Regardless of your stance on the issue of homosexuality and the church, it is pretty impressive and important to note when three former leaders for one of the largest “You’re gay? We’ll fix you!”-ministries publicly apologize for their part in the ministry.
In this LA Times article, “3 Former Leaders of Ex-Gay Ministry Apologize, the former leaders publicly stated that Exodus International’s attempt to fix gays is psychologically harmful and has caused very serious depression in some and suicidal tendencies in others. Regular readers of this blog are familiar with my thoughts on homosexuality and the church, and can understand why this is such a big deal. When you have the co-founder of Exodus International speaking out against the organization he helped create, it’s time for people to listen.
Read the article and let me know what you think. Please refrain from throwing around scripture like Leviticus and Romans in the comments – I’d encourage you to address the following questions: What do we do with this press conference? The founders and leaders of Exodus International, those who were very passionate about the “cause” at some point, have come to realize that it’s not healthy, nor helpful for families, for gay men and women, or anyone involved. Will some blow them off as simply “failed” converts – those who didn’t try hard enough not to be gay? What do you think?
Related posts:
Share This Post:
{ 43 comments }
As you probably know, I support gay rights in general.
I do support anyone who has believed themselves to be gay and wants to change. Anybody should have the right to remake themselves.
What bothers me most about these organizations is both their condemnation of homosexuality in general and their sales techniques.
We in the religious community are just as guilty of calling people who choose to believe something else as “failed converts”.
I remember hearing about this. Is there any idea about what percentage of a residivism rate they might have?
In order to answer your question, “what do we do with this press conference?”, I’d appreciate some more background. For one, is there any indication as to when the other two former leaders left their posts at the ministry? The article you linked only mentions that one left in 1979. Unless the others left much more recently (like, say, in the months immediately prior to this news conference), this qualifies less as news and more as publicity stunt.
Do you have any other coverage of this? I think that might help us have a more informed discussion here.
I have to agree with Corey, this sounds a bit like a stunt. A couple of thoughts:
First, I always have to snicker a little when advocates of the homosexual lifestyle say, “Please refrain from throwing around scripture like Leviticus and Romans in the comments.” I certainly am not a fundamentalist, but there should be cause for concern when two primary texts are taken off of the table. It would be like having a question about the resurrection of Christ and only being allowed to use the Gospel of Mark (oh, and of course nothing after verse 9!!!).
Second, the “1979″ issue must be front and center here. One of these founders left 28-years-ago and today it is in the LA Times? Hmm…
Third, you ask a great question: Will some blow them off as simply “failed” converts – those who didn’t try hard enough not to be gay? I don’t think it is about “trying hard enough not to be gay.” Did these converts “fail”? Fail may be a bit too harsh of a word. Truthfully, I cannot fathom the inner turmoil it must be to have feelings for the same sex and know at some core level that those feelings are not God’s perfect plan for my life. It was a struggle enough remaining sexually pure as a heterosexual — also not fulfilling God’s perfect plan for my life. I think that’s why Paul said that when you sin sexually you sin against your own body (hetero-or homo-sexually speaking!).
Finally, to offer my opinion on the matter, I think that the life of Henry Nouwen should be a great inspiration to those suffering (yes, “suffering” IS the right word) with homosexuality. Nouwen has produced some of the best Christian literature of all time. In The Wounded Prophet, his biographer discusses the inner turmoil Nouwen battled with feelings of homosexuality. However, he never acted on those impulses, yet instead found his wholeness as the beloved of God.
For some reason, the Lord honors self-denial. Unfortunately, the cross that some people have to carry is heavier than others. I don’t think Nouwen could have produced the writing he did if he had given in to his “carnal desires” (to echo Paul without using Romans, if that is acceptable).
Peter Zefo, your comments were well formulated and astute. That is the kind of conversation that needs to happen. Well done.
Also, it is incredibly odd that we would “refrain from throwing around scripture”….first of all, using scripture and “throwing it around” are two different things. If we aren’t using scripture, we aren’t following the Father.
Peter Zefo: Absolutely wonderful response. I couldn’t agree more.
?
1. Is the only thing that determines if you’re following “God’s perfect plan” for your life the fact that you want to love the right kind of person?
2. I think that the reason most of the LGBT people who “suffer” from their queerness (and I don’t think that most queer people do suffer) is that the people around them tell them that they should be suffering because they are “wrong” or “broken.”
Yes, every one has their own cross to bear, but if your cross is that you want to have heterosexual sex outside of marriage I imagine that there are many fewer people adding their weight to that cross by telling how much you should be suffering for your sin.
The press conference was timed to coincide with the annual meeting of Exodus in Irvine. Jeremy Marks has a much more in-depth story here:
http://www.beyondexgay.com/article/jeremyapology
Some interesting quotes:
“We continued to run weekly support groups, but over the next few years, I became increasingly aware that none of the people who had been through our live-in program had experienced any change whatsoever to their sexuality; indeed the profound sense of having wasted years of their lives in working and praying for change resulted in the majority becoming deeply depressed, cynical and in some cases even suicidal —many losing their Christian faith altogether”
“However, I felt increasingly unhappy at what I saw as the dishonesty of my fellow Exodus ministries—no-one seemed willing to look at the issue of our failure to fulfil the promise of healing we claimed to believe was possible.”
And, btw, I don’t think Adam meant to imply that scripture is not relevant to the overall debate, simply that he wanted to hear what people thought about the impact of three ex-gay ministry leaders recanting and apologizing.
First, I must say that I do not believe homosexuality is a birth thing…that’s an excuse to sin.
I have this desire to look at pornography time and time again. While it may not get the condemnation homosexuality does, it still does not negate its sinfulness.
I also have a desire to eat excessively. Again, it is sinful if I gorge myself to be really really fat.
If I give in, I have sinned. I am commanded to not give in to my sinful desires by Scripture. Regardless of how painful it is, I must obey my Lord. In Christ I have become a new creation…the old has gone the new has come. We must all change if we are to follow Christ.
