Following Al Mohler’s controversial article Is Your Baby Gay? last month, evangelical monthly Christianity Today enters the gay gene debate with Re-engineering Temptation. Of interest to XGW are the comments by Alan Chambers of Exodus:
This conversation puzzles Alan Chambers, president of the ex-gay group Exodus International. Christian leaders aren’t pushing for a medical answer to alcoholism or pornography, he noted. Instead of looking to science, Chambers said, Christians should study the struggles of reformed homosexuals.
“People like me who struggled with it and found freedom are more than sufficient proof that we can overcome our genetics,” he said. “Science will never trump the Word of God.”
Did Chambers just concede that homosexuality is genetic? If so, he is clearly referring to homosexual orientation, rather than behaviour. Furthermore, he claims to have “struggled with it and found freedom.” And so the cycle of slippery terminology and elusive meaning continues.
“Freedom”? Like “healing”, “overcoming” and “changing,” there’s a word that slides over the question of whether reversal of homosexual orientation is really possible. As I noted in my analysis of British ex-gay James Parker’s interview last month, trying to get a straight – um, plain – answer on this issue from an ex-gay leader is difficult. In response to the question, “Are you still attracted to men?”, James Parker immediately responded with “Let’s put it this way,” going on to answer a question of his own choosing instead of giving a yes or no to the question asked. Alan shows the same reluctance when asked the same direct question:
[Do you still have attraction to men? You’re just choosing not to act on it?] My attraction greatly diminished over the course of many years. Sixteen years into it, my life isn’t even remotely the same as it once was; but I often say that I will never be as though I never was; and the truth is that I’m a human being, and for me to say that I could never be attracted to men again, or that I couldn’t be tempted, would mean that I’m not human, and that’s just not the case.
Is he still attracted or not? Despite a veneer of honesty and self-disclosure, this answer still leaves me clueless whether Alan Chambers, and by extension the ex-gays he represents, still consistently live with homosexual attractions.
I am convinced that semantics is one of the major battlegrounds in challenging the ex-gay movement. There is a divide between the rhetoric and the reality, and as long as leaders continue to use language in such a slippery, imprecise way, inventing their own hazy definitions, we must continue to press Exodus and other ex-gay groups on this.
Alan Chambers is clearly saying that he is still attracted to other men and that he would not be human if he weren’t. In other words, he recognizes that sexual orientation is part of human nature and that being an ex-gay man means fighting his natural attraction for men.
An interesting aspect of this is that studying nature has been as important as studying the Scriptures for Christian theologians the past millennium. The whole concept of Natural Law Ethics is based on this, which is obvious when reading historic as well as contemporary documents of the Vatican. With this in minds, it puzzles me that an increasing number of anti-gay Christians in Europe and America recognize that homosexuality is in fact a genuine part of some people’s nature, yet they fail to see that when they encourage gays and lesbians to fight their nature, they also send the message that God’s creation isn’t good enough.
No, they do not fail to see that. We live in a fallen creation and things are not the way they originally were intended to be, so the argument goes.
These are interesting language issues. In my experience, few leaders of Exodus-affiliated ministries who experience physical attractions predominantly towards the same-sex would describe abstaining from sexual intimacy as “overcoming one’s genetics”. Most including myself would instead describe this as living a life congruent with what one believes. A somewhat analogous description would apply to heterosexually attracted individuals who abstain from extra-marital sexual intimacy. Such decisions are, in my view, best described not in terms of genetics but in terms of stewardship of sexual-relational capacities.
“People like me who struggled with it and found freedom are more than sufficient proof that we can overcome our genetics,” he said. “Science will never trump the Word of God.”
But why? What practical use is it to overcome one’s inborn sexuality? None of these people have been able to produce ANY credible evidence that the very nature of being gay is dangerous to health or society.
The only real answer is that a change caters to a society that doesn’t accept you. These people seem to be interested only in fitting in and naively do not address the bias held within their own society — which is the root of the problem.
