and there are those who are not. And regardless of anyone’s desire to dance around this fact, it remains.

And the rest of the world calls this distinction (which does exist as an identifier between those who are same-sex attracted and those who are not) “orientation”. You may not like the word and don’t have to use it. But you cannot decide it means something else entirely.

I think the ex-gay ministries would do themselves a favor if instead of deciding that there is some Christian vocabulary that supercedes the one that has definite meanings, they would just said what they meant. And saying “my identity is in God” does not change the recognition that some people have different colored skin, taller bodies, foreign origins, and same-sex attractions nor does it remove the words race, height, nationality, or orientation from the lexicon.

It is not idolatry to say “I’m black” or “I’m Irish” or “I’m gay” (or “I’m same-sex attracted” if you prefer). We can disagree about what that means in regards to behavior, but you don’t get to decide that “idolatry” has a new meaning which includes recognition of simple facts.

Point 3

We can disagree about whether it is moral to destroy a mind to save a soul. I don’t want to argue that point because we don’t have a common agreement on what is acceptable and appropriate for same-sex attracted Christians.

But please, Karen, don’t say that your “ministry doesn’t force anyone to do anything about their sexual desires and behavior.”

On the day that you stop lobbying, writing articles, and marching in rallies to enforce laws that adversely effect the lives of gay people, then you can start thinking that you don’t force anyone to do anything. On the day that you stop giving cover for General Pace or Ann Coulter or any of the others who give society permission to harrass and disparage gay people you can begin thinking that you don’t use force. And on the day that you stop saying that protecting children from abuse or seeking to protect one’s loved ones is “pushing a homosexual agenda” we can start the discussion about force. And don’t tell me “I don’t personally do that” because you are a willing and active part of a movement that does exactly that, and I don’t hear you standing up to Alan Chambers and Regina Griggs and Peter LaBarbera.

Your movement makes it perfectly clear that gay people have a choice: reorient or lose your job. Reorient or lose your housing. Reorient or don’t serve your country. Reorient or lose your health insurance. Ex-gay leaders have lobbied on ALL of these positions.

Sorry if I seem intolerant of this claim. But it isn’t true and I’m sick of hearing it.

I’m not totally opposed to ex-gay efforts, Karen, but I am opposed to deception, arrogance, and abuse. All I ask is that you quit knee-jerk justification and take a good hard look at what you do and ask yourself if it wouldn’t be better to be fully honest, humble about your assumptions, and whether loving your neighbor includes taking away health insurance and parental rights.

A mature understanding of Scripture is able to distinguish between the literal and metaphorical. Jesus was using metaphor in the statements that you quoted. (Which is also sometimes true of the Prophets as well.) The passages about sexuality found in the Law and Pastoral Letters are literal, though still subject to interpretation.

FYI – I don’t serve a local congregation, though I did for almost 20 years. I was pretty consistent about sharing the hard realities of Scripture with them, regardless of the issue.

Also, regarding discussions of religious doctrine. I am reasonably tolerant of this as long as the tone is tolerant. Given that our frequent topics and my personal interests lie in the intersection of sexuality, religion and public policy, such discussions are relevant. But I do not want to see arguments about who is right. We probably all believe we are right in our view or else we wouldn’t hold to it. However, there will be no understanding or reflection if folks are yelling at each other.

I think what you are doing is dishonest.

You claim that you are trying to teach people Scriptural values. Answer me this: is loving your family members a “scriptural value”? No, it is not. Jesus was very clear about this when he said the following:

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14:26

Is self-mutilation as a means to avoid sin a “scriptural value”? Yes, it is. Jesus was again very clear when he said the following:

“If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'” Mark 9:43-47

I know you are a pastor, so you are used to “interpreting” scripture in order to make it appealing to your congregants. So before you respond, let me head you off at the pass because it’s integral to my point about you being mendacious.

In the first case, you’re probably going to say, “It says hate, but it really means love less.” This is such disgusting spin, because, while it is true that if I hate someone I do, in fact, love them less than someone whom I don’t hate, it is also true that I do not love the person I hate at all! Calling hate “loving less” is an attempt to disguise the fact that a hated person is not loved at all.

In the second case, you’re probably going to say, “Jesus was speaking metaphorically and insisting that harsh measures need to be taken to combat sin.” Fair enough, but by what standard did you judge Jesus’ words in this instance to be a “metaphor”? You obviously didn’t use scripture as a standard, because scripture is the very thing being interpreted.

So my question for you is this: if you can spin Jesus’ mandates that you must hate your family members and dismember yourself to avoid sin, why are liberal Christians wrong when they spin biblical injunctions against homosexuality? Why is it that the “gays are evil” passages are literal whereas others have malleable meanings?

Is it because gays are a safe target for condemnation?

Is it because you modify the meanings of passages that would otherwise affect your own lifestyle?