The national leadership of ex-gay umbrella network Exodus International promises and fails to deliver heterosexual attraction to its Christian followers, even as it uses those followers in various campaigns of antigay political warfare.
While Exodus’ national leaders focus on partisan politics and misdiagnosis of sexual struggle, other organizations focus more on helping same-sex-attracted persons live according to their Christian values.
One such organization: GayChristian.net, a support group for celibate same-sex-attracted Christians as well as for Christians who believe that God calls them to monogamous same-sex marriage.
From GCN’s frequently asked questions:
Are you sexually abstinent?
Not all gay Christians have the same answer to this question. Some gay Christians believe that God does not want them to be sexually active, so they choose to be celibate. Many others choose to date and marry just like straight Christians, with the only difference being the gender of the person.
This site is designed to be a haven for all gay Christians, whichever view they take. However, as Christians, we do believe that sex should be taken seriously, and we don’t support the promiscuity and sexual looseness that are often a part of the secular world.
Whether celibate or monogamous, GCN’s participants do not buy into ex-gay identity politics of groups like Exodus:
Is this an ex-gay site?
No. This site is designed to be a safe haven and place of fellowship for Christians who identify as gay. Membership is open to anyone, however, as long as they are willing to help us maintain that atmosphere.
For British Christians, there’s a similar organization which left Exodus for the reasons stated above: Courage UK.
If you know of organizations that help same-sex-attracted persons balance faith and sexuality without politically exploiting them or steering them toward predetermined outcomes, please feel free to discuss them here.
As a member of GCN myself, I can say that it’s a pretty amazing site, and I’m glad to have discovered it about four years ago. What started out as simply a messageboard for gay Christians has evolved into a worldwide group of people who not only interact with each other online, but in person. The two largest groups of “GCNers” that often get together for group activities are in Los Angeles and London. Seattle, San Francisco and Melbourne follow behind that, so GCN has truly become a global thing. It’s a great way for gay Christians of all ages–but especially those in their early 20s–to meet and socialize in an environment outside a bar or club. Here in L.A., we have movie nights, game nights, picnics, and other activities. And everyone is welcome, regardless of their religious affiliation.
The great thing about GCN is that it features a range of different kinds of people. Not everyone on GCN is a Christian, although most are. Not everyone is conservative, either… in fact, maybe only half, if that, fall in that category. Political and theological points of view span the spectrum, which keeps things interesting, and allows people to learn from each other’s varying perspectives.
It’s these types of healthy alternatives that are most threatening to the ex-gay agenda, which is based on fear of exclusion because of non-conformity. On GCN and other similar sites, people can express their faith freely, ask difficult questions, be honest about their lives and meet people who share similar values and life journeys. The more that gay people of faith come out and show that being gay does not mean living the false stereotypes force-fed to scared, closeted Christians, but rather, the fact that a gay person can love God, have healthy relationships with others and be a person of virtue… well, the ex-gay journey will be soon lose its appeal. Love will trump fear every single time.
This is a wonderful concept! Sites/communities like this were what SHOULD have occured in the early ’70s, when travesties like “Love In Action” were forming instead. How wonderful for a religious gay person to have a place to go to where they can share their values about sex – the only difference being that they are attracted to a person of the same gender.
As a religious Jew, I’ve often felt that if it weren’t for my same sex attraction, I’d be just like any other sexually reserved person, possibly mocked as a “prude” by others – but because my sexuality is “abnormal”, it’s assumed that I went through all sorts of experimentation and promiscuous behavior to arrive at the conclusion I did. Not so. It seems that the mainstream media is permeated with images of what some may call the “open” (read: “promiscuous,” “experimental,” “deviant”) sexual attitudes in the gay community, while in actuality it is much more diverse than that. What a fabulous site – for a fabulous community.
GCN is really an oasis for gay Christians. True respect and tolerance reign there and the people are just plain fascinating! I agree with Emily, GCN is an example of what should have happened, and the way all Christians should approach scripture and their lives. It’s hard to miss the true love over there.
Thanks for sharing your own perspective, Emily — and oops, I should not have been so narrow in my appeal:
I welcome referrals for neutral or well-balanced support groups of all faiths: Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and yes, even the pagans and witches that Exodus’ Alan Chambers insults.
I absolutely love GCN. I wish I could get over there to post more often, because it really is a great place. Thanks for showing them some love, Mike.
This is the first time I’ve heard of GCN, but I’ll have to check it out. Thanks!
Another organization you might want to consider as a resource is Evangelicals Concerned, http://www.ecsr.org.
