When I ordered God, Gays and the Church, I was – perhaps quite naively – not prepared for the egregious level of homophobia contained in its pages.
Released yesterday to coincide with the gay debate at the Church of England Synod, the book is a compendium of essays about homosexuality and ex-gays, here re-termed “post-gays”. It is published by The Latimer Trust, and edited by Lisa Nolland, Chris Sugden and Sarah Finch of the UK-based Anglican Mainstream.
The book argues that the debate has been too heavily slanted towards gay experience, and promises to redress the balance by telling the stories of ex-gays. In fact, ex-gay testimonies make up just one small part of the book.
I didn’t have a major problem with the contributions of Peter Ould or James Parker. Both describe themselves as post-gay, and both tell their own stories. However, the rest of the book is a sadly familiar concoction of anti-gay myths propped up by long-since debunked theories.
Within a few pages, the reader is told that when homosexual apologists (including gay Christians) talk about “monogamy,” “commitment,” and “faithful,” heterosexuals cannot assume they mean “sexual exclusivity.” Why? For the evidence, the authors turn straight away to the research of the notoriously unreliable Paul Cameron, the propagandist with whom even Exodus no longer wishes to be associated. Here, it is Cameron’s discredited “average life-span” claim that is pressed into the service of homophobia.
Place is later given in the book to three chapters by NARTH’s Dr Joseph Nicolosi, biblical scholar Robert Gagnon, and ex-gay therapists Jeffrey Satinover and Neil Whitehead.
A recurring argument in the book is that gay rights and civil partnerships inevitably lead to accepting all sorts of sexual practices. Therefore, in the “Glossary of Terms in the Gay Debate,” it is thought necessary to define “Necrophilia,” “Intergenerational Love” and “Polyamoury [sic],” along with the more obvious terms. Another appendix provides quotes from pedophile activists, and offers links to websites about zoophilia, bestiality and incest.
In yet another of six appendices, US evangelical Charles Colson is called on to demonstrate how civil partnerships (legal in the UK) are a threat to marriage. Here marital unfaithfulness, BDSM and polyamory are all presented as natural consequences of gays getting equal rights. The spectre of San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair is invoked more than once in the book; indeed, one gets the impression that heterosexuals are hardly responsible for any of these trends, even when they’re the ones taking part; it all ends up at the feet of gays.
However, by far the most obnoxious chapter – and the most damning example of outright homophobia in the book – is “The Books, the Porn, the Truth: The Truth about the Homosexual Rights Movement,” by Ronald G Lee, an article that first appeared in the February 2006 edition of The New Oxford Review, a US Catholic journal.
In an introductory paragraph, editor Chris Sugden writes:
It is our view that Dr Lee’s narrative deserves a hearing equal to that given to the impassioned gay advocate. Surely equal opportunities work both ways? If this was the truth for Dr Lee, then we owe it to him to attend to his experience, and allow it to form part of the evidence which we need to take into account when discussing these issues. Though it may be hard to believe, we love those struggling with same sex attraction too much to do otherwise.
Sugden appears to be engaging in a bit of clever tit-for-tat here, since the thesis of the book is that the personal stories of gays and lesbians are not sufficient evidence to warrant accepting them into the church. The tone seems to be “If you can do it, so can we.” And so Sugden justifies the inclusion of some of the most nefarious anti-gay generalizations I have read in a while:
And, gentle reader, [the porn section of a gay bookshop] is where most of them will spend the rest of their lives, until God or AIDS, drugs or alcohol, suicide or a lonely old age, intervenes.
In other words, if you support what is now described in euphemistic terms as “the blessing of same sex unions,” in practice you are supporting the abolition of the entire Christian sexual ethic and its substitution with an unrestricted, laissez faire, free sexual market.
Gay churches survive as places where worshippers can go to sleep it off and cleanse their consciences after a Saturday night spent cruising for sex at the bars.
Homosexuals are promiscuous because when give the choice, homosexuals overwhelmingly choose to be promiscuous.
