Back in November, 2009, I contacted Las Vegas, NV, Canyon Ridge Christian Church as a part of my reporting on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009. Canyon Ridge lists the Ssempas as missionaries on their website. Specifically, it has been of interest to learn how American ministries who have significant ties to prominent Ugandan supporters of the bill are reacting. Ugandans have reached out for assistance in significant ways to American churches and the relationships are deep and substantial going in both directions. Some of these relationships have been casualties of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
One Ugandan pastor who had been well connected in the US is Martin Ssempa. As is common knowledge now, Saddleback pastor, Rick Warren first went public with a split from Ssempa and then sent a letter and video denouncing the bill as “unchristian.” Colorado based abstinence education group, WAIT Training initially issued a statement neither supporting or endorsing Ssempa. More recently, however, WAIT Training severed all ties with him. Another American ministry, Teen Mania was slated to begin a youth leadership training ministry in partnership with Ssempa but recently put the effort on hold. Teen Mania issued a statement indicating disapproval of the bill and pledged to evaluate ministry partners in order “to ensure that we are not partnering with or supporting anyone who has advocated for a blanket death penalty for homosexual offenders.” Oral Roberts University, where Martin Ssempa is on the school’s Board of Reference has declined to comment on the bill at all.
Recently, Canyon Ridge Christian Church ended their silence with the following statement from Executive Pastor Mitch Harrison:
Canyon Ridge Christian Church partners with missionaries and ministry leaders around the world, including Martin Ssempa, for the purpose of reaching people with the gospel of Jesus Christ and providing humanitarian aid where possible.
With the oversight of our elders and missions team, we constantly evaluate our ministry partners and their activities. We will only support those who engage in and promote activities consistent with the redemptive and grace-filled purposes of Jesus Christ in the world.
Canyon Ridge Christian Church does not wish to enter into the debate over the legislation in Uganda. We do encourage those involved to seek God’s leadership in humility and grace and to follow Jesus command to love one another as they wrestle with this difficult issue. Our prayers are for the good of the people Uganda.
The bill continues to be a difficult issue for American Christians to navigate. Many leaders I have spoken with are torn in their feelings. They really dislike the bill but they have come to trust their Ugandan brothers and sisters who are among the most vocal supporters of the bill. Make no mistake, I oppose the bill but I do understand the difficulty it is to separate with someone you have considered a friend over an issue of conscience.
As long as you insist that gay anger is delusional, I don’t suspect there will be much jogging any time soon.
I used the word ‘delusions’, David did not. (One quarter spin.) I expressed that this belief of yours is a delusion; I did not characterize YOU as ‘delusional’ as a whole. (Another quarter spin.) And I was speaking to you directly not characterizing gays as a whole. (And we have ourselves another spin!)
It doesn’t quite qualify as a delusion if the only evidence a person has been allowed to see all points to one reality. Most gays are simply misinformed. You, however, have had access–both long ago and in recent years–to evidence that counters your broad-sweeping claims against the conservative Christians…yet you haven’t budged an inch in your assessment.
I’ll ask again.
I am not saying “who us?”
I am saying, “not me and not the overwhelming majority of Christians I have met in my life.”
Fred Phelps is a distorted Icon projected on the face of every Christian…that is partly our fault, a leading group of pastors should have repetitively and publicly condemned him 20 years ago…
But he is a useful icon for some GLBT advocates…
I met a person the other day who hated Christianity because of its oppression of women…
I could argue all day the way Christianity elevated women compared to their secular peers (placing it in cultural context) and much more…I don’t think it will soften their view.
I have met many people who believe Christianity endorsed slavery and they hate it because of that belief….
Global blame for Christians is just as distorted as any other type of global blame; my understanding of psychological maturity is the ability to see the many facets of things and to tolerate ambivalence and to choose.
Minority groups of all types have rightly demanded abandoning simplifying stereotypes…
Christians hating gays is a simplifying stereotype.
Sometimes I wish I had the gift of ‘succint’.
I think this sums things up very well.
Michael,
I am not against gays and how they want to live there life. The issue, to me, seems that if someone does not see any harm in their own life with respect to acting on SSA and then wants to claim that no one else should see SSA behaviour as harmful we have a judgement being made. I have a aquaintence who has recently revealed to me that he had be told years ago by a councelor that promiscuity in gay men was just the norm so he sould not get worked up over that in his life. He is now HIV positive and working hard to break the desire to act on those feelings.
The idea that we are not to look at any form of behaviour as being sinful or harmful is such garbage and is the most condemning thing you can tell anyone. It is time we call a spade a spade if it is harmful to someone they need to know, otherwise they may continue to live in complete denial until it kills them or someone close to them.
Some Christians may be less than compassionate towards gay people out of a real concern for the well being of that person. I do realize that this lack of compassion can also be very harmful, but to stereotype all conservative christians as being uncaring and homophobic is just bigoted.
Concerned, I never made the claim that “all conservative Christians are uncaring and homophobic.” NEVER.
