Support groups should be off-limits.
87 thoughts on “Outing of pastor leads to criticism…”
Comments are closed.
A college psychology professor's observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues
Comments are closed.
Horray for Hope Lutheran church, now I hope the journalists position is on the chopping block.
FYI, AP story:
@All
concerned,
Courage is no longer allowing the individual their own discernment regarding SSA. That’s the point. If you want to belong to Courage, you cannot espouse even the thought of questioning the mixing of the secular and the religious. I’ve been branded pretty much a heretic for even questioning NARTH support by Courage.
The etiology of SSA according to NARTH is constantly pervading every meeting, every publication, every Conference of Courage.
Courage has been given one mandate only by the Catholic Church and that is to help homosexuals achieve chastity … by its 5 Goals … none of which speaks of SSA etiology. The Catholic Church is not a democracy even for Courage. Courage is putting itself in the dangerous position of being suppressed by Diocesan or Vatican authority. The Catholic Church, regardless of its current scandals, is seldom reckless enough to associate itself with ‘theories’, and would be loathe to have anyone speak in its Name, otherwise.
No one is saying Courage can footnote the idea of secular therapy for an individual. That’s a given. It’s taking that footnote and making it coincident with chastity … a necessity.
I have found this site to be one of the best sites anywhere for fair, kind, sometimes spirited, discussion on the topic of sexual orientation. I think Warren is to be commended for offering all of us this opportunity. I am grateful for this.
When posting, I try to be courteous, and objective. I suspect often, I fail. For that, Warren is not to blame.
Theresa,
“…why don’t they pay for the “treatable therapy” they espouse.
There must be some personal responsibility for ones program. Courage allows for the individual to make their own discernment regarding their SSA, based on what their conscience is calling them to, within the context of living a chasted life. That is so much more progressive than what the APA is currently promoting. The APA does not have the final word on SSA and neither do those who promote the “gay is wonderful” agenda. It does not work that way for everyone and the sooner this is recognized on this site the more open the discussion can be.
@All
Confidentiality and 12-Step Groups:
The only confidentiality observed in 12-Step groups is one of a gentleman’s agreement, of sorts. My AA grand-sponsor made it clear to us that this confidentiality of AA is not like the ‘seal of confession’ or a lawyer-client privilege and would not stand under a court of law request.
Further, Bill W. (Bill Wilson) one of the co-founders of AA, broke his anonymity repeatedly in newspaper articles, magazine interviews, radio broadcasts contrary to the 12th Tradition in AA.
I don’t agree with the behavior of this journalist … he used devious means to gain attendance to this group, and thereby gained his schadenfreude moment. All this was contrary to ethical behavior. If the journalist was alerted that Brock was visiting gay bars, etc. that would be another matter entirely.
@All,
The funny thing about Courage and the Catholic Church vs. Exodus Ministries is that usually the Exodus Ministries’ ‘therapies’ are often ‘free-of-charge’. Courage is actively promoting throughout their ministry, the non-Catholic, secular, for-profit organization NARTH and its ‘theories’ … always minimizing as much as they can, any physiological, biological, hormonal influences for SSA. Fr. Check, the head of Courage, is on record as stating the following: “Homosexuality is treatable and preventable.”
My question for the Catholic Church, largest and wealthiest Church in the World, why don’t they pay for the “treatable therapy” they espouse.
Lynn,
You are absolutely correct. Courage has basically joined itself at-the-hip with NARTH. You can check out their 2010 Conference Brochure online and note that a significant number are psychologists, many secular. In fact, the current President of NARTH, Dr. Phil Sutton is a Workshop Speaker:
Every mailing I receive from Courage is mainly ‘advocating secular therapy’, and secondarily addressing chastity.
Fr John Harvey who started Courage sure has. One of his more memorable ones was “homosexual tendencies may be a symptom of a problem of delayed adolescence.” In Harvey’s book, Homosexuality & the Catholic Church, he quotes Dr. Elizabeth Moberly who said that a homosexual orientation depends upon “difficulties in the parent-child relationship, especially in the early years of life.” And Harvey went on to say, “Moberly singles out one underlying principle: that the homosexual man or woman suffers from a deficit in his or her relationship with the parent of the same sex, and that there is a corresponding drive to make good this deficit through the medium of same-sex or homosexual relationships.”
.
Pehaps most telling is this that Fr Harvey had to say about homosexality, via Moberly:
Now if that isn’t a neo-Freudian/Nicolosian view of homosexuality, I guess I don’t know what is. Furthermore, in their pamphlet Homosexuality and Hope the Catholic Medical Association lays out a litany of neo-Freudian laspes in childhood for which they put the blamee on homosexuality.
.
Yes, Courage doesn’t always seek to put people in psychotherapy and would happily have gay and lesbian Catholics be chaste. But within the ministry and the Catholic professional support for the group, Nicolosian ideas are well entrenched.
…
Timothy–
Townsend, a reporter, made this statement to another newspaper in an attempt to justify the validity of his infiltrating the confidential support group. Just as we hold ministers to a higher standard when it comes to morality; we ought to hold reporters to a higher standard when it comes to presenting the facts.
He cited quite specifically what he claims they ‘fully rejected’. I’m thinking it goes beyond ‘mistake’…either the group fully rejects it or they don’t. Even if Pastor Tom and the priest who was the group leader support that notion, it doesn’t explain the charge of ‘fully rejected’. To be blunt, I’d suspect that the 1973 declassification never came up in the group but that Townsend took their use of the word ‘disorder’ and ran with it. (Townsend’s personal agenda in his self-defense piece was to portray the group as quacks. What better way than to say that they reject what the APA has said.)
Yes, I’ve heard the claim that many feel that the reclassification of homosexuality was in response to activism and a gay agenda. I happen to believe that myself. HOWEVER, the issue most of us have is not that they stopped classifying it as a mental illness–most of us don’t see it as a mental illness either–but that they did a complete ‘about face’ and said that it wasn’t a disorder at all–that the only disorder was if you had a dissonance with your homosexuality.
Eddy,
He may have been mistaken, but this would not surprise me.
I’m sure that you have heard many many many times the argument that the only reason homosexuality was declassified was due to politics. While few actually come out and say, “homosexuality is a mental illness”, the implication is pretty strong.
I would not be at all surprised to find that a local group – be it affiliated with Exodus or Courage or Evergreen or anyone else – had picked up on that argument and adopted it. And as it appears that this particulal Courage group seems to have been polically active (I am assuming that his lobbying with “a Catholic priest and some other men” was most his Courage group), I think they might be more open to this argument than a group that was just dedicated to chastity.
Teresa–
I was wondering if you have any documentation or links re Courage being in ‘avid support of NARTH’. I’m suspecting that people have made the mistake of equating Courage with Exodus or Ex-Gay and then made connections and assumptions based on that erroneous equation. Although I haven’t been in touch with Courage for years, I cannot imagine them actually making psychological pronouncements. I can, however, imagine them providing a link to NARTH for those members who might want to explore psychological roots. “Providing a link” is a far cry from “avid support”. (And if we’re truly open-minded, providing a link or referral isn’t even an ‘endorsement’. When I was involved as an ex-gay ministry leader, I referred people on occasion to ‘pro-gay Christian groups’. I wasn’t endorsing these groups or their beliefs; I was respecting the individual’s right to explore their beliefs.)
By the way, I’m not saying that you said they are an avid supporter. It sounds like you’re saying it’s something you heard and that you are trying to explore.
In regards to Courage and how they run their group – it’s their group and thus they are entitled to run as they see fit. As for any endorsement of a secular program, I don’t see a conflict. Do clergy fly in planes, drive cars, eat processed food? All the same, they are allowed to benefit and make use of sources not mentioned in the bible so long as they remain within their theology of God’s intented plan.