Do you believe that people are not born homosexual because of some concrete evidence, or do you believe that people are not born homosexual because you believe homosexuality to be a sin, and if it is inborn you can’t condemn them as strongly?
So, name withheld, you’re perfect now? Must be nice.
“Yes,” in short, is the answer to the primary question posed by Adam. Yes, most people who agree with the theology that frames the teaching of the Exodus International program will, either directly or indirectly or both, dismiss the three ex-members as “failed” converts. And it matters not whether they do it “in love” and in a humble understanding of the “inner turmoil” and “suffering” that homosexual people experience, though that’s at least a more respectable and Jesus-like way to do so than that espoused by, say, everyone’s favorite lunatic fundamentalist, Fred Phelps.
But alas, this truth about how homosexuality is generally perceived in Evangelical circles is nothing new, for we still live in a time where [i]Christianity Today[/i], one of the largest Christian magazines in the world in terms of circulation and readership, still publishes articles decrying the fact that a nominee for United States Surgeon General experience any questioning and criticism for his anti-gay writings, framed by an illogical and poorly written argument for “biological complementarity” that the [i]Washington Post[/i] aptly described as “bigotry masquerad[ing] as science.”
And, if we’re still going by a literal take on Leviticus or any other piece of the biblical text, which some here seem to want to still do, then why, might I humbly ask, can’t I own a Canadian? It clearly states that I can own slaves in Leviticus 25:44, as long as they are from neighboring nations, so I figure it’s about time for my friends in Toronto to go up for public auction. Either them, or my other, more tanned friends down in Mexico City.
You see, herein lies our problem. It’s difficult to directly apply passages like that from the Hebrew Bible to our contextual situation today, unless you’re an ultra-conservative Reformed Jew, which I would say most of us Christians probably are not. The passages in the Pauline canon all have their share of hermeneutical problems, too, which plenty of scholars like Walter Wink have for decades pointed out.
In the end, Adam is right to restate what the three members of Exodus International eventually came to believe, that such a program is “not healthy, nor helpful for families, for gay men and women, or anyone involved.” Unfortunately, more often than not, we Christians–especially the Evangelical ones among us–tend to forget that the Spirit works fresh and new also through experience, and not just through the literal presumptions of a two millenia-old biblical text.
To Meghan:
Of course I don’t believe that, but it is definitely in the equation (and, no…I don’t know the equation).
To Andrew F.:
The hermeneutical spin that you are proposing is as bad (or worse) than the evangelical-fundamentalists. And, I find it interested that you would bring “experience” into the argument. I’m a big proponent of the Wesleyan-Quadrilateral and even add the fifth wheel of “Community” to the mix. Thus, where is the LA Times counter-piece with testimonies (sorry, didn’t mean to use Christian-eese) of those who have experienced wholeness through the Exodus International program? If you want to bring experience into this discussion, do not forget about (or completely discredit) them.
I was at the press conference in LA when Darlene, Michael and Jeremy issued their apologies. It was the first time I met Michael and Darlene, but I have known Jeremy for a few years and have been at several Courage UK events.
This is not the first time these folks have spoken out. It is the first time such a public apology has occured though. It also came as part of an effort to highlight the issues of ex-gay survivors who tried for years to change and suppress their same-sex attractions.
At the press conference, after they signed the apology, the three handed it to a group of us ex-gay survivors present. It was very emotional all around.
A few days later they joined us for the first ever Ex-gay Survivor Conference, held in Irvine, CA up the road from the Exodus Conference.
My hope is that in the midst of the debate over ex-gay conversion therapies and ministries, the voice of the ex-gay survivors will be heard.
The vast majority of the people who attempt to go straight fail to do so and at considerable cost.
At Ex-Gay Survivor conference these survivors (including spouses, children and parents of gays & lesbians) got to tell their stories. . See http://www.beyondexgay.com to read some of these stories.
I tripped upon this article yesterday that is another voice in the conversation about “gay rehabilitation.”
Panel to Review Policy on Gays
They quote a man from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals (www.narth.com), and I went to the website to see exactly what they weer all about. They speak from an equal rights ideology – specifically defending the right of homosexuals to seek therapy and rehabilitation from their homosexuality:
“We believe that clients have the right to claim a gay identity, or to diminish their homosexuality and to develop their heterosexual potential. The right to seek therapy to change one’s sexual adaptation should be considered self-evident and inalienable.”
Reading further in their “Position Statements,” we find statements such as this:
“There is no such thing as a “gay gene” and there is no evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is simply genetic. However, biological influences may indeed influence some people toward homosexuality; recent studies point to prenatal-hormonal influences, especially in men, that result in a low-masculinized brain; also, there may be genetic factors in some people — both of which would affect gender identity, and therefore sexual orientation. But none of these factors mean that homosexuality is normal and a part of human design, or that it is inevitable in such people, or that it is unchangeable. Numerous examples exist of people who have successfully modified their sexual behavior, identity, and arousal or fantasies.”
I think that the thing that bothers me the most about this group is that they refuse to own up to their underlying assumptions. While they try to sound as if they are merely advocating for the right of gays to seek rehabilitative therapy, in the same way that any other social group advocates for equal rights, they come from a distinct set of assumptions about homosexuality (that it is unnatural or harmful, or even sinful) that they don’t seem to want to own up to. Whether or not I agree with their assumptions, I feel like they owe it to me, to the public, and to themselves to be honest about their underlying viewpoints about homosexuality. It makes for a more honest conversation.
“And, if we’re still going by a literal take on Leviticus or any other piece of the biblical text, which some here seem to want to still do, then why, might I humbly ask, can’t I own a Canadian? It clearly states that I can own slaves in Leviticus 25:44, as long as they are from neighboring nations, so I figure it’s about time for my friends in Toronto to go up for public auction. Either them, or my other, more tanned friends down in Mexico City.”
Yeah, I had the email forwarded to me, too.
I never claimed perfection. You are dodging what our Lord Jesus Christ willed for your life.