And it’s not the “Word of God”, it’s the word of some men who held the same prejudices that are present in today’s religious right movement. The only difference is that I can kind of excuse them as they didn’t have the science or wherewithal to logically address their conclusions.
We have that science and wherewithal today and people are still ignorant. WTF? That is inexcusable. And now they’re making the claim that they will continue to be ignorant, even in the face of scientific proof that being gay is as natural as being straight.
And also, the statement Science will never trump the Word of God is just ignorant. It not only shows an ignorance of science and its purpose, but it also shows a rudimentary understanding of the Christian religion.
Go back to school, Chambers!
Finding the gay gene(s) isn’t going to change anything when it comes to Dobson, Exodus, Focus on the Family and othe anti-gay religious groups. They will continue fighting against our rights, and instead denounce the godless scientists.
Just look at the whole evolution thing. We won’t have evidence anytime soon supporting a genetic link to homosexuality that is going to be anywhere near as strong as the scientific evidence to support evolution. When it comes to evolution, the mainline churches are okay with it, but not the biblical fundamentalists.
“My attraction greatly diminished over the course of many years.” Of course, it’s possible that much of this could be the result of his testosterone levels declining with age.
“No, they do not fail to see that. We live in a fallen creation and things are not the way they originally were intended to be, so the argument goes.”
Not exactly. They only fail to see through their own self issues. A fallen creation means the control of sin in a person’s life. And sin is supposed to draw Christians away from God.
Does being gay draw a person away from God? From the increasing evidence, of course not! In fact, most Christians who are born gay, as opposed to confused heterosexuals who thought they were gay, only found peace in Christianity after they accepted who they are!
“My attraction greatly diminished over the course of many years.” Of course, it’s possible that much of this could be the result of his testosterone levels declining with age.
So I guess is attraction to ANYTHING will have greatly diminished.
I wonder if he would say my attraction to men has greatly diminished and I’m really hot for my wife all the time.
That might convince me!
My wife came up with the very best rebuttal to all this a couple days ago. She said that to really keep a baby from sinning, a Southern Baptist should also have their fetus made ugly and painfully shy in the womb. That way, they would have very few opportunities to “sin”, whether that means a wet T-shirt contest or pre-marital relationships.
Next time this is brought up by any ex-gay/anti-gay advocate, I am going to ask if they would support eliminating even more sinful potential.
Furthermore, this strengthens my conviction that finding a biological link will not help LGBTs. Think about it. We all know race is biological, yet still exists. The bigotry will just take on new and strange permutations if a biological link is proven now, as we are seeing. So the important thing is to work on attitudes.
Sonia wrote:
There we go again. Just imagine that you’re aged, let’s say for the sake of argument, 16 or 17. (I can still remember myself at that age, even though it’s a long time ago now.) For some years you’ve been aware that all the people to whom you are sexually attracted are of your own sex, and that all your erotic dreams are about people of your own sex, athough you’ve been trying to ignore the fact in the hope that it will eventually go away.
You don’t want to be homosexual because your religious upbringing has taught you that it’s sinful, or because you don’t want to be different from your peers, or because you’ve been told that it’s a psychological illness, or for whatever other reason(s). Perhaps you’ve been praying with increasing desperation that you’ll grow up straight.
Then you become aware of the ex-gay ministries that offer you a solution to your “problem”, and you get involved with an ex-gay ministry. At last you’ve received an answer to your prayers – a means to “overcome” homosexuality. But your sexual orientation doesn’t change.
You’re then told that they never promised you a complete change in your sexual orientation, but that what you were really being offered was simply help to live a life “congruent with what you believe” and to exercise a proper “stewardship of sexual-relational capacities”.
I ask you, what will your verdict be? That the ex-gay ministry has delivered on its promise – or that you’ve been bamboozled?
Sorry – my quotation from what Sonia wrote somehow got omitted.