All,
Preamble should NOT say ‘recover from homosexuality’ … should say “help others to live chaste lives.”
Eddy, and All,
I’m very curious about this. This past week I initiated a debate with Courage online about the fact of Courage becoming a ‘Dual Ministry’, i.e., Religious, and Secular with its avid support of NARTH. My contention was that Courage was losing its sole and only focus which is Chastity through spiritual means only. If Courage is truly going to espouse a 12-Step Program, then they need to follow the 12 Traditions and 12 Concepts, as well; else, Courage will end up battling exerior causes rather than focusing on their true Mission.
They should follow the AA Preamble, replacing words where necessary, something like the following:
Eddy,
Sorry – I just realized you probably weren’t talking about the newspaper itself understanding it, but rather its audience – yes, you are right, the merits of the argument don’t hinge on this and we can definitely move on – I fear that this argument might soon devolve into something that isn’t worth anyone’s time 🙂
Eddy,
Dave didn’t say A church, he said THE church – I just wanted some clarification.
I agree regarding his comment about what A church should do.
I think parts of society do get it – all I’m saying is that some don’t – I would expect a major newspaper and its staff to understand it – that is part of their job
Jayhuck–
I don’t understand your question to Dave. Why does it matter what church he’s talking about? …if he’s not saying that he believes the church should wage war against things it considers sinful…then it shouldn’t matter whether a church believes it’s sin or not… whether they believe it’s sin or they don’t, he’s saying .it’s not a justification for a political war against it.
And the latter portion of his statement applies regardless of which side you’re on too.
Re society at large not understanding the confidentiality of support groups, we’ll have to disagree. I see lots of evidence that society gets it…why did it become a story in the New York Times? Fortunately, the merits of the argument don’t hinge on that so we can move on.
Timothy,
Yes – Saying that the pastor’s behavior is atypical is an understatement – in my book – though 🙂
Dave,
Which church are you talking about? There are many churches within Christianity alone that believe many different things, and many of them do not agree on various issues. Some believe homosexuality is sinful and some do not – as an example
That’s not my argument Eddy – I was only talking about society in general, not about this particular reporter.
Re: AA – I think everyone probably knows what the second A stands for, but I’ll bet that many don’t really understand what it means – or probably even give it a second thought
Jayhuck–
Sorry but I don’t think that flies–especially in this circumstance. This reporter was clearly aware–if not of the societal custom, then of this groups mutual focus on confidentiality. Why else would he have needed to jump through a few hoops to gain admittance to the group?
In the reference to AA, I have a hard time believing there are people who don’t understand what that second A stands for. I suppose that’s possible but the ‘anonymous’ seems to be so ingrained in society that it’s often the stuff of TV sitcoms and dramas.
Dave,
You are probably right that we agree on more things than we disagree, but I still don’t think its correct to say that the rules that are understood within support groups are understood by society at large – they are not rules that come from society – rather, they are rules that are usually/primarily written by and only understood within support groups themselves – If I didn’t have a few friends going through AA I would have absolutely no idea about these rules we are talking about 🙂
I agree with David Roberts. (Not to worry! The planets will remain in their orbits.)
And Thanks Lynn-David for providing the link to the full response.
I think that Townsend is clearly employing justification throughout his defense of his actions and that the effort is so transparent that it may further jeopardize his credibility. In his complete response, he moves back and forth between his issues with Pastor Brock and his criticisms of the legitimacy of the group. Such shifting, especially within the same sentence or paragraph, sends out warning signals to analytical readers.
It also seems that he resorts to hyperbole and distortion. Three sentences out of the portion Lynn-David quoted trip my switches.
–This seems unusual to me. In such groups, I can imagine that everyone must agree that the attractions are a ‘problem for them’ but I can’t envision the leader requiring the use of the word ‘disorder’ as opposed to ‘problem’ , ‘sin’, ‘issue’…whatever. (I thought perhaps this ‘required’ reference to ‘disorder’ might have infiltrated their version of the 12 Steps but found that they use the same phrasings as AA…’defects of our character’, ‘shortcomings’, ‘restore us to sanity’.)
–Here my issue is with ‘made to believe’. It is my impression that people come to a group such as this one already believing in eternal consequences.
–I’m curious as to where Townsend gleaned this. Is this stated somewhere in print? Did the group leader speak it? Townsend claims it is ‘fully rejected’…what is ‘fully rejected’? Does Courage–or did this group–actually step outside of their religious context that regards it as ‘sin’ and try to address the psychological classification?
Townsend follows these three statements immediately with
–Coming where it did in Townsend’s response, this only comes across as another defensive tactic. “Hey, I caught you using a wrong word.” I agree that Strickler should have said ‘support’ instead of ‘therapy’. but the fact that Townsend tried to turn it into an issue–and where he did–smacks of self-justification.
In the ‘back and forth’ section of his justification, Townsend appeals to the plight of a person who had considered suicide. This issue does not go to ‘Tom Brock’s involvement in the group’ at all; it goes to the group itself. Does ‘one person considering suicide’ serve as a justification of infiltrating a support group. If we learned that an AA group member considered suicide, would that be enough justification to infiltrate the group? If this was indeed a part of the justification, where are the journalists findings? What did Townsend learn about the group’s propensity for inciting thoughts of suicide?
I sympathize with Townsend’s desire to defend his actions but, IMHO, he didn’t do a very good job at all.
I sympathize with the writer’s desire to rationalize his actions, but what we think about the group is really irrelevant. A heterosexual priest may go to such a group to help him remain chaste, but no one is claiming that heterosexual relationships are a disorder, etc.
We could have the discussion about disorder vs. normal, sin vs. not sin, but that is separate from the question over the ethics of invading a clearly confidential, self-help setting and exposing a participant using information gained there.
It’s cliche but accurate here, two wrongs do not make a right.
The Lavender magazine reporter who outed Luther pastor Tom Brock, John Townsend, defending his reporting that had him going undercover at a 12-step-esque program for recovering homosexuals:
…
@Timothy
I realize they are close, but I think I’m making a distinction between a situation where the pastor fails in his sincere attempts to follow this own teaching vs. flagrantly ignoring that teaching when in a different venue. I think there needs to be some recognition of the difference in degrees at least.
As I think about it more, however, I realize that it is possible this is exactly what he was doing when he “fell” or however he described it. We don’t have complete information but I’m sure you understand what I am getting at even if you don’t make the distinction yourself.
I think the bottom line here is that he should have told his congregation what was up from the beginning.
Eddy
Not to me.
I condemn the reporter.
But I think that we should not come up with a whole brand-new way to twist the language so as to whitewash Brock.
Evan
Then you are speaking an extra-special magic language where words don’t mean what they mean. You are entitle to define “cow” as the color of the sky and “hot” means what you feel when you stick your hand in the freezer, but It makes it difficult to communicate with you.
Debbie,
Most likely. There is no sin more grievous than the one you are hating at the moment.
And there is no doubt that he felt wretched. But, unlike you, he was dishonest.
Dave,
Regardless of how you try to paint Brock as “consistent”, ain’t no one but his apologists gunna buy it. Pretending to be one thing while really being another doesn’t get a pass even if you really really don’t like it.
But I do agree that Exodus would do better to get out of politics.
Teresa,
About protecting Brock’s confidentiality while actively trying to find dirt on Kagan. It’s an interesting point in the context of the discussion about hypocrisy.
Personally, I’m not so big into outing unless the party being outed is engaging in hypocrisy and real harm. For example, I opposed the outing of Mark Kirk.