David, I never said “Christians hate gays”. NEVER.
Mary, I am Christian first.
Eddy, I have acknowledged that all of the other reaons you gave for why gays might be so angry have merit.
To all, If you hang out lots of gay people (as I do) you are struck by how intense and how deep the negative impression of Conservative Christians and Christianity really is. You guys seem to think that gays are mostly to blame for that. I don’t.
I think there is somthing else. So many gays have had such negative experiences with Christianity that it is very hard to convince them that Conservative Christians really care about them and have their best interests at heart.
Michael–
And I have acknowledged that there are homophobic Christians out there…the question I answered from you is if there could be other reasons.
I too have had lots of exposure to gays. Most, when they learned that I had been a minister, said ‘Oh, you were a priest’. That’s how lame their understanding was of Christians. When I’d try to explain that only a very few religions had ‘priests’, they’d glaze over and plead “TMI”…’too much information’. But they held lots of negative opinions. So, I began questioning where their negative perceptions were coming from and found that they’d been fed a healthy dose of negativism from activists. They couldn’t cite specifics to support their negative views…almost always they’d toss up Fred Phelps or some group that protested with ‘God Hates Gays’ signs at the State Capitol. Reason it out, will you?
The Twin Cities regional population is approximately 2 million people!!!! Yes, there are a number of liberals but there’s a goodly number of conservative Christians too. So, the gays hold a rally at the Capitol and a hundred sign waving anti-gay, Christian-identified protestors show up. They, of course, make the news. My gay friends wanted to see them as typical…as representive of the attitudes of conservative Christians and I said to them what I’m saying to you: HOGWASH!
You have asked us not to judge all gays by the more visible actions of some. You question those that try to make the visible gay-bar revellers representative or indicative of the majority of gays. I adamantly maintain that you are doing that very thing in reverse. And, in the process, you slander thousands upon thousands of your Christian brothers and sisters.
And your slander, along with the slander of the gay activists, fuels the perception that those friends of mine catch wind of. Truth is that most of them don’t know diddly about Christians other than what they’ve been fed. And, you are among the feeders.
I’m very very sorry that you can’t see it. It grieves me every time I hear you pronounce that unfounded judgement on your fellow Christians.
I stand by what I have said about the way many gays feel about many Christians. They think that Christians are their enemies.
I believe that is largely due to the fact that Christians have done a poor job of showing them otherwise.
You want to blame that on gays and gay activists. I don’t think either one of us is going to convince the other whose view is more delusional.
As a Christian, I would love to say that Christians have done a bang-up job. It grieves me to point out that they have not.
You’re right. It’s just that we’re backing up our reasoning and you’re just saying it’s so because you think it’s so.
Re your second post. Nice to see that you’ve summarily discounted even the liberal Christians now. Discounted all those churches that have become ‘affirming congregations’…those that have wrestled with the issues of ordination and come out in favor in gays…those that did speak out against the Uganda legislation…those that did lend their voices to the Facebook group…those that do have AIDS ministries and outreaches…those who have enough love and compassion to qualify as an Exodus referral (who may, in your mind, be misguided…but it’s compassion we’re talking about at the moment)…
You are right. Excuse me. I should have clarified that I was speaking of the impression I get from many, many gays about many, many conservative Christians. There are exceptions, but many gays do seem to see the liberal or affirming Christians as more “Christ-like”.
In contrast, they tend to believe that conservative Christians, in general, do not really care about them. More than that, they tend to view Conservative Christians as self-righeous, rejecting and even hateful.
They do seem to have a higher opinion of the affirming congregations and of liberal Christians. Again, you maintain that the negative impression they have of conservative Christians is primarily their own fault — or the fault of gay activists.
I am certain that is part of if, but I believe most of it is due to the negative experiences they have had personally with conservative Christians — and to the poor job conservative Christians have done to actively demonstrate the love of Christ.
And let’s not forget that they simply don’t like anyone who dares to believe that it’s sin…regardless of whether the response to the sin and the sinner is compassionate, loving and caring. Much like a child who’s momma says “NO” and the child screams “I hate you!”
Yeah, people tend to get touchy when you tell them that. Or that they are broken. Or diseased. Or defective. Or disordered. Or that their parents were defective. Or that they could really become straight if they wanted to. Or that they don’t have enough faith if they don’t change. Or that they might have to remain celibate all their lives or just masturbate to gay images privately at home. Or that their sexuality is sin worthy of death. Or that they are going to Hell if they don’t stop.
No matter how “lovingly” you say it –those messsages can make people angry. Not surprising. They don’t tend to get those messages from the liberal or affirming Christians. So it might be something the conservatives are doing after all that makes them dislike the conservatives — and not just the brainwashing of gay activists. The liberal and affirming churches don’t tell them these things.