Here is the terrifying fact: If we as a nation and as a Church allow ourselves to be taken in by the scam of monogamous same-sex couples, we will be … legitimizing every kind of sexual taste, from old-fashioned masturbation and adultery to the most outlandish forms of sexual fetishism. We will, in other words, be giving our blessing to the suicide of Western civilization.
Gentle reader, do you know what a “bug chaser” is? A bug chaser is a young gay man who wants to contract HIV so that he will never grow old.
The homosexual rights movement is rotten to the core. It has no future. There is no life in it. Sooner or later, those who are caught up in it are going to wake up from the dream or else die. … How many more children are going to be sacrificed to this Molech?
Shame on Anglican Mainstream for peddling such outrageous nonsense. Sadly, it is only confirmation that as a representative of Christianity, the organization stands well outside the mainstream and well within the extreme right-wing modelled by the culture warriors of the American Church.
I can only hope that the wiser conservatives in the Church of England will follow the lead of James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool, and distance themselves from this type of spiteful and bigoted posturing.
Those quotes and generalisations from Sugden are an insult to gay people, in particular those who have chosen monogamous relationships. All groups, heterosexual or homosexual, will have their extremists, but to label them all this way is to bear false witness.
With love like that, is it any wonder that those seeking to resolve their faith and their sexuality feel conflicted. I hope that they have the courage to leave churches that peddle this abuse.
If anyone needs help, it is authors like this whose warped and hateful views suggest a deeper malaise that they need to open to the love of their God.
So let me get this straight… as long as people don’t believe that there are monogamous same sex couples, society won’t masturbate its way to oblivion?
Hmmm, just when you think our controversies have managed to get just the wee bit more rational, evidence-based, and thoughtful – well high nonsense like this book comes along.
Poor Dr. Sugden, one has been hearing all manner of campaigning from him lately in the conservative realignment efforts; and yet his blessings pronounced without a whit of critical investigation clearly helps demonstrate one of his main fallacy presuppositions, i.e., that all personal speech is honest speech from experience, and that all experiences are equally valuable in pretty much equivalent ways. Neither is common sensically true, of course, for anybody who has ever bothered to take their own honest experiences, and maybe those of a neighbor who thinks or lives differently, as significant.
Meanwhile, who are these loudly conservative religious folks who never knew a skilled and professionally productive, ethically alert, committed-partnered, and/or effectively parenting queer citizen? Does their lack of exposure to, as well as widely-based involvement in, the various goods of modern queer citizen life amount to some sort of authoritative human experience that carries its own self-serving authority?
There are plenty of straight citizens hanging out in bars or devoting their lives to finding a casual sex hook up; yet we never hear from religious conservatives that those straight people ought to let God change their sexual orientations. What gives?
I muddle through books like this, and end up wondering just how many sexually unhappy and alienated people do live on our planet – gathered into conservative religious movements? – that this should be proclaimed in such a garish, take it or leave it, and take it for granted manner.
So far I cannot get a clear, common sense answer to the questions: Just because you Mr. X failed to find happiness in an underground sexual lifestyle which has similarly failed to make any number of straight citizens happy – why did changing your sexual orientation seem to be your only hopeful option?
Plus: What have various unfulfilling and dubiously market-driven sexual consumerisms have to do with the rest of the goods of modern gay citizenship and daily life, any more than such phenomena define the goods available in their straight iterations?
The whole post-gay argument so far is a house of cards which begins with limited presuppositions, and devotes itself to wild hysteria about the end of civilization as we know it in its final loud chapters. Alas, this is the best that conservative ethicists and theologians can do? Dumbing down the conversation to post-gay hysterias? Alas. Lord have mercy.
It warms my heart greatly to know that many if not most of the kids of my generation have friends like me to serve as counterexample to the nonsense spouted by the anti-gay fringe. Maybe these lies get by those who’ve never met a gay guy, but I know none of my friends would fall for them.
(We’re back! Sort of. And not.)
Still awaiting for hard book to arrive — free, of course — but have had faxed rather a few interesting pages.
