Last night, on the organization blog, Exodus International denounced recent statements by Bradlee Dean and You Can Run International regarding the morality of gay executions. The post Randy Thomas begins:
I was alerted to Dr. Warren Throckmorton’s post about Bradlee Dean’s (pictured) public comments saying that Muslim countries who call for homosexuals to be killed are more “moral” than American Christians. I listened to the segment of Mr. Dean’s radio program and was shocked. Click here to visit Warren’s blog and listen to Mr. Dean’s comments.
We called our contacts in Minnesota and apparently Mr. Dean is somewhat known in Christian circles there. They have run into him a couple of times but have not appreciated his strident tone. They were as upset by his statements as we are. I would imagine he will be getting a few phone calls.
What might those phone callers say?
Using Old Testament scriptures to condemn a person to death is not “loving” … it is incomplete theology and powerfully irresponsible. To say that murderous actions are more “moral” than tolerating free will is to completely ignore that Jesus did not call for the deaths of sinners. He died and paid the price for all of our sin, including those of us who have or do struggle with homosexuality. He paid that transcendent price and still left us with the free will to believe in Him or not. That’s what makes faith in Him authentic and not coerced.
Putting down the stones of condemnation and serving others with humility, dignity and respect is the Christlike response. According to Jesus Himself, selfless sacrifice has much more moral authority than the false piety of humans judging other humans guilty of breaking the law and deserving of social stigmatization and/or death.
As an aside, homosexuality seems to bring out the inner-Moses in a lot Christians these days. Calls to harshly criminalize homosexuality based on Mosaic law leave lots of questions about what other actions would be included in the long arm of current law (e.g., adultery, parent cursing, bearing false witness). Thomas goes on to summarize the behavior of Christ toward those who were outcasts in his society and shunned by the Pharisees — any casual reader of the New Testament knows that legislative solutions were not in Christ’s playbook.
On the other hand, the You Can Run folks are hung up on law being the remedy. On their YouTube page, one of the Sons of Liberty (except for people you disagree with) calls for the state of Minnesota to enforce the sodomy law which was set aside by the Supreme Court. This video is consistent with their recent statements, made from the Heritage Foundation, praising African nations for prosecuting homosexuals.
Liberty is not just for people of your faith. Freedom, if it means anything, means the freedom to choose your beliefs and guide your moral life.
I’m good with that AS LONG AS future character insinuations and statements that call my motives into question are screened from publication by the moderator if they don’t contain any evidence to support them. I don’t appreciate having my character or motives called into question in a forum that doesn’t require such allegations to be supported.
TImothy/Eddy – Let me agree with TImothy on this. I would rather the thread stay on the issue and not get into an analysis of commenter’s moods or disposition. It is too hard to do online and it detracts from the thread.
Eddy,
I fear that doing the cut-and-paste of what led me to think I detected resentment would only feel like an attack on you. I would rather not do this, unless you insist. I don’t think it would be pleasant and would likely only lead to greater animosity.
I’m thankful that 99% of the conversations I have do not hinge on whether I believe sexual orientation to be a valid construct and I’m saddened that you believe that I have to believe in order for meaningful conversation to take place. But I can accept your limitations. (Please do consider however that I directed my statement about my beliefs to Alan…he and I have had meaningful conversation on that topic. He and I will likely continue to have meaningful conversation on that topic. His most recent comment to that effect was:As for “sexual orientation” I just don’t care–nor do I live my life beholden to the narrow parameters people say we must fit into, sexually or otherwise. He doesn’t reject it as strongly as I do; neither does he embrace it to the extent that you do.)
It sure would be nice if you could point out the specific comments that you may have mistaken or misunderstood. It’s fine to say “That strikes me like you’re saying or you feel thus and such”…very, very important to point to one or more actual statements or I won’t learn. Beyond that, though, the public guessing of attitudes and motives limits YOUR ability to have a meaningful conversation.
Although I’ve tried to restrain it, this particular comment does have a tinge or two of sarcasm. The best I can tell, I’m reacting to a sense that you’re coming across like ‘the thought police’. Reading into statements, reinterpreting statements, hinting at unspoken motives, offering advice, advising on which thoughts are unacceptable. It feels like a curious mix of condescension and coercion that’s got me bristling just a bit.
Eddy
Perhaps I’m mistaken and misunderstood your comments. Perhaps you feel no resentment whatsoever.
And I agree that our perspectives about what “those who identify by their orientation” are like are based on very different experiences. Although I do know gay people from around the world – including Minnesota – I most likely do not know the people whom were your friends when you lived in Minneapolis.
And as for whether you accept sexual orientation as a valid construct, well that’s up to you. it only limits your ability to have meaningful conversation.
Timothy–
The entire ‘orientation’ detour started here after you had suggested that I was up for jailing people just for being gay:
I responded that I thought this statement (since it echoed some of my recent words) was a personal slam and I then went on to clarify to Alan how it was not a true echo of my position.
I was clarifying, in a comment directed to Alan that you, in trying to speak for me, were getting things a bit twisted and since I’ve already had dialogues with Alan re the concept of ‘orientation’ and the problems with it, that was a clear point to show where you were putting words in my mouth.
Your response was not that you hadn’t been snidely referring to me but rather to correct me on my stance on orientation by directing me to the piece you had written. Now, let’s put that in perspective. You attempt to speak my position for me and get it a tch wrong. I clarify my position to that person. You attempt to show me the error of my belief. Your attempts don’t change the beliefs that I clarified to Alan. We wrangle over it because you haven’t managed to change those beliefs. And in conclusion you say:
To sum up your conclusion: Look, Eddy, ex-gay is not an orientation. (With the clear implication that ‘Yes, the construct exists and is valid, and ex-gay isn’t in it.) Or to put it another way, “When you told Alan that you didn’t believe in the ‘orientation construct’, I corrected you. I told you how it is. You don’t believe it but I’m telling you it’s so. Man up!”
You then infer that I resent folks who have made the other decision. I have ONLY been defending my right to NOT believe in the orientation construct, can you show me any statements that indicate I resent people ‘who have made the other decision’? What I clearly resent is people telling ME what to think and how to believe and people putting words in my mouth. I think you’ll likely find evidences of THAT resentment but the charge is ‘that I resent folks who have made the other decision’. I need for you to support that charge from my words.
The remainder of your post may simply be attributable to geographical social differences. My only exception to it is your presumption that your view is the correct one and to disagree means ‘that I really don’t know gay folk at all’. I had numerous gay friends in Minneapolis, couldn’t get them to come to karaoke because it wasn’t in a ‘gay bar’…even though I had assured them that the bar was ‘gay friendly’. I’d suggest going out to eat and we’d have to go to the place with ‘the gay waiters’. Maybe it’s simply the difference between California and Minnesota. I’ve never hung out in California so can’t speak to those differences. I do know that there’s a significant difference in the gay community where I now live and the community in Minneapolis. For one thing, in Minneapolis there was a pretty strong sense of ‘community’ and there were known areas of town that were particularly ‘gay friendly’. We don’t seem to have that here. Seems like there’s a small area downtown that’s actually ‘gay friendly’ and that the rest is ‘gay tolerant.’. You get out to the ‘burbs where I live and even ‘tolerant’ is too generous a word.