No Michael,
They don’t get those messages from liberal gay affirming people they get HIV and other diseases that could be prevented if they did not believe that the behaviours they were ingaging in were completely harmless.
concerned–
Not sure what you are saying here. Who are you blaming for them getting ‘HIV and other diseases that could be prevented’? AND does that same blame apply to straights who ‘get HIV and other diseases that could be prevented’? In an age when we have AIDS and other STD’s, NO sex…other than sex between two virgins(I assume including gay ones) should be considered as ‘completely harmless’.
You and I are often on the same page but I’ve been laboring against unfounded allegations and spin as detriments to productive conversation…and this recent comment of yours seems tainted with both.
Concerned: No one I know promotes unprotected sex or believes that uprotected sex — gay or straight — is “completely harmless.” And no liberal or affirming group or church I know does either.
On the contrary, many of these groups and churches have been on the front lines of HIV prevention, education and HIV care from the beginning — while SOME conservatives stood back, shook their heads and said, “Well, they are just receiving the due penalty of their error…”
And before anyone accuses me of painting broad brush, I know many conservatives who have been on the front lines as well.
Eddy,
I am still very much on the same page as you on much of what you are saying. My frustration comes out of the revalation by my friend who has just reveal his HIV status. It is not just his revalation that upsets me but what he revealed about the the attitudes of a councellor who would even suggest that someone who is gay must therefore automaticallly be promiscuous. To me giving the message that having SSA means someone is going to be promiscuous and therefore must accept that as just the way it is and therefore cannot do much about it is unacceptable and extremely unprofessional. Yet this is what he is saying has happened. Perhaps I have over reacted, but I know I had a similar experience myself a number of years ago by a very progay councellor that I had been directed to by a health professional who I had revealed my own SSA to. I am thankful today that I walked out of that councellors office never to return.
What an irresponsible, unethical and unprofessional thing to suggest to a client! I hope he got his money back — if indeed that is what the counselor told him.
Michael,
All you can say is he hopes he got his money back! Unbelievable.
A great starting point. Some Conservatives are bad and set back the cause; some gays are bad and set back the cause. BUT THEY AREN’T HERE! (Thank God!)
We conservatives won’t demand that you go fix all the bad gays before we can proceed with productive conversation; you, in turn, ought not demand that we fix all those invisible bad conservatives before we engage in productive conversation. You are doing what you can within reason and so are we.
One of my goals with conservatives is to show them that gays are reasonable, open-minded, and ready to engage in productive dialogue…unfortunately I can’t point them to any evidence of that. I used to recommend this site and invite them to follow the dialogues. I don’t do that anymore because we’re more polarized than productive. It’s a real Catch-22.
You want us to change those homophobic Christians and, as for me, I have a very limited sphere of influence except here on the web. I blog here. I impact Exodus when I can. I inject my voice where I feel it might do any good. I think that’s true of the other compassionate concerned Christians who blog here. As I hinted in my last paragraph, I’d love to invite them here…love to have them meet some gays online who profess a love for Christ…shake ‘em up a little bit…jostle their perceptions. But it’s not yet feasible. I fear you’ll only be saying ‘some’ for a day or two and then forget. I don’t want them to have Christian-bashing or conservative-bashing as their first exposure to gays…Christian gays at that. It would set the cause back rather than advance it.
You feel it’s necessary to remind us over and over again about those nasty conservatives with their unchristlike attitudes…you justify it in the discussion of Uganda. Conversely, we could drag up again and again those nasty gays, the ones we all know exist, who live for the moment…for the next trick…we could justify that in the discussion of Uganda…how does Uganda protect itself from that influence when they have a serious AIDS epidemic on their hands. But, discussing those nasty gays doesn’t further the discussion…doesn’t foster productive dialogue and so we don’t. We know they are atypical. We are simply asking the same consideration in return. We don’t demand that you answer for promiscuous gays; please stop demanding that we answer for those atypical conservatives.
Both sides can debate how atypical the nasties are. Are there more nasty conservatives than I believe? What of it? Are there more nasty gays than you believe? What of it? Gays tend to believe that most conservatives are harsh and judgemental; conservatives tend to believe that most gays are a bit promiscuous. We can debate our opinions for hours on end and still not move on from square one… THIS is a unique forum…one that has incredible potential…it’s up to us all to determine if we want to live up to that potential.
concerned–
I hear you. My problem was with how you were laying it at Michael’s feet. He didn’t do that…he wouldn’t do that.
Tensions have run a bit high here but Michael was not trying to demean your friends situation. In saying “I hope he got his money back.”, I don’t believe Michael meant to overlook the tragedy of your friend now living with AIDS…he was saying…that’s unethical and inappropriate…such a counselor or therapist is not worthy of the money paid.
Yes, Michael’s response could have been a bit more compassionate BUT we all bring our feelings into the room sometimes. You brought yours in…feelings related to your friend’s tragedy…and were a bit terse in your earlier comment to Michael. That may have set Michael up for not seeing or hearing all of your pain and anguish over this.