Jayhuck,
Good point about Brock’s behavior being atypical. I don’t know anyone who has ever been in AA who supports a return to prohibition (or even supports increased restriction on drinking). And the few I ever knew who were in drug programs supported the legalization of drugs.
I never really thought about what that means until now. I guess (some) ex-gay groups are the exception.
David R,
Actually, that is hypocrisy. I listed a number of online definitions (see above) and this fits all of them. Hypocrisy is a form of dishonest.
Eddy
Sorry but that is not consistent with my experience. I know a lot of activists and none think that because a person once was ex-gay therefore that makes them anti-gay.
If they haven’t publicly cut ties, I would expect that indeed they would be exposed… IF (and it’s a VERY BIG “IF”) they had been in leadership or had ever been presented as an example or had ever campaigned against gay rights. It it’s just Joe the Ex-gay, no one would “expose” him. Who would they tell? Who would care?
That’s the irony, really.
If Tom Brock were just some Lutheran pastor who was leading his flock with compassion and concern, there would have been no story. No one would read it. No one would print it. And if anyone did, it would be universally condemned as being in bad taste.
The only reason that there is a story is because of Brock’s extremist anti-gay rhetoric.
David B,
I too disagree with your entire premise. If you are a fire and brimstone preacher then you’d better be living according to the rules you are doling out to the flock.
Or, alternately, reconsider the message you are bringing.
David Roberts…my comments are directed generally. Pastors are people who are called to preach a higher standard and to live closer to it than the rest of us. Pressuring disclosures beyond, “I am a sinner” is way too vulnerable in the role they have.
The church is irreparably damaged because it is populated by all of us…like marriage and government, it is a divinely broken institution.
David B., if you are speaking to me, I simply disagree with your entire premise. I think a lack of such honesty has, in large part, caused nearly irreparable damage to the church. I also find your analogy absurd.
It is absurd to expect a pastor to vocalize sexual struggles to his parishioners which do not involve violation of his vows to the church or to his wife.
Pastors in such situations often confide in their board of elders and in their supervising bishops. That is more than sufficient.
Are we asking proponents of gay marriage, in open sexual relationships, to be frank if they are politically active? No.
When you agree with the abolition of moral taboos, you can never be called a hypocrite. And so, you appear virtuous in one area.
When you stand for a variety of moral taboos you are bound to be guilty in several areas of being a hypocrite.
Pastors, who are always speaking publicly about a variety of moral issues, cannot be demanded upon to be scrupulously transparent with the public generally or with their parishioners.
I’m with you. We’ve got the future of the world as we know it to think of. Here’s hoping that we find at least some small thing to disagree on by year’s end.
Let’s not make a habit of it, the underpinnings of the world might fall apart.
David Roberts–
Let’s mark our calendars. I’m with you all the way on your recent post…including the belief that the pastor should have shared his personal struggles with his congregation. If he had shared that he has those desires but does not believe in acting upon them it would have ’rounded out’ his message somewhat.
Jayhuck–
Regarding my point about the risk to those former ex-gay ministers who have joined or considered joining pro-gay support groups (or even bible studies), I feel you have overlooked the obvious. To many gay people, particularly those who are activists, the simple fact that a person once supported the ‘ex-gay’ point of view is hateful and anti-gay. Whether they actually pronounced political opinions is beside the point.
I followed the recent story of a former Exodus person who has now come out against them and I was somewhat shocked to read several comments blasting this leader for taking so long to publicly renounce his affiliation. Their very strong belief was that the leader should have done this immediately or very shortly after leaving. Now, given this current situation and the justification for it, why wouldn’t we expect that someone might ‘out’ any former ex-gay ministry leader who they discover has joined a pro-gay support group or bible study? (The bible study might not even have the underlying theme of mutual confidentiality.) Wouldn’t some likely consider this to be ‘fair game’? Wouldn’t that notion actually prevent those who question their current position from participating in a forum where they might freely consider the ‘other side’?
Addendum to my last post …. So I am not misunderstood .. I am not saying that the church should wage political war against those things it considers sinful .. I would rather that the church devote its energy to the things Christ has called us to do.
David Roberts said..
And exactly what was he not able to achieve? There is no talk of him failing to keep his attractions bound by the belief system he had. Everyone that goes to church anywhere is trying to maintain their morals .. whatever they may be. Each person supports the other in that .. even if one fails at times.
Jayhuck said..
If I go to an anonymous support group I think it is a basic recognized principle that someone else attending that same support group not announce my presence to a newspaper. How hard is that to understand?
As for the rest of what you said .. I agree that people in support groups are typically very humble and do not wage war (politically or otherwise) with others on the issue. Typically membership in such a group would make one more sympathetic to the issue. This is a major problem I have with Exodus and their political pursuits. If you are there to help people .. you don’t politically attack them. .. you don’t vilify them .. you don’t paint the worst possible picture of them. It inconsistent and counter-productive to whatever ministry you are doing.
So, I think we would agree on a lot of things. The main problem in this discussion is disagreement on what being hypocritical is. See below..
Jayhuck said..
To me you are mixing two contexts here. No I do not think it is hypocritical for a person to be against publically what they are against privately .. which is the situation we are discussing. Do I think the church as a whole is hypocritical for waging a political war against gay couples? Yes! .. but not necessarily for the reasons you state. I think it is hypocritical because the church is not willing to wage political war against the sins that they ARE committing such as the issues of divorce .. remarriage … and fornication… I can’t help notice that there is no attempt to codify these issues into law .. only the ones that by being straight .. they will never do.
Again .. I think we agree on many things here. Where we disagree is on how we get to our conclusions and how we define various actions.
Teresa said-
No, Teresa, we cannot assume that.. We can’t take the sound bite of 3 words–one of them being ‘temptation’– and make a conclusion as to what the temptation was and the nature of the fall. I still puzzle over the fact that the group simply moved on after his disclosure. Doesn’t that tell you something?
Jayhuck personal anecdote about all the people he knows in support groups and how they behave publicly is without merit. We are talking about ANONYMOUS support groups. There’s a basic presumption here that most people involved let very few people know. So, unless Jayhuck has a local reputation of being the most compassionate and confidential listening ear that can be found, the odds are that there are a whole lot of people he knows that he doesn’t know are part of a support group.
And yet, Tom’s group referred to him somewhat fondly. “Tom will be happy to know he’s not the only non-Catholic anymore.” (paraphrase)
Please consider the very brief lead in comment by Warren. He sure seems to think they ought to be off limits. Consider his link….’society’ has enough of a general interest in this issue that this story–and more specifically, how it was obtained– by a Minneapolis gay publication made it to the New York Times.
Try as I might, I can’t seem to make myself comfortable with invading the therapeutic setting of even a loosely organized support group like this one. I generally don’t have any problem with this sort of outing as practiced by Mike Rogers (as described by Timothy above), but the source of the information does concern me. Perhaps I could justify a personal confrontation using such knowledge, but going public without a source external to a support group or similar confidential, therapeutic setting just seems wrong.
And much as I do not like what this pastor represents, he does seem to have acted in line with his views, i.e. working to fight against his sexual orientation. If he had been out on a date with a guy, or otherwise known to be living the life that he railed against, that would be different. Did he ever preach against support groups?
The only dishonesty I can detect is that he did not reveal the fact that he is himself gay. I’m not sure if that is hypocritical as much as it is simply dishonest. Asking something of others without revealing your own inability to achieve the same thing is dishonest. And his own preaching would seem to have contributed to the atmosphere that made it necessary for him to keep that a secret, so I guess it is also ironic. But is it really hypocritical?
Am I missing something?