Sorry, there’s a type in there. The correct link is http://www.ecwr.org.
I’m an Epicurean, but I concur with sexuality being “special.” Of course, Epicureans are atheists and deny an afterlife. But we are the original hedonists, maximizing pleasure, minimizing pain. Any pleasure that becomes compulsive, routine, excessive, over-indulgent loses its pleasing qualities.
I happen to like deep-fried calamari, but if I ate it 3x 24x 7x 365x I might not like deep-fried calamari very soon. Mutatis mutandis, anonymous, indiscriminate, obsessive sex.
The pleasure of human sexuality can be “independent” of other feelings and emotions, as when it is “recreational,” (N.B. re-create-al), but sexuality is a ubiquitous drive implanted in us by nature for the reproduction of the species. Since same-sex attraction is non-reproductive, the imperative to erotic pleasure (eros) is the drive to pleasure, not re-create the species.
As a pleasure, the intensity of eros is magnified when it is regarded as “special,” when the attraction goes beyond the recreational toward the immersion of another person’s immersion into one’s self. The recreational can coexist with the intense intimacy of a special beloved, but many of us find that intimacy with a beloved is so extraordinary, we would not dare to make it “ordinary.”
Like deep-fried calamari, or a fine wine, or any activity we enjoy: Sexual (erotic) pleasure with a beloved is extra-ordinary, and therefore “special,” and one does not need a Face in the Clouds to make it so. And if such a Face exists, it implanted these intense pleasures in us for a good reason — such as propagation of the species, we can treat eros as a mere drive, which is then quite ordinary.
Or we can experience an intensity of erotic immersion that is truly orgasmic, and in that truly intense experience we discover that some pleasures are too extra-ordinary to reduce to just another moment’s gratification, habit, routine, or compulsion. The Epicureans have always espoused the intensity of pleasure over “getting off,” even if Nature is quite content with the latter. What the Face cares about any of this is really beside the point.
Maybe, that is the reason Epicurus’s writings disappeared under the custodianship of the Vatican. Saint Paul, after all, was a Platonic Jew-cum-Christian, who depreciated all pleasures. Pleasures, for him, were sinful. Suffering is what counts! Only in a twisted world-view, IMHO. But some people are sado=masochists, finding pleasure in pain. We Epicureans do not understand them, either.
“Since same-sex attraction is non-reproductive, the imperative to erotic pleasure (eros) is the drive to pleasure, not re-create the species.”
Not necessarily.
At least with many same-sex couples, the imperative to erotic intimacy is
intimacy.
I would agree with FOJ. To me at least, sexual gratification as an end unto itself is rather empty and unsatisfying in the long run. This is obviously an area of personal experience, and I’m not suggesting that another view is wrong for others, but sexual pleasure for me is most satisfying when it is part of becoming more intimate with someone I love and trust. The fact that this union can’t biologically produce offspring doesn’t make the bond or the love any less valid or significant.
But what is “intimacy?” One assumes it is an intense pleasure in someone else. Perhaps accompanied by friendship, another pleasure. Perhaps accompanied by conviviality, another pleasure. Perhaps accompanied by mutual sharing, care, and affection, all pleasures. Some hold “intimacy” requires reciprocity — I do, for example, mutual pleasure in each other. Some require “passion,” I do, for example, but is not passion a form of pleasure in another? What about romantic love? Intimacy — which is synonymous with “closeness” — may be inadequate without romantic love. I am close to my cats, close to my beloved, close to my family, close to my subordinates, close to my superiors, but these intimacies are not all the same type of intimate pleasures.
I agree intimacy is to be valued for its own sake, but then so too carnality, so too a fine wine, so too a trip to a new place. Ultimately, its the “intensity” of pleasures, perhaps through the synthesis of various other pleasures, like intimacy, reciprocity, carnality, affection, caring, sharing, and romantic love that culminates in the supreme pleasure: joy. But even “joy” is a pleasure, even “suffering” shared feels better than suffering alone.
Intimacy, or “closeness,” is by default integral to most erotic pleasures. Intimacy may be one of many components to our erotic sexual expressions, but only one component of many. I suggest simply that pleasures, however derived, however complex, are to be valued over “abstinence” for its own sake. Sexual expression has many nuances, and the more pleasures incorporated into any expression is superior to any particular aspect, including “intimacy.” Who has ever had a sexual encounter that was not “intimate?” Is intimacy, therefore sufficient? Not necessarily. Required, yes, but not sufficient.
