Ex-Gay Watch reader Johanna strongly disagreed with my message about co-dependent expressions of the Christian faith.
I don’t believe I said that evangelicals promote a cycle of repentance and sin; I said that Metanoia did, and that ex-gay ministries tend to do so. This blog, the ex-ex-gay movement, and the various online ex-gay message boards have documented this fact.
As for dependence on God, again, I see a distinction between mature evangelicals, born-again Christians, and celibate same-sex-attracted persons, and those “some” or “many” people whose testimonies of redemption blanket the blame for their own past behaviors upon Satan or upon homosexuals as a class (often equating Satan with the latter). Or, whose testimonies reflect a form of emotional dependence on spiritual highs that don’t hang around when the church choir stops singing and the daily grind resumes.
I don’t see where I blame people’s problems on their faith; I criticize the twisting of Christianity into a hybrid faith of either zero self-esteem or maximum political ideology.
Or, to put it more simply, I criticize efforts to base one’s faith or sexual identity in what one is not rather than what one is, especially when one falsely accuses everyone else of believing or doing exactly what one formerly believed or did.
Jesus of Nazareth did not boast from street corners (or biplanes) that he was an ex-Jew. Nor did he falsely accuse “liberal” prostitutes or “conservative” Pharisees of belonging to vast, united, and inseparable conspiracies.
To me, a healthy conservative dependence upon God means taking responsibility for one’s own actions, praying or meditating through challenges and temptations, and choosing to moderate one’s own behavior toward abstinence and charity.
I wish more ex-gay ministry leaders would set that simple, positive example — but very few do.
Instead, as I have regularly documented, there is a frequent distribution of blame for past and present temptations and choices. The blame is shifted to feminists, homosexuals, parents, “liberals,” and a “lifestyle” myth that twists homosexuality into an all-consuming cult of sexual liberation.
A sizable proportion of ex-gay activists need to take responsibility for what they say.
If they don’t really blame vast feminist or homosexual conspiracies for their own (or society’s) poor moral choices, then they need to not only stop the blame, but also stop their colleagues when the scapegoat game begins.
[text about Ron B. of Courage Seattle deleted, with apologies]If they believe premarital sex, divorce, remarriage, contraception, and childless marriages are immoral, then they need to make these practices just as illegal as they wish homosexuality to be.
If they generally oppose discrimination, then they need to stop supporting taxpayer subsidies for those who discriminate, and they need to stop opposing very simple antidiscrimination measures that already exempt religious institutions.
If they claim to support self-determination, freedom of choice, and freedom of speech, then they need to do so for gays as well as ex-gays.
If they oppose violence in the New York City schools, then they need to stop opposing all antibullying programs as a class, and ex-gay youth outreach programs need to start launching antibullying programs that they can live with.
If they oppose the sort of mis-dependence on God that leads lost souls to surrender responsibility when the spiritual highs of church are replaced by the knawing loneliness of a life in depression without friends or self-esteem, then some leading ex-gay webforums need to stop encouraging lost souls in their isolation, lack of medical treatment, and fear of other people.
Returning to my basic point: While I don’t believe that all evangelicals or 12-Steppers abandon self-responsibility in their “dependence” on God, many ex-gay activists arguably do so — as this blog frequently documents.
Here is an anonymous individual, recovering from same-sex attraction (his words), who thoughtfully and constructively examines his options without the counterproductive ideological baggage or co-dependence described above. I wish him well, and I applaud his constructive attitude.
Thank you, Johanna, for giving me an opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings.
Mike says: If they don’t really believe gay rights are merely a “sexual liberation movement” or an unabashed endorsement of sin, then people like Ron B. of Courage Seattle and GayChristian.net need to stop saying otherwise.
Thank you Mike. The unending ability of exgays and their abbetors to shift responsibility elsewhere should come to a close. Once one enters a world defined by the parameters of the PUBLIC exgay oranizations: you take upon yourself responsibility for what these groups do. If you do not wish to do so, then do not enter the exgay world. Fooling around with definitions, putting forth personal quibbles, does not enter into the discouse. Let me be clear: anyone who endorses the exgay path lumps themselves in with the true crazies. By which I mean Alan and Randy of Exodus; sheldon of the TVC, the various loons of CWFA, FRC and Scott Lively, prominent Holocaust denier. To do otherwise would be denying rational discussion.