Peter Z.:
Let me try and restate what I meant with what I said above.
My purpose is not to discredit Exodus International directly, or the people who have received “wholeness,” as you call it, through the work of such a program.
I will say that I am a person who adamantly stands against the idea that homosexuality is a “sin,” for various reasons. But my purpose with the above comments was, rather, to state a truth about the Evangelical (big-”E”) portion of Protestantism generally, which I realize can sometimes cause problems. However, I still think what I said about the theological paradigm of most Evangelicals, and how it frames their ethical and moral response to homosexuality, is still valid enough to use the generalization without great hesitation.
Furthermore, my use of the word “experience,” I think, should have been elaborated on more, and that is my own fault. I’m not using it in the sense of placing it within the boundaries of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral because, frankly, I don’t like the Quadrilateral at all. Regardless of its inclusion of “experience,” “tradition,” and “reason” in the equation, the biblical text still “checks” all three in the end. Personally, I’m not down with that, because I think it limits us in various discussions, such as the one we are having on homosexuality.
I think there are times when we, as honest Christians, must say “no” to the statements of the biblical text, and allow “experience” (which for me also involves the use of human reason, consideration of cultural norms, etc.) to work in our lives as the work of the Spirit and of God in the world. As it pertains to the issue of homosexuality, this is one of those times.
I don’t see this type of hermeneutic as worse, frankly, because I see it as being framed by the Process theology of Whitehead, Hartshorne, Cobb, Suchocki, and the like, which I see as making the best use of ancient philosophy to frame a logical and coherent theological paradigm. At the least, I see it as being much better than what we have received down the line through Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, and the lot of prominent “orthodox” theologians most Christians still turn to for guidance today.
Ex-gay?
Fine by me.
Do you believe that people are not born homosexual because of some concrete evidence, or do you believe that people are not born homosexual because you believe homosexuality to be a sin, and if it is inborn you can’t condemn them as strongly?
Megan, I think its interesting what people will claim. I was told by a professor at Princeton last year that homosexuality was genetic. I tried explaining that the idea of genetic homosexuality has been pretty much abandoned by the scientific community….people are more and more looking to chemical and hormonal levels in the womb as the major influence, as well as early childhood events. So, the professor may have been right that the child was “born gay” or at least born to be predisposed to homosexual activity. It does not change the fact that the professor was leading a discussion on homosexuality while quoting outdated and erroneous data.
I personally know people who have tried to change their sexual desires and failed, as well as those who have succeeded. Just my two cents.
This is a very slippery slope and one that I (as an “honest Christian”) am not willing to concede. This is an issue of trust and submission. Do you (as an honest Christian) trust that the Lord as revealed in the canonized Scriptures has your best interest (yes, even sexually speaking) in mind if you are willing to submit to him?
Peter, I can answer your question with a yes and still not believe that homosexuality is a sin. I think that the most “honest” thing we can say about homosexuality as sin is that people of good faith and scholarship have come down on both sides of the issue.
You may believe that all the people who have come down on the side of homosexuality not being sin are stupid, disingenuous and apostate, but that’s your problem, not mine.
Also, going back to your earlier comment that seemed to claim that your struggle to remain pure as a heterosexual is comparable to the struggle that ex-gay ministries and people on your ideological side are trying to force on homosexuals.
Nobody told you that you had to stop being a heterosexual, nobody told you that as long as you identified as a heterosexual you were not going to be able to be ordained, that you were not going to be able marry the person you loved or that employers should have the right to fire you simply because you identified yourself as straight. How does your having to say no to a couple of women who wanted to sleep with you compare to that?
Peter Z.:
I guess that is ultimately where we differ. The issue is indeed one of trust and submission for me, but I answer it differently. I don’t trust that the “canonized Scriptures” always have my “best interest” in mind if I submit to them. Far from it, since the “canonized Scriptures” were formed by white men in the pre- and early Middle Ages who, to a degree greater than we would probably like to admit, had geo-political interests at heart when they did their decision-making. At the least, this makes me always approach the biblical text with a hermeneutic of “suspicion” in all aspects. The human element in the canonical equation, for me, makes it almost impossible to “trust” such activity as a respectable and understandable way for God to continue revealing him/herself to humanity. If that is indeed the way the Holy was intended to best be revealed, then I have no interest at all in engaging such a God in worship. The past is the past, and there is nothing much as a follower of God that I can do about it now, except to be a voice that openly questions and proclaims where the imperfections and corruptions of our predecessors in the faith rose to the surface and forever influenced us, possibly (and definitely in this case) for the worst, while also figuring out what we must do in response to better express the Gospel in the world. Doing so makes my own faith in God most robustly complete and rewarding, for I feel as if no stone “goes unturned” in my spiritual journey with the Creator.
And, for me, “submission” is a highly questionable word to use when talking about God because of the baggage that’s always brought along with it as it pertains to any theological discussion, especially those involving women and minorities. I try not to use the word very often because of the negative images it drags kicking and screaming along behind it. Whether or not we agree on whether that negative baggage is due to the way the biblical text seems to frame it (my answer would be in the affirmative), the point for me is that different and better words could be used, and quite possibly a different and better and more intelligent theology expressed.
Andrew. You may believe that, but it’s not true. You have no historical data to back those erroneous statements up. The scriptures have been proven to fit perfectly within history. The canon existed far before those “white men” canonized them. Historically they have been used from the beginning of their circulation within the churches of the 1st and 2nd centuries.
Some other “white men” decided to change history by claiming what you have stated.
white men in the pre- and early Middle Ages who, to a degree greater than we would probably like to admit, had geo-political interests at heart when they did their decision-making.
Seriously. I don’t mean to be rude….but you sound completely ignorant of the issue. People in the middle ages made decisions about the gospels? White people made decisions about the gospels? You sound like Stacey Johnson was your teacher….and that is not a compliment. I can’t think of a single “white man” who influenced the Bible…Nor can I think of a single scholar of the “middle ages” who had something to do with the New Testament.