(Nice summation otherwise) And sorry Dave, but I do have a “problem” with those two contributions. You leave them unchallenged, as is your right, but others need not. They are not included to simply fill some spare pages. Are, rather, included to deliberately support the utter claptrap in the rest of the book. The two go together: a fantastic “theory” about homosexuality, and a couple of equally fantastic “true stories” to prove it is correct. Both Peter O and James P knew exactly what they were involving themselves in, and cut their cloth accordingly.
What I do hope is that people, here at least, understand the two “testimonies of change” are from:
1) a bisexual, then and now, who chooses to pursue only one aspect of his sexual attractions
2) lets see… the outcome of being a confused and lonely adolescent who thought he must therefore be “homosexual” (with the right prompting in that direction by an exgay book); but who actually had no sexual attractions, and who has never so much as fully-clothed hugged a guy in passion.
Throwing all such questions aside…. The Testimony, of course, in certain quarters, makes either out to be experts about 1) “changing sexual orientation” and 2) gay couples.
At least it may be presented as such, in the minds of several notorious anti-gays from Anglican Mainstream. Hence, the inclusion in the book.
(Peter O, we quickly add, has otherwise had a long connection with the Anglican Mainstream website).
I don’t doubt (or particularly bother about) the religious mind-set as laid out in the book and elsewhere, but I do have severe doubts about to where it leads — simplistically describing heterosexual marriage as “naturally” “insoluable, eternal, monogamous” (like Christ and the Church) seems, at least, utterly detached from the reality of pair-bonding (heterosexuality or otherwise), let alone anything else. God help him. And her, more significantly. A literal Bible: the Christian burka.
Honest? Well, perhaps let your readers all start with a clear understanding about yourself and your lack of homosexuality that needed “changing”… and why not also be honest about the fact that the “scientific” sections of the book — Cameron, Whitehead et al — are things you well know to be utter lies or crackpot conspiracy theories. They know this about the book, but they still put their name to it.
note to self: Obama to invite more KKK members into his team. Remind him: “balance”.
This has nowt to do with a “conversation about sexuality” : their minds are closed to that conversation. Those minds slammed shut before the invention of paper, let alone the electric light or general literacy. Saul said it, I believe it (except for the bits he said I don’t agree with these days. Like, slavery. Or the women-and-head-covering-and-silence thing.)
Tab A, Slot B. Just like it says in the instruction manual. The IKEA(c) way to sexual enlightenment.
This book adds nothing to the conversation that Anglicans are supposed to be having WITH gay men and lesbians: a conversation that is meant to be about understanding them by listening to them. Instead, it is designed to derail that conversation and cause confusion: who’s to guess these two “post gays” are either still bisexual or were never were gay to begin with and ultimately have nothing to contibute to a discussion WITH gay men and women?
Indeed, if anything the book displays nothing but the very reason why that conversation is needed in the first place — because for too long the talk has been dominated by the clearly abusive and degarding attitudes, the ignorance, the loathing and the disgust all too much on display in this book.
Far from adding anything, this book is but another shove by a greedy sect attempting to take over the entire Anglican Church.
Read it that way and it makes sense. Else, don’t bother.
(Knowing most will not ever see this book: if you want to see Peter O grasping at straws about heterosexuality, all the while pretending to know what he’s talking about with regards to homosexuality… try here. You’ll find the above quotes etc blah blah. Clearly a viewpoint of gay sexuality invented in the absense of any direct knowledge. Quelle surprise.)
—————————–
jeepers David R. We’ve been on leave… left this XGW with people banging on about anti-gay anglicans… and it’s still going! New post, but same subject. Hope this hasn’t been the diet for the entire period, you poor boy!
I’m afraid I’ve rather had my hands full with all this Anglican stuff lately!
Any problems I might have with those two chapters pale so much in comparison to the rest of the book, they’re hardly worth noting. My thoughts on stories like that are something like Hmm, whatever. It’s their story, and I don’t really get my knickers in a bunch over it, at least in this context. It’d be like shouting about a mouse when there’s an elephant in the room.
