Both Exodus president Alan Chambers and Exodus lobbyist/political organizer Randy Thomas have gotten in the habit, lately, of calling themselves, and fellow conservative Christians, “godly.”
Latest example: Thomas’ otherwise innocuous promotion of GodlyCreativePeople.com, a site that no doubt has good intentions but immediately flags itself, by name, as overflowing with ungodly self-pride.
Is this choice of language among some Christians mere self-flattery, or an elevation of oneself to the status of demi-god?
I don’t think this is self-elevation to demi-god status. Having been a part of their ranks, I don’t think any of them would want that.
I do think the use of the term “godly” simply means that they believe that they are following God, living God-filled lives as well as they can. However, they will deny that LGBT folk could also be godly, i.e. trying to follow God, living God-filled lives, as well as we can.
They’ve caught God like a fly and placed her/him in a box, and they’re not going to let God go.
Hmmmm… odd little metaphor.
Take care, all…
TimM
TimM said:
I do think the use of the term “godly” simply means that they believe that they are following God, living God-filled lives as well as they can.
I would tend to agree. It’s a rather generic descriptor. Great metaphor 🙂
David
OK,
And what of those who do not follow God in the same way? Are they not considered ungodly, by implication?
Arrogant is the person who claims to know God and his/her will completely. This seems to get forgotten all around.
I really do think a dose of humility is in order.
Those who don’t follow God in the same way? Like me? Their definitions only apply to me when looked at from their perspective. The religious right will almost certainly call me ungodly.
I have close friends who are fundamentalist, or at least evangelical Christians. I asked them to fill out a spiritual gifts questionairre about me. When the question about discerning God’s word and the truth came up, their response was a clear NO. I didn’t expect anything different. When I shared that with my pastor, she strongly disagreed with my friends’ evaluation of me.
So, if you value the opinion of the religious right, yes, they will think we are ungodly.
We could also ask about our sisters and brothers who no longer believe in God at all. But, if there is a God (and I believe there is), I am certain that God understands when a person has been bludgeoned or excluded or humiliated or forced to deny the core of their very being in God’s name, that that person may want to find a different way.
But why is the opinion of the right important, except for the fact that it helps us know where they stand as we let go of them?
So, “…those who do not follow God in the same way? Are they not considered ungodly…?” My answer is: Ungodly by whose definition. Whose definition is important to you?
TimM
Re: And what of those who do not follow God in the same way? Are they not considered ungodly, by implication?
That’s the implication I’ve always gathered by their use of the term.
I like TimM’s explanation, and I strongly echo “But why is the opinion of the right important, except for the fact that it helps us know where they stand as we let go of them?” but we are probably picking nits all around on this one.
David
Thanks for you support, David. We may be picking nits, but there may be some reading this who are making their way out of the ex-gay movement who are still confused and worried. Ex-gay theology, indeed any indoctrination from the right, has a way of sticking with you for a while. It’s important for those of us who are “ex-ex” to learn to let go of the fundamentalist dogma, and replace it with… what? For me it was replace it with a grace-filled understanding of God.
The ex-gay line is presented with such conviction, and when you’re trying to be not gay but don’t know how, you’re in a vulnerable position. When you’re coming out of the ex-gay movement, it takes a while to let go of that insistent conviction. Maybe it takes more than time. Maybe it takes caring clergy and counselors. There can be a lot of fear to deal with when letting go of that stuff.
So, when I saw Mike’s question about the implication of ungodliness, I went back to some vulnerable moments from my past and addressed his question as if it were asked in that kind of way. Maybe it wasn’t, but I wanted to think about a real answer to a real question.
Guess maybe I am picking at nits. David, I think you’re right.
Cheers!
TimM
God is there when a little child puckers up to kiss you. That is a beautiful sight for all eyes watching.
Destiny was a pretty little black girl I met, she’s homeless…and smiles and smiles…
Truth, will come….when the mind opens, not closes.
Love…not love poisoned with control, is the cure.
God has spoken enough that gays and lesbians come to us in every corner of the Earth, down with the creation of all mankind, and endures as all humankind endures…and will give love, even where there is none in return.
And those who deny that, yet claim they know what God has said and means…
have abandoned God. They are spoiled in their demands, like a nasty child petulantly throwing away a gift given over and over…because it’s not exactly what you wanted or expected.
I can understand the desire on the part of some to come up with some description to help differenciate between that which is directed towards religion (or their take on religion) and that which is secular.