/What happened ton letting the Gospels speak for themselves?
Meghan, allow me briefly clarify my stance. No, I do not believe that homosexuality in and of itself is a “sin.” I do believe that homosexual activity qualifies as sin filed under “fornication.” (I really like Tony Campolo’s position on this topic and tend to agree with him.) And, no, I do not think that those who say homosexuality is not sin as stupid or disingenuous; apostate…maybe.
As far as the comparison of trying to remain pure as a heterosexual, I concede that the comparison is a bit of a reach, but maintain it is somewhat applicable. Ultimately, as previously stated, I believe it is a trust issue.
Ok, if the problem is not being homosexual, but participating in homosexual activity, what constitutes homosexual activity?
Is it saying “I am a homosexual?”
Is it being in love with someone of the same sex?
Is it holding hands with someone of the same sex?
Is it kissing someone of the same sex?
Is it sharing your life and home with someone of the same sex?
Or, is it specific acts of anal and oral sex?
And if it is the last, are married, opposite sex couples who perform the exact same acts being sinful?
Should heterosexual candidates for ordination be asked to swear that they will never have anal or oral sex with their spouses? Should there be some form of inspection and certification process to make sure that they are living up to that oath?
On further reflection, I don’t even know why I’m engaging in a discussion about whether or not homosexuality is a sin, because whether it is or not will make no difference in my behavior. I will continue to work for them to be welcomed into full participation in the church.
For me, if there is even a one in a trillion chance that your interpretation of scripture is wrong I have to act as if you are wrong because I think the sin associated with your being wrong is infinitely worse than the sin associated with my being wrong.
In other words, I think the sin of turning away those who you should have welcomed is immeasurably worse than the sin of welcoming those who you should have turned away.
If I have to be condemned, I want to be condemned for being too welcoming.
and this whole time everyone is going back and forth trying to defend his/her own preconceived idea on an issue while people are forgotten and unloved. if dialogue produces love for another then so be it. but let us not be distracted.
Meghan – I’m with you on the “what’s the bigger danger” argument. Thanks for your searching questions about the defunct “love the sinner-hate the sin position”. The problem is not where to draw the line. the problem is in wanting to draw a line. The problem is with people’s definition of sin.
i believe that my views are biblical. I love scripture and the way that it challenges and shapes my life. but i don’t feel at all inclined to base my position on singluar texts. I think that the wider witness of scripture often reveals that not everything that is written in the bible is Christian – meaning, consistent with life and teaching of Jesus.
the far greater danger, which Jesus’ teaching continuously illustrates, is an exclusive and judgemental position, backed up and justified by “scripture”. Jesus is saying that scripture with no compassion is religion without a heart. This is the basis of so much of his teaching, but the particular parable that came to my mind when reading your comments was the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25).
Rather than asking “what does scripture say?”, Jesus was asking us to wrestle with the Spirit of Scripture – and I think he’s saying, the Spirit (that inspired the scripture the literalists want to quote) is the Spirit of Compassion!
Another example of ye olde false dichotomy appearing. The one that reads;
“I’m afraid of the uneasy balance that Jesus walked of radical inclusivity as well as radical exclusivity, therefore I will choose one and let its worldview dominate my thinking rather than the uneasy balance of discipleship.”
I don’t know you, Meghan, but please don’t settle for this perspective; even if you come to a place different than the historical church. In some situations we have to pick and choose Option A or B, and some boundaries (or lack thereof) are fixed, but much of this is not.
And Barry said;
Maybe we should be careful in our decisions that end up excluding and judging the lifestyle of others, but it should not paralyze the need to do so. I find it a bit ironic that you quoted the parable of the sheep and the goats to solidify your position for inclusivity, when it is fundamentally a parable of exclusivity. Jesus was calling his followers to radical discipleship in this Scripture; not just shown in feeding and clothing and visiting the imprisoned, but the whole of what he cared about. And to suggest that boundary-watching and enforcing isn’t part of that comes from a lack of a full understanding of what Jesus stood for.
And, I should say, Peter Zefo seems to be seeking to walk that tough balance of drawing the line on what is sinful while refusing to toss folks enmeshed in it in the trash heap. I just have one comment on Peter’s response to Meghan here
Peter, I think it’s important to bring Jesus’ perspective to bear on the being/doing distinction we often carry. To state it quite simply, he would have laughed at us even seeking to make the distinction at all. To be sure, one’s actions or words have a consequence to them that is different (on a surface level) than thoughts, but he centers one’s words (and you could faithfully say actions) in one’s heart. He said once,
“The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.”
I think Jesus is saying here that sinful or faithful things take root in the heart first, so that who I am on the inside can’t help but express itself on the outside. Specifically in this case, it would be incoherent to suggest that homosexuality as an embraced attitude or state of being is ok, while the act isn’t. To be sure, it is a lifestyle and state of being that exerts a tremendously deep influence on the individual struggling with it, but in order for those who seek healing from it to find healing, they must strike at the root, not the fruit the tree is already producing.
Nate,
for the purposes of this discussion, i think that everyone is better served if we don’t suggest (in the nicest possible way, of course) that people on the other side of the debate don’t grasp the teaching of Jesus quite as clearly as WE do.
i re-read my post, and i think that saying “i believe that my views are biblical” is a whole lot different to saying (of someone else) that their view “comes from a lack of a full understanding of what Jesus stood for.” come-on buddy play the game. i follow Jesus with my whole heart. and the heart that Jesus is giving me is a heart of compassion. i think that if you have a “full understanding of what Jesus stood for” then i’d love for you to help me grapple with Jesus word in Luke 6:37-45.
i would have preferred for you to ask me about how i understand any perceived “exclusivity” in the parable of the sheep and the goats rather than jumping to the conclusion that I hadn’t considered it that deeply.
well, if you’re interested, i find it fascinating that you view Matt 25 as “fundamentally a parable of exclusivity”. If it is, as you say, fundamentally about “exclusivity” then it’s incredible what it’s saying about who will be excluded… kind of surprises affluent middle-class comfortable christians like me – a bit like when Jesus says “not everyone who says Lord Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven”…
but are you willing to re-read the parable? Consider that every story (parable) about Judgement implies a deciding who’s IN and who’s OUT… so that’s not the big thing that Jesus was wanting to stress. He was using a well-known formula amongst Rabbis “When the King comes in his glory…”
The thing that would have shocked the hearer was not that some group would be excluded. The punch-line – the real shocker (to every upstanding religious disciple in the house) was that THE KING is the beggar we stepped over to get into the Synagogue – the abused woman crying out for comfort – the biggest sinner, locked away in prison till kingdom come…
This is Good News for sinners, rascals and outcasts. But for religious types like me, who think that being right – having the right theology – is pleasing to God… shockingly bad news!