Disciplined-pleasures, like all forms of “measured” pleasures, exceeds the mantra of “abstinence,” or the apotheosis of “intimacy.” Again, the focus is too narrow. Rather than embrace all pleasures, one focuses on a single pleasure as sufficient, which is the same myopic thinking that begets the “sex for reproduction” only set. Sex can be “unitive,” which is what I think you are trying to suggest with the narrower focus of intimacy. But “unitive” is more expressive than intimate.
Gay Species said:
If you are asking that as a rhetorical question, then I imagine our ideas of intimacy and the relationship with one’s mate are quite different. I would say that one could live for many years with someone, have sex with them and even raise a family without having a truly intimate relationship.
This is all a bit philosophical so it’s unlikely we are going to have a solid meeting of the minds. Like faith, one’s philosophical ideals are deeply personal and declarative statements rather useless.
I love gay christian.net, but I wish there was more time to spend on it. I haven’t been on there in awhile.
Maybe a “philosophical” inquiry might clear the head from so much utter confusion and clutter. But it requires doubt, skepticism, and questioning. But “they” put Socrates and Jesus to death for such thinking.
Or does “faith” trump reason, emotion, love, pleasure, and even “intimacy?” Hope you find your Face in the Clouds, between speaking in tongues, jazzercizing with Yahweh, and indulging the Jesus Camp folk with Ted Haggard and his meth friends who “hook-up” with hustlers and then repent of their sins. Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Jim Bakker understand it all too well. Thus, they repent as they sin.
Thinking is difficult for some folk. That’s why there is religion. Read Romans 1, get on your knees, and weep, “you foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless” degrading person given “to lusts of [your] hearts of impurity, to degrading [your] bodies among themselves . . . worshiped and served the creature rather than God,” waring with their “members.” God has spoken! His words are true! Pray it ain’t true!
But God probably “gave [you] up to degrading passions . . . committing shameless acts in [your] own persons the due penalty for [your] error. . . those who practice such things deserve to DIE.” Total Depravity is so “wicked, evil, malicious, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, gossip, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious.”
Pray it ain’t true, or HELL awaits you. Casuistry may feel “good” now, but not before the Throne of Judgment with Yahweh judging, “casuistry” won’t rescue you from the Pit of Hell. Look what he did to Moses, Job, and Jesus! Miserable sinners all.
“One assumes it is an intense pleasure in someone else.”
Ah, but intimacy can be so much more than ‘intense pleasure’.
Nor does intimacy imply pleasure. Comforting someone when they are grieving, or dying, is something few people seem to find pleasurable, and yet it often is extremely intimate.
I think it is just as restrictive to interpret existence solely through the lens of pleasure as it is to interpret it solely through the lens of guilt or shame.
“Thinking is difficult for some folk. That’s why there is religion.”
No. Many of humanity’s greatest thinkers have also been deeply religious. Frankly, the way you mock spirituality detracts from the value of your posts.
A far more accurate statement, TGS, is:
“Thinking is difficult for some folk, which is one reason why there is prejudice”
FOJ:
Very preceptive and very true.
Gay Species, I’m fairly certain you realize that you are out of line, but since you don’t comment here often let me explain. You are free to agree, disagree, debate, bring new ideas to the table, point out errors of fact, etc. as long as that is all done in a civil manor and within the scope of the discussion.
XGW, however, is not the place for anyone to mock or slander another’s personal faith the way you did above. That kind of sweeping, negative generalization is not in the least civil and leads only to bickering and hurt feelings. Do not engage in it here if you wish to comment further.
As for the rest, let me just say that one can be dogmatic about any belief, even philosophy, and fundamentalists come in all flavors. To state the obvious, just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they do not think clearly.
Quoting the Bible is “out of line?” Excuse me.
One final observation, lest Ex-gays become Too-gay.
Facing one’s self can be a difficult proposition. If one wants to become an Ex-gay, I wish you well in your troubled existence.
But make no mistake! If the Bible is true, Gays go to hell. You can claim I’m “dogmatic,” but I only quoted the Bible. Those who put their hope in the Bible, and are gay, are doomed to hell. The Bible, not I, says so.
I only questioned whether “intimacy” was sufficient, and I don’t think it is. I simply espoused Epicureanism, which Christianity rightly detests. But anyone who can read knows the Bible condemns homosexuals in their lust. You may find that “dogmatic,” but I did not write it. I simply cited what any reader can find in Romans 1.