The therapist, it seems, committed two big offenses. One was in encouraging promiscuity; the other was in not educating about safe-sex practices. I don’t condone encouraging promiscuity…BUT…in this day and age, encouraging promiscuity without educating about safer-sex is reprehensible.
LOL!!!
All Christian are to blame – of course – except for Michael and whom he deems so.
No. That wasn’t “all I said”. I said it was completely irresponsible, unethical and unprofessional. As you said, competely unacceptable. I agree. Completely contrary to education and professional standards. Sometimes clients don’t hear correctly, but…
If your friend was indeed ecouraged by a counselor or be promiscuous and/or have unsafe sex, I think your friend should have filed a formal complaint with the threrapist’s employer/supervior or with whatever board issued the counselor’s license — and yes, he SHOULD demand his money back.
I would! It’s outrageous. Why would a counselor suggest such a stupid and life-threatening thing? Now, your friend has to face dealing with a chronic and potentially fatal disease. I think a therapist (as a health professional) has a moral responibility to advise clients to take good care of their health — not jeopardize it!
I do not want to add to his suffering, but why woud your friend follow such advice? Was he not aware of the dangers of promiscuity and unprotected sex? Had he not heard? Most people nowadays are fairly well educated about the dangers, although many take risks anyway.
And it also appalls me that you recieved simlar advice. I hope you did more than walk out and never return. I hope you filed a complaint and got a refund, too.
For the record, Mary, I have never, NEVER said that “all Christians are to blame.” I don’t appreciate you attributing to me things I have never said. I said that I was getting “more and more frustrated” with Christians every day — in response to the original post.
I have said that I think many gays are angry with conservative Christians for good reason, but I have NEVER said that “all Christians are to blame”. I would not say that because I simply do not believe that.
I have close relationships with family and friends who identify as “conservative Christians”. On most points, theologically, I tend to think of myself as one. I know that many coservative Christians have done many loving, charitable and self-sacrifical acts of love.
I was talking about Christians who are afraid of taking a stand on matters of conscience for fear of alienating their friends. I agree with Dr. Throckmorton that it’s sometimes difficult to do — but that does not relieve them of the moral responsility. That was what I was reacting to. I see that as rather cowardly. I did not mean it as blanket condemnation of “all Christians”.
Do you take any responsibility for that, or is it just me? You don’t see that you have also been unreasonable, close-minded and unwilling to engage in productive dialogue? You don’t think your attitudes and arguments have been polarizing? You say that I have issues with you that I “just can’t define” ? On the contrary, I could give you a very specific list if you’re interested, but I don’t think it would be on topic here.
Michael–
re an earlier post (not too far back)–I’m assuming the one Mary responded to.
I’m really sorry that the Bible says “The wages of sin is death”…I’m very sorry that it talks of eternal judgement. Although I’m not quite sure what that is…it seems that the matter was serious enough that God ‘sent his only begotten Son’ to redeem us…to buy us back from sin and its penalty.
I wish it had said that the wages of sin was a stubbed toe…that the penalty was a 20 minute timeout. But alas….. So, if I take my Savior seriously, I presume that he saved me from something. I presume that ALL people need to be rescued from that something. And if they’re not rescued…guess what….they’re not rescued. Whatever it is…whether it be Hell or a life on earth not tempered by the grace of Christ…whatever it is, they’re not rescued.
I happen to believe that homosexual behavior is one of those things dubbed sin; even if I were persuaded that some homosexual behavior (i.e. monogamous within a loving and committed relationship) were not sin, I’d still have concerns for the level of promiscuity that exists particularly among gay males. Sex is pleasurable. Sex without committment feels like a free ride. Males, whether they be gay or straight, are attracted to a pleasureable free ride. Straight males would be far more promiscuous if only women were, in general, as loose as they were. All that said, whatever disagreements we have over homosexual behavior, per se, being sin…I believe it’s clear that promiscuity is sin. So, yes, there are many, many in need of the rescue…in need of being bought back from sin.
So, by all means, mock and disdain any concern for eternal welfare…get mad as hell when people who believe in Hell suggest that that is the punishment for sin. “The bridge is out! The bridge is out! Stop! Unless you’ve got wings on that car or have plans to turn off somewhere mighty quick, you’re gonna die.” “Listen to that dude ranting over there. He doesn’t want us having any fun! Wants us to die! You heard him!” Yup! There will always be people who interpret a warning as judgement…there will always be people who interpret concern for meddling…who will question motives and outcomes. BUT, you know what, even if I only heard that the bridge is out. If I was reasonably sure that was so, I’d holler out a warning…and I’d let ‘em know how serious the consequences might be. Why? Because I care! And, as for them, let them think of me what they will. Let them judge my motives. Let them think of me as a spoil sport. At least I’ve done my best to warn them.
Just like the often offered phrase ‘in my opinion’, when I share my beliefs, I cite that this is ‘how I see it’…or this is how it seems to me. Trying to encourage more Christians to take that approach…even the gay ones.