So, yes, I think it’s a parable about inclusivity. It’s about reaching out to the marginalised for Jesus’ sake. And in my country today, because the church is not able to come out in full and open support of Gay and Lesbian people, ungodly people are able to continue with their hate crimes and bigotted violence. Just this week a Lesbian woman was killed by a self-righteous mob. We’re fumbling the ball of compassion while we work out the wording to our Theological Treatise on Creation and Sexuality.
(I’m not saying you would condone such violent behaviour – but the problem is while the church, and people of faith in general, debate the questions of sexuality, people are huritng, and in some cases even dying. but we’re too afraid of being seen to be “pro” to speak up for the marginalised!)
i think Jesus is weeping over “Jerusalem” again!
on a totally different tack
how can we separate “homosexual orientation” from “homosexual activity”? i mean, what is a sexual orientation if it’s not (at some point) going to be acted upon?
why would God give us a sexual orientation if we aren’t to express ourselves in loving, respectful, passionate, faithful ways?
i try (as a straight man) to imagine being told: “it’s really OK that you are attracted to women. Don’t feel judged about that. it’s not a sin. just don’t think too much about touching a woman – under any circumstances. no amount of love, tenderness, faithfulness will make THAT OK…”
I really try to imagine how i’d respond…
i can’t imagine it would be pretty. no wonder there’s so much anger expressed by gay and lesbian lobby groups. they’re incredulous, and understandably so. i’d be, if the tables were turned. the more impressive thing is that the majority of GLBTI groups aren’t militant. their graciousness is notable.
maybe that’s why the Exodus Three got out – they just couldn’t live with the distinction “love the sinner, hate the sin”. did it just stop sounding credible?
Barry, in regards to your suggestion about (light) put-downs, I’ll quote my statement again right here. I simply said,
There are multiple places in Scriptural conversations where I simply have to acknowledge my own subjectivity and preface my comments with “I think that,” or”In my opinion,” but this is not one of them. I made a sweeping statement that Jesus cared about boundaries and enforcing those boundaries (including banning an unrepentant person from fellowship until they submit to a full repentance). That is quite simply, flat-out true. No bones about it. So in the discussion about Jesus’ radical inclusion we have to have to talk about his radical exclusion as well. He walked a tremendous balance that is often missed by those who would occupy the extremes of positions because they don’t like the gray area that demands they depend on God. That’s all I was saying. And if you don’t carry that understanding, you don’t understand Jesus. Period.
Plus, for the sake of clarification, when I talked about a “full understanding of what Jesus stood for,” I was talking about grasping the spectrum of what he cared about; not suggesting I comprehended the depth and breadth of everything he stood for. Like everyone else in this world, I will be forever amazed at the incredible depth and meaning of the teachings of Jesus. They never get old.
I think you have a lot of great things to say about this parable, Barry. Especially the comment you made in the first part about the King that gave me a “Huh, that’s awesome. I’ve never considered that” moment.
Your great insight here notwithstanding, I think you miss the point Jesus is angling in on; though I think your focus on compassion is part of it. Jesus wasn’t giving Good News to sinners, rascals, and outcasts in any deeper sense of the word (as in welcoming them into his kingdom without any value judgment on their activities). And (I don’t think) this parable was about how wrong religious types were that care about theology). He was giving (shockingly) Good News in the sense that those who are a part of his kingdom are called to integrate both right belief AND right action; and that right action includes sharing one’s home, clothes, water, and time (for visits in prison) with those considered outcasts in society. Pursuing deep relationships with those folks will reveal (in time) some of the reasons why they are in the state they are in, and will provide the disciple with the opportunity to help monetarily or with other goods; or the challenge of telling that person in love that their actions are unhealthy for themselves and others.
So if we’re talking about “inclusivity” being a deep compassion for and commitment to serving those considered outcasts, I’m certainly with you. I get uncomfortable, though, when you talk about the church “coming out in full and open support of Gay and Lesbian people.” If your inclusivity is in service to them, then fine. If your inclusivity is in welcoming them without any value judgment on their activities at some point, then I’m definitely not with you. The reason the church is struggling with this issue (fumbling the ball, in your words), is because those who think “love the sinner, hate the sin” is true (which I think is entirely still accurate and relevant) and consistent with the example of Jesus want to be compassionate in a way that we’re not buying the liberal line that we should be welcoming irregardless of activities or lifestyle commitments.
In regards to your second comment, I completely agree with you that we cannot separate orientation and activity. That’s what I said at the bottom of my post above yours. I’ll quote it in full;
I think the “love the sinner, hate the sin” distinction is entirely credible and deeply relevant for addressing sin in various forms; homosexuality and related lifestyles being included in that lineup. The problem comes when folks collapse the two parts and just hate all around. The opposite problem comes when folks throw away the distinction and say some nice things about Jesus being tolerant and compassionate and welcome gays and lesbians with open arms without challenging their lifestyle. Neither is healthy, in my view, and neither is walking the gray uncomfortable area in the middle where one (in relationships with others) needs to know when to challenge and when to just spend time with folks irregardless of their actions…and when someone with a history of a sinful lifestyle seeks to be a part of God’s kingdom, they offer full repentance from (and rejection of) the lifestyle they led before (and will struggle to leave behind for life).
