In his latest newsletter, Exodus Youth Staffer Michael Ensley has some interesting things to say. I thought I would share some of them along with the thoughts that came to me while reading it.
Let’s face it; homosexuality isn’t really the problem here. We’re addicted to lust and satisfaction. We want to experience the same selfish thrill we enjoyed through acting out in the gay lifestyle, where there are little or no boundaries. [emphasis added]
… what a lot of “straight” guys are experiencing isn’t His will for their sexuality, either.
I’ve noticed that what ex-gays often call “the gay lifestyle” could really apply to anyone, gay or straight. It is a life of excess, substance abuse and sexual addiction. You don’t have to be gay to make lousy choices in life, though I can see where having one’s very existence challenged as evil and sinful could lead to a less than healthy response.
We have seen this pattern in countless ex-gay testimonies from Exodus, PFOX and SBM to name only a few. The problem isn’t that the subjects are gay, rather it is the choices they have made in their lives. The challenge should be how to face those issues that led to the negative behavior and deal with them – just like anyone else. For some, it’s just easier to blame the bogeyman of homosexuality and lay that at the altar instead.
Those of us who work in this ministry—especially those who have struggled with this issue personally—know that homosexuality is about a whole lot more than just being physically attracted to the same gender.
Of course there is more. Sexuality is a substantial part of the human experience, but it’s certainly not all there is. There is intellect, spirituality, intimacy, trust, a sense of family, charity toward others, and for some procreation. For those who are gay, life with a partner of the same sex involves all the wonderful intangibles that life with a partner of the opposite sex does for those who are straight.
I have to tell you, I have not experienced a full “conversion” of sexual attraction. Is that failure? Does the fact that I sometimes still feel attracted to men mean that I was born and destined to be a homosexual? Or is it the effect of having spent five formative years of my life drowning every sorrow and insecurity in homosexual behaviors?
Here are those bad choices again. Replace “homosexual” with “sexual” in that last sentence and the meaning becomes more clear. Using sex as an escape is unhealthy for anyone – gay or straight.
Many people have asked me, “Do you like girls now?” What they really want to know is if I lust after women with the intensity that I once lusted after men. Should that be my goal? Even if it was, how would I make that happen? Should I look at straight porn or fantasize about women? A lot of people who begin to search for change want to experience this total overhaul, and they are disappointed. [emphasis added]
Yes, I ‘m sure they are. But where do you suppose these pour souls got the idea that “change is possible”? Or that one can “escape from homosexuality”? Perhaps they got it from those who say they “[are] no longer attracted to men at all.” In almost Clintonesque fashion, it has been very difficult to pin Exodus or other ex-gay ministries down on just what their definition of “change” is. So when a gay person reads that homosexuality is a sin, imposed and not innate, and can be “cured”, well Michael you will have to forgive us for assuming that change means, well… change.
I know there are others with this same struggle that have come to experience and enjoy God’s intent for their sexuality in marriage to a woman. It’s okay that I’m not there yet. Beyond just attractions, there are a lot of ways in which I’m not ready for marriage in this season of life. What good would heterosexual urges do for me right now?
Reading this piece I feel a bit sad for Michael. Parts of it read like a diary entry in which he is trying to convince himself that something is so, even over the objections of his own heart. It’s really hard to read that last line without having some empathy for the guy. Step back Michael and realize what you are trying to tell yourself.
Feeling guilty and ashamed over something I can’t change isn’t repentance.
You won’t get an argument from me on that one. From where I sit, the ex-gay experience is one doomed to failure because it focuses on the wrong issues. Imagine telling a straight person who has an addiction that they need to go through therapy to lead them out of the “straight lifestyle”. Sounds silly doesn’t it?
Now if an individual is well informed of the risk of failure, and the dangers of pursuing such a goal, then more power to them if they still want to try. And for those who decide to remain celibate, that is always a viable alternative and people should be free to make that decision for themselves. My problem is with the organizations that use these people’s lives for their own political, religious or financial aims. Michael even mentions this but offers no further commentary on it.