Eddy,
I may have missed your point, but the reporter who infiltrated the group did not expose all the other people in the group – he only exposed the person who after leaving the group went on to spout vitriolic things about gay people. If the reporter wanted to out people just because they were in the group he could have, but he didn’t
Dave,
I continue to disagree – not sure that is a basic principal of society. It may be a rule that is recognized in support groups themselves but I’m not sure you can say it is a principal recognized by society in general. Regarding support groups… the pastor is acting vastly different than anyone else I’ve ever known who has been in a support group – no other person I know in a such a group, who is wrestling with their own personal demons, turns around after leaving that group and speaks out so vehemently about that reason they are in the support group in the first place – the reason they don’t is because they know that such speech isn’t helpful to people wrestling with the same types of things. All the people I know in support groups are humble about what it is they are dealing with and understand that inflammatory speech regarding that issue will not help others who are dealing with the same thing.
Dave,
I disagree – Are you saying its not hypocritical for a person to want certain rights and freedoms but prevent other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens to have the same?
I think Timothy’s example of a man opposed to prostitution and politically trying to ‘make hay’ on that proposition (no pun intended), and yet involved personally in using the services of a ‘sex trade’ worker is exactly what happened with former-Governor Elliot (?) Spitzer of New York. Spitzer was indeed outed, and rightly so, imo.
A current example occurring right now, of the same nature, is the nomination to the SCOTUS of Elena Kagan. The far right (Evangelicals included) had no qualms about trying to ‘out’ Ms. Kagan based on nothing substantial, but proceeded anyway, mostly by both libel and slander. And, let’s not kid ourselves about the fact that the far right has hounds on her trail, and digging into her past, at this very moment … no matter who else they hurt in the process.
There are some here trying to minimize Brock’s behavior, and shouldn’t we “hate the sin, and love the sinner”, in his case. Brock was a very public figure. He well knew what that meant, and the possible repercussions in his pastoral life of his hypocritical behavior … his closeted behavior vis-a-vis his public persona. The hypocritical behavior is not his attendance at an ex-gay support group … it’s his sharing of ‘failing in temptation’, which we can assume was not lingering over a ‘drive-by impure thought’ vis-a-vis his vociferous and vitriolic anti-gay rhetoric … ala George Rekers Rent-a-Boy behavior.
The breaking of the confidentiality of a support group, in my estimation, is not being seen in its true light. First, a member of that group was the original informant; not the journalist. How many times had that informant already breached the confidentiality of the group? Brock, and others like him in their anti-gay spieis, are the very reason groups like this are ‘closeted’. What untold damage has Brock done repeatedly through the years to his Courage ‘struggler’ friends. Perhaps, that’s why he was outed by one of them in the first place.
Timothy Kincaid said..
Your example shows hypocrisy but it does not match the situation .. If this pastor were going to a gay bathouse for casual sex and the next day opposing same sex expression then he would be a hypocrit. But that is not the case. He is trying to supress / not act on his same sex attractions .. and he is (politicaly) opposed to those who do act on them. That’s called consistancy .. not hypocrisy.
Could he be opposed to acting on same sex attractions but not try to make others do the same by political means? Yes! .. and that would still be consistancy but in this case it would be consistant with .. “I make decisions for me . and you make decisions for you.” Frankly I wish exgay ministries such as Exodus would take this approach. Re: Get out of politics and let people come to them who want this kind of ministry and leave the rest alone. When they (exgay groups ) and / or this man fail to do so I do find it annoying and counterproductive to their ministries but I do not find it hypocritical to be opposed to the same thing in private that you are in public.
Should he have stepped down for a season or tempered his tone on issues related to sexual temptation and sin — or both? Perhaps he felt caught in a vise, hating his sin (and thereby unable to refrain from his proscriptions of that selfsame sin in others) and fearful of leaving the security of the pulpit, his comfort zone. Not defending him, only surmising how wretched he must have felt in the “body of this death.”
I could not remain in even a Sunday School teaching role during my days of fallen wretchedness. It would have been hypocritical. Yet to refuse to love this man and all sinners (while hating my own sins) would be callous. I need only stop and think of all those who loved me, and how much God had to forgive. We don’t get to close the book on this story yet. It’s still being written.
Back to the topic, I guess what I’m hearing is that if it’s in the interests of exposing a hypocrite or bigot, then infiltrating a confidential support group, while not the best way to go, is legitimized by the hypocrisy and/or bigotry. Is that a fair statement? If it is, are there any other legitimate reasons for infiltrating and reporting on a confidential support group?
I’m wondering how this might backfire. I know people who have been involved in Exodus related ministries who are open to questioning whether they were on the right path. A few considered going to a ‘pro-gay support group’; pne or two actually have done so. Do they have the right and the privilege to explore their issues of faith in the security of confidentiality or would it be fair game to ‘out them’ for their participation in the group? If so, on what basis would we defend the ‘outing’?
I would’t call hypocrisy when someone preaches one thing and does another in private. It’s something closer to a “paradox of moral self-regulation”: people with ample moral views can also breach them vigorously from time to time. Actually that explains why they hold such views. They both go together, one motivating the other.
Why saints sin and sinners get saintly
And yes I know I’m comparing homosexuality to prostitution. For those of you who think it’s sin, sin, sin, or who deny the sexual orientation paradigm or who think its “only behavior” I wanted to compare apples to apples.
Or to put it in a way that might be more easily understood:
Assume that Politician Joe opposes prostitution. Suppose that he submitted legislation that would list the names of all of a prostitute’s customers in the local paper. Suppose that he demanded that politicians who visit prostitutes lose their positions.
Now suppose that Politician Joe engages the services of call girls. Oh, he hates it when he does it and feels really bad, but he calls them none the less. He even stops by his therapist to talk about it and look for a way to avoid his behavior… on his way to visit the brothel.
But he always makes sure never to let his constituents know what he’s up to. They like his anti-hooker rants and would not much like him playing Burt Reynolds to the local Dolly Parton.
My question is: Were Politician Joe go to Loreen’s Love Mansion on Sunday night and propose anti-prostitute legislation on Monday morning, would you call him a hypocrite?
I would.
Guys,
Hypocrisy is when a person makes a public pretense of piety which is contradictory to his own private behavior.
Wikipedia: Hypocrisy is the act of persistently professing beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that are inconsistent with one’s actions. Hypocrisy is thus a kind of lie.
Merriam-Webster: 1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
Dictionary.com: a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
TheFreeDictionary.com: 1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
By every definition that I can find, Brock was a hypocrite. Not because he went to the support meeting, but because of his falseness, his deception, and his pretenses of heterosexuality while condemning homosexuality.
Jayhuck said..
I understanding what you are saying here … but I am not sure I would call that hypocrisy (the words ‘inconsistincy’ and ‘bias’ come to mind) Additionally I believe you are going off- topic. The question being asked is .. Is it hypocritical for this pastor who is going to a support group to help him not act on his same sex attractions (because he believes that to do so is sin) to be pubically against others acting on their same sex attractions?
Hypocrisy per Websters is:
The pastor in question is against acting on the same sex feelings within himself and probably regards them as sinful. His public actions reveal the same feelings and convictions.
Do I wish that in a free society he would not try to codify into law his personal beliefs? Yes. Is it hypocritical for him to do so? No (IMHO).
As for your other comments regarding support groups.. The reporter violated a basic principle of society .. the confidentiality of support groups. The fact that someone dosen’t like what this pastor is doing does not give them the right to violate that principle.
In a real world, it’s already serious.
