One of the most basic beliefs of the Christian faith is that Jesus died so that sinners did not have to do anything to earn God’s forgiveness and love. Exodus International, being a Christian organization, believes just that:
We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are-yet was without sin. (Hebrews 4:15)
Because of Jesus, we don’t have to worry about screwing up and falling out of favor with God, and we don’t ever have to try to earn God’s love.
–from the December 2007 Exodus Youth newsletter
The question being posted in this topic is: If God’s love is already upon Christians because of their faith in Jesus, and they have to do nothing to earn it, how is it many Christians and Christian organizations can justify ostracizing homosexuals? After all, every Christian is a sinner that is justified through faith, so their sexual acts should have nothing to do with how much God loves them.
I’m posing this question to practicing Christians. All faiths and creeds are free to discuss this topic, but anti-faith comments are not productive in this discussion.
Up front, I qualify that I am a de-convert. However, I was a fundamentalist Christian for 35 years. I was asked at one point to pastor a church where I often taught, I declined because I knew I am attracted to the same sex and couldn’t overcome that. This is probably a snapshot of many a gay guy who espouses fundamental Christianity.
Most fundamentalists I know would offer the answer we have all heard, ad nauseum: “love the sinner, hate the sin.” As a former Christian of that genre, I would add to that the statement attributed to Jesus when a woman “caught in the very act” of adultery was brought before him. “…nor do I condemn you, go and sin no more…” The argument being that if being gay is construed as a “sin,” as you suggest in your question, the “Christian” response as purportedly taught by Jesus would be something akin to: “I don’t condemn you, but you still need to stop ‘sinning.'”
I cannot see a justification for a “Christian” who carries the banner: “God hates fags.” I don’t see how that can remotely qualify as “Christian.” But I don’t see organizations like the one you sample (Exodus) doing that. My experience is that they fit more into the first category I described.
I think most self accepting gays would have a problem with either answer of “damn you” or “I forgive you” since there is nothing to damn or forgive, only accept.
I think most Christians would agree with “their sexual acts should have nothing to do with how much God loves them” but they might say that homosexual activity demonstrates that someone is a) not on the right track & rebelling against God, or b) in danger of showing they are not a Christian.
With Paul, I’m an apostate (so a lot of my Christian friends think I may have just proved (b), but when I was deep into “recovery” in a Reformed Protestant Church, I never once heard anyone tell me that god hates me because I was gay or had “gay thoughts”, or had done “gay things.” Rather, I was encouraged to act like the child of god I was–which meant avoiding sin in all forms. Actually, they often told me I was focusing too much on my sexuality and that there are lots of areas where people fall short.
That may not be the experience of others, but it was the exception, not the rule, that I was treated unjustly and without understanding (though it did happen).
Oh, and Hebrews was one of the texts that I struggled with in terms of my salvation–if you read on, it talks about those who have tasted god’s salvation and shown evidence, yet were not saved. That was at the back of my mind and sometimes discussed with me, when I had really gone off of the “straight and narrow.” But more frequently, I was just encouraged to be “holy” because god loved me.
Coming from my admittedly mainstream to liberal Anglican position, I would say that the NT message is “You are already forgiven. Short of willfully throwing your relationship with God away, you have nothing to worry about. Now go love neighbour as self (which sounds easy but isn’t)”.
Over and over again, the message of the NT is that we are free of the law and as long as we don’t harm others we are meeting God’s demands (Romans 13:8-10) so let’s not dwell on who follows the rules best but work on serving the poor and uplifting the needy.
The anti-homosexual passages are, at best, a purity code, but the God of the NT takes a dim view of purity codes. Becoming incarnate itself is impure. Christ touched dead bodies and menstruating women and made heroes out of heretics. He didn’t come to replace one set of inflexible law with another but to show us