I’m beginning to think that perhaps California has been ‘out and proud’ so long that the newness of saying ‘I’m a gay this or that’ has worn off. Minneapolis, though out and proud, came to that later than California and haven’t lost it yet. And my current area, barely out and proud at all by comparison. Many, rather than declare themselves to be a ‘gay anything’, are still rather closeted publicly.
I was a tad put-out that rather than say ‘gay people aren’t like that everywhere’, you chose instead to judge that I don’t know gay people well at all and to presume that your personal experience is the measure for all gay people.
“We use “gay” to clarify mostly…”
Someday I’ll learn to read closely before hitting submit
Eddy,
I don’t have a problem with the term ex-gay. But we were talking about sexual orientation and (whether PFOX likes it or not) ex-gay is not an orientation.
Look, Eddy, don’t be gay. Be ex-gay.
Really. I am not for a moment suggesting you should do otherwise. You have chosen a path that gives meaning to you. You have based your decisions on your values and crafted your life.
But don’t resent folks who have made other decision. And sometimes you say things that make me think that you don’t understand gay folk that well.
We really don’t go around putting “gay” before everything, you know. I’m a gay bowler, I”m a gay accountant, I’m a gay singer, I’m a gay blueberry farmer. Wow that would be odd.
I think that other folk use that a lot more than we do, especially the media. We then to clarify mostly when it’s relevant (when looking for an accountant to make sense of inconsistent tax laws for gay couples, for example) or when under attack.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone actually say, “I’m a gay parent” outside of defending gay parents from some smear or lie.
Timothy-
First, I appreciate the tone of this latest response. I do hear what you’re saying…especially the concern about how using SSA will likely morph into the same generalizations. I still feel that there’s something bigger going on with the construct of orientation but I’m obviously not being successful at getting that across.
I do puzzle over this:
I don’t understand all the objection to the term ‘ex-gay’…which to me says all that and, btw, usually gets the same dislike response. Why the necessity to somehow quantify how ‘ex’ my ‘exness’ is or isn’t? It seems to create a focus that isn’t necessary. It’s a personal journey and believe me it’s very fluid…with the fluidity sometimes running in both directions (but usually not at the same time).
For those who identify by their orientation, it also seems to put sexuality as an identifier above all other things. Rather than “I’m a Christian”, it’s “I’m a gay Christian”. Rather than “I’m a parent”, it’s “I’m a gay parent”. It’s as if the gay identity somehow modifies the meaning of the word that follows. On one level, we hear ‘but we’re just like the heteros except for who we partner with’ but the presence of that ever-present modifier suggests that there are differences.
I think we can agree that there are real differences implied by the use of the modifier. A ‘gay Christian’ is likely to be a tch more liberal in their theology. A ‘gay parent’, much like a ‘single parent’, has unique parenting challenges. For the ‘ex-gay’, the ‘gay’ modifier isn’t appropriate in that it doesn’t communicate who they are and doesn’t give a clear and honest picture of their sexuality. It does not help them to be seen for who they are.
We all know that labelling does more than just label. After all, isn’t that what the objection to the label ‘ex-gay’ was all about. “Some won’t understand; some will think that it means you no longer experience homosexual attractions.” People read into labels. In any conversation that goes for more than a 5 second soundbite, the ex-gay explains this reality. In my ministry days, it was pretty much the focus of my teachings…Reckoning with the Roots, Lessons for the Battlefield, etc. I avoided using phrases like ‘it’s a daily struggle’ because, quite honestly, for many it’s not a struggle in any real sense of the word. It’s no more than the daily ‘struggle’ of any Christian man in a world that offers lots of sexual suggestion and opportunity. An individual, whether single or married, who has found a sense of personal fulfillment can go days or weeks without any conflict whatsoever. Why label oneself by it when it’s not that big a deal? (I try to imagine a man waking up every morning and saying “I’m a heterosexual”…or announcing that to anyone… More than likely, he wakes up thinking “I’m a working man and I’d better get moving”. On the way to work he might drive by some ‘eye candy’. Does he stop to remind himself, “yes, I’m a heterosexual and that looks tasty”? or “Oh yes, that’s the kind I like”. I’m sure some do! But I think the healthier ones have a very momentary recognition and then their thoughts are on to something else.
Unlike the Birthers and the Flat-Earthers, those who reject the construct of sexual orientation aren’t so alone. I believe it’s the Wiki piece on orientation that actually acknowledges that some scientists and some nationalities don’t accept the construct. I don’t believe you’d find such a qualifier re Birthers and Flat-Earthers. That particular door, although close to being shut, isn’t shut yet. As for being thought of in a category similar to Birthers and Flat-Earthers, it isn’t the rejection of the construct that brings that on. I can (and do) get the very same response simply by saying I’m ‘ex-gay’ or that ‘I’m homosexually attracted but choose to remain chaste for religious reasons’.
Another thought about the identification issue: There are certainly times when it’s appropriate to say “I’m a sinner saved by grace” but most Christians seldom stop with “I’m a sinner”…the ‘saved by grace’ part is a significant part of their identification. Saying “I’m a homosexual” and leaving off the ‘saved by grace’ part omits a significant part of the identification. BUT since we now have both homosexuals that believe it’s a sin and others who believe it’s a gift, the ‘saved by grace’ part no longer provides the clarification of identify.
A quirky side note: I went out last night and although I didn’t ‘desire’ or ‘lust after’ anyone, I found myself noticing the breasts of two different women all evening long. It wasn’t a flash of heterosexuality. It was simply that their attire accentuated their breasts. LOL. They wanted to be noticed and they got noticed. They drew attention to their breasts and my attention got drawn too. It humored me only because such sights used to actually produce a negative and aversive reaction in me. I neither celebrated nor felt any guilt. How much easier life must have been back in the days when both genders kept everything pretty much ‘under wraps’. Perhaps that’s why there was no pressure to identify by orientation…sex wasn’t ‘in your face’ as much as it is today.
Eddy,
I wanted to talk in broad terms before answering your specific questions. Now I will try to do the latter. I hate the cut and paste format, but I think it may be the only way to address each question.
By “defining”, I think you are talking about what one does with one’s sexual orientation. For example, I think you are objecting to the idea that if one has a homosexual orientation then society expects you to behave in a certain manner, like certain artists, live in certain locations, etc.
Eddy, those “defining” expectations are really the burden that all humans bear. If you’re “Italian from New Jersey” there are some very strong assumptions about your clothing, hair, and speech. If you are “Southern Baptist” then people assume this defines your cultural experience and tolerance.
But that doesn’t mean that we reject ethnicity or religion as terms.
But, Eddy, this is only a “what you do with it” difference. It’s very important to you, but it doesn’t take away from the categorization.
I think you read WAY too much into my inclusion of romantic and affection. This is not a tick-the-box definition. I simply added these so as to include crushes, infatuation, and falling in love, which could be argued as not being strictly sexual in nature but which also tend to follow sexual orientation attractions.
Pretty much the same thing we do when some straight guy is sexually attracted to a woman (or women) but feels no romantic or affection attractions.
It doesn’t mean he’s gay. He may be a player or he may be immature or he may just have difficulty seeing women as something other than an object, but it has no reflection on his sexual orientation.