1) Revealing the time and location of the support group may have already outed the groups members. If any of them ‘got rides to my church group’, it’s very possible that the friend or parent who gave them a ride now knows what that group is. 2) If they don’t change the time and location, any curious person could ‘hang out’ in the area and see who frequents the group. 3) if we simply continue with the justification of the reporter’s methods, we remove the confidentiality security of the entire group. 4) this can and will impact a variety of support groups of any stripe.
A person with a sensitive military or government job, a person who is perhaps a high-profile lawyer, a teacher, and, of course, pastors and priests. In precisely the same manner that this reporters methods are being justified by some, those methods could be justified in other situations. Why, even one of those nasty conservative Christian groups could infiltrate a pro-gay group and out someone.
‘Well, I heard John speak up in favor of married homosexual clergy at the recent church summit conference. This is a step too far for our conservative church. We discovered that John is attending a pro-gay support group. John may be in favor of marriage but, at the last meeting, he indicated that he just met a guy and the sex is awesome.”
It seems foolish to predict that ‘it won’t likely happen again’, if we demonstrate that we’ll accept justifications for doing so.
Feel no sympathy for this man. That is your right. Abhor him and his public pronouncements; again that is your right. Celebrate that he ‘got what was coming to him’ but recognize that the method of the outing crossed ‘sacred boundaries’ and should not be sanctioned.
BTW: the words ‘hypocrite’ and ‘bigot’, although often used in tandem, are not synonymous. By dictionary definitions, the pastor was not guilty of hypocrisy but could have been a poster child for bigotry.
Change the word ‘hypocrisy’ to ‘bigotry’ and you’ve got a credible sentence.
Dave,
I’m not sure its as dire as you make it out to be Dave – the reporter did not share the names of any of the other individuals in the support group there for the same reasons as the pastor – Tom was targeted for being anti-gay in public and basically being gay in private. I still have a great deal of trouble feeling any sympathy for the man
Dave,
The hypocrisy comes in when a person wants the freedom to live as he sees fit with all the rights that entails but he works to prevent others from having those same freedoms/rights.
Timothy–
Hey….we’re pretty much in agreement on this one. And, even where we disagree, I think we can both live with that.
I don’t have any excuses for Tom’s ‘pulpit persona’…I can’t remember exactly but I think I even encouraged him to tone it down years ago. I’ve got a few friends like that…”but we can’t go soft on sin”. (and, you’re right, it comes across exactly as you described. I try to make the distinction that they care for the individual BUT to the individual, it comes across that they care about the soul but not the living/breathing individual.) I try to explain how it comes across…I try to suggest a better way…but dang it, sometimes people don’t do what I say!
Eddy,
We share concerns about the break in confidentiality.
And, like you, I don’t really believe that God was showing his anger when Hurricane Katrina spared the French Quarter but ripped the roof off of Dr. Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Church. Or when he zapped the giant Jesus statue at the home of Greg Quinlan’s first ex-gay ministry.
😉
Sometimes an “act of God” is nothing more than a coincidence of nature.
But we disagree about “love the sinner, hate the sin”. I just don’t see any evidence for it.
Oh, I see LOTS of hate the sin (and punish the guy doing it) but when it comes to folk like Tom Brock, there was no evidence of love. There was contempt in his voice, there was villification, there was an effort to actively hurt the physical lives of gay people, but I didn’t see love.
I think the problem is when anti-gays talk about “loving the sinner” and about “compassion for the homosexual” what they mean is compassion for his soul, and his soul alone. Oh, they don’t want him to burn in Hell, any more than they want Kim Jung Il to burn in Hell. And they don’t want him to never know Jesus (preferring instead to dictate the terms of that relationship).
But the compassion and love that Jesus spoke about in the 25th Chapter of Matthew, well they actively oppose that. And Brock actually campaigned against it.
So I don’t believe the notion that “I’m mistreating you because I love you.” That’s just an excuse for bad behavior.
It isn’t love. It just isn’t, Eddy. I hope some day we’ll find agreement but until then you’re probably right that there’s no point refighting that battle.
I agree that it was wrong to get the story in the way the reporter did. But I don’t give much importance to the distinction between catching him in the act (ewww, ick) or catching him in the deception.
So yes, let’s criticize the reporter. But let’s not try and portray Tom Brock as anything other than what he is.
It was Lynn David that got me to thinking how many priests and pastors, while talking about sin, don’t go into personal revelations about their own struggles. It appears to be a boundary they were taught in seminary. My own earliest ‘born-again’ memories were of charismatic and non-denominational congregations where this wasn’t such a rigid rule. While Tom didn’t speak his personal issues to his congregation, he wasn’t completely silent about them. I am not certain of this but I believe that, besides involvement in the group, he had one or more fellow ministers that he confided in.
I cringed when I heard Tom’s remarks about the tornado…just like I cringed when both Pat Robertson and the Bible school I attended claimed that the diverting of a hurricane’s damaging winds was ‘God sparing them’. I’m not saying God can’t do that; not saying God didn’t do that (the Old Testament has a few examples) but I can’t help but hear a certain smugness and self-righteousness…and I cringe. Personally, I fall back to the verse that says ‘God causes his rain to fall on the just and the unjust’ (paraphrase). Just as I try not to ascribe motives to people’s actions, I certainly don’t try to ascribe God’s motives to the weather. (I understand that Minnesota got deluged with rain last week but that, by the time of the annual Gay Pride Parade, it was remarkably pleasant…what could one make of that?)
I cringe also when I hear someone say that Tom has no compassion for the homosexual individual. I happen to know better. Unfortunately, it comes back to “Love the sinner, hate the sin”…something that people on ‘my side’ can see very clearly but happens to be a huge stumblingblock for people on ‘the other side’. There’s no point in debating it once again; there’s no reason to believe that the results will be any different.
But, given that Pastor Tom has been one of the most vocal persons, especially within the ELCA in response to its increased endorsements of homosexuality…I thoroughly understand the desire and effort to knock him off his pedestal. However, I still respond with disgust at the manner in which it was done. It seems to me it could have been accomplished some other way.
Looking even for a moment behind the story, who or what tipped the reporter that the pastor was a part of that group. I don’t think the reporter went there just to do a story on Courage. (and–even more worthy of criticism if he did!) But, the sense I get is that he went there with more than an inkling that he’d find the pastor there. Possibilities are that another group member (or former member) broke the code of confidence and reported Tom’s presence to Lavender. Another is that somehow they got word that Tom had personal struggles and somehow tracked him to this particular support group. If the former situation is the case, are we saying that leaders and notables are exempt from the confidentiality protection of support groups? Are we sending them a message that, if they have issues, they must either contend with them alone OR in front of the public…with no options in between. If it’s the latter situation, I would think that more investigation could have been done outside the parameters of the group itself.
(I imagine the reporter checking out the group by phone and making simple inquiries: Does the group have a leader or facilitator? Is there only one? I imagine that they could even have expressed enough interest to get the time and location. They stake it out for a few weeks and see the pastor arrive several times. Wham. They’ve got a story…not as sensational as the one they printed but a story nonetheless. “He’s not the leader of the group…why would he be? He’s a Lutheran pastor–not Catholic and we’ve verified that the group has only one facilitator and it’s NOT Pastor Tom.)
Yes, we have the issue of an outspoken critic of homosexuality struggling with homosexuality himself but that’s a tune we’ve danced to rather often in recent years. This situation is remarkably different. The man wasn’t caught in the act…he was caught in the act of seeking support. And the most dirt we have is his admission that he yielded to temptation. We don’t even know if it involved another person. And that limited information was gathered and reported in a way that breaks a long-standing, universally held tradition…that of respecting the privacy of a support group. Under the circumstances, and since that is how the main topic was presented, I think it’s legitimate to fix our focus on that aspect without questioning motives for doing so.