Nate,
It’s taken me a while to get to your comments, but here goes.
I do not believe I was buying into a false dichotomy nor was I working from a weak understanding of Jesus life and teaching.
I was expressing in an admittedly flip way, (I was being flip in the mistaken belief that this was a blog and not a systematic theology class) my own beliefs on this subject.
To put in as clear a way as I can, I believe that the people who would have me act as a gatekeeper to prevent homosexuals from enjoying full participation in the life of the church have a two part task ahead of them.
1) I need to be convinced that the interpretation of scripture that leads one to believe that homosexuality is a sin is absolutely correct, and that the interpretation that leads one to believe that homosexuality is not a sin is absolutely wrong.
2) Once step one has been accomplished, I would then need to be convinced that the sin of homosexuality is so much worse than the sins of which I am guilty that I would be justified in excluding them from full participation in the life of the church.
I herewith confess that I am guilty of violating the Fourth Commandment and I acknowledge that that violation is sinful and that I am not repentant. I will continue to watch NFL games and NASCAR races on Sunday afternoons. The Westminster Cathechism clearly states:
Further, I am guilty of violations of the Second Commandment. I acknowledge that they are sinful and I am not repentant. I possess books and other items that contain images that purport to be of God and Christ and I have not destroyed those images. According to the Second Helvetic Confession:
The Heidelberg Catechism says:
Those are violations of actual commandments, not just of obscure verses questionably interpreted. Yet no one is making a case that I should be kept out of the church because of them. Why is the sin of homosexuality, if it is a sin, so much worse?
And further, the question of “am I doing what Jesus would do?” is really not all that relevant to me in this context.
Both Jesus and I are fully human, but Jesus also had that fully divine thing going for him. That means that he probably had much more confidence in the correctness of his actions than I have ever had in the correctness of mine.
I have a healthy respect for my ability to be wrong. I know that no matter what I do there is a fairly substantial chance that I will be wrong.
Knowing that, my next question is not “what would the perfect person do?” but rather “what are the consequences of my being wrong?”
And, as I have said before I believe the consequences of my being wrong in the direction of being too welcoming are much less significant than the consequences of my being wrong in the direction of not being welcoming enough.
I don’t know how to put it any clearer than that.
I’m fascinated by the huge contrast between these two comments:
and…
I think I feel a whole lot safer talking to a person who is in touch with their ability to be wrong. Like Jesus says (in the lectionary reading for today – Luke 11:1-13)… “Ask… Search… Knock…” I’m pretty sure he was thinking about 2 types of people when he spoke those words:
to “if you don’t understand like me, you don’t understand…” kind of attitudes, Jesus was saying ASK – generate some humble Curiosity again…
and to the people who think they don’t deserve “good gifts” from the Father he was saying ASK – encouraging them to have Confidence in approaching the Father…
Barry,
You completely quoted my comments out of the context they were written in without dealing at all with our conversation. I tried to make it very clear in my last comment that there are some things that become very very clear if one has had a chance to see the example of Jesus and what he cared about; and there are some things that remain murky.
I gave you an example of something I considered clear and I admitted my subjectivity in another section. Read my comments in context and express some willingness to recognize Jesus wasn’t just about boundary-less compassion. Would you agree that Jesus had boundaries?
A good, solid discussion involves both the willingness to be generous where subjectivity comes into play and a willingness to stand one’s ground when things are flat-out true. Now, I recognize there are some things that I claim to be objectively true that aren’t; and that’s an area I will constantly be growing, but if we desire to follow Jesus, his example and teachings will both be the best thing we’ve ever heard and completely turn our worldview upside-down.
hi nate,
Sorry if my response seemed to quote you our of context – i wasn’t attempting a debate response, but rather a “feeling” response. (I don’t expect to be able to convince you that I am right and that you are wrong, so i was just making an observation about the nature of the debate, and different ways of presenting our convictions.) Safety is an increasingly important value to me. as I share my sincere thoughts about God and jesus and scripture with people, i am increasingly aware of how “unsafe” i feel with people who are sure that they are right and that they know. I am not saying I know, but I am saying I have some sincere and serious things to contribute to the conversation.
Just because Meghan admitted that there is a “fairly substantial chance” that she could be wrong, doesn’t make her contributions (for me) of less value! In fact, it makes me feel safer to expose my sincere thoughts and convictions in the debate. When we, people of faith, state our convictions in a way that seeks to disprove the views of others, it seems to suggest that we are more concerned with being right than with being in right (respectful?) relationship – in my understanding, the focus of biblical “righteousness”.
i believe that there are no boundaries to the compassion of God! Jesus was (for me) most definitely about “boundary-less” compassion! These are such profound and central convictions for me that your strong statements about people not understanding Jesus creates a huge tension…
Did Jesus have boundaries? I’m sure he did, but that’s a much broader question than the question about boundaries to compassion.
Regarding compassion, is there a person that you think Jesus (God) doesn’t have full compassion on? More interestingly (in the light of the parable of the sheep and the goats) if Jesus theoretically has MORE compassion for a certain group (type) of people, which is it?
I’m all for your sharing sincere thoughts about a variety of things in life, Barry; I’ve already appreciated your insights into the sheep/goats parable, and have said so above. And I can certainly see where you’re coming from in sensing that folks can (and do) react negatively to comments deconstructing their confidently “objective” truth claims that simply aren’t so.
The place where I quibble with you is the line I believe we must cross in deep conversation about various issues of life that move beyond hearing different perspectives to having conversations that challenge one another’s worldviews and ways of thinking and hold the potential to cause us to think, act, and speak differently. That requires the willingness to speak out as a dissenting voice when one feels compelled to move beyond hearing to responding. I’m all for listening, and I’m all for gracious, generous dialogue. But sometimes for our relationships to be full, we should (and must!) challenge one another. Because once we get beyond the pleasantries of hellos and mutual listening, we’ll pretty quickly find places in our relationships where we disagree on multiple issues. Our response, whether we cut off the conversation quickly with the trump cards “Agree to disagree” or “Well, you believe differently, but that’s ok”; or display the willingness to challenge one another to think deeper; will show how willing we really are to grow in our lives.