I think you are speaking about the idea of romance, not about actually falling in love.
Let me give you an example from the straight world. I’ve seen guys who really loved a woman, admired her, thought she was a great match, but when it came down to sexual feelings they just weren’t there. He loved her… he just wasn’t in love with her.
Often a gay guy will love a woman. He’ll admire her, enjoy her company, and care very much about her. But they don’t very often fall in love with a woman.
And when they do, it seldom lasts.
We could hunt up exceptions and list them, but exceptions don’t prove anything other than the complexity of humanity. And if we based our lives on rare exceptions, we would not live long. Yes we’ve seen the video of the lion who adopted the baby giraffe, but that isn’t something I’d advise giraffes to take to heart.
No. We do not weigh them equally. Sexual attraction is the defining attraction. It is what determines sexual orientation. The other two follow most of the time but they are not defining.
And we have to be careful about how we treat these. A desire to be married is not the same as a desire for women. A romantic notion about having a wife and child is not the same thing as being romantically attracted to women.
No, we are not. Sexual orientation is defined by sexual attraction.
Nope. Affection is not the defining characteristic.
Never ever in the history of discussing sexual orientation has any living soul proposed equating having friends with sexual orientation.
I don’t think we’ll start today.
Often gay men, of a certain age, first told their friends that they were bisexual, even if they’ve never felt a smidgen of attraction to women. It was a way of testing the waters for reaction before coming fully out.
So sometimes when someone with clearly no opposite sex attraction will say they are bisexual, gay men will joke about it. “Bi now, gay later.” This doesn’t mean that most gay people deny the idea of bisexuality as an orientation.
And what would it mean if some did? That a few folk are ignorant would certainly say nothing about the validity of sexual orientation as a descriptive category.
That’s because bisexuality and “the ex-gay condition” are not a subset of each other.
“Ex-gay” includes those who are exclusively homosexual in orientation, those who experience attraction to both sexes, and some who claim that they are now exclusively heterosexual in attraction.
I’ve answered. Did it impact your thinking?
The concept of a round earth has “no value” to those who never venture off the farm. It doesn’t make it invalid.
And frankly, Eddy, much of the putting down and minimizing has nothing to do with whether sexual orientation is used.
Some people, gay or straight, are going to continue to say, “he’s a homosexual and he should just get over it and accept it.”
That’s going to be true even if you stand and declare “there’s no such thing as a homosexual, only a heterosexual with homosexual temptations.” Except then they’ll start laughing at you, and who wants that?
I don’t think that looking for validation from those who don’t share your values is the bast path to happiness.
I think your being considered ‘not valid’ as a community is due to an insistence on publicly defining yourselves in ways that are not sustainable.
For years, ex-gays have gone the “former homosexual” route in as public a venue as possible. But then many of the “former homosexuals” were discovered to have had lapses. And others were presented as “no longer gay” to audiences who nodded but really though, “are you kidding, he’s gay as a junebug.”
No offense is intended by this, but the ex-gay community has presented a string of folks as “no longer homosexual” who, frankly, just don’t come across as straight. I know that stereotypes are not how we should judge people, but when the majority of ex-gays seem more like Jack than Will, it’s hard for folks to buy in.
And that’s not due to the term “sexual orientation”.
Actually, perhaps adopting the idea of sexual orientation could lead to greater visibility. Maybe there would be more visibility, if people had something to actually visualize.
“Homosexuals who live according to a conservative sexual ethic” is readily believable. That takes no imagination, no suspicion, and everyone already knows that such folk exist. It’s easy to respect, as well.
Nor would there be hostility. No one objects to those who live according to their values. Objection comes in when they say “I’m no longer homosexual” and imply “and you shouldn’t be either.” Or when they use their own sexual choices as justification to deny civil rights to gay people.
No, because you are trying to define birds by what they do, not what they are. Someone could argue “I reject the construct of genus because some animals have different behavior”. But that isn’t very helpful.
I would just say that genus is a useful tool for categorization. And the genus “bird” includes critters, most of which fly but some of which do not. And if penguins are offended by being called birds or by assumptions which come with being called birds, that doesn’t change the fact that they are birds.
Similarly, sexual orientation is a useful tool for categorization. And the term homosexual includes critters, most of who accept their same sex attractions and some who do not.
To All,
I have been truly edified by the Christian charity shown in this discussion. I have rarely seen in the ‘real’ world, let alone the ‘virtual’ world, people with opposing points of view on such a sensitive topic engage in such reasoned, non-judgmental, tolerant, forgiving courtesy.
I have learned much reading this thread; principally, how better to love my neighbor. Please accept my gratitude to each and everyone of you for making this possible.
Eddy,
I think your latest comment highlights your real concerns about sexual orientation. You fear that using such a measurement would categorize ex-gays in with homosexuals and make them invisible.
I’m listening to that concern. But I think that your objection to sexual orientation does not solve your problem.
You acknowledge that there is such a thing as a same-sex attracted person. And you accepted SSA as a term to describe such persons, be they living as gay or living as ex-gay. So you have accepted the notion of a distinction based on attractions – you just don’t want it called “sexual orientation” because of what you think that descriptive demands.
But here’s your problem: suppose you could get social scientists, newspaper columnists, bloggers and health science teachers to use SSA. Suppose that this because the new standard.
It would be very little time until that term too took on assumptions. As the vast majority of SSA people dated folks of the same sex, established relationships, and created families, these would come to be associated with “that’s what SSA people do”.
And you’d still have ex-gays lumped right in with gay folk. And ex-gays would still be invisible – because they are far too small of a demographic to influence assumption and expectation.
Eventually, Eddy, you have to accept that society is going to use some term to differentiate between those who are primarily attracted to the same sex and those who are primarily attracted to the opposite sex. And arguing over the extremes, the rare cases, or the exceptions will only make your argument seem irrational to the culture.
If you truly want to distinguish yourself from homosexuals and not be tarred with the same brush, just use the common and accepted language and clearly tell folks who you are.
Outside of this blogsite, “I have a homosexual orientation but I believe that God wishes me to live a chaste life and I hope to some day experience heterosexual attraction” makes sense to everyone. They may dislike your choices, but that is their problem, not yours.
But saying outside this blogsite, “I reject the construct of sexual orientation” really only makes you seem like you are in the same category as Birthers and Flat-Earthers. Rather than clarify, it dismisses you.
Thanks, Timothy. I hope to find common ground, as well.
Alan,
As a Californian, 2008 is still a bit raw. But, nevertheless, I very much commend your decision to walk away from policy issues.
Believe it or not, one of my goals is to find a common ground between Exodus and the gay community. While I disagree with your theology, your assumptions about the origins and perhaps mutability of sexual attraction, and your perspectives on social issue, I don’t think that we need be enemies.
I support the choices you have made for yourself. I agree that sexual orientation need not dictate the parameters of your life and I hope and pray that your decisions continue to fill you with contentment and happiness.
If I misunderstood the factors leading to Wendy’s separation, I apologize for my assumptions. I was greatly disappointed by that separation – and the subsequent inclusion of some voices of intolerance and hostility – and may have jumped to some conclusions that were not accurate.