If you’ve followed the ministry of Exodus at all, you know that the world around us is pretty skeptical about the idea of “change.” Sometimes even within the church people who are more excited about the political aspects of the ex-gay movement still scoff at the idea that a person who struggles can find lasting healing. [emphasis added]
To a person whose life is a mess, the ex-gay message can be a powerful lure. It’s always easier to point to a specific thing and say there, that is the root of all your problems. Get rid of that and you will be all better. It is also comforting to shift responsibility for bad choices from us to the “homosexual lifestyle.” And finally, to the person who might already feel like an outcast, the most important thing might be that “rejecting the gay” gains them acceptance – they are “normal.”
Then when it all fails, and the ex-gay is just gay, where does he go? Who will take responsibility for what happens next? Will you Michael?
Great post, David.
I found this snippet from Mike interesting also:
“Many people have asked me, “Do you like girls now?” What they really want to know is if I lust after women with the intensity that I once lusted after men.”
If I asked him that question, I wouldn’t mean lust, I would mean real attraction. Romantica and sexual attraction (separate from lust) is a normal and healthy part of human existence, and I would ask if he had that attraction. If he doesn’t, I think it is valid to question whether “change” or “ex-gay” are appropriate words to describe him or other ex-gays.
I’m fine with people not wanting to be gay or wanting to be celibate, but misrepresenting their own path (such as obfuscating a simple question such as, “are you attracted to girls,” doesn’t seem to the best way to approach things. Unless of course you are in this to try to deal with your own issues rather than the issues of other gay people that struggle to try to be straight.
Let’s face it; homosexuality isn’t really the problem here. We’re addicted to lust and satisfaction.
I think there’s another way of putting that: We’re sexual beings, and here in America, and in much of the west, we believe we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
A theme I’ve heard touched on more frequently in the religious right is one of opposition to “radical individualism”. I’m really not sure what that means, other then anyone who takes the “We hold these truths…” part of the Declaration of Independence seriously. It isn’t anti-religious to insist that you have freedom of conscience, in fact once upon a time Baptists strongly believed in it. A democracy that respects the rights of people of all faiths, or none, cannot exist without holding freedom of conscience as a fundimental value. But there it is. The religious right seems to think freedom of conscience is some kind of trick of the devil. So do they even belive in America any more?
In any case Ensley is right, their problem isn’t homosexuality. It’s that the sex drive isn’t a blackboard any authority figure can scribble their will upon, and they’re living in a free country. There’s not much they can do about the one, but they seem hellbound to fix the other.
I am glad to see this post has compassion for young Ensley. That is all I can say.
I do wish that the ex-gay groups would amit to their successes as being minimal and that change is really another word for abstience. I could respect that so much more. There is room for everyone’s beliefsl but we have to start being honest about the terms of that.
“countless” testimonials? Let’s face it – they only have so many employees.
Just because some pseudo-christian considers any sexual intercourse outside of marriage (and then supports banning marriage for gays) as an addiction doesn’t mean the rest of us need to be as miserable as they are in life. Frankly, by fighting the concept of monogamy among gay couples, these organizations are supporting a life of multiple partners. Even if they are ever stupid enough to attempt to recriminalize our sexuality, gays are not going to magically become celibate in deference to a bunch of televangelista con artists.
Joe,
the problem we have with ex-gay groups and other religious conservatives is similar to the problem our country has with follower of radical islam.
We see a world in which there is room for opposing viewpoints. But their worldview is that we should not exist. It’s difficult to find compromise or areas of agreement with people who’s goal is your complete destruction.
I have hope that there are some in the ex-gay movement who are there because they want to and think that they can help people change their orientation. Perhaps there are some who can differentiate between being pro-ex-gay and being anti-gay.
I have yet to run into any. I know of no ex-gay speakers who do not also disparage gay people’s lives and quote all sorts of bullsh and stereotypes to further an anti-gay agenda.
Mike Ensley of Exodus: “I have to tell you, I have not experienced a full “conversion” of sexual attraction. Is that failure?”
Rena Lindevaldsen, senior litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel: “If you want to change, you can”
It must be truly discouraging to live with the realization that you are part of a movement that diminishes your stuggles to be nothing more than a matter of “want” in order to further political goals.
>We’re addicted to lust and satisfaction.>
Wow! These went out ages ago for me. Is comfortability a sin?
Tim,
I have had many great conversations with ex-gays activists. I won’t name them because I see the vlue in their conversation. I don’t see them the same way anymore. They are not as extreme as their organizations. I am now trying to figure out how to make them step bakc and look at their actions and see they are wrong, without hurting or insulting them. They have had enough pain and I have no reason to inflict more.