I struggled to be a “reformed homosexual” from 1971 through the 1981; but, I did not leave the proverbial homosexual closet until March 1984. And God himself devised a way to get me out of Tulsa and Oklahoma, using a bisexual friend and even some church folks (who did not know I was homosexual) to make that come about, too.
I find it somewhat interesting. Ex-gay groups want to make a comparison between homosexuality and alcoholism. Their claim is that because there is some indication of a genetic predisposition with alcoholism but irresponsible alcohol use is still not condoned in society there is a parallel to homosexuality which most studies suggest is strongly influenced by genetic factors. They even create what are essentially “12-step” programs to “overcome” homosexuality, in a pretty clear attempt to reinforce the parallel.
The part that I find interesting is the refusal to adopt the identifying rhetoric of an alcoholic. An alcoholic is always an alcoholic, and will freely acknowledge it. Their linguistic distinction is that they’re “recovering” but they never claim a cure. It seems clear that when directly confronted most Ex-gays are still somewhat sexually attracted to men by their own admission. I think I’d be curious if a question was asked of Mr. Chambers whether one can be “ex” anything when one still has perceived problem that one claims to be an ‘ex’ of.
I have a teen-aged (almost 20), transgender friend who is soongoing in to see her primary care doctor to talk to her being female inside. When I looked at my friend’s body, her skin, her build, and found out she wasn’t yet on horemones, I told her “Have your doctor check you out for genetic intersex conditions as part of the process.” To me, she looks to me a candidate for PAIS or a mosaic Turner syndrome, although I’m not a doctor and couldn’t make that call.
The thing is, if she does turn out to have a genetic intersex condition, should she be trying to overcome it? Should she assume that God had a hand in putting the M or her birth certificate, and work with Exodus to overcome her intersexuality?
Or, in a related argument, as a transsexual of Christian faith, should I be making the argument that I too am working to overcome my genetics — but I’m doing it in a Matthews 19:12 “made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” kinda way?
I guess what I’m saying is that one doesn’t have to look too hard to see that Alan Chambers’ current argument is a little tortured and convoluted. If sexuality and gender identity really are more genetic or biologic than we know, then the “psychological and psychiatric stuff” Exodus mixes in with their “sin stuff” will become less meaningful — and Exodus’s answers to scientific “problems” are starting to show that.
“My attraction greatly diminished over the course of many years.”
Well, maybe it is because Chambers isn’t going around men toward whom he might experience a down in the lower body physiological sexual attraction (PSA) as much as he used to do.
You cannot have a same-gender (male-male) PSA when there is no live guy close by to whom it might be directed.
I was at a church meeting this evening and close to a number of men before and afterwards and I did not have a PSA in their presence at all.
If a person has a propensity to become an alcoholic because his parents were alcoholics before he was conceived and was raised by tee-totalers and no one ever told him what alcoholic beverages looked like or smelled like and he had an occasion to be close to a glass containing an alcoholic beverage, he would never know that he could even possibly become an alcoholic like his parents.
But, a person who does not even know what sex is can have a PSA directed at another live person in his presence, getting an internal sensation that he did not even know what it means.
When I was 12 going on 13 and in early puberty, I experienced a new feeling toward a real live cowboy, who was just a few feet away from me and I had never seen him before that day. I did not understand why I had those feelings at that time; but, while I had had sex play with boys my age before that day, I started being interested in “older” men. The cowboy could have been 21 but I think he was barely over 18.
As an adult, I now know that I had a physiological sexual attraction directed toward him specifically, although on that day my brother, my father, the cowboy’s rancher father and two friends of both my father and the rancher were in that discussion circle. I had joined that group of guys before the cowboy came over from the barn to visit. I wasn’t attracted sexually to any of the original members of the “circle.”
All 12-Step programs do is help a person to be a “recovering whatever;” but, they remain what they were before the joined the 12-Step program.
Ex-gays ain’t nuttin’ but trying to be “recovering homosexuals.”