Unfortunately, I can’t see any of the discussions on Peter’s blog at the moment, as I haven’t been able to connect to the site in weeks. I can read the posts themselves through the feed, but that’s it. If you can do a copy+paste job, feel free, and send it to davidlrattigan at gmail dot com.
And as I said in the article, Anglican Mainstream has only confirmed that it is far outside the mainstream. The book is a disgrace, and I’d urge sane-thinking Anglicans to disassociate themselves from this kind of thing.
Peter Ould,
I know that you have followed this site in the past. So here is a question for you:
You have contributed your name and your reputation to a book that contained claims that can be seen in no other light than as demonizing and homophobic.
Are you willing to publicly disavow this book or are you going to continue to lend your support to blatant bigotry? It’s one or the other.
Oh, and by the way, saying “I disagree with parts of this book” is just a weasle way to lend your support to blatant bigotry without owning up to it.
Yes, but the elephant is my friend. He’s here to move a large teak settee for me, out into the vine-covered pergola we just built. When he finishes his beer.
The mouse, alas, carries bubonic plague. And he’s uninvited, and eating my cheese.
He doesn’t even like cheese much at all — but he pretends to nibble at it if he thinks people are watching. He’s a Real Mouse, you know.
Nice continuation of the metaphor… 😀
I’m pretty much left speechless by Sugden.
I am glad that I’m simply gay and not one of those “struggling with same sex attraction.” Dr. Sugden (witch doctor?) is from the old school of medicine and is still using methods like bleeding to help “strugglers.” ‘They shoot horses don’t they?’
It’s been pointed out elsewhere, but that choice of the “Return of the Prodigal Son” painting for the cover is hilarious!
Dave, thanks so much for this review. I had heard that this document was now circulating among conservative Anglicans, but I had no idea its content was so awful.
The first things you mentioned–about citation of Cameron’s work, conflation of homosexuality and pedophilia–made me sad. I was feeling depressed that the same old lies and misconceptions were being published anew in hopes of deceiving a new set of folks.
But the quotes from Lee’s chapter absolutely blew my stack. Who the hell is this guy? At least Cameron tries to hide his homophobia behind numbers and science talk. This Lee guy is unbelievable, though.
Does anyone know if this document is being translated and circulated among African Anglicans? My sense is that this slanted vitriol won’t sway many (who are not already convinced) in Britain, but I fear this could do a lot of damage in the developing world where little or no counter-arguments are heard.
:-/
From Peter Ould’s site. Since when did Nicolosi become a professor?
Good grief. Most the quotes are just laughable, esp the “porn section of a gay bookstore” one. It’s hard to get too outraged over this stuff. It reminds me of the “If we stop segregating blacks, they will all rape white women” rhetoric I read about in the 19th and early 20th century. If you look at the discourse around the women’s equality and civil rights movements, the claims of the “anti-‘s” always got more and more outrageous as they went down to defeat.
The “Anglican Mainstream” represent a dying early-20th Century worldview and, deep down, they know it. They are going down, but not without a fight. The over-the-top comments merely show that desperation. Fewer and fewer are listening so more shock value is needed to get some attention, but then their credibility takes a hit from it. It’s a vicious circle that continues unabated as they work themselves into complete irrelevancy in the public mind. Mainstream psychology, government and corporate policy are rejecting them and more and more religious folk are doing the same. They may win a battle or two or may even take over the Church of England, but then it will become a small self-righteous sidelined sect, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, faster.
Dan (who is a practising Anglican)
Do have evidence about bug chasing ? Or is your fantasize ?
A book like this, one more time, underlines the need for people to come out, stand up, and be counted. I can’t imagine any straight person that knows me or my husband or my friends who would buy one line of this.
But the ignorati of the the conservative mainstream– they’ll buy anything, even an elephant, especially if it is wrapped in sleaze and tied with a religious bow.
I wonder if they are so depraved and spiteful that they will spout this garbage, even knowing its truth value, or just so stupid that they believe their own bullshit.