And I’ve reread the article about the Canadian lesbians and it did not, as I incorrectly recalled, call her salvation into question. I was wrong, and I’m sorry. But I still wish that there were friendlier voices at Exodus.
I look forward to reading the distinctions that you have made to separate your views from those of LaBarbera and Co. I’m always pleased to find commonality.
Timothy–
Because it’s become more than descriptive…it’s become defining. When something doesn’t quite fit the descriptive category and we insist on forcing it in anyway, it becomes defining. The entire premise behind categorization is to help us recognize and appreciate the differences. When we try to jam the ex-gay into the homosexual category, we erase a very significant difference.
By this definition, what do we do when someone has sexual attractions to their own gender but none or little romantic or affection attractions? How do we respond when someone has romantic and affection attractions to the opposite gender but their sexual attraction leans more towards their same gender? When we speak of fluidity (or the lack thereof) do we weigh all three of those components equally…do we merge them together and forget that they are three different attractions?
When we identify by the orientation, aren’t we led into reinterpreting our affectional attractions? A person may have affectional attractions to persons of both genders but would sometimes confuse their affectional attractions with persons of their identified preference. (A hetero male has close female friends…no sexual attraction, no romantic attraction…just affection. Do we automatically presume that it’s a package deal and that the other attractions are lurking just below the surface? In short, do we start equating affectional attraction to sexual attraction?)
I do recognize that in the sciences, bisexual does exist as a category. My issues with it though are associated more with ‘common usage’. It tends to convey that an individual embraces their attractions to both genders. Common street usage often suggests that ‘there’s no such thing’…that a bisexual is simply a homosexual who won’t admit it or that their heterosexuality is a result of cultural persuasion and their homosexuality is really who they are. I don’t think I’ve ever read or heard a treatment of bisexuality that acknowledges the ex-gay condition. Who wants to be invisible?
I don’t expect answers to these questions…each and every question I’ve posed thus far has been rejected. I’m simply saying that as long as these questions exist, me and mine are likely going to reject the construct of orientation. It has no value to us and, at times, is used put us down and to minimalize the path we’ve chosen. I’m sure that quite often our resistance is fueled by a bias…we refuse to accept invisibility. Invisibility makes us feel that we have been deemed ‘not valid’.
LOL. You brought up the penguins. I can’t help but think that if penguins could communicate, they’d be protesting now and again about how, although science has rightly categorized them, people carelessly overlook them in their everyday usage. “Q: What is a bird? A: An animal that can fly.” And the careless everyday usage forgets not only the penguin but also about the bat that flies yet isn’t a bird or the squirrel that appears to fly but actually glides or the many insects (flies, bees, butterflies, etc.). So, a quick read might overlook any problems with the basic Q & A but the afterthoughts reveal that the language could stand to be a bit more precise…sometimes more inclusive, sometimes more exclusive.
Alann,
🙂 🙂 🙂
Timothy,
You are correct, what one in Exodus does we all do. I will give you that. I did speak at one event related to Prop 8 in 2008 via satellite. And, I know that Exodus and I are virtually indistinguishable. As for those outside of my office who speak on policy issues, I cannot control that or put up a hard and fast rule that says no one who has membership in Exodus can speak on policy. However, there are regular discussions in the membership about how that is carried out. I hope that the fact that my staff and I have not spoken on policy issues since 2008 is a helpful guide for where our priorities are.
We believe that ministry is our mission and we have done very well keeping our focus there.
As for Wendy, I have never called into question her or anyone else’s salvation. You tell me you have a relationship with Christ I say okay. Wendy left Exodus before we had any conflict. In fact, it was her leaving that caused the conflict. I will own my part of the conflict but she left, she was not kicked out nor were we considering kicking her out. There are differences we have but I wish Wendy well and think of her often. She was a very helpful encourager and supporter of mine at a time I dearly needed one and for that I am extremely grateful.
Not sure what you mean by coming up with “stuff like this”. Do you mean challenging the spin you put on things? You go a little over the top in your assessment of things—that I called Wendy’s salvation into question, kicked her out of Exodus, etc. It’s an overreaction and I am not sure whether it’s because you are just mad and go emotional or whether you just read into things and then believe them.
As for LaBarbera, I will ask Randy to pull up the links to the posts he has done on both Peter and Matt. Our differences with them are stark and documented.
As for “sexual orientation” I just don’t care–nor do I live my life beholden to the narrow parameters people say we must fit into, sexually or otherwise. And, I am not the example people need to live by. I think we’ve done quite well making that point over the last 4 years.
As for my daily prayer asking the Lord to help me deny what comes naturally to me. Don’t you pray that prayer as a Christian? There are a lot of things that come natural to us humans and they ain’t all good. So, while ssa might be a part of that prayer there are a few other things that are covered, as well. By the grace of God I have never once had to pray about being faithful to my wife—that is a desire that has never wavered and I am grateful that such a struggle isn’t one I live with.
Glad to dialogue….sometimes. 🙂
Alan
Michael,
True. And for the sake of Alan’s wife, family, and his own sense of morality, I hope that God continues to grant him that strength.
Alan seems to acknowledge the reality of sexual orientation. It’s in today’s official policy statemtent:
“Exodus International opposes the criminalization of homosexual behavior as conducted by consensual adults in private. We strongly oppose the imprisonment, mistreatment, or death of homosexual men and women on the basis of their perceived or known sexual orientation. These actions breed cultural violence and institutionalized shame, neither of which reflect God’s redemptive heart.”
Interesting. Whatever you call it, Alan says he has to pray daily for the strength to “deny that which comes naturally” for him.
(ugh… more typos)
And whatever it is that Alan’s sexual orientation is, he has one.
That’s just silliness.
No one credible rejects bisexuality as an orientation. No one is using “triggers” in some technical way.
I’m beginning to share Nick’s suspicions that you want to make impossible for other people to have a real discussion with you. You do seem to have a very real fear of clear language.
I once had a high school English teacher who would say, “If you can’t put it in words then you don’t understand it.” I think perhaps that you don’t want to understand it.
Eddy,
No, sexual orientation is not muddled in most people’s minds. It is, as Nick stated, a very clear concept.
We don’t define terms by the exception, by the possible exemption, by the anomaly. But that simply isn’t very honest or useful. To do so is a bit like the guy who argues that birds don’t exist because penguins can’t fly.
And to debate Alan’s sexual orientation would likely be a bit too personal and be offensive to him and to you. And then we’d be at war again.
I’ll just accept that some guys who are primarily same-sex attracted can cultivate a sexual attraction to one woman to the exclusion of all others while still maintaining his primarily same-sex attractions.
Whatever it is that Alan experiences with his wife is fine; I’ve no quibble with that. But Alan is not the measure by which the term sexual orientation is defined any more than a penguin is the measure by which we define birds. And whatever it Alan’s that sexual orientation is, he has one.
And I don’t know what you so fear about sexual orientation. The term is a description, not an imperative. We all have one, but what you do with it is your own deal.
There’s no “so-called science”. It’s all very clear and simple.
We simply recognize – well, other than you, other ex-gays, Peter Heck and other anti-gay activists – that sexual orientation is a term that describes the orientation of ones sexual/romantic/affection attractions.