Nah….actually I think I’m being reasonable to a fault. And very open minded. It’s just that you don’t offer anything to put into my open mind. Where’s your substance? You continually ask us where do we think those negative feelings that the gays have are coming from but do you show evidence that those negative feelings have real foundation? The best you’ve been offering is ‘those negative feelings have to be coming from somewhere.’ Sorry, dude, I was here when the gay bashing stories were discussed and–although there was no mention of religion or church affiliation–I heard the responsibility being indirectly tied to the conservative Christians. No evidence. No quotes. No direct links. Just an appeal to ‘where do you think they got their homophobic attitudes?” That’s what’s unreasonable. Even now, you have suggested that ‘calling it sin’ is unloving. Just for a moment, consider something that IS sin…that we all agree is sin…and write a parallel paragraph.
‘What would you think of someone who told you that your lying is sin? That you could go to hell or face eternal punishment if you didn’t turn from it? When they suggest that you tell the truth even if it means losing your job or your girlfriend? When they suggest a lifetime without lying? You don’t think that sounds unloving and uncaring?! blah blah blah.”
But whatever. I’m outta here. It’s karaoke night and I need to warm up the pipes.
Didn’t think you would see it. Myopia. Have fun singing.
I agree…
And will continue to advocate for compassion and tolerance.
But there is a logical distrust of Christianity by Gays and Lesbians who know that their identity is “eternally condemned” by conservative Christianity.
Regardless of our behavior, it would be nearly impossible for someone to feel safe or loved in the context of such a “threat” (consequence).
Some in the GLBT community view this belief as a core form of oppression and intimidation…
We can assure them that we are not “singling them out”…but the origin of sexual sensations is so mysterious and so core (and SSA folks so misunderstood and avoided) that it does not feel like other sinful behaviors or thoughts.
Many with SSA do not feel the accompanying sense of “I am like you” when a OSA christian talks about their sinfulness…SSA folks have an experience that makes them still feel an “otherness” than pushes them to the periphery of human christian identity…and churches may want them to stay at the periphery.
Michael,
If you want a good laugh – re-read what you wrote – everything.
You rewrite everything and reword most of everything and say something different by the end of your long drawn out whatever. It’s not ADD that you have – it’s called switching up and changing what you are saying so you don’t have to be responsible for what you previously said.
I am too tired, now.
David: Thanks. You articulated beautifully what I have been unable to convey.
Mary: I needed a good laught after all of this, so I took your suggestion. I just re-read all my comments. I didn’t laugh. I also do not think I “switched or changed” my central theme. I tried saying the same thing in different ways. I felt I was repeatng myself, not veering from my points.
I had two main points:
(1) I am disappointed in those Christians who are more concerned with their friends feelings than they are with standing for conscience. I think that is a very sad trait in a “Christian”.
(2) I firmly believe that conservative Christians are largely responsible for much of the anti-Christian anger than many gays feel towards them. I agreed with Eddy when he pointed out that there might be other reasons.
I added “some” at your suggestion (a good one) so that I could be clear that I didn’t mean “all” conservative Christians” — just the ones too cowardly to stand by their conscience or the ones seem to be more concerned with moral purity than with love.
I am not trying to avoid responsibility. I am perfectly willing to stand by everything I have said here. Apart from modifying some comments to be less sweeping (adding “some”) I think think I pretty much repeated the same thing over and over – ad nauseum. Eddy refers to it as “pounding one note”.
Yes. I try saying it different ways — you call it “switching and changing”. I see it as trying to get the point across by trying to speak your language — but some have already made up their minds about me and about what I have to say. For example, you accusing me of saying that “all Christiansd are to blame” when I said no such thing. Find any comment that I have made in this thread, and I will stand by it. I accept full responsibility.
I agree and here’s the difference. Straights have a way to express their sexuality in a way endorsed by both society and church. Gays do not. ANY physical, person-to-person, genital expression of their sexuality is “sin” and can land you in Hell if you keep it up.
With the exception of those who are already bisxual or those few who may develop “spouso-sexual” feelings, they cannot court, romance, fall in love, have sexual intercourse or marry the person they love. Straights can do ALL these things–with the blessing of the state and church.
Like straights, God gives gays fully functioning sexual apparatus, all the necessary hormones, the same powerful drive for sexual contact and bonding — but gays must NEVER use these. If they are not attracted to the opposite sex, what can gays do with their sexual drive? Deny it. Supress it. Take up a hobby. Re-define it. Re-channel it. Vow never to act on it. Maybe masturbate alone — “like enjoying a good book”. Maybe, but even that is suspect.
Straightness does not come with the expectation of lifelong celibacy or attempting to have or pretend to have feelings they so not possess. What practical solutions or suggestions do you offer to the millions of gays with no “OSA”? Go to Exodus? Narth? Psychotherapy? Prayer? Fasting? Beat pillows with tennis rackets?