Was it wrong to get the story this way? If not, what are the implications for support groups going forward? Are some exempt from confidentiality provisions? Are all? Does a person’s public and/or political position make them uniquely exempt from confidentiality provisions? Now that this has been broken, can it be fixed or has harm been done to support groups in general?
If someone is railing on about the evils of infidelity, then I would agree that they are not entitled to keep their own marital indiscretions secret.
For example, in his sermon “Sexual Purity in an Impure World” he talks about going to lobby against marriage equality “with a Catholic priest and some others”.
Gee… I wonder who that could be? And why he never found it relevant in this mostly about the evils of Teh Gey sermon to mention that when in Europe… well, you know.
I have criticism for the reporter. And it is due. But much of the discussion here is not about the reporter and some that is simply serves to shift blame. I reserve most of my criticism for Tom Brock and his evil campaign to demonize and villainize gay people, all the while hiding his own attractions and behavior.
I have to disagree with those making this assertion.
Let us not whitewash Tom Brock so as to better portray him as a martyr. His life of service is no more impressive to me than Jim Jones’ life of service. Or Jimmy Swaggart’s. Or Ted Haggard’s.
As a pastor’s grandson, son, and brother, I have enough experience in the Church to know that “feeling called by God” has about as much bearing on one’s character as being born on Tuesday.
And Tom Brock was not just some assistant pastor whose values precluded sexual expression. He was an anti-gay activist of the most virulent sort, inclined to bombastic judgments and fierce denunciations.
This is the guy who claimed that God sent a tornado as a sign that He opposed action by the ELCA. When Exodus talks about churches “who respond to homosexuals with ignorance and fear” it is ministers like Brock who come to mind. Indeed, if Exodus has ever (EVER) found a minister who went beyond the pale, whose statements reach the level to which Exodus would object (if such a level exists) then Tom Brock is their guy.
And, much like George Rekers, he hid his own personal attractions. He did not include himself in his public villification of Teh HomoSEXuals. He did not tell his radio audience that when he’s in Europe he “falls to temptation”. He pretended that Teh HomoSEXuals were some group of unknown evildoers which you should condemn (and – let’s be honest – dislike) quite unlike himself.
Now, his attendance at Courage was not hypocritical. That is simply a response with is consistent with his understanding of sin. But his daily pretenses were hypocrisy of the highest level.
Yes, I think it was wrong of the reporter to break the veil of confidentiality. But, other than his method for doing so, I don’t object to his outing of Brock.
Brock is a man completely devoid of compassion, so I feel very little for his current predicament. And as for his church being incapable of allowing him the freedom to be honest with them, that is MOSTLY his own doing. He was the one at the church who led the campaign of rejection.
So he is a hypocrite on two counts: first because he pretended not to have the same attractions as the group he villified, and second because he now is asking for acceptance from the church he taught to be rejecting.
Who here does not know what it is like to be gay?
And is there one gay experience or is it possible that people can have diverse experiences and opinions about their gay experiences?
Stephen–
What’s your point? That ‘gay’ is your bias? That you know what you’re talking about and I don’t? That you’d rather continue to dodge my claim that the reporter also violated the privacy of the group?
The ‘I suggest you get a new hobby’ line was offensive and mean-spirited. This is a blogsite where diverse opinions are welcome. I responded to the main post agreeing with it and also citing the further faux pas of the reporter disclosing the groups location and time. YOU ‘corrected’ me claiming that that information is readily available on the web along with your justification for why it was okay to breach the trust of this group.
I still can’t find evidence that your ‘correction’ was valid and you haven’t supplied it. Since you were attempting to ‘correct’ what I said, it is certainly valid for me to ask for the substance behind your ‘correction’.
It’s not a hobby for me, Stephen, any more than it is for the others who blog here regularly.
I 2nd that!
Eddy. I am gay. I know what I’m talking about. I’m talking about my life and the lives of those like me. I suggest you get a new hobby.
stephen–
1) Thanks for acknowledging that it is the Catholic Church at large that is funding political campaigns. From your initial reference, it would appear that perhaps Courage does.
2) I still don’t understand your reference to the church doing this secretly or ‘on the down low’. You know they do it. Since I’m no longer a Catholic, it’s not particularly my concern but even I can imagine that they do it. Where do you see the secrecy? Are you suggesting that this support is coming from Rome or that Catholic dioceses and/or parishes are contributing money to causes outside of their geographical area?
3) I too was able to find the Courage website rather quickly. But my complaint and then my question went to the reporter publishing the time and place of the meeting. You danced around that. I will repeat that TO PUBLISH THE TIME AND PLACE OF SUCH A SUPPORT GROUP VIOLATES THE PRIVACY OF THE ENTIRE GROUP. It was a thoughtless (I presume) move on the part of the reporter but it DID compromise the privacy of the entire group.
4) Whether a person agrees or disagrees with the purpose or effectiveness of a group is meaningless. Many a drinker feels that AA is a sham. Does that mean that a reporter should be able to infiltrate an AA meeting to out one or more of its participants?
5) Consider the implication to gay support groups. Groups still exist to assist gays and transgendered people with ‘coming out’. Should it be considered fair game to infiltrate such a group and out somebody before they are ready?
6) Your blanket portrayal of ‘misery, suicide and hatred’ is not well-informed. A person who gets involved with any support group already admittedly has some level of conflict. Neither one of us knows fully to what extent the group involvement enhances or diminishes that conflict.
7) Sorry but you didn’t make your distinction between a ‘support group’ and a ’12-step group’. Are you suggesting that a 12 step group is not also a support group? I would maintain that while not all support groups are 12-step groups, all 12-step groups are support groups.
8) Your reference to AA is unclear. As the original 12-Step group, are you saying it is ineffective simply because there is no proof?
9) You are entitled to see a difference between AA and a homosexual 12-step program. There are many who disagree with the notion that the propensity for alcohol addiction is inborn; there are others who disagree that it is unchangeable. There are others who believe that, for some, alcohol is a problem and for others, it is not. There are also those who believe that a person who once abused alcohol can learn how to consume in moderation. (These debates and discussions, however, aren’t the stuff of AA meetings.)
10) Whether you agree with homosexual 12-step or ex-gay programs, it is foolish to deny the possibility that homosexual activity might be wrong for a person…either throughout their lifetime or for a period of time. A conflicted individual who is behaving against their conscience has their own torment. It’s far too simple to say ‘simply see it my way…it’s not wrong for you; it’s not wrong at all’. Such armchair psychiatry dismisses the individual entirely and is ineffective in addressing their conflict and/or torment. (The ex-gay minstry that I was a part of first assessed a person’s beliefs. We attempted to grasp how much was their own belief and how much was a parroting of their family and community. If the belief that homosexuality was wrong–or wrong for them–was not their own conviction, we referred them on to a pro-gay ministry or support group.)
Not disputing there is some truth in this, Stephen. However, most behavior is willfully chosen. One exception that comes to mind is the irrationality born out of mental illness or severe emotional distress. Childhood provides many examples of selfishly chosen behavior because of immaturity. Predispositions, including those associated with homosexuality, are complex in origin. To say that all homosexual urges are innate and unchangeable is to disregard the empirical evidence for change to varying degrees. The needs are indeed legitimate. The wants are all over the map.
There may be an “ex-gay industry.” There are clearly those who want to “keep you in your place,” wherever they think that ought to be. There is also a push against those who have good reasons to accept Intelligent Design and its place in their lives, including their sexuality. And even that camp is divided within itself. There also is a place in the world for legitimate ministry that, whether you like it or not, does help to move people toward a more wholesome understanding of who they are (image-bearers of God) and sometimes beyond same-sex attractions and behaviors (which may include some addictions), if they desire to go there. That’s not coercion. It’s freedom of conscience.