Why is it so impossible to see this descriptive term as it is?
NickC–
I wish it were as simple as the definition from Answers.com but it isn’t.
I’ll cite an example. Alan Chambers once identified as homosexual. He now has a very happy and fulfilled marriage and family. He IS sexually attracted to his wife.
According to a basic reading of the Answers.com definition, he is heterosexual. Even if he has occasional homosexual temptations (I suspect so but don’t know), what is his preference?
On Wikipedia, Michael Bussee has stated that he doesn’t know of a single person who has become ‘heterosexual’? Was that from the Answers.com definition?
The quick avoidance answer is ‘well, then he’s bisexual’. (Insert sound of a ‘wrong answer’ buzzer here.) Because the science is incomplete, many reject ‘bisexual’ as an orientation. You must push the bisexual to determine which sex they prefer. No wait, you must push them to find out which sexual experience more optimally ‘flips their trigger’. Oh, it’s all about triggers? What then do we make of those other components of sexuality? Do triggers trump them all?
I have major issues with the so-called science behind ‘orientation’ and all discussions here want to gloss over or ignore any questions that might lead us to an understanding. Then we degenerate into characterizations and challenges. I’m up for challenges…been through quite a few in my years on this blog. But, my questions are challenges too…and all I see is an attempt to deem them invalid. I’m good with that. You can see them as invalid; Timothy can see them as invalid. Surprise, though! I see them as valid and will continue to raise them. And when someone, in the name of science, claims ‘to have the answer’, I’ll raise them yet again and see if they were even considered on the way to that answer. I’ll continue to cry out “The emperor has no clothes!”
Checking out for now. Chicken wings are calling.
Ah, Timothy, you don’t me and can’t begin to understand how I respond in any given situation. Please stop pretending that you can.
Yes, we are at a stalemate once again. Hopelessly polarized. You talk around that ‘orientation’ is not scientifically proven…nor will you discuss how muddled the term is in most people’s minds. And, given that you won’t give my musings the time of day, it’s so odd that you keep insisting that I adhere to yours.
I’ve wasted too much time here already. We both know that there’s zero possibility for a productive conversation to occur between us.
In the first sentence, I meant “your insistence.”
Eddy, I remain puzzled by our insistence on rolling so many meanings into the phrase “sexual orientation.” There are numerous definitions of the term available, and they all agree on just one simple primary meaning:
The direction of one’s sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes.
(That one came from Answers.com.)
Understood on that basis level, sexual orientaion is simply a fact about each person. Is the direction of one’s sexual interest towards men, women, or both? That’s all “IT” means.
Doesn’t matter if a person “hasn’t sexually partnered with anyone for years.” Doesn’t have to have anything at all to do with how you “categorize non-sexual behaviors and inclinations.” “Sensitivity, an affinity for the arts and drama (both onstage and off), free-spiritedness, the propensity for ‘bitch’, etc.” are all total non-issues.
It just comes down to one thing: what is the direction of your sexual interest? It’s a question each person has to answer for him or herself. But it’s not really that difficult to answer.
It’s the questions that come afterward that can be personally difficult and contentious. That’s where you get into questions of self-identity, sexual morality,
social acceptance, and all the rest. But orientation itself is simply a fact–a person’s sexual interest is directed toward men, toward women, or toward both. all the rest is a quesiton of how you respond to your orientation in terms of behavior.
You continually insist on wrapping all the complicated following issues into the basic definition of orientation, and then using that as an excuse to reject the basic concept. The only reason I can imagine for your doing that is to make impossible for other people to have a real discussion with you.
Eddy,
I apologize for talking about this subject in a perhaps-too-personal way.
Let me clarify that next Tuesday at 4:17, should I find myself responding in any way to attraction, that attraction will be directed towards a person of the same sex.
Because all of my sexual attractions are oriented towards the same sex.
Ah, Eddy,
At 4:17 next Tuesday your attraction triggers – should they be inadvertently activated by an unanticipated swimmer – will be towards the same sex. Even if you are grilling. Even if your family is nearby.
And all your efforts to talk around the subject and not actually approach it head on will not change that simple fact.
Excellent job, as always, Timothy of being dismissive.
I especially liked the “we can discuss” and “we can talk” lead-ins. It actually makes it sounds like we CAN discuss and talk about those things when the conclusion, as evidenced in your following paragraphs and in previous discussions on this blog, is that we CAN’T.
“There’s a very strong resistance to going there.”
By the way, next Tuesday at 4:17 it’s highly probable that my attractions won’t be oriented sexually at all. I’ll likely be caught up in my ‘swimming pool and grilling orientation’ and, since that’s with family, I don’t anticipate any sexual flare-ups.
Eddy,
We can discuss identity, traits, social affectations, causes, contributions, sex drive, or anything else but ultimately it all comes back to a knowledge – whether acknowledged or not – that some folks are same sex attracted and some are not. It doesn’t matter whether we use one label or another, one construct or another, one identity or another.
And we can talk about subsets, about fetishes, about priorities, and choices and lifestyles. We can discuss companionship or brain cell stimulation. We can distinguish between what you like and what you are. We can write it off as temperament or temptation.
But when we are all done talking, the fact remains. Next Tuesday at 4:17 p.m. you and I will both be same sex attracted.
And that is exactly and all that sexual orientation means. It means that next Tuesday at 4:17 p.m., and for the foreseeable future, our attractions will be oriented towards the same sex.
And that is why anti-gay activists like Peter Heck know they are losing. Because it doesn’t matter what name you put on “people who are attracted to the same sex”, all of us – you, me, and Heck – know that IT exists.
Timothy–
I just read the piece. It doesn’t change my belief at all. It’s more of a sociological and/or political piece than a scientific one. I do agree with you that the horse is already out of the barn…I’d been saying that since way back in the 1970’s.
You seem to suggest that our rejection of ‘orientation’ is some type of strategy. I want to assure that it is not. It is my belief that the development of the construct of ‘sexual orientation’ was a strategy. Heck, we still don’t know if ‘IT’ is inborn, genetic, hormonal or, if not, when or how it develops. But that’s all okay as long as we acknowledge “IT”.
We don’t even know what constitutes ‘IT’. Why does a person who hasn’t sexually partnered with anyone for years feel compelled to be identified by ‘IT’? (Moreso than by their career, hobbies, interests, politics, religion, etc.?) Why do people categorize non-sexual behaviors and inclinations as part of ‘IT’? Sensitivity, an affinity for the arts and drama (both onstage and off), free-spiritedness, the propensity for ‘bitch’, etc. (Since I don’t believe in ‘IT’, please don’t take those things a definition…they are simply attributes that I’ve heard people describe as ‘gay’ or ‘their gay side’.)
I have found the exploration of such questions to be minimal, at best, and not at all satisfying on an intellectual level. Frequently I’ve heard the challenge, well then they’d better research the development of a ‘heterosexual orientation’ as well. But, unfortunately, the folks who say that aren’t genuinely interested in seeing that challenge pursued, they say instead to shut down the discussion. I’d honestly like science and psychology to explore where our sexual preferences (not just whether it’s for male or female…but the preferences within the preference…why ‘the leg man’, ‘the boobs man’…why a preference for tall, or short, or thin, or meaty. Why for one behavior or role over another.) …where do those preferences come from? Once set, can they be changed or modified?