I think this is one of the reasons gays get mad at Christians. They are told that all gay sex is sin and might very well result in eternal torment, but no one seems to provide a reasonable, here-and-now alternative.
One reasonable alternative, for a Christian, is to draw on the grace and strength provided by a supernatural God who is in touch with all of our weaknesses and all of our longings and desires.
Young men, with hormones raging through their bodies, survived Bible school…two years, four years, six years without going mad denying their body’s demands for sexual release. Christian men and women, who for one reason or another, remained unmarried…endured without having sex. I can’t find records of the insanity rates–can you?
Are those who are straight who are called to a life of celibacy doomed to insanity? Doomed to miserable lives? Does God not reward them for their sacrifice? Does genital pleasure surpass what God can provide by his grace and riches?
Some men cringe at the thought of committment; other men cringe at the thought of celibacy. Truth is that men cringe. Can a Christian trust Christ to control the crises of the cringes?
I would relish the opportunity to compare the pain and anguish of celibacy to the life of one who pursued the gay path? Has your path, Michael, been free of frustration, pain, anguish and uncertainty? You paint the problems associated with celibacy well yet you didn’t travel that path. Why not paint a true picture of the path of your own life? How can you go about painting dismal portraits of the lives of others when your own portrait would also be one that NO ONE would freely choose. We all have our paths. If someone would have told you that you’d meet a man, the love of your life, and after x number of years he’d die tragically and leave you alone…would you opt for that? Before that relationship began, could you have even fathomed him ever being gone from your life? And once gone, could you have even imagined moving on to another? NO!
But, day by day you live. Day by day you survive. Day by day God grants you the grace to live through that day and move on to the next. I daresay that the pains you have suffered make your complaints about a lifetime of celibacy pale by comparison. The only difference is in the expectation. One who chooses–or feels doomed to–celibacy sees a lifelong picture that, for all intents and purposes, covers the rest of their life. It looks bleak and dark. You chose a path that looked pretty damned rosy, in many respects, but it didn’t turn out that way. You’ve been hurt a few times since–by gay men NOT by conservative Christians. Yet you hold on to those rosy dreams. They may be true dreams; maybe not. You’ve had a lot of pain but you expect that the pain will end. Experientially, the person who chose celibacy when you chose to go back to the gay life, has suffered far less pain. The likelihood is that, in the future, the patten will continue.
That’s just my way of saying “Don’t play the ‘terrors of celibacy card’ on me.” I agree it may at times appear horrendous but 1) we’ve got an indwelling Savior to help us through….yes, even til death do us part and 2) you’re not a very good example of the joys and thrills of the alternative.
@ Michael and Eddy,
They can’t…for many Gay men. As women’s sexuality is more fluid, there are more options.
I have a very good friend with SSA. He is a remarkable person. He is gifted interpersonally, in his chosen profession, he is generous and compassionate…in a word, he is “Alive.” And Christian, and celibate.
He is not a member of Exodus; he is authentic about his identity as an SSA Christian, he leads bible studies;
I could go on.
He has built an authentic community in an Evangelical world without demonizing or pathologizing himself or anyone else.
Like me, he is neurotic; but he is not tormented.
Really? How about a relationship with God in line with your faith and values? Why does it always have to boil down to having sex? Not everyone is guranteed a good sex life. Straight or gay or whatever.
Michael,
What you may find is that by denying the pleasures of sexual intimacy for the pleasure of true friendship and fellowship the sexual desires you speak of may become deminished and less of a focal point. Each time we feed our sexual appetite with sexual activity it reinforces in us that we cannot live without it.
That is how so many have managed to live a celibate life without going insane. They focus that energy on other things such as service to others rather than the meeting of their own sexual needs.
To all of you, I expected the answers you gave — and I respect that many ex-gay folks have found happiness and a sense of personal and spiritual integrity by walking the path you suggest. God bless them. They must walk according to their own beiefs and values. It is not the path for everyone and there are other ways that have as much validity and meaning — even though you might not agree.
Whether those other paths have meaning and validity is tempered both by whether it is or isn’t sin and by whether the individual believes that it is or isn’t sin. That tosses a few variables into the mix that precludes any of us from being the ultimate judge.
David, I never said that ex-gays were “neurotic” or “tomented”. I do not “demonize” them. I never said that they were not generous, gifted or compassionate. I never said they were “inauthentic”. I know better.
Eddy, I never claimed that those “who are called to a life of celibacy doomed to insanity” or “doomed to miserable lives”. I never suggested that celibate homosexuals were “insane”.
I never suggested that the gay life was “free of frustration, pain, anguish and uncertainty”. No one’s life is. I never claimed that the gay life was “rosy” or without pain”. No one’s life is. Perhaps choosing your path would have brought more happines. Who knows?
I have had deep pain AND profound joy. I have grief and regrets. I think all people have. I have been injured by gays, straights, ex-gays, Christians, atheists — but I have also been blessed by folks in each of these groups. It is NOT true that I have been hurt “by gay men NOT by conservative Christians.” I have been hurt by BOTH.