The question brought up by William, if I understand correctly, concerns what expectations are raised when a person seeks the support of an Exodus ministry. Personally I (and others I know) do not shy away from clearly disclosing that for many, attractions don’t seem to shift much over time. I am not serving anyone well if I am not totally honest about that so an intentional decision can be made — one that is based on awareness. Each person must work out what they believe, and what they will do in light of their most deeply held convictions.
Sounds like a sane and reasonable position, Sonia. Perhaps you could share that view with some other ex-gay groups 😉
I found what Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Al Mohler had to say from that article to be more of interest:
It’s no wonder that Chambers would rather the scientific discussions stay our of his religious offerinig; every time a fundamentalist Christian starts talking science he puts his foot in his mouth. Mohler says there that his god is not a perfect creator and that Mohler and other Christians do not accept that “….whatever God makes in the womb is perfect, inviolate…” Well gee, ….if that is the case then what’s the big deal with abortion then? Any attempt to mix their theology with existing scientific theory is always becomes a farce.
John Allen Doty: My point exactly. I mean, truthfully I’m not annoyed at ex-gay programs existence, I’m annoyed that they imply through the label “ex-gay” that they’re having a greater effect than they actually do.
I understand that for some ex-gays it can bring great solace to live without the label and I can understand the conflict between reconciling moral values and the realities of emotions, I just wish that some of the public ex-gay leaders used language which better reflected the reality of their situation rather than picking and choosing language because it seems more appealing even if its misleading.
I’m still working very hard on why the ex gay ministry keeps acting like changing is NECESSARY and URGENT and LIFETHREATENING!
There are CLEARLY no comparative RESULTS with homosexuality as there are with substance addiction.
Or mental illness, or genetically compromising diseases like Huntington’s, to homosexuality.
Their assumption that foregoing sex, lifelong is healthy and desirable if one cannot be attracted to the opposite sex, ALSO speaks to the necessity of celibacy.
This is VERY different from foregoing alcohol if one is at risk for or already diagnosed with alcoholism.
Certainly in families experienced with the effects of it, some choose to never drink to avoid becoming alcoholic.
One can’t call themselves a scientifically sound congruance of faith and science, when you’ve ignored all the PREVAILING evidence that homosexuality is’nt dangerous, nor are homosexuals, nor is homosexuality an outgrowth of physical or genetic abnormality.
Alcoholism and promiscuity are SUBSET behaviors in all sexual orientations.
So, if anything the public is better served by healing that which affects EVERYONE, rather than a primary behavior exclusive to a group that can’t and doesn’t effect the general population.
DUH.
Having said all that, the bottom line to these people is literally exterminating homosexuality by any means necessary.
And it doesn’t matter that it causes no physical or social harm to the individual. It doesn’t make the individual impossible to integrate into society at large because this behavior doesn’t create ANTI SOCIAL or psychotic issues or compromise normal public function.
and OTHER gay people are compatible and function well together.
So, here I am…a straight person, scratching my head at the ex gay industry and how they can’t even integrate their OWN theories into that of the ANTI gay and their stated mission.
I’m looking and listening to them and I’m STILL puzzled at this need to make gay people celibate.
In WHAT possible way is the public served by people NOT having sex who don’t make babies unintentionally?
What is the POINT of straight people FORCING THEIR sexual tendencies on this singular group?
Oral or non contraceptive sex…whether between opposite or same genders….have the same effect IN PRIVATE.
And everything else required that one could call a compatible relationship in all other areas, is HIGHLY subjective and up to the individuals.
That is the public half.
I’m thinking that THE most compassionate thing anyone can do, is understand how hard it is already to find the right person for oneself.
And no one can interfere with that and call it something else.
If the ex gay industry does this. They intervene and interfere in ways that help nothing, solve nothing and aren’t worth all the effort put in to call it something it isn’t.
It’s almost as if they never lived with an alcoholic, a person with clinical mental illness, or some other sociopathy to know the difference between all that and homosexuality.
Some of us have. And some of us do know the differences. And I’d rather they were looking for a cure for alcoholism, sociopathy or schizophrenia.