Exactly. Someone (a conservative Christian) asked me why I didn’t refute specific points in the Lee essay instead of simply declaring it homophobic. But I have no doubt that the vast majority of reasonable people do not need convincing; quite simply, such wild, unsubstantiated claims as “Gay churches survive as places where worshippers can go to sleep it off and cleanse their consciences after a Saturday night spent cruising for sex at the bars,” do not deserve a response. It is enough that attention is drawn to their presence in the book.
There are other claims in the book that might be worth arguing with in detail, of course, and I may return to them in a later article.
By the way, I am amazed by Peter Ould’s blase dismissal of the Cameron criticisms in the comments thread on his blog. Unfortunately I cannot respond there, as I haven’t been able to access the site in weeks, but someone very kindly did a cut+paste for me. He said:
So the burden of proof is on Cameron’s critics to disprove his claim, rather than on him to prove it? He hasn’t provided proof, as we at XGW and elsewhere have consistently pointed out (see the links in my article). Until substantiation is provided, Cameron is the one doing the “loud mouthing”. (Unless we radically redefine scientific research, so that anyone making a claim is speaking the truth until proven otherwise.)
Hi Dave-
I have not seen the book, but one positive feature stands out from what is clearly a rather mixed bag: namely, the preference of several contributors for more objective statistical evidence over anecdotal. I have always been determined to go with the statistics, which means that if the statistical consensus changes, my view too changes. This is obviosuly a more honest position than that of those who either find that their expressed conclusion corresponds with their preferred conclusion (and of course of those, who are in the majority, who never consult any statistics in the first place).
Taking Cameron for example: let us stop citing him. But let us be aware that the other available studies of life-expectancy do not point in a different direction. Is it honest for the pro-homosexual position to refrain from citing any stats at all on this matter? Taking identical twins studies (surely intrinsically among the most reliable for the genetics/environment issue): anyone would accept the honesty of someone who said, on the basis of such existing studies: ‘pending further development, we should accept a minor genetic and a major environmental component in what we term homosexuality.’. Instead of which we get variosu types of absolutism. So many people seem quite sure of what the true statistical position is. How can they be, without reference to actual existing statistics? Is one supposed to trust their honesty? This question is honestly, not facetiously, meant. Scholarly discipline demands maximum objectivity and open-mindedness, so why are these in such short supply?
There’s quite an interesting comment by Mark Vernon to be found here:
https://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/6752
That’s the eternal question.
One thing is certain though, you have to go out of your way to find information like that.
So I’m thinking it’s both. Stupid and hateful. But not in any tandem sense, in the sense that they’re both different aspects of the same thing. I guess I’m suggesting that stupidity and hatred go hand in hand.
Consider it from the supremacist side, the supposedly hateful side.
Do they “hate” gays/minorities etc., or do they just “love” feeling superior to them/us?
Perhaps we are conflating their love of self with hatred of others. But it seems though that on some level the two become one. In fact, I think I accuse them of hatred too much, when really it may be more about their love of superiority. In their eyes, they just see their anti-gay actions as an unfortunate consequence of this supremacist conviction.
They as heterosexuals, are in line with God, we as homosexuals are not only in opposition with God, but also ACCEPT that we are in opposition with God. *
Ergo, even a gay guy who rejects his “opposite from God” orientation, is spiritually superior in God’s eyes to any gay guy who accepts his gayness. No matter what, or how much good may come from that acceptance.
So basically, If you’re stupid enough to believe that that’s the way an All Powerful All Knowing All Loving God operates, surely you’d be stupid enough to go out of your way to believe your own bullshit.
–
Faithless. It’s an unconscious attempt to feel the specialness of God’s love for them. They don’t feel God’s special love for them enough, therefore they need to find ways of feeling special. And the easiest way to do that is to feel superior. Especially when it’s to help prevent the destruction of civilization.
Wow, the God of infinity chose them to be motivated by the easiest thing to be motivated by – the destruction of humanity. And on top of that, God also decided that this threat to humanity would come from the easiest thing to hate – homosexuality. The ugliest looking form of love known to man.
What a meaningless coincidence that God made this test for them so very very easy.