If the Bible is God’s Word, not a claim I make, but which others make: Then gays are doomed to hell. Casuistry by biblical folk won’t make Romans 1 go away. Paul is quite unequivocal, even if some wish him away. Hypocrisy is just another word for the Fallacy of Special Pleading, a fallacy lots of folk make. So much for logic. Take comfort in the Bible, but as one gay man to another, I would not doubt Saint Paul’s epistle to the Romans, IF one regards the Bible as God’s Word. Gays DIE, indeed God has already condemned them. The Bible, not I, says so. Those with eyes only deceive themselves. Casuistry won’t suffice on Judgment Day. I only suggest another form of judgment: REASON.
TGS
It was not honest to pretend that you were criticized for quoting the Bible. I was quite clear: “the way you mock spirituality”. Statements like “one does not need a Face in the Clouds” indicate considerable contempt for religious people. Is this a case of “anything goes in the pursuit of pleasure”?
Given said contempt, it is not surprizing that you’ve adopted not only the literalist, fundamentalist interpretation of Romans 1, but also the intellectual fraud of taking verses out of context to suit a pre-conceived agenda.
There is no need to make Romans 1 go away, only to read it within its entire context – a polemic against other religions written by a fallible human as an expression of his own opinion.
I doubt you would have much use for any suitably negative interpretation of the writings of Epicurus coming from the pen of a certain Baptist minister from Topeka Kansas, so you’ll understand how little value your interpretation of Romans 1 actually has for me. Your ability to correctly interpret Romans 1 is negated by the obvious contempt for spirituality already presented in your posts.
GLBTQ Christians do not lecture you on the nuances of Epicurus and hedonism, so please do not presume to lecture us about the God you don’t believe in, or the Bible you apparently hold in contempt.
“Face in the Clouds” is a book by Oxford University Press, dude. Take THAT up with Oxford dons, not me.
You can read the Bible anyway YOU want to, but it won’t change Romans 1. Whether YOU know polysemy or not, no one can mistake Paul’s indictment of homosexuality. I doubt you even know what polysemy means. But Paul’s epistle is clear without it.
If the Opiate of religion makes you feel good, at least be honest. YOU choose to ignore Romans 1. I choose to ignore the whole thing. And YOU judge me? Read Romans 2, dude. Body worship is not as idolatrous as JUDGMENTALISTS, so saith Paul in Romans 2. READ YOUR BIBLE.
Hypocrites reign in Bush’s Amerika. Praise Bush, Jesus, and the Jesus Camp folk with the Haggard-meth freaks that YOU don’t want to associate with. I don’t blame YOU. BUT BE HONEST. Your hypocrisy makes gay men ashamed of YOU. Worship the Body of Holiness, or be ABSTINENT. Or go to hell, as the Bible insists YOU will.
Gay Species said:
People don’t normally come here to be ex-gay (though if they do they certainly don’t deserve to be mocked). If you believe that, then you haven’t taken the time to find out what we are about. Also, my comment concerning dogma had nothing to do with your use of proof texts. I’m going to ask you once again to leave your bashing and mocking at the door if you want to comment here. As someone once said:
We are all volunteers here and as such we don’t have the time to keep asking you to behave yourself. If you have genuine questions about how gay Christians reconcile their beliefs with their sexual orientation, I’m sure you can find a civil way to ask. Less prejudgment would also be a big help.
Update: Gay Species posted his last comment while I was composing this one. I have no idea where all that came from or what kind of site he thought we were. He has now been banned so lets just go forward since he won’t be able to reply, at least not here.
The irony would be funny, if the implicit messages weren’t to harsh.
On one side, some people telling me I can’t be gay if I want to be part of the(ir) Christian community
and on the other side, some people telling me I can’t be Christian if I want to be part of the(ir) gay community.
Maybe they just have intimacy issues 😉
I have found that people, no matter what their beliefs or lack thereof, can be both dogmatic and evangelistic. It must be part of the human condition – we seek to make the world around us conform to our own image of what it is supposed to be. The part I have never figured out is why some are so threatened by those who don’t share their particular view.
It’s a shame that in a thread about an all-welcoming, Christian gay network, someone felt the need to post angry, mocking comments about religion (specifically, Christianity). People like Gay Species, who insist on making those less “sexually liberal” in the queer community feel uncomfortable about the way they live their lives, are exactly the reason sites like GCN are needed. Everyone deserves to feel accepted exploring sexuality the way they feel comfortable doing it. Often people think of the “kinky” sexcapades of swingers or sad-masochists as needing acceptance, but in a slice of society as free and liberal as the gay community, it may be that those who are more “conservative” need acceptance.
I personally welcome them all.