There are FAR more urgent things out there that ARE dangerous in the real world. Not the fantansies of the anti gay.
I meant to say why they insist that homosexuality is life threatening.
Regan,
To many on the evangelical right, or to the far right/conservative religious spectrum, homosexuality is a disease. That is why Exodus and their ilk want it reclassified as such by the APA. Doing so gives them more ammo to beat the GLBT community with.
What Sonia says does sound perfectly reasonable, and indeed it is, even though I don’t go along with it myself.
The problem is, however, that the ex-gay cults don’t generally rest content with such modest claims. Billboards that read “I Questioned Homosexuality. Change is Possible. Discover how.” and “Can homosexuals change? We did!” and books with titles such as “Homosexual No More”, “You Don’t Have to Be Gay”, “Overcoming Homosexuality”, “Coming Out of Homosexuality: New Freedom for Men and Women” and “Pursuing Sexual Wholeness: How Jesus Heals the Homosexual” clearly convey a message that implies much more, and I submit that it is a grossly misleading message. (I fully appreciate, of course, that Sonia isn’t herself responsible for these.)
That famous “Can homosexuals change? We did!” poster would have stated the (maximum) likelihood of a change in sexual orientation much more truthfully if it had also depicted a similar group of people saying “Can you win the National Lottery jackpot? We did!” An advertising slogan used by the National Lottery here in Britain until a few years ago was “It could be you!”. Well, yes, it certainly could – but you can be pretty bloody sure that it won’t.
Obviously, anybody can stop having gay sex if they really want to. You don’t need a ex-gay program for that. The ex-gay programs, however, imply that many people will be hot for the opposite sex after completing the program and will be freed from gay desires. But we know that rarely happens.
Hey Ken R. I know they might believe it’s disease…but that doesn’t make it true, right or having a resemblance to a disease.
They can’t just say it, and then try to work out information that contradicts the truth.
We’re a reality, facts and education based society.
Being an individual of FAITH, is a choice.
Diseases have results. And when you’re talking DETRIMENTAL results, that can be accounted for and have a basis in prevention that’s compelling, this is very different than believing someone has a disease because they are simply DIFFERENT.
Being different was never a disease. And doesn’t require interventions that are mean in spirit. Impractical in application.
I”m exercising in what way might address a person who keeps believing that.
On several occasions I confronted several different people on their complaints regarding how the APA took homosexuality from the DSM.
Here’s kind of how they went:
1. Well, if you believe being gay is a disease…why are you saying it’s a choice and gay people are to held accountable for what they didn’t decide on?
No answer.
2. Well if you insist that religious intervention is good and helps the individual, are you also so invested in prayer to cure schizophrenia, bi polar disorder or OCD?
Or do you consider homosexuality somehow a greater threat to society than schizophrenia? If so, how?
No answer.
3. Well, ok…of all the disorders or behaviors still listed, which ones are you advocate also deserve to NEVER marry, NEVER have children or raise them, or NEVER be considered for their professional choice despite competence and talent?
No answer.
Are you there?
Yes.
5. Well, if this intervention against homosexuality is SO important, more than ANY OTHER behavior that a human being can engage in….
Then why aren’t you keeping records to compare to other empirical evidence?
Your say so, has to be backed up with evidence. Not just written documentation, but empirical evidence that your intervention is necessary.
I’m sure you believe it works, but if the only study conducted is on changing gay people…from the perview that ONLY straight people want this to happen, and not THE GAY PERSON-you are giving no evidence at all.
An outside observation, like mine, tells me that it means more to straight people that a gay person change, and what a gay person wants, means nothing.
But what the gay person feels about it, means everything.
Because self determination is in everyone’s DNA. And there is no sacrifice to anyone else for a gay person to do that, right?
Well, uh….well…..but it’s just WRONG!
To be self determined? Why, it’s normal!
No, I mean to be gay….
How would YOU know? Other than what another straight person has told you?
Don’t you think you should hear it from a GAY person?