How very very convenient for them.
[end self-righteous pontificatory rant]
______
* = God’s creative “intent.”
(note: ‘intent’ is code for “ideal.”)
God = Love
Love = Male + Female
Male + Female = Children
Children = Creation
Creation = God
Hi, Christopher,
Which other studies are you referring to?
Actually, on XGW we have never made a big issue of genetic arguments, and have a fairly strict policy (as authors, not commenters) of never making the absolute claims you reference.
Christoper,
That is very encouraging to hear. If you stick around here for a while I’m sure you will have quite a few changes to your view. You might even find that your positions become “pro-homosexual” as well.
Ghastly stuff, by all accounts. Are the quotations you cite in relation to Chris Sugden’s intro (the “gentle reader” ones) all by him?
No, the intro by Sugden was a justification of the chapter by Ronald Lee, which contained the quotes above.
Not only was Lee’s contribution outrageously homophobic, but the editors’ decision to include it in the book speaks volumes.
What we do need to remember is that this sort of thing will do nothing but harm to their case. That is why they lost every one of their legal battles aimed at preventing equality legislation.
Cristopher says:
Yet…
Plz do provide.
Cristopher says:
Yet…
Plz do provide.
SRY ppl i swore i would NOT come bak but I dont think the gay in me wants to be shunned by me cause of X or Y commodity values. Anyways,my country will now vote(like 27 other states) to constitutionalize the right that gay ppl CANNOT get married, ever. OH and the debates goin on pretty much revolve around statistics(as if this country needs it). *sigh… as much as i like being optimistic my country is pretty faith based and they dont even need statistics to vote for the their right so gay ppl will never be able to get married. Pretty sure they have to do it now before the current generation goes extinct, then their gona have a pretty hard time with em statistic based arguments to convince ppl.
In an about 2-3hr debate i went to, the following never came up…
Of course, this is supported by the dutch(?) experience where ive heard pedophiles are tryin to lower the age of consent. *shrug.( Im sure sum1 can clarify this last sentence, hopefuly peter O or sum1 like that). Anyways, would have loved for it to come up because slippery slopes DO come up when debating gay issues(sadly it was only an about 2-3hr debate).
Merseymike says:
OK… im PROBABLY missing sumthing but IN THE DEBATE, the defenders of the amendment said that the same amendment had passed with flying colors in TWENTYSEVEN states and that it has been tried to be rebuked after the amendment had been constitutionalized but all the attempts have failed miserably because the amendment was 100% constitutional.(i aint no lawyer so the terms i used might be mixed up. Still, i hope u get my point). Takin it from another aspect, in reality their is NO such thing as gay ‘rights’ only the rights that the majority feel exist. If this is what you call a legal battle then they won this one.
It’s been a couple of weeks, Christopher. Can we assume you have no such “other available studies” from which to cite?
Your claim that “other studies do not point in a different direction is a somewhat convoluted way to claim that there are other studies which do agree with Cameron’s conclusion on this point. That claim requires evidence to be taken seriously.
I think this vile, dishonest, corrupting, and morally bankrupt ‘book’, probably breaks UK Law.
I look forward to its with-drawal from circulation.
The point is that these so-called ‘studies’ are largely those produced for HIV prevention purposes and so focus on gay men who have died because of HIV related reasons.
Quantitative research simply isn’t possible in this area, simply because we do not and can never have a sampling frame to make the research reliable.
I’d suggest a bit of common sense. Look in your local paper. Do the men who have died young all live with same sex partners or are single? Of course not!
It is easy to produce statistics if you choose a very slanted sample to begin with.,
Joel ; sorry, I am British and I was referring to the British debates and legal changes.
America is different, simply because conservative religion is so much stronger there. here, very few people – no more than 2-3% would be classed as ‘evangelical’ and regular church attendance is no more than 7% of the population. This does rather alter the dynamic of debate.
I also think that British approaches to equality are much less based on ‘individual rights’ and are rather more communitarian in approach. Compare the approaches of some of the moderate gay rights groups in both countries and the differences are clear.