How do we distinguish the different components of the sex drive? There seems to be that innate desire for companionship. There seems to be an instinctive drive to propagate the species. There’s pleasure and brain cell stimulation in an orgasm. I’d like to see such research done with a variety of people with a variety of sexual preferences. But I think it should start with ‘I understand that this is what you like’ rather than ‘I understand that this is who you are’. If, after the studies, we discover that our attractions are a combination of inborn, innate, immutable…and if we further discover that our attractions do somehow impact our temperament and other aspects of our daily approach to life, THEN name it and define it as an ‘orientation’.
Quite simply, we aren’t there yet and there’s very strong resistance to going there. I find this so very odd for a culture that is obsessed with knowing all there is to know about everything and keenly preoccupied with sex.
Or, to put it in terms that may be easier to comprehend:
As far as the rest of the world is concerned, the distinction between you and Exodus is the same as the distinction between Billy Graham and Billy Graham Ministries.
Eddy,
I know that you reject the construct of sexual orientation. I recently wrote a piece about the difficulties with your position.
Alan,
I believe that you are making incorrect assertions, not me.
1. You are seeking to pretend that when taking public positions there is a real and legitimate difference between Exodus and Exodus’ leadership. But with all due respect, those are differences based in pretense, not in reality.
I know the common tactic of “speaking as an individual”, but this is usually based in a false premise: that the “individual” in and of himself is uniquely qualified to speak on the subject. That is seldom the case.
When Exodus leaders are invited to speak on an issue, it is not because they happen to live in the district. And if we’re honest, it isn’t even because they are ex-gay. It is because they are “authorities on the subject of homosexuality” as evidenced by their leadership in Exodus.
When you came to California to campaign for Proposition 8, Alan, were you introduced as “Alan, a resident of Florida” or were you introduced as “Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International”?
Your political activism, or that of Randy, is not distinguishable from that of Exodus. It is not strictly honest to claim that it is so, nor is it unreasonable for me and others to see you as Exodus’ representatives in those situations.
2. When Don Schmierer was introduced in Kampala, it was as a Board Member of Exodus. It was with Exodus’ authority that he spoke.
Who “sent him” is a red herring argument. I don’t care in the slightest what Visa Card was charged for the ticket. He was there AFTER we warned that this would reflect on Exodus. It did and it does, and rightly so.
3. I’m happy to hear that you have differences with LaBarbera, etc. Can you perhaps provide a link or two so that I can check them out?
4. Yes I know that “she left” but this semantics game is silly. You disagreed with Wendy over whether one could even be a Christian while supporting a celibate lesbian couple. Sure “she left”… right after you called her salvation into question.
She was politely let known that her approach to gay and lesbian people was absolutely unwelcome at Exodus – which is exactly what I said. And she found that Exodus was becoming increasingly rigid. So there was a parting of the ways.
I appreciate the response, Alan. It lets me know that there is at least some communication going on.
But you know, Alan, I don’t know what to make of you. I see movement at Exodus at times toward focusing on ministry, on finding solutions, on building bridges, and then there’s this stuff.
I’m really not sure that you have made up in your mind what it is that you want to do.
I mean, you have to know that your personal anti-gay political activism only harms Exodus’ ability to do ministry. You have to be aware that separating from the only voices of moderation will hinder efforts at connecting with the gay community with any message other than rejection.
I really just don’t get it.
But, as I said, I’ll just keep criticizing the negative and praising the positive.
Timothy Kincaid
So glad you found your voice.
Presuming that ‘advice to Exodus’ was a slam (LOL. was ‘hit’ instead of ‘hint’ a freudian slip?)
Alan, don’t be misled. I do not justify the jailing of people for their sexual orientation; I do however believe that it might be appropriate to penalize certain behaviors. Further, I’m not in favor of forced reorientation. As I’ve said before, I question the entire construct of ‘sexual orientation’. Even if the construct is legitimate, I find far too many people ascribing far too many things to ‘their orientation’. It’s a science that is yet incomplete.
Alan–
Just an FYI. We have both a ‘Tim’ and a ‘Timothy’ blogging here.
I say “LOL” about the term ‘forced treatment’ and then go on to show why I feel it’s a tad ‘loaded’ by comparing it to other acceptable forced treatments such as rehab programs and driving schools.
I do NOT believe that homosexuality ought to be criminalized…not private consensual sex between adults. But the proposed law that led to the call for Exodus to make a statement dealt with some offenses that might be deserving of some legal restraints (otherwise known as ‘criminalization’). As I’ve stated before, I do not believe in the death penalty as an appropriate response to these other offenses either.
You, Michael and I have all come to the consensus in times past that any attempts at ongoing dialogue between us is only an exercise in frustration.
Tim,
I want to challenge you on your numerously incorrect assertions above.
1. Exodus has not lent its voice or energy to any policy campaigns in over 3 years.
2. Exodus did not send Don Schmierer to Uganda
3. Check out our blog, I think we have made our disagreements with Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera abundantly clear in recent blog posts
4. We did not boot Wendy, she left.
I have a helpful hit for Exodus, as well:
I think my advice has valuable cautions and insight.
Eddy,
To pretend that one cannot oppose criminalization of homosexuality is ridiculous (as Alan aptly illustrated). But you try to justify criminalization as though it were just some difference in social perspective. Homosexuality is “morally unsound” so criminalization is a reasonable approach, just as it is with all moral issues.
Frankly, such thinking is on par with “logic” that says that we should not oppose the criminalization of Christianity in Muslim nations. Because it too is morally unsound – or at least from a radical Muslim perspective.
I think the difference between you and I, Eddy, is that I don’t know a single soul who favors the criminalization of Christianity and I would rapidly ‘not know them’ if I did. But you know and associate with those who favor the criminalization of homosexuality and you see nothing wrong with that.
You say “LOL” about it. You think it’s unfair that the idea of compulsory ex-gay therapy is considered “dark”.
I don’t know what to say.
Actually, it’s never advisable to ‘ignore’ an opinion. Even those opinions we disagree with often contain some valuable cautions or insights.
If other situations arise which might call for Exodus to make its OFFICIAL policy clear, I hope they will ignore your opinion and do the right thing anyway — and not wait a full year to do it.
Like I said, I have no power or authority…just an opinion. If there are no new demands for still more policy statements in the coming year, I’ll reconsider the validity of my advice.
Looks like they didn’t heed Eddy’s wise counsel.
http://blog.exodusinternational.org/2010/06/08/statement-from-alan-chambers-president-of-exodus-international-on-the-criminalization-of-homosexuality-2009-uganda-conference-and-beyond/comment-page-1/#comment-22883
From early afternoon until Michael’s statement, we were talking about ‘executions’. Then when it came time to once again demand that Exodus have a policy statement it was expanded to ‘executions, criminalization and forced treatment’. Timothy’s later comment didn’t mention ‘executions’ at all. I’m fascinated by how these subtle shiftings occur.