Do you ask a man what childbearing is like? Or would you ask a WOMAN who has given birth what it’s like?
Well, uh….I guess I would ask a woman.
Well, I think you should.
It’s wrong for a man to have given birth, hijack all the information and talk about it AS IF, he was the one that bore a child, right?
So why are the only people you talk to and BELIEVE about homosexuality are ONLY other straight people?
Ah….unh hunh…you’re gay?
No, I”m not.
You’re not?
No.
Are you?
No.
I bet you’re wondering why I’m defending gay folks self determination, aren’t you?
Yes.
Well….I’d do the same if I’d witnessed what I know is stereotype and information I know to be false about an entire group.
Nazis spread bad things about Jews. And the next thing you know, Jews aren’t normal. They aren’t honest, they can’t be trusted and they have more privileges than anyone else that they stole from moral people.
It’s one thing to know from the irrefutable source. It’s another to believe NOTHING else but what is negative and fearful from and entire group of people without the intimacy and social experience necessary to know for sure.
Do you know many gay people?
Well, I know this guy at church who said he was gay…
That’s it? One guy…and he’s not your friend is he?
No.
Do you want to have children someday?
Yes.
Do you want them to live in a world where no matter how young they are, they are always suspect, or under threat? Maybe even for their lives.
Do you want that?
Or would you rather have someone like me, accept them for the great potential they have and talent they can offer?
I can ignore what YOU say about disease, when I’m confronted with an attractive, intelligent and mannered person.
A person is NEVER their disease, whatever you think a disease is. And the disease is more YOURS than theirs.
Well, thank you for calling….
Sure, think about what I said, fair?
It’s not often (impossible really), where someone can’t reconcile what they think with the practical reality at hand.
It’s very hard for their activity to reconcile with the rest of humanity’s need to MOVE ON.
After all, what these groups believe is based on archaic information and activity.
And sometimes their stuffy insistence that they are so absolutely right, nothing you say matters is outright kind of nuts in itself.
Nothing is sure, especially if you’re cut off AT information coming from the same sources over and over again.
They don’t want to question if this is it, or if there is more.
And a person of faith, would have faith that there is always more.
And a person who cares about truth, would care to know that as well.
I missed the part where I asked them what would they do if their child were gay?
It happens and can to anyone in any family.
So what would would they rather their possibly gay child live in?
You get the point>
At any rate, I think I’m more than fair to ask these folks these questions. I’m not the least bit shy about it.
I won’t apologize either.
I know the folks here know better than I do what’s what.
I guess I’m pointing out how I handle some of these people that are so anti gay, they think that every STRAIGHT person is going to accept what they say without questions.
Cause I’m a reality and facts based kinda woman.
Regan Says:
“An outside observation, like mine, tells me that it means more to straight people that a gay person change, and what a gay person wants, means nothing.”
Exactly! It does not matter what that gay person is personally going through on the inside. Rather, it is a demand by these Christians that the individual must conform to their beliefs. It isn’t about helping people but rather etching another notch in the back of their Bibles as another “saved sinner”.
No where in the Bible does it state that the more people you bring to salvation (Christ alone saves, not Christians) the closer you are guaranteed a seat next to Jesus himself.
Hi Ken, I appreciate your responses….I’m just trying to let the folks here know that I’m paying attention and trying to exercise my critical thinking muscles!
:0P
One time I was in a counseling session with Sue, the Social Worker at the Day Center for the Homeless and I was telling her how I had been trying to make myself “normal” in regard to the opinion of the person who hated me (and was the guy who had beat me up).
Sue said, “But, Joe, you are normal.”
Yes, I am normal because I was born that way and God told me himself that he made me that way and he loves me just as I am. I know by experience when you have an outloud conversation with God you can hear him with your natural ears, too.
I told my younger brother that being homosexual is not a defect, it is a difference. He’s artistically inclined like I am (has acting, art and music talent, too)and mechanically inclined like our older brother was; but, he says he is straight.