Think about each of them and see them as people, not as symbols. They are people. Talk to them as people with lives and families. We will not win this war by making new enemies but by trying to make new friends.
I have talked to a few prominent ex-gay people and I think there is hope. We do have to stop beating them up, and being mean to them, we need to be nice and clean. We need to gain trust and talk. Freedom will not be won be making enemies.
Joe, I have seen Timothy give more than a fair share of consideration to exgays on many many occasions. They can have no valid complaints about anything Timothy says, they need to hear the honest truth of the harm they cause and its extremely important to make sure the public doesn’t hear only the distorted ex-gay anti-gay lines.
Timothy and Regan are like super-heros to me and I wouldn’t want to change much, if anything (ok, a little bit in Timothy) in them.
It continues to strike me as extremely important that apparently most if not all exgays are deeply religious. If there is any truth to the high percentages of these engaging in excessive sexual behaviors before attempting to be “exgay” it seems likely to me that a major reason is as follows:
For a deeply religious person to give into desire and act on same sex attractions with even one person one time means going to hell. Having initially crossed that boundary seriously wounds that person with fear and concern and creates a desperate need for relief that more anonymous sex temporarily provides, but unfortunately also later the fear and need for relief from it return and and a vicious cycle starts.
If as Exodus and PFox, etc. suggest society should allow and provide the option for individuals to choose to be ex-gay shouldn’t it also allow and provide for the option of these people to be ex-religious?
Seems to me if it is almost entirely same sex attracted religious people suffering sexual excesses because of fear caused by those beliefs a logical and effective way of relieving the suffering is to remove the religious beliefs rather than the much more difficult to change same sex attractions.
Joe, I know we’ve touched on this before; but I don’t believe “Timothy’s methods” (or whatever we’d call them, if there is one) are any less valid than your own.To pick up on a couple of points:They are not as extreme as their organizations.Well… organisations do not exist, as such. “Organisations” do not have opinions, or actions. What we think of as organisations are nothing more than the collective behaviour of people. For an organisation to be extreme, it must mean that the individuals — collectively — involved are extreme. For the membership to claim otherwise is a cop out.(And, of course, this raises questions about why anyone would join and remain a member of an extreme organisation. If the people you talk with are actually opposed to the behaviour and the attitudes, then it is time for them to speak out. Anything less is cowardly.)Freedom will not be won be making enemies.Excuse me?But has anyone, ever, needed freedom from their friends???I’m not being facetious here. Enemy is a strong word, and perhaps the people you are talking with don’t wish personal hatred etc toward other individuals.Perhaps. Without knowing who you have spoken to, it’s impossible to comment on whether these people are genuine when they say this, or whether it’s marketing spin, or whether they simply have no idea how their behaviour effects others. People can manage the most outrageously dispicable behaviour toward others without using four-letter words, you know 🙂 Perhaps they are (passively) “not the enemy”, but they are also not (actively) our friends.Again, it is they who should speak out if they are actually feeling any disquiet about being part of a movement that has supported, for example, the continued criminalization of homosexuality etc.Whatever approaches yourself, or “Timothy”, or et al, may believe is the most productive; I hope we are all at least opposed to the manipulation, falsehoods, abusive politics and gross interference in the lives of gay men and women that is the current exgay movement and it’s supporters. I don’t need to personally know all of the individuals within these groups to be firmly opposed to what they are doing collectively. I also don’t need to know the personal “pain” (or whatever you called it) of these individuals to understand the pain they are inflicting on myself or others.(And I quote marked “pain” because I’m not altogether sure that these people would in fact describe themself in the way that you describe them. Which is interesting, somewhat, of itself.)It’s doesn’t strike me as “wrong” to actively oppose these people at such times, or to passively oppose them. Chose whatever method suits yourself, and perhaps only time will tell what worked best. Up front we’d believe both these ways are needed, determined by the time and place.I honestly believe that — absent their activities against gay men and women — exgays would barely otherwise register a moments thought from anyone. Frankly, they can do whatever they want with their own lives. The fact that they do register more than a moment’s thought (the fact there is even an ExGayWatch.com itself) is hardly our, Timothy’s or your “fault”.