“Criminalization” is a nasty sounding word that actually refers to something being regarded as a crime or an offense on ANY level…even minor felony. To make a broad statement decrying criminalization of any sort in foreign countries would be a political statement with larger implications than Exodus has ever made. However, to make any allowances whatsoever for a foreign country to legislate morality in any way would simply open the door for more debate and more demands. Once Exodus made such a move of suggesting that a country has no right to legislate morality with respect to homosexuality, the inference would be that a country has no right to legislate morality AT ALL. To say that a country would have the right to legislate on other issues considered immoral…this would be tantamount to Exodus saying there is nothing morally unsound about homosexuality. Quite frankly, that isn’t a statement they can get behind.
Simply put, there are a few ‘sticky wickets’ that preclude Exodus from making such a global policy statement. I feel I can say with confidence that there is no one within Exodus or it’s affiliates that is not against executions. However, when it comes to those companions of criminalization and treatment, I’m quite sure that opinions vary. LOL. “Forced treatment” is the buzz-phrase, I know. But I simply want to be fair. With drug offenses, we call it ‘rehab’ or ‘treatment’ or ‘weekly meetings’. With driving offenses, we call it ‘driving school’. Compulsory stipulations meted out to the offenders. “Compulsory”? “Forced”? Funny how they mean the same thing but ‘forced’ sounds somehow darker.
Disclaimer: The foregoing statements re the mind of Exodus are personal opinions only. I was once ‘an insider’…very close to the heartbeat of the organization. I now ‘keep in touch’ with a number of the principles but I don’t speak for them. These are simply my observations.
My own advice to Exodus leaders has been that they stop responding to the demand for policy statements from outsiders. As situations arise, they can respond to them as they see fit. Having a policy statement would do little to curb the demand for a fresh statement or a public reiteration of their ‘official policy’ when some new situation arose. I have no power or authority within the organization. If they feel my reasoning is sound, they’ll consider it.
That is the religion of many people. If I engage in a homosexual act, I would consider myself to be sinning. If I engage in a heterosexual act outside of marriage, I consider it sinning, too. That does not mean anything more or less than that.
Nothing like being convicted by your own words, inflections, and manner of voice. And considering what they added a week later on their radio program via the Heritage Foundation (reported by MnIndy – but no audio, audio here):
I think McMillian got his country’s wrong and meant Uganda. As I remember it people working for the Family (Bob Hunter?) had talks with Rwandan government officials and their bill was set aside. But then the Ugandan bill seems to be set aside also.
.
In Dean’s statement, “They are very moral; they uphold the laws.” One wonders what he is speaking about when he says “laws.” By first considering “morals,” it appears that Dean is refering to Mosaic law rather than civil law or is making the connection that all civil law must in the eleast represent his conception of what is moral if not that represented by the Bible including Levitical law.
…
Looking at Bradlee Dean’s comments, I saw something interesting:
Dean has found two comparable types of sinners:
1) Homosexuals
2) Heterosexuals who engage in fornication and adultery
It’s amusing, but this is exactly the way many people think. If you are a heterosexual who does something you are a sinner, but just being homosexual gets you the title.
Eddy,
I think the problem is that it has seemed to some of us that in the past Exodus has taken contradictory positions. Perhaps their thinking is evolving on some issue, but there have been times when a two comments which appear to be directly contradictory have come from the same source.
If you had asked me a year ago what is Exodus’ position on incarceration, I would not have been able to point to anything and tell you. And if you ask me a year from now, I could not with assurance rely on a letter sent to Uganda as being their clearly stated position.
Although you think that “Exodus has challenged those who respond to homosexuals with ignorance and fear” is very clear, I don’t have a clue what it means.
Does it mean that Exodus opposes legislation that takes away rights from gay people? No, they campaign for such legislation.
Does it mean that Exodus counters statements from radical extremist gay-haters? No, they send their board members to do joint conferences even after they have been made aware of their bashing (though they likely regret that).
Does it mean that Exodus rejects Laurie Higgins or Peter LaBarbera or Matt Barber and tells the world that they do not agree with them? Not as far as I can tell.
Does it mean that Exodus has a broad acceptance of Christians who might want to outreach to gays without condemnation? Not since they booted Wendy Gritter.
So it’s very hard to know, absent any direct policy and position statements, exactly what Exodus or its leadership believes.
I just try and denounce the bad stuff, praise the good stuff, and pray for the day that Exodus returns to seeing their purpose as ministry to strugglers instead of fighting the evil homosexual agenda. I see hints of possibility.
If we can keep discussion reasonable let me suggest that a policy would be very helpful. Any time such a thing is suggested anywhere in the world, someone could refer to Exodus policy — not just what they did on one occasion. It is something like what people do with APA or NARTH policies.
Having said that, I believe Exodus got out quickly on this and I appreciate it. I believe it helped lead to this: http://minnesotaindependent.com/59761/bradlee-dean-says-minnesota-independent-twisted-his-words
I don’t believe for a minute that this guy can be taken seriously but I suspect people close to him said, you better do something.
Because even after they state things clearly–as they did in their letter to the leaders in Uganda–people will still doubt–or complain that they should post these things on page one–or announce them to the media–or post them on a billboard–or make them the watermark on every piece of correspondence they send out.
There is simply no useful purpose served in catering to people who will never be satisfied and whose primary goal is to downplay or discredit your primary mission and objectives.
I’ll leave it there. My intent was only to bring the update on the actions taken by Exodus and the response of Living Word, their affiliate. My apologies for commenting beyond that.
They could always adopt and post clear policies against Executions, Criminalization and Forced treatment on their Webpage — as they have done with other issue of importance to them. Why leave ANY room for doubt? Just a thought.
I also appreciate Exodus for making that statement although I would think, based on their “What is Exodus” and their Mission and Policy statements. that it ought to be clear to any unbiased reader that execution is not a remedy that they support in any way.
When you add to that the letter that they sent to the Ugandan leaders decrying the death penalty, it makes me wonder why the clear message, that Exodus does NOT endorse the death penalty and, in fact, opposes it, isn’t coming through loud and clear.
Eddy,
I too appreciate Exodus for contacting their affiliates and requesting clarification. And I appreciate Exodus for stating that it does not endorse execution.
I agree that LWCC could have spoken more bluntly. The context in which the question was posed to them likely accounts for that.
It seems that Exodus got it’s news from Warren who got his news from XGW. That news was likely in line with
So, Living Word likely was one of the voices that responded to Exodus that they did not appreciate Dean’s strident tone. There is no clear indicator that Dean had made such statements prior to someone from his group speaking to a high school group over a year ago. Living Word then provided Exodus with a formal statement clarifying when the talk (I’d hardly call one session to a group of high school students ‘a conference’) occurred…it’s topic (Pop Culture Influences)…and that Dean himself was not the speaker.
I’d like to hear more from Living Word and hope that the issue comes up in a more public forum such as a Sunday sermon. I appreciate that Exodus leadership responded quickly and effectively by contacting their Minnesota affiliates, determining whether there was any actual affiliation with Dean, securing a statement from Living Word and posting that statement.
Eddy,
Glad to hear the clarification. But the renunciation of YCRBYCH certainly could have been stronger. And it would have been nice to hear “we disagree and do not think Gay people should be executed.”