Dale • 7/31/03; 11:53:42 PM
I don’t generalize to quite that extent, but I do believe that if one chooses to affiliate with an exgay organization or network, then in the interest of honesty and personal integrity before God and one’s peers, one should make very clear the instances where one disagrees with that group or network’s culture-war shenanigans.
If the group continues its misrepresentations and threats against other people, or its counterproductive and medically unprofessional tactics toward lost souls, then it is ethically obligatory for one to leave the group and to assert ethical alternatives.
Mike A. • 8/1/03; 6:15:11 AM
Dear Mike,
Thank you for the clarification/explanation. Your initial post did not seem to express these finer distinctions on the subject of “dependence on God” which you voice here.
I still feel that your characterization of ex-gay ministry is mindbogglingly inaccurate. Keeping people in an unhealthy cycle or trapped in chronic guilt is *never* to my knowledge something which ex-gay ministries desire or encourage, but you suggest that they do so with the “goal” of keeping people dependent on God. On the contrary, I have seen ex-gay ministries doing a lot to try to help people find freedom from unhealthy self-condemnation, chronic guilt, etc. I suspect that the “chronic guilt” which some people in exgay ministry experience is usually the “chronic guilt” they bring with them, just as the irresponsibility and immaturity that some people experience while in the gay community is probably the irresponsibility and immaturity they bring with them. From my perspective, I see exgays ascribing far too much power to screw up people’s lives to the gay community, and gays ascribing far too much power to screw up people’s lives to the exgay movement. I see a mirror here.
I am opposed to abdication of personal responsibility wherever I see it. I do see it in some exgay testimonies (as well as many exexgay testimonies), although not everywhere that you do. (See my comments on your entry on Pegues.) On the other hand, believe that claiming personal responsibility is compatible with acknowledging the influences that other people, situations, and events, have had on us. Although I think it is better (usually) to attribute the influence to particular individuals, rather than to vast conspiracies. 🙂
As far as Jesus and vast conspiracies go, I generally agree. (But consider some of His comments about the world and the devil.) What I think is clear is that He was not one to make a distinction between “liberal” sins or “conservative” sins, and to the extent that we obsess about one of those rather than the other, we become less like Him. I would say this is a grievous fault of the “pro-family” groups. To me what is most distressing about them isn’t that they oppose sin, but that they oppose such a tiny fraction of it.
You make a very good point about “ex”s, although I would add that exexgays fit your pattern as clearly as any other group of exes I have ever seen. So you have my full agreement there.
Thanks again for your response.
Johanna • 8/1/03; 9:46:43 AM
Mike writes: “If they don’t really believe gay rights are merely a “sexual liberation movement” or an unabashed endorsement of sin, then people like Ron B. of Courage Seattle and GayChristian.net need to stop saying otherwise.”
I should point out that GayChristian.net is a discussion board on which I happen to have posted. Other than being a participant in discussions there, what I say does not “represent” GayChristian.net in any way.
For clarity, I do not identify as ex-gay, and I have never been involved with or affiliated myself with an ex-gay ministry.
I have never publicly endorsed the ex-gay route, and will not do so now. If an individual chooses to try to change their orientation through prayer, therapy, or other means, I will not try to stop them. But I do not and will not push anyone towards that route, and I am not pursuing that route myself.
I believe that Mike drew his characterization of me from a speech I delivered at a Catholic Pro-Life conference in San Diego last October. I do not see how Mike could have read a blanket condemnation of “gay rights” into my speech, since I specifically quoted Catholic teaching that, “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”
In so far as the gay rights movement has helped to increase sensitivity to homosexuals, and increase protection against gay bashing, I am all for it. I condemned gay bashing categorically in that speech and have condemned it again in other venues since.
I could go on, but I think it is sufficient to say that almost NOTHING Mike says about me has basis in the words I have spoken or the articles I have written.
I have no objections to his taking issue with points I have made. But I do object to his smearing me by association with organizations I have never associated with or for words I have never spoken.
And the suggestion in one of the comments above that I am somehow in league with holocaust deniers is patently false. The holocaust is one of the great tragedies of the 20th century, murdering not only 6 million Jews, but millions of others as well, including tens of thousands of homosexuals. I have no sympathy or support for holocaust deniers under any circumstances.
Ron Belgau
Ron Belgau • 8/3/03; 1:52:35 PM
Mike,
Thanks for the clarification on me and ex-gays. I appreciate your taking the time to listen to my explanation and follow up and fix it.
Ron Belgau • 8/4/03; 10:44:12 PM