Kevin said:
Just because some pseudo-christian considers any sexual intercourse outside of marriage (and then supports banning marriage for gays) as an addiction doesn’t mean the rest of us need to be as miserable as they are in life.
I don’t know how miserable are the supposed “pseudo-christians” of which you speak, but no one said sexual addiction was as simple as sex outside of marriage. And morality certainly isn’t restricted to any one faith; it is partly defined by the individual and partly by society as a whole.
Joe Brummer said:
Think about each of them and see them as people, not as symbols. They are people. Talk to them as people with lives and families. We will not win this war by making new enemies but by trying to make new friends.
I have talked to a few prominent ex-gay people and I think there is hope. We do have to stop beating them up, and being mean to them, we need to be nice and clean. We need to gain trust and talk. Freedom will not be won be making enemies.
This position presupposes that all points of view are equally valid and that all individuals wish only the best for each other – neither is so. This is not to say that discourse shouldn’t remain civil where possible, but if the wisdom of history means anything, humanity is no where near deserving this kind of Pollyanna outlook. And while organizations are indeed made up of individuals, there are consequences to voluntarily associating one’s individual support to an organization with a particular agenda. Are we supposed to divorce Randy Thomas from the actions of Exodus just because he is less abrasive than say Alan Chambers?
Randi said:
For a deeply religious person to give into desire and act on same sex attractions with even one person one time means going to hell. Having initially crossed that boundary seriously wounds that person with fear and concern and creates a desperate need for relief that more anonymous sex temporarily provides, but unfortunately also later the fear and need for relief from it return and and a vicious cycle starts.
I doubt you realize just how wise that little statement is, Randi. For the record, where I come from the idea that a single act could separate one from God is considered spiritual immaturity. It is certainly a minority view among Protestants in this country and then mostly among more extreme charismatics. But I find your statement tends to be accurate even for those who don’t hold to this flimsy brand of Christianity.
Posted by: grantdale at April 25, 2006 02:30 AM
I wholeheartedly concur!
David
David, I sure don’t like the label of spiritual immaturity for the belief I described. It might be incorrect from the viewpoint of Church leadership hierarchy and most people very well informed with a given religion’s church doctrine, but in my experience that’s not a large percentage of regular church goers.
I went to a Catholic church every week until I was 18 as did most of my close friends. I studied religion in Catechism classes and participated in all the “desirable” Catholic rituals for children and teenagers. A few years back I read the old Testament but despite that I had no idea about the vast majority of church doctrine and no idea as to whether or not a single act would supposedly send one to hell.
Its only been during the past several months on Exgaywatch that through osmosis I’ve learned enough specific doctrine for it occur to me as I was writing that post that you might suggest it takes more than one act to go to hell.
To call young adults with that belief spiritualy immature I think is harsh and undeserved. Simply “wrong” would be a much more compassionate way to put it, although I think that’s debatable as well – I personally don’t believe the majority’s or the pope’s view of Christianity is automatically correct.
I don’t think its any big surprise if large numbers of children and young adults have their happiness and sense of security severely impacted by such a fear, especially, especially young gay people.
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky at April 25, 2006 12:11 PM
You missed a key word in my comments Randi, Protestant. In an effort to keep this thread on track and you out of trouble, I will stop the doctrinal discussion there and encourage you to do the same.
David
Randi, I want to echo David’s comment that your analysis of how some ex-gays reach sexual addiction or sexual despair is wise and accurate.
While many Christians would find the “one sin condemns you” doctrine to be immature and silly, it is the teaching of many of the more conservative fundamentalist churches. I grew up in one. And I suspect that it is those religious sects that believe “one sin” doctrine that provide most ex-gays ministries with their stugglers.
(David – on a separate note, that docrine from my youth may play a part in the differing ways in which we view “sin”)
Joe,
I probably was too harsh. And I do want to be sensitive to the real life situation of those who are stuggling with their same-sex attractions.
I do wish to find room in which to agree with ex-gays where we can. And I recognize that there are probably many ex-gay strugglers that are not anti-gay activists.
I guess my frustration is that I’ll read something that seems on the surface to be reasonable, or have communication with someone who seems to be subject to fact and reason. Then I get my hopes up. Only to find that they went afterward and lobbied for something truly extremist and cruel.