Ya know, I thought we had gotten beyond this decades ago. My very conservative family would not have agreed with executing gays back in the 70’s, so why is it that it is so hard for Christians today to say? I really don’t get it.
Is it that there is such an instinct toward defending “our own” against the “evil homosexual activists out there” that we can’t bring ourselves to criticize “our family”?
Thanks Eddy.
Mary,
Randy Thomas of Exodus recently posted the following statement that they received from Living Word Christian Center.
And meanwhile, the Family Research Council is paying big bucks to lobby Congress NOT to condemn the death-to-gays bill, because they’re all for it.
@ Timothy K,
It is as I have always suspected…we agree on much.
Holiness in life is an extension of loving my neighbor. Sinful behavior hurts my neighbor…or myself.
The more I conform my image to Christ, the more good I do. Christ was Holy.
I don’t think Holiness and Tolerance are mutually exclusive…but I can’t put them together in any clear way yet.
Sinfulness drives me to God…and drives me with compassion to my neighbor.
Thanks for checking in….love to all you love.
David,
To pick up on your thoughts about a judging God… this is roughly phrased, but this is what I think:
I think there is a theme in Scripture that shines through all the “judging” discussions. It seems to me that God is letting us set the standard by which we approach Him.
We can come to God as father and know that he already knows our flaws and weaknesses. He knows when we are sincere and when we are self-righteous. Personally, I don’t think that there is any judgment and punishment from God for our “sins” (ie our failing to make the mark). I don’t think He’s up there doling out demerits and detention and measuring just the extent to which we get zapped.
Unless…
There is repeated scripture that talks about the way we treat others. And it’s pretty clear to me (from what I read) that God is WAY more interested in whether we treat each other with goodness than He is about how holy we are.
So I think that God lets us pick the scale that He uses to weigh us. If we use a strict measure to weigh others, God says “fine, we can use that on you.” If we are less harsh or judgmental to others, God applies the same judgment to us.
I’ve noticed that when we see scandal, it quite often comes from those who are “Bible Believing Christians” who warn about the sinners and the evil folk who don’t follow ever jot and tiddle. I wonder it that isn’t God judging with the same measure that they selected to judge others.
I’ve also noticed that after those experiences, the theology of these ministers often changes. They discover tolerance. So perhaps God’s “judgment” has less to do with punishment than it does with education.
Just some thoughts..
David,
Sorry if I offended the very conservative Christians. Perhaps I should have used “very very”?
In any case I was trying to clarify that there is a segment of Christianity (whatever they might be called) that seems to worship the Law over the Redeemer.
They seem to think that the biggest difference between Judaism at the time of Moses and Christianity today is that now you don’t have to sacrifice an animal. (which would, I think, be more “good-news” to the ovine population than to humanity)
I’ve been in more than one church in which the theology ran more to the “thou shalt nots” than it did to relationship with God and where being “saved from sin” was defined as “you wont go to hell as long as you repent quickly enough and don’t get hit by a bus first”. They worship a god that is more tyrant than father.
I hope and pray that this is not the majority belief.
Mary,
You can read about it at XGW
I got the stones to back it up:
2 Timothy 2:15 (New International Version)
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
James 3:1 (NASB)
Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment.”
@ Timothy K:
It would be helpful to not clump people like Dean, Lively and Phelps with “very conservative Christians.”
I would be willing to label them as “anti-gay…in every possible way.” :).
Very conservative Christians can have the very sophisticated understanding of OT and NT theology…
As I was driving into work today I was thinking: “God promises to judge those who distort and misuse Scripture…I have never thought of this being applied to pastors and lay persons who distort fundamentalism and overapply the relevancy of Scripture.”
I felt happy and relaxed after this thought…it has taken me 35 years to get here.
Minnesota’s sodomy laws were repealed by a local judge in 2001 – two years before Supreme Court ruled inLawrence v Texas. The state had 60 days to appeal the ruling; however, the state chose not to appeal.
Mary–
According to the Exodus International Website, they have 3 affiliated ministry groups and 3 affiliated churches in Minnesota. One of the churches is Living Word Christian Center.
I’d like to know more about that conference that Dean’s group was a part of. Were they featured speakers or merely participants? And was it their participation at that conference that is behind this quote:
Timothy,
do you know exactly what the relationship is and are they still affiliated. IN other words, how do they connect?
This is sort of a blanket statment that does not fit all Christians including many of us who blog here. Please stop the broad brush strokes.
Mary,
XGW has traced Dean’s group to a conference by Janet Boynes at Living Word Christian Center, an Exodus affiliate.
To clarify, by “very conservative Christians”, I mean those like Bradlee Dean, whose beliefs or actually outside of orthodox Christian teaching.
Tim,
I think that perhaps you come with an outsider’s perspective about Christianity.
I think that many Christians would recognize that it is not a matter of endorsing or opposing Levitical Law, but rather that Christ introduced a completely different dynamic, one in which “law and punishment (death)” was replaced by relationship.
It may help to think of it this way:
When you are ten you have a bedtime. You parents decide for you just exactly at what time you are to be home, in bed, lights off. This is one of many rules set out to guide you: don’t get in cars with strangers, speak when spoken to, etc.
When you become an adult, you may come to understand the purpose behind the rules and, being more mature, make decisions based on the reason rather than the rule. You may not go to bed at Nine PM because you work the graveshift. You may get in cars with strangers when yours breaks down and your judgment suggests that this person cannot harm you.
In some ways, this is similar to Christian faith. We have put away childish things and look to the principles behind the rules.
Oddly, obsessive adherence to OT rules is something that very conservative Christians and anti-Christian atheists share. Both of their theologies are based on the notion that The Law is an unbreakable contract and that Christian faith is defined by rigid adherence to Bronze Age rules of social conduct.
I welcome Alan’s statement. It is a welcome voice against Dean’s extremist (and heretical) viewpoints.
I am delighted at the ongoing discussions of genocide in the Christian community. It is very educational for the populace and a good corrective to the “peace and love” version of Christianity that has been peddled for so long. That version is now being revealed as the Potemkin village it has always been.
“Using Old Testament scriptures to condemn a person to death is not “loving” … it is incomplete theology and powerfully irresponsible. . . . Jesus did not call for the deaths of sinners. He died and paid the price for all of our sin, including those of us who have or do struggle with homosexuality. ”
What clap trap. Jesus’ sacrifice may mean that one’s salvation no longer depends upon the enforcement of the OT laws, but that is not the same thing as saying that Jesus repudiated or repealed the OT laws. The OT laws are still enforceable on an optional basis. No Christian can denounce those laws as immoral, because to do so would be to accuse God of mandating immorality for some 4 thousand years prior to Christ. And since God’s moral standards don’t change, what was moral then is moral now. There is no way for Christians to avoid the consequences of Biblical teaching: the legalized mass killing of gays (or adulterers, rapists, urban rape victims, disobedient children, pagans, and witches) is not and cannot be immoral. When a theology leaves you in this position, it is time to consider a new spiritual path.
This group is troubling to me. First of all, the phrase “you can run but you can’t hide” is usually used by someone who is hunting someone down. This coupled with the statements made and the belief that the death penalty should be applied to gays and lesbians is very, very disturbing.
Do they have any affiliation with an Exodus ministry?