You know what the funny thing is about postmodern dialogue and positions? Allow me to make a sweeping generalization here, but postmodern folks can be so deconstructionist and humble and generous that they can hold other folks hostage with their self-centered ideas of truth. While poking holes in the triumphant “objectivity” of others, they can simultaneously believe their “generous” approach (that often lacks challenge and deep relationship) to be objectively more progressive than others; and they show it by cutting off the conversation with the above-mentioned trump cards when things get a little too uneasy. It’s kind of interesting when humility and self-confessed subjectivity get turned into something that, under layers of rhetoric, is really another flavor of “I have the truth and you don’t.”
So you have sincere things to add to this conversation. Good. So do I. But sincerity only goes so far. Some times either you or I is going to be wrong, and the only way we’ll find that out is if both of us find a place to stand in our convictions and really hash out what we believe. It might make things uneasy, but it sure as heck’ll take you and me both much further than we could in easy, rather trivial conversation and listening.
In regards to compassion, I do believe Jesus had no bounds. In the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus is making a strong point that poverty-stricken, sick, and imprisoned deserve as much compassionate service as anyone else; you could even go further than that to say Jesus was specifically highlighting the need to be compassionate to them to establish the point that they deserve to be loved and served.
But Jesus’ incredible compassion wasn’t my point; I stated that I believed Jesus wasn’t just about boundary-less compassion; that a full understanding of Jesus says, “Yes, Jesus had an amazing amount of compassion for all he came in contact with, but after we acknowledge that, his life was about that and so much more.” The call to righteous living, for example, or his guidelines for having a disciplined church, or even the simple statement to the woman caught in adultery after saving her life, “Go and sin no more.” The actions of persons, whether Pharisees or tax collectors, outside of the boundaries of the lifestyle God expected from his people, greatly disappointed and even angered Jesus to the point of action. A simple quick reading through the gospels will reveal a number of situations where Jesus drew a line in the sand for those he confronted with a different lifestyle.
Do those boundaries make him less compassionate? No, of course not. Do they make discipleship much more tense at times than light conversation and hearing one another’s perspectives generously? Yes, of course they do. Jesus didn’t mince words when he took strong positions in his life; and accordingly, neither should we. This requires respectful tact when to stand strongly and when to listen or hold back but I’ll say it again.
Maybe we should be careful in our decisions that end up excluding and judging the lifestyle of others, but it should not paralyze the need to do so. To suggest that boundary-watching and enforcing isn’t part of a life of faithful discipleship as a part of the church comes from a lack of a full understanding of what Jesus stood for.
thanks Nate for continuing to engage me in this conversation.
regarding challenging relationships, you seem to assume (is this your experience, or your theory) that postmoderns are all about wishy washy anything goes kind of conversation and relationship. I’ll assume that you’re suggesting that my ideas/contribution in this conversation reflect a “post modern” view. and yet in my very first response to you I made (what I think) was quite a clear challenge to you:
So let me continue and challenge you again – your (self confessed) sweeping statement is unhelpful. Postmoderns are not a group with an agenda to undermine truth. they just experience sincere doubts about the nature of truth. I definitely regard myself as a “postmodern” but I don’t recognise myself in your generalised description at all.
some of your criticisms of postmoderns:
- the need to challenge – I (a postmodern) have challenged your position
- the need for a dissenting voice – which would you say is the dissenting voice in the church of today? the call for inclusion or exclusion of gay and lesbian people??? You can consider your voice a dissenting voice if you like, but I would like to offer a perspective on what it feels like to be a sincere Christ-follower who is convinced that same-sex relationships should be embraced by the Community of Faith.
- avoiding meaningful engaging conversation with the “agree to disagree” exit – again, i would just point to my own response to you, and the experience of this site of Adam’s where the conversation has not be silenced by that phrase… there has been engaging debate with arguments that have raised my critical awareness.
Your final criticism of postmodern “generosity” is, as you say, a sweeping generalisation. Just because I don’t claim to have the whole and final truth, doesn’t mean I don’t have a conviction and a longing for truth. I think postmoderns (and now I may be generalising) are not avoiding truth – they are just suggesting that Truth won’t be so easily found in boundary-watching (which has to do with propositions and creeds and care-fully worded, and lengthy confessions of faith) but rather in a lived experience of the values of the Kingdom that Paul calls the “Fruit of the Spirit”. postmoderns are simply drawing our attention to the failure of creeds and debate and “challenging conversations” to bring unity in the broader body of Christ and asking penetrating questions about the Way in which we relate to each other (as well as what we are saying).
I think that for a long time in the church, you could justify behaving as unkindly as you liked, as long as you were “fighting for the right cause”. I think we’re seeing a revival of interest in Jesus’ teaching on a healthy disobedience of the “rules” (law, creeds, propositional frameworks…) in favour of a healthy dose of compassion for the person.
I can’t say that this conversation is “enjoyable” but I am enjoying being a part of it. So may I ask you some questions about “boundary-watching and enforcing”.
What kind of “enforcing” do you have in mind? How did Jesus enforce boundaries? “Enforcing” is an assertive (if not violent) word – where in Jesus’ teaching do you find him encouraging the enforcement of boundaries?
Hello again Barry,
I really am glad we’ve had a chance to go deeper in this conversation; these kinds of talks both sharpen and deepen my thoughts on issues.
To start off, I should establish that I am a self-identified postmodern, or at least one who resonates with much of what Brian McLaren and other folks have said about the transition taking place right now. In saying what I said in my comment just above, I was addressing an extreme I’ve seen postmodern folks go to (the key words were can be just before “so deconstructionist”); in retrospect, I probably was talking less to you and more venting frustrations I’ve had in the past over positions that had some similarity to a couple sections of your comments; mainly the exalting of “sincerity” or “authenticity” over the pursuit of truth that sometimes requires taking positions.