I want to find the ex-gays that are not anti-gay. Very much. I have hope that eventually some will come around and decide that “freedom to leave the homosexual lifestyle” doesn’t require that you also destroy someone else’s freedom to live as gay.
Unfortunately it seems that all of the ex-gay ministries are tied to a religious ideology that believes that God wants a rightous nation and that He requires that they drive evil (and especially homosexuality) from the land. And they are tied to a political ideology that has defined anti-gay activism to be the front in a culture war.
It’s hard to find common groud with those who believe God has put them in this time and this place to general His troops against you. It’s hard to make peace when the person holding the white flag is also firing at you.
Thankyou Timothy and David. In my experience in differing you two are outstanding examples of tolerance and consideration.
This is an excellent topic! I think this topic lies at the core of the argument. This is where the gay community and the Christian Right can both learn a great deal and even come to the table with valuable life changing understanding. I think it would be a wonderful thing to see far more of the gay community being more healthy with far less addiction issues that seem to plague so many parts of our community. Whether we like to admit it or not we really do need the heterosexual majority’s support in order to be a more healthy and connected community. We are all connected, gay, straight, transgendered, etc. I think that a gay and lesbian Christian community with strong basic values like those of the heterosexual Christian community would be a very valuable thing for our nation and our world.
The late Hugh W. Nibley (former professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University and a mentor of mine) said that “sin is waste. It is wasting your time doing something that is unproductive as opposed to using your time wisely in order to do something productive that helps others as well as yourself to progress in life and in eternity.” Addiction is waste. Think of the tremendous amount of time that those who are caught up in addiction have wasted in persuit of drugs and irresponsible addictive sex, as opposed to building a better community, improving minds, being an integral part of the entire community (not only the gay community), etc. That also includes experiencing healthy sexuality with the ones we love as opposed to being stuck in addiction (including drug addiction) which typically leads away from stable relationships. All of that time is a tremendous resource for all of us in obtaining our hard fought civil rights including the right to marry our partners.
There are many of us who could benefit from being in recovery from addictions. There is so much healing and so much good that can be done in this process. It has the power to change our world like nothing we could ever imagine and to also speed up that change we are seeking for. The natural high is far more immense and long lasting than an arificial high as the natural high affects every aspect of life and leads toward improvement and in my view ultimately love and peace.
Randi,
We have no choice but to find room for all. Ex-gays are not going anywhere. Gays aren’t going anywhere. We have to find a way to survice or we just won’t.
This has become a war, with real casualties. People lives. We know that in the last election with all the talk about same sex marriage hate crimes rose dramatically. If we try to fight back with more of the same it never ends. The only way to stop the spiritual violence, the hate speech is with the one tool we have that we know works….love (nonviolence).
I know people think I am nuts when I say this, but have we not tried everything else? We make laws, they fight them, we win rights, they sue to take them away. Each time their anti-gay rehtoric starts, hate crimes go up. Lives are lost or destroyed.
Do we fight them on the same hateful level?
Joe, I don’t know what to tell you. I think a variety of different approaches is a good idea. I’m doing my best to strike a fair balance however short I may come of that goal. My feeling is that when someone repeatedly tells lies that hurt me and other LGBTs without regard for what seems reasonable and inarguable logic I want that to be an unpleasant task for them.
I am less interested in the anti-gay “ex-gays” than I am in the people ultimately listening to them and us. The ex-gays have demonstrated again and again they don’t care about letting us run our lives, they want to do it for us. I want to tell the “audience” of reachable reasonable people the exgays are unreasonable, grossly unfair, and lying repeatedly. They’ve demonstrated they will give no consideration for those who do not “choose” to be heterosexual, I don’t feel much of an obligation to bend over backwards with consideration for them. And I do have more consideration for them than they do for us. I support their right to be “exgay” if they figure that is the best solution to the problem caused by their beliefs and society’s rejection. If they weren’t also anti-gay I can’t believe I’d have any problem with them whatsoever.
The backlash disturbs me greatly but I think its more a result of any legal recognition gays have achieved, not as a result of any backlash against the way gays treat “exgays”. I believe the backlash to what’s happened in Canada, Masachusetts and other places is being felt most in the middle east and the carribean, etc. I think the hate crimes are much more due to the incredible change in the times that sees same sex couples getting married than anything to do with how any one at exgaywatch, or any “gay activist” treats deeply ingrained opponents.