Yes, I do “hold on to those rosy dreams”. And I intend to KEEP holding on to them. You may think that’s foolish, but I can’t help it. I am a romantic and an idealist by nature. I always have been. As you said, “they may be true dreams; maybe not.” Yes, I have had a lot of pain.
So have many faithful Christians, gay and straight. I do not, as you suggest, “expect that the pain will end”. I am also a realist. Pain will not end until I see my Savior face-to-face. No person, SSA or OSA is guaranteed happiness. And I have NEVER held myself up as proof that they gay life (on any life) is a bed of roses.
Mary, I do have “a relationship with God in line with my faith and values”. Being gay-affirming and having a relationship with God are NOT mutually exclusive. It does not “always have to boil down to having sex”. My life is much more than that. I know that “not everyone is guranteed a good sex life. Straight or gay or whatever.”
Concerned, I never said that celibacy and suppression of gay feelings would make a person “insane”. I said it’s not a practical solution for millions and millions of people who are homosexual. If it works for those who feel called to that path, more power to them. But is not the ONLY path to integrity, wholeness or relationship with God.
Eddy: These arguments we have — at the root — always boil down to whether or not you believe that all gay sex is always sin. That is the “great divide”.
Question: I know you guys base your belief that it is always sin on the Bible. Tell me this, do you REALLY believe that God REALLY commanded all of the things that Old Testament writers say he commanded?
Sorry Michael but I’m not about to embark on that detour with you. It misses the point of what I just said….arguing about whether it is or isn’t sin has been going on for years and years and will likely go on for years to come.
The meaning and validity of a Christian’s life–however they choose to live it–must be tempered by their relationship with Christ above all other influences. If we’re right that it is sin, then meaning and validity are compromised from a Christian standpoint. The life might have meaning and validity on a number of levels but it will be missing the full meaning and validity provided by the one who is both Creator and Redeemer. HOWEVER, God looks on the heart…He does this far better than we do. So, even if it is sin, if a person fully believes that it isn’t, then they aren’t necessarily offending their conscience and obstructing that all important relationship with Christ. FURTHER, if it turns out it isn’t sin but a person believes that it is, pursuing that behavior offends their conscience and obstructs the relationship with Christ. AND, yes, then they would be missing out on the intended full meaning and validity for their life by their mistaken belief…but, at least, their relationship with Christ would not be compromised or obstructed.
Michael,
For me it boils down to the question does the action give life or bring death. Is it a life giving force for myself and all of those affected by my action who are important in my life or does it lead to death (physical or spiritual) and the objectification of others in order to meet my own selfish need.
I am not passing a judgement here because I have to say that I do not alway succeed in living up to this standard myself, however, I do believe that it is a higher standard that I am being called to rather than the lower ones that I am to often ready to settle for. The standard as I see it is not one set down in the Old Testament but one that was reestablished in the life and death of Jesus the Christ.
At least none of you suggested that sexual reorientation from gay to straight was a workable alternative for the many millions of people who have no “OSA”. I have to give you credit for that.
You suggested celibacy, religious devotion, denying sexual pleasure, enjoying friendships, service to others and focussing on other things. I respect any person who feels “called” to that path and finds the grace and power to do it.
Throughout the ages, members of reliigious orders have taken and maintained similar vows — and have lived full, healthy, meaninglful lives, contributing greatly to humanity.
“Know what you are offering. … You are NOT offering heterosexuality… [but] the power to come into celibacy.” — Robbi Kenney, one of the founders of Exodus, once advised her fellow Exodus leaders. I think she had it right decades ago.
I understand how you believe. I used to believe it myself. I respect your right to live in accordance with your beliefs and values. I don’t think you are crazy, neurotic, tormented, inauthentic — or any of the other things David listed several post back.
I don’t agree with all of your beliefs and I think some of them have cause a lot of pain for a lot of people — but you will say that my beliefs have done the same. Ultimately, God is judge. He alone sees our hearts. He sees mine through the lens of Christ’s holiness.
I expect to see you all there — even though some of you think I might not make it. I appreciate your concern for my eternal destiny. You need not worry. He has me in His hand. Until then, we will walk the paths we feel called to walk and honor God as we understand Him — praying for His guidance along the way. That is all any of us can do.
Eddy, I didn’t really want to take that detour (the Scriptural deabte) anyway. It has never been productive. I was just pointing out that (at the core) this argument is really a debate about the Bible. You know it. I know it.
But I do appreciate this comment very much: “So, even if it is sin, if a person fully believes that it isn’t, then they aren’t necessarily offending their conscience and obstructing that all important relationship with Christ.” Thanks. I believe that too.
LOL. You qualified the millions as having NO OSA and this conversation has been convoluted enough, tossing the prospects of reorientation into the mix would have only sabotaged productivity further.