For example, some folks want a movie review that lets them know whether some movie they are considering insults their faith. Or some may want a dating service that helps them find people of similar devotion.
I suppose that “godly” is as good a term as any. (After all, we adopted “gay” which was pretty arbitrary).
My only concern would be how they view those things which do not fit their definition of “godly”. I wouldn’t mind their describing things as “not godly” but when the term “ungodly” is used, there does seem to be the connotation that a thing is in opposition to God or intrinsicly evil.
For example, this site is not godly (it isn’t focused on spiritual matters only or solely from a conservative Christain perspective). However, to describe it as ungodly would be far from true.
Some have noted that there are at least three personalities of god in the bible. I don’t recall what they all are, but that’s pretty much irrelevant. One wonders which personality a person who claims to be “godly” has.
TimM said:
For me it was replace it with a grace-filled understanding of God.
For me, this is the only antidote for all religious dogma.
The ex-gay line is presented with such conviction, and when you’re trying to be not gay but don’t know how, you’re in a vulnerable position. When you’re coming out of the ex-gay movement, it takes a while to let go of that insistent conviction. Maybe it takes more than time. Maybe it takes caring clergy and counselors. There can be a lot of fear to deal with when letting go of that stuff.
I’ve never been ex-gay or in an ex-gay ministry, but I certainly know from which you speak! I did spend my closet years listening to enough judgement to curl my DNA. It took loving family and friends, SSRI’s and 5 years of therapy just to figure out that it wasn’t God that was telling me that stuff.
David
Timothy at November 30, 2005 02:42 PM
After all, we adopted “gay” which was pretty arbitrary
This is incorrect. We did not “adopt” gay. “Gay” was applied to us by the larger society. In the late 19th century “gay” was a semi-polite term that was applied to people who were considered libertines. It was primarily used in connection with hetero libertines, but in the early 20th century it was extended to homos.
This etymology is from the Oxford English Dictionary. We did not adopt it. Straight people originally applied it to us.
I’m not sure how relevant that is, though. The German Lesben und Schwul BundVerein (LSBV) rescued “Schwul,” which was originally a derogatory term for gay men. It isn’t derogatory any more, although gay guys over there prefer to use the term “gay.” Creaping Englisch.
TimM said: Ex-gay theology, indeed any indoctrination from the right, has a way of sticking with you for a while. It’s important for those of us who are “ex-ex” to learn to let go of the fundamentalist dogma, and replace it with… what? For me it was replace it with a grace-filled understanding of God.
The ex-gay line is presented with such conviction, and when you’re trying to be not gay but don’t know how, you’re in a vulnerable position. When you’re coming out of the ex-gay movement, it takes a while to let go of that insistent conviction. Maybe it takes more than time. Maybe it takes caring clergy and counselors. There can be a lot of fear to deal with when letting go of that stuff.
It definitely helps to have supportive friends and family members, but even with a good support system it takes time. Fundamentalist doctrine is fear-driven, and once that fear has taken root it’s a very painstaking process to completely purge it from one’s system. I was beginning to move away from fundamentalist thinking years before I thought to question ex-gay dogma, and in many ways it’s still a work in progress.
raj: “We did not adopt it.”
Thanks for the correction but, nope, you’re wrong. We adopted it.
Yeah, yeah, we all know about the Gay 90’s and the gay divorcee, etc. We know about the evolution of the term gay and how its application to homosexuals probably came via the Noel Cowards and Cole Porters of society.
But our community was the one that decided to keep it.
The straight folks called us “homosexual” (when being polite) and a lot of other terms when not. We could have latched onto any of them (and did try queer for a while) or created our own (which we sort of have with the unpronounceable LGBT).
But it was general common usage BY GAY PEOPLE that made the word “gay” become the adjective of choice. We (via GLAAD) actually lobbied newspapers to use “gay” rather than “homosexual”.
We picked it.
How many names are there for black folks?
How many of them are euphamisms?
How many are derogatory and meant to hurt and humiliate?
By whom is this identity given in the name game?
Gay…at least it isn’t nearly the mouthful that homosexual is.
Like African American…damn…another big mouthful, that’s not even correct. Too much hybrid action going on.
Just say black!
Regarding the ‘pridefulness’ of describing oneself as godly, it reminds me of a joke my eldest brother told me when he was a Jesuit novitiate:
After mass, an elderly parishioner stops and says to the pastor, “Father, I just wanted to let you know – since last Sunday’s service, I haven’t sinned once.”
The priest smiles. “You must be very proud.”
She smiled back. “Oh, yes!”