That’s a great question – the why some are so threatened – – –
In part, my faith is tied to specific transcendant religious experiences I have had. When the situation warranted, I have shared my account of those experiences – always with the understanding that no one is required to do anything with the testimony except acknowledge it without impugning my integrity. I don’t expect people to change their beliefs, to convert to anything, etc. After all, no one else was a party to these specific experiences, so I cannot say ‘you saw/heard/felt/tasted/experienced it too’ nor can I expect them to do anything beyond not calling me a liar to my face.
Unfortunately, the standard response from people who either oppose Christianity/all religion, and those who condemn homosexuality, is consistently parallel:
they know what “really” happened. I was “deluded by Satan” or “delusional/mentally ill”, etc. From either angle, people who were not participants, people with no direct knowledge of my experience, just know better than I do what I experienced.
Makes a striking parallel to most of the theories dreamed up by professional homophobes about homosexuality.
For some reason, it appears, they are so threatened by my account of something they have not experienced, that they have to rewrite my experience, remake my world, to make comfortable for them.
“The part I have never figured out is why some are so threatened by those who don’t share their particular view.”
Listening to David and FOJ, and looking back to the topic and TGS, perhaps some of us are still uncertain about ourselves. Maybe these people seek other people of the same nature to further confirm who they think they are.
We seek acceptance from other people the same way we seek them to validate our personal beings. Some of us would always want affirmation from others. Others may just want attention. And some just refuse to understand. I guess FOJ summed it up the best way when he requote TGS “Thinking is difficult for some folk, which is one reason why there is prejudice”.
In the case of that person who had just been banned, perhaps he is longing for us to respect his opinion at all costs. To do so would be to respect him (because he needs that respect) and he would want to force it than earn it with civilized discussions.
I prefer to say, “Many of humanity’s greatest thinkers have also been deeply spiritual.”
As a “uniquely educated” theologian who also happens to be openly gay, I also say that one has to be divinely called to be chaste (meaning no sex at all), to be celibate (meaning never in a committed marriage type relationship) or be in a monandrous (one husband) or monogynous (one wife) relationship. The “mono” part can also refer to “one at a time.”
For gays and lesbians, I prefer not to use the heterosexual word, “monogamous” which in a literal sense means a man married to one woman.
When I was a member of Evangelicals Together, a LA/Hollywood based GLBT parachurch organization, Steve, the president, conducted a weekly Bible study in a North Hollywood home with the topic of the week, “What constitutes adultery in a gay relationship?”
We discussed the difference between a marriage contract and a marriage covenant. In a contract, if one person does not keep his promise, the contract is invalidated and the other does not have to keep his promise either.
But, in a covenanted relationship, each member of the couple makes promises on his own and if one does not keep his promise to do something, the other one is still obligated to keep what he originally promised to do. If a guy covenanted to have no sexual activity outside of the relationship, but, he did not keep his promise, that would be considered “adultery.” All of us that evening agreed on that.
I did not attend any ET activities until after Ed passed away. Ed and I were monandrous in the sense that no one could interfere in our covenanted relationship. But, it was not exactly a closed one. Sometimes our gift of sex was shared with another person and when Ed asked a 3rd person to be involved, he did that out of love for me. I have yet to meet a couple who did things the way that we did them; but, we had a covenanted relationship which also included the Lord, too. We did have times which were like mini-honeymoon periods where no one would be involved in our intimacy.
The Bible does not really give instructions for same-gender marriage type relationships. But, Ecclesiates 4:7-12 does compare being alone which was considered worthless and being in a live-together relationship which is beneficial.
I describe myself as chaste and celibate. Currently, this is the way I am living sexually. What would be my “gift of sex” to others has manifested itself in my artwork (not erotically, but in the form of the passionate energy I use to create) and those who experience my art experience that energy. I dont feel repressed because I still feel like everything is flowing – and in fact I feel very connected to my world. But come the circumstance, I choose monogamy (one woman for me) because I believe this is how my passion manifests itself: I feel for this person and would do everything for her – and she becomes a singular focus in my life, adding to my world, a very unique and special thing. Experiencing all of these connections makes me certain there is a Divine unifying force at work. Torah and God flow through these connections, beacons, and events – they flow through this Life.
Just to clarify the use of monogamous:
mo·nog·a·my (mə-nŏg’ə-mē) n.
The practice or condition of having a single sexual partner during a period of time.
I imagine there is a definition out there involving marriage to a woman, but I think the general connotation would be that one is faithful and sexually intimate with one’s partner to the exclusion of all others. I believe the “gamos” part refers to marriage, so married to one person would be the strict meaning.
To Catholics in Britain I would recommend Quest, a group for gay and lesbian Catholics.
http://www.questgaycatholic.org.uk