Several people have told me that I’ve been overgeneralizing about ex-gay ministries lately.
I believe they are right. This blog works best, I believe, when it sticks to the facts, good and bad, about different ex-gay ministries. And I’ll make a concerted effort to do that. Not just for accuracy, but because it’s impossible for one person to keep up with the all the propaganda pouring out of the religious right these days — and difficult to read all the venom of the culture wars while maintaining one’s own sanity.
Current Exodus national leadership has connections, well documented here and elsewhere, to the religious right and to pro-discrimination causes. And Exodus national leadership’s own public statements, again well-documented, are loaded with misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of same-sex-attracted people.
Here’s a key question that I’ve been asking myself again lately:
Is it fair for gay rights proponents and ex-ex-gays to pass blanket judgment against seemingly apolitical Exodus member ministries in cities across the nation, based on those ministries’ support for the national office, year in and year out?
Is that judgment a form of overgeneralization, or is it simply holding ministries accountable for their affiliations and choices for leadership? How might gays make appropriate distinctions among ex-gay ministries and their direct or indirect political activities?
In trying to figure out exactly how to appropriately approach this whole issue, I’ve had to simply put ex-gay people and ministries into two basic groups. This is nothing new, but has helped me not stereotype and generalize. I’m sure others can say the following far better than can I.
1. There are those who have a primary focus to politicize the homosexual issue. They are prohibitionists – seeking not only to prohibit individual homosexual relationships but also to prohibit social and political acceptance and support of homosexuals. There are individual people, ex-gay ministries, and Religious Right groups who fall into this category. I think their favorite cliché is, “love the sinner, hate the sin.”
2. Then, there are those who oppose homosexuality and work to help people overcome homosexual feelings and/or activity. For this group, their primary focus is generally pastoral issues, not political issues. While they may prefer society not accept homosexuality, their primary focus is simply working with men and women who want help to not act out their homosexual inclinations.
While I disagree with and oppose the theological foundation upon which both groups justify their actions and ministries, I believe there is a difference in intent between the two groups. The first group I would actively oppose, the second group I would simply disagree with.
I think we can actively work to oppose the national organization if the intent of the leadership is to conduct their ministry with a more politicized focus, while strongly disagreeing with local ministries whose leadership focuses on pastoral issues, even while in relationship with the national organization. That’s my two cents worth.
Bob • 8/5/03; 7:09:02 AM
I would agree with what Bob said and I very much appreciate Mike’s posting on the subject. At the same time, I don’t think it is wrong to point out the fact that some of these “nonpolitical” organization’s refuse to disaffiliate from RR organizations whose primary focus is to keep GLBTs unequal under law, and to name names when appropriate. If Joe Blow says he is interested only in pastoral concerns, yet praises the work of Focus on the Family, Concerned Women of America, Reclaiming America (for Christ), and other virulently anti-gay groups, I don’t see how it is wrong to make that known.
Natalie Davis • 8/5/03; 7:35:37 AM
In part I feel the charge of overgeneralization is an attack on the concept of abstraction. Looking at exgay groups and orgs, I can see that in some sense they are all involved in the same kind of mission. Some are very political, most are not. From this I could conclude that RR politics are an ever present option for exgay outfits; just one that most choose not to use.
The ‘generalization’ argument seems to me to require that we suspend our powers of observation, treating each group as a separate and distinct phenomena. To regard the political outfits as somehow not like the apolitical. This may be a valid distinction. Or it may simply be a reflection of personalities involved. Most people are not very interested in politics, and I see no reason to exclude exgays from that observation. Oooops, generalizing.
I do regard the generalizing charge with deep suspicion. It seems to be a direct attack on abstract thought. However, my generalizing, would exclude Courage and its spokespeople from the exgay millieu. Courage has a passing resemblence to exgay groups, but the resemblence dissolves on closer inspection. Courage is not embedded in the RR; it is part of the wider teaching of the RC.
Dale • 8/5/03; 8:54:29 AM