I’m all for sincere doubts about the nature of truth (you should see the looks I get from my church family on Sundays when I start bringing trying to rightly bring complexity to what has often been falsely assumed before, like “Christians vote Republican” or the unspoken-but-often-held belief that the United States is the kingdom of God or that Iran, Iraq, and North Korea are evil because George Bush says so…these are surfacy examples, but relevant), but my critique comes in when that doubting the modern conception of absolute truth undermines the pursuit of truth; or, in other words, creates a mindset that nothing is really “knowable” or “fully truthful” in our subjective reality. I’m sure you’ve heard the critique that “there are no absolutes” is in fact an absolute statement itself. The problem with the extreme of modernity was the temptation to put everything in absolute categories; I’d say the problem with the extreme of postmodernity is to the temptation to put everything in relative categories.
As far as the need for challenge, you challenged a strong claim of mine with a truth claim that my understanding is relative; I accept that your claim is true. But again I want to emphasize that I was not suggesting I “knew” the length and depth of Jesus’ teachings to their furthest extent; I was stating that to know Jesus means one must have boundaries in one’s behavior and thoughts and words.
As far as your comment on the dissenting voice in the church today, I think the issue is more complex than you make it. Clearly those who call for the inclusion of gay people into the church are the dissenting voice, given that the majority opinion is that they should not be. But as Christians, we can’t just hop on the dissenting voice wagon and say that there’s automatically something truthful there; especially if we invoke Jesus’ challenge of the status quo in support of our position. We have to instead make value judgments on various dissenting voices and decide if what they are calling for is in fact truthful and faithful or not. The church’s past has been checkered on this, but again, that should not paralyze our need to address various issues. Again, I am glad you are sincere, but I believe you are sincerely wrong; and I believe the testament and weight of Scripture is consistently against your sincere position. By reducing Jesus to “compassionate” and judging Scripture in light of your litmus test of “compassion,” you have a deeply individualistic, subjective, and ahistorical position on an issue that has been around for as long as humans have been around.
I believe the faithful dissenting voice in the church today regarding the homosexual question is those who believe LGBT lifestyle temptations as simply that, temptations to a lifestyle outside of God’s expectations for human life; yet they don’t stop there with believing this to be true. They pursue relationships with LGBT persons that help to bring transformation in their lives; deep relationships that seek when to challenge and when to build trust with those persons. This, I believe, is consistent with the example of Jesus and the testament of Scriptures; healthy boundaries and a deep love for and service of all.
You say you are convinced. I ask you; what has convinced you? Experience? Science? Both of those are deeply subjective, and even the “concrete” evidence of the scientific position that LGBT lifestyles are genetic and therefore hard-wired into them is flawed in light of newer science that shows how even our genetics can be dramatically altered by our behavior and environment. Are you exalting the things that have convinced you above the testament of the consistency of Scripture on this point? Then I’d question your foundation as a follower of Jesus. What deeply informs your position on this issue has secondary waves of impact on a variety of issues in your life; it has been proposed scientifically that alcoholism is genetically passed on. Is that an ok lifestyle for you? What criteria do you bring to bear to make a moral judgment on alcoholism (or any other issue for that matter? Whether our position is “compassionate” enough? And who determines what action is “compassionate” or not?
When it comes to your closing thoughts on postmodern positions, I’d have to say we are called to a both/and approach rather than either/or with what you said. Truth is found both through boundary-watching AND in the lived experience of the values of the kingdom of God. Something that deeply impacts my perspective on this issue is the constant self-reminder who’s the boss. There are a variety of things I would never suggest are “natural” or “common-sense” that God expects of his followers (enemy love to the point of death, constant and vigilant pursuit of what is “unseen,” a deep sense of compassion and patience even when situations aren’t being transformed, etc), yet God’s pretty insensitive to my complaints about the structure of the good life as He’s determined it; and I’m finding over the long-term that He knows much better than I what the good life’s all about.
I agree with you about some of the failures of the church (right intellectual belief as more important than right behavior as one you highlighted), and the need to have a healthy dose of compassion. All I’m suggesting is that this call to compassion is not totalizing; it’s not the whole picture. It’s important, but only as a component of the bigger lifestyle of discipleship.
In terms of enforcing, I was not speaking of folks standing at the borders with guns taking out people right and left who don’t line up with their conception of truth. I’m talking specifically about Jesus’ prescription to the disciples in Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:15-19 about the need for discipline in the church. The central part of those prescriptions is that God backs up the decisions to exclude when the decisions are made faithfully. You could add into that conversation 1 Corinthians 5 where Paul specifically addresses expelling those engaging in unrepentant immoral behavior from the midst of the church.
In regards to lifestyle choices, there are many sections in the gospels where Jesus fills in what a healthy life looks like within the borders of the kingdom of God. Matthew 4 in the temptation narrative shows Jesus consciously grounding his choices in “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” and in the centrality of God as definer of what is healthy or unhealthy. Matthew 5-7 is all about boundaries, whether anger or lust or divorce or retaliation or loving enemies or giving to the needy or money. Jesus teaches in Matthew 7 that the gate to life is narrow and broad is the road to destruction. That is a comment that begs for details about what that narrow way looks like; because clearly there are boundaries to that narrow way that separate it from the broad. And as Jesus is talking about the pursuit of righteousness in his ministry, he continually sprinkles in that not everyone will inherit the kingdom of heaven, but only those who put into practice what he has taught (and you could faithfully say that since Jesus is a firmly rooted Jew, the expectations of the people of Israel that he does not contradict or intensify are a part of that conversation).
I should say that the goal of boundary watching is not exclusion as an end, but exclusion for the sake of the individual or group recognizing their error and taking the necessary steps to live within the guidelines of the community in order to return.
Nate & Barry…I’m glad the two of you could engage one another in this conversation, but perhaps it’s time to take this conversation to your blogs or to an email correspondence. Thanks.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 4 trackbacks }