All this Us vs. Them mentality gets tiresome, doesn’t it? I say allow people the freedom to believe and live according to what works for them, while requiring them to respect the human rights or faith of others, as well as respecting that society must conform to the best norms, regardless of how many times the pendulum swings to and fro. Some of us will always be disappointed in the way that process looks at any given time. So be it.
Regardless of ones beliefs or thoughts on “the church” and it’s response towards others, the group had rules of confidentiality. While the reporter may not have broken any laws, that reporter certainly broke confidentiality.
This is not about how the police treated gays in the past, how the military treats gays, or whatever independent circumstance or event one would like to use to justify this reporter’s conduct.
This article isn’t even really about gays and priests. It’s about the self help movement that exists in America and the rules of each group to define and manage itself. Those rules were broken by an outsider who claimed a falsehood about himself to gain acces to and then make public someone’s private life.
What is at risk is the safe sanctuary we make for ourselves and others to seek help, support and guidance on personal issues- whether or not you agree or disagree with the issues. There is no plot or coup in the works to overthrow society – just to work on one’s personal issues.
That was disrupted by an individual who broke confidence. That in my opinion was unethical, mean spirited, and self serving.
I seem to have missed this kind of discussion when gay men were being entrapped by the police and their names and addresses published in newspapers. I also seem to have missed similar discussions of ethics as gay men and women are currently blackmailed, outed and discharged from the military by the thousands. Would it be right for a reporter to discuss Lindsay Graham and Aaron Schock, two examples who come to mind, for being in the closet since everyone who knows them knows they’re gay? That they have not been outed yet is because they have yet to step over the line and talk the kind of filth this pastor did over the course of years. I’m shocked that anyone could defend him. If he habitually lies about something so fundamental to his nature what kind of pastor could he be?
Eddy, the organization I was referring to is the Catholic church which has been funneling money on the downlow to groups trying to stop us enjoying CIVIL rights. Just as have the Mormons. I found the homepage for Courage (!) with a very quick google search. And this is not a ‘support group’ it’s a 12-step group. Whatever one thinks of such groups – there is an absolute lack of any proof they do any good – to apply the language of alcoholism to a fundamental aspect of human life is both ignorant and destructive and should not be encouraged.
My last point is that there is a major push to keep us in our place. It is irrational and unscientific. It is to human behavior what Intelligent Design is to paleontology. And that is the idea that our behavior is willfully chosen instead of being innate and unchangeable. That is the ex-gay industry. This is its Catholic branch. It feeds off self-hatred and shame, there is nothing benign or caring about it and it should not be encouraged.
At one time the church forcibly converted Jews. Now it doesn’t (apart from the Mormons, of course, but at least they wait till people are dead). It tries to convert homosexuals instead. An effort that is clearly doomed to failure but which will cause much misery, suicide, and hatred along the way.
I would add that it’s not just Christ-centered ministries or support groups–but ALL support groups.
Let’s imagine a person in AA who campaigns against a liquor license being awarded to the restaurant down the street. Or even a pastor who preaches against the evils of alcohol but is a recovering alcoholic involved in AA. Where do we draw the line?
Jayhuck,
You are not wrong in presuming that this man ‘fell into temptation’ during a ministry trip; you would be wrong however to presume what the temptation was. When I led a similar group, “fell into temptation” was a buzzphrase of sorts. Members were careful not to put potentially alluring pictures into the minds of fellow group members. The phrase could mean “I permitted myself to fantasize”, “I masturbated”, “I purposely detoured past the adult book store”, “I looked at pornography” and possibly some other scenarios I have not listed.
This demonstrates yet another weakness of the reporter. He was after a provocative sound bite. He wasn’t involved in the group long enough to understand this particular dynamic. I found it intriguing that there is no elaboration on the group’s response. Normally, in such a group, a confession of a ‘big fall’ is ‘lovingly challenged’ in an effort to equip the individual to combat such a temptation the next time it occurs.
First, Romans 7:14-25 comes to my mind. What human is not dual-natured and struggling with temptation and sin?
Thank God for churches striving (imperfectly, yes) to provide a safe and confidential place for growth and healing for strugglers or all sorts. What else is church for? Thank God for preachers who do not shrink back from preaching the Word — all of it — despite their own humanness. Thank God for broken men and women who have the courage to recognize their sinful nature for what it is and work toward wholeness with other “wounded healers” who are called to come alongside and disciple them.
Show me the perfect leader who has it all together. I don’t know how many teachers/disciplers/group facilitators are properly vetted and prayed over and held accountable, all of which should be happening. It’s a tough job and not many are willing to take it.
I do know what it’s like to facilitate a Christ-centered recovery group under supervision of a licensed clinician who seeks accountability in his trained leaders. I did it for seven years. I also know how it feels to discover that your confidential group has been infiltrated by an undercover “agent” with an agenda. Fortunately for us, our interloper was overcome by her conscience and confessed her “crime” to me very quickly. Perhaps the genuine love and concern she observed had its way (1 Cor. 13). Nothing ever came of the incident. But ever after I felt vulnerable in my ability to provide a safe haven for the women in my group, who looked to me as a surrogate mother of sorts. What was to keep it from happening again?
This outing incident of a confidential group attendee because of his public persona will serve to hamper all such ministries. That is unfortunate. They have enough to overcome as it is. The true church is stronger than all this nonsense, of course. It marches on. Love does speak louder than a clanging cymbal.
Finally, today’s media, or those who pass themselves off as such, are growing too obsessed with putting us all in glass houses. That will come back to bite them. Some boundaries ought not be crossed.
Jayhuck:
Hypocrisy would be saying one thing but doing another. So in this sense he is not being hypocritical. From your statement it seems that he should be against something within himself on a private level but advocate for it on a public level. But this would be true hypocrisy.
I agree that it is distasteful when leaders in the church advocate against the rights of others. But, in the context of what this person believes about his attractions, it is not hypocrisy. (I suppose you could call it hypocrisy in the broader context of what Jesus taught and how the church does not codify other Christian beliefs – but that is not the context of what we are asking here. The accusation of hypocrisy seems to hinge on this pastor seeking “help” for undesired attractions and geing anti-gay in public.)
On a different note: The reporter’s violation of the privacy of a support group is IMO terribly wrong. To condone such actions puts all support groups at risk. After-all, the next private support group to be invaded by a reporter with an agenda could be your own.
Lynn,
I agree with you that on a certain level there does not seem to be anything wrong about this pastor and his beliefs. I get why people see a problem here – but…
I am having a great deal of trouble with a man who gets the protection of a support group but is then able to not only denigrate another group of people, but participate in that very act he claims to abhor – and others are not supposed to be able to call him out on this.
I don’t think support groups should be violated like this in general – I understand the need for people who are in them to feel safe – but this man’s behavior – his words and actions make it impossible for me to feel any sympathy for him.
First off, Catholics don’t see the Pope as infallible. Infallibility as a concept only applies when the Pope speaks ex cathedra and that doesn’t happen too often. And as for parish priests – at least in the rural areas – we know they are fallible because they were our brothers, uncles, cousins, etc…
Allow me to also say this about that. Yes, there is no evident hypocrisy on a certain intellectual level with this pastor concerning his beliefs. But I do consider it to be hypocritical on another level to deny your evident human nature towards adult bonds of love such that you have to control it with a raft of non-stop theraputic sessions.
Am I wrong in understanding that this guy also “fell into temptation” as he calls it during a trip abroad recently?