Frankly, I think OSA has already become a loaded term. It focusses on the genital aspects of sexual attraction only and ignores our largest sex organ, the brain. But we won’t go there…just another tangent.
So now OSA is out? I was using that one (and SSA) becuase I thought you guys perferred it. Gay and homosexual always seemed to cause disagreement as to their meaning — so I have been trying to use “SSA” and “OSA”. Are any terms usable?
How do we talk about this feature of human experience — of being primarily attracted (sexuall/romantically/etc) to one gender or the other. Tell me what would be preferrable and I will try to use it. I am really confused.
I feel like the terminology keeps shifting.
How do we refer to a person who is not heterosexual?
I am honestly trying to understand.
When I have used the terms, Gay, straight, homosexul, heterosexual, SSA and OSA I have not been referring primarily or exclusively to the “gential aspects of attraction”. I have ben talking about the gestalt — the whole, complex, msyterious experience of romantic/emotional/sexual attraction to one gender or the other. What terms, if any, can we use to refer to this aspect of human experience?
I disagree. Perhaps the last few comments have gone there but the larger argument was about gays judging conservatives as homophobes and bigots because they believe its sin. (Remember your big question…Why do you think they feel that way?) Believing that it’s sin is NOT homophobic or bigoted. Neither fear (phobia) or hatred (bigotry) are inherent in ‘believing that it’s sin’. Some who believe that way ARE homophobic; some ARE bigoted…but simply ‘believing that it’s sin’ does not justify those intense feelings of disgust and distrust that most gays have for conservative Christians.
So the core argument isn’t whether it is or isn’t sin, it’s whether we can disagree on that big issue and still find common ground….still find a way to respect one another despite our difference of opinion. Not just us here on the site…but the uncounted conservative Christians who aren’t homophobic and bigoted although they believe it’s sin AND the uncounted gays who are trying to live godly lives as gay people. It involves no one, on either side, demanding anything of the other. Respect does not demand. It involves not taking potshots or making generalized or globalized negative comments about the other. Towards that end we are making some progress but we’ve still got a long, long ways to go.
FWIW – OSA and SSA both refer to the brain. Attraction takes place in the brain and actually begins to effect the rest of the body before we become aware of it.
Not ONCE on this thread have I said that believing that homosexual sex is sin makes someone “HOMOPHOBIC” or “BIGOTTED”. Not ONCE.
Michael–
Where did I say OSA was out? I said it was a loaded term. What do we do with loaded terms? Class? Class? Anyone?
Oh, I remember. We realize that the term has it’s limitations. We recognize that it might not mean the same thing to all people present . We understand that it’s a term…a shortcut…used to label experience. We know that experience is never precisely the same for any two individuals. We clarify what we mean when we use it. Kinda like those words ‘change’ and ‘freedom’.
No, you didn’t say the words ‘homophobic’ or ‘bigoted’. I was trying to capture whatever the labels would be that are dramatized in this piece of our dialogue. My apologies for the bad word choices. Still can’t come up with the word(s) but this is what I was responding to:
Remember that stuff you copied? The stuff Throckmorton deleted? Re-read it. It still applies.
Christians who won’t stand up for conscience are cowards and Gays have good reason to be mad at them. I stand by it.
Okey Dokey, then. Later. Bye.
@ Michael,
I was not trying to imply that you had made that assertion….
I was trying to tell a story about a happy (not Gay
) man that I know.
And, David, as I have said many times, I have no doubt that there are such people.
Shall we now have a debate as to whether christianity should be punished by 14 years in jail as it is now, or whether imposing the death penalty is a bit extreme, but boosting the penalty to life imprisonment is acceptable?
Because that’s what I hear now are the gay positions here.
Personally, I’m very much against punishing christianity by law at all, it should not be illegal, and don’t think the Gay and Lesbian Alliance or Human Rights Campaign go nearly far enough in condemning this proposed new law. As for those Gay groups that support the extermination of christians, we should ALL speak out vociferously to condemn them.
OK, their ritual cannibalism and propensity for killing “sinners” are obvious social evils, but those are already punished by existing law.
No wonder some christians are angry at GLBs for us treating them this way.
Oops, sorry, got my semantic symbols mixed up. Still, it illustrates why gays as a whole tend not to be very impressed by institutionalised conservative christianity. It’s so…. un-Christian.
I don’t think so. It’s not specifically tied to this topic or to anything anyone seemed to be talking about.
you need jesus you man
I find it Apalling as a ordained minister that any enlightened christian church could possibly react this way. My lord and Saviour Loves ALL his children equally without condition. even misguided sanctimonious ones,full of hypocrisy and shortsighted loathing. For He is as ready to love and forgive misguided churches as anyone else. rom14:22 Do you have faith?Have it to yourself before God.Happy is He who does not condemn himself in what he approves.23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats because he does not eat from faith, for whatever is not from faith is sin. Remember whoever and however you are you are fearfully and wonderfully made. be blessed my brothers and sisters In His Holy name! Be Blessed Brother Richard R