So he’s not a hypocrite? He wants the privacy and protection of a group to deal with same sex feelings he has but he wants to undermine rights for others with those feelings who believe differently than he does? I’m finding it difficult to believe that this isn’t a hypocrisy of its own
Nope – sorry Eddy – this guy works to undermine equal rights for other people. If he wants to struggle with his personal demons that’s fine, but he doesn’t get the privacy of a support group and then get to stand up and undermine equal rights for others who dont believe as he does – that doesn’t work for me.
A little over the top? Didn’t he say God sent a tornado to a church conference because that particular church doesn’t come to the same conclusions about homosexuality that he does? A little is an understatement
Lynn David–
I hear you. And I know that Catholics are a bit more rigid in their approach to sin and confession than are the Lutherans…yet, the Lutherans are probably closer to the Catholics than all the other Protestants.
I realize my dream is an odd one. Only the Catholics declare the pope to be infallible yet it seems that many churches (Christian and otherwise) tend to think of their pastors as both sinless and untouched by temptation. In my mind, this isolates the human pastor and sets him up to be besieged by a sin.
One of my most memorable moments in Bible School was when I went to a leader with a burning question. He heard me out and then said “Gee, Eddy, I don’t know.” At first I was taken aback but soon I developed a stronger trust in that man than I had in any of the other leaders. He didn’t have all the answers and he didn’t pretend to. We need more of that!!!
The man felt called of God to be a pastor. A long life of ministry service seems to testify that it was a true calling. Why should he remain silent about a particular sin simply because it’s one he struggles with? Wouldn’t we call that hypocrisy?
He struggles with homosexuality; he also believes that it is sin. He sees forces at work trying to say that it isn’t sin at all…both inside the church and in the world around him. And he speaks to that. In my book, he comes through as consistent. (Sometimes a little ‘over the top’ as in the tornado story but consistent.)
But, setting that aside, the sanctity of the privacy of a support group was breached and violated. It’s such a first that the story has now gone national.
I understand the problem with outing the man and protecting the identify of people in the group, but if he’s outspokenly anti-gay and the other people in fact were not named or harmed, I might just have to agree that this was ok.
David,
This doesn’t make any sense to me – how is this the same?
Anti-gay folk of all kinds speak out all the time on gay marriage – often to their own downfall – who is saying they cannot or should not speak?
This man attends a meeting to deal with these feelings he has that he cannot reconcile with his faith – I respect this. I do not respect the same person attending such meetings then getting up and speaking out against a community of people who don’t agree with him about the same feelings.
Here is what it boils down to: If he wants to be left alone to deal with his feelings as he sees fit, maybe he should allow others the same freedom?
Odd idea, Eddy. Odd, because it would never fly (anymore) in the Catholic Church of which this Courage group was a part. Odd, again because the Catholic Church considers sin to often be a personal thing which is to be held in confidence between you and your confessor (not sure if the Lutherans go along with that idea or not). The Catholic Church has its priests counsel those who are gay (or your strugglers) not to speak of their sexual orientation (or struggle) to anyone whatsoever. The Church sees outing oneself and going down that road to acceptance… well, whatever.
If this is fair game…then outing people who are unfaithful to their partners is fair game as well, regardless of who they are sexually attracted to.
“Outing” and “In the closet” are old terms that simplify things too well.
Of course a man who struggles with unwanted SSA has political opinions…of course he has a right to state them publicly, to the disadvantage of his own natural inclinations…
It seems that the rule is “if you have Wanted SSA or you are Heterosexual only, then you have a right o speak publicly on gay marriage.”
Who wrote this rule…
It will be unwritten when someone like Tom Brock says, “Yeah, so? I’ll stop fighting for what I believe in when I am dead and gone…I assume the same for you. If others want support for unwanted SSA, I have found a path of respect and support.”
Lynn David–
I think I read that the reporter did meet with someone to get a ‘quasi-referral’ to the group…at least enough that they let their guard down somewhat. Also, the group was led by a priest. My reasoning is that if a priest is qualified enough to shepherd a church, he ought to be qualified enough to lead a small group. (And I’ve no idea if the priest was a ‘fellow struggler’.)
When you stop to think about it, not all groups like AA are run by credentialed professionals but are often facilitated by more advanced ‘fellow strugglers’. In the ministry I was once a part of, a group might be led by a ‘fellow struggler’ but was then followed up on. (The facilitator would report back on the meetings progress and any unique concerns or issues.) In some circles, the presence of a certified professional in such a group impacts the group dynamic in a negative way.
I appreciate very much your assessment that the charges of hypocrisy levelled against the pastor were bogus. I think you are absolutely right. He participated in the group in a manner consistent with his beliefs. I realize that this would not be the ideal for many but what I dream of is the day when a man such as this pastor could say to his church “yes, I believe that homosexual behavior is sin but it is a sin that I’m tempted by. I seek your love and support in my endeavors to stand against it.” –and then–have the congregation respond with “just because you happen to struggle with that sin…that isn’t a just cause to disqualify you from being our pastor…before Christ, we all stand as equals.”
I would hope that such groups would be off limits. But the very structure of the Courage group should be questioned here also. There was no vetting of individuals who came to the group. There was evidently no professional whether psychologist or other therapist who oversaw the group. It was exactly that lack of professional oversight that the reporter saw as an opening.
.
On the other hand I don’t see what the pastor was doing as bein hypocritical in the least. In fact, what he was doing was quite in line with his condemnations of homosexuality.
.
It seems to me to be an odd mix of ethics. It seem to fit the ethical idea of ‘duty to the truth. But at the same time the outing fails in the manner based on rights – that is not wanting this method to become a rule. Then again on the basis of utility, that is for the greatest good, ok, that can be a toss-up, but as for me…. But lastly as for virtue, does this exist as the proper time and proper place to find that classic middle ground, I think not. And I think it is the deciding factor.
stephen–
I’m not the most web-savvy person but I just tried searching Courage-Minneapolis and couldn’t find address and meeting time. All I could come up with was contact phone number. The breach of the members privacy was in posting both the time AND place.
–and just who is ‘the organization behind it which has conducted a stealth campaign to stop the advance of civil rights by secretly funding smear campaigns in California, Maine and other states’?
I’m always bemused by revelations of ‘secretly funding’…makes me wonder…if it was so secret, how did you find out?
Just to finish, this priest is a prime example of everything that is wrong in American religion today. Let him remember all those he reduced to misery through his self-serving lies. I’ve yet to hear anyone deplore his disgusting racism when describing what he referred to as ‘gypsies’ in Slovakia.
Interesting how much an outing unsettles everyone. Some people even had the nerve to criticize Mike Jones, when revealingTed Haggard for what he is, as having violated some kind of escort’s code. For so long as I see my life slandered and vilified by scoundrels like this pastor just so long will I find it appropriate that their foul activities be stopped whenever possible.
The meetings are hardly secret since they’re advertised on the web and none of the other men were named. In my opinion not a bad idea to out this sad little group too. The writer was a lot more charitable towards them than I would have been – not the men, poor sad souls who’ve been scared into self-hatred – but the organization behind it which has conducted a stealth campaign to stop the advance of civil rights by secretly funding smear campaigns in California, Maine and other states.
AMEN!!!!! And, tragically, in the reporter’s zeal to expose the pastor, he violated the privacy of everyone involved in the group by revealing it’s time and location. OUTRAGEOUS!!
Having lived and ministered in Minneapolis, I am familiar with both the magazine and the pastor. So, your briefing here sent me on a bit of a web-detour. I was heartened by the comments of a number of gay persons who spoke out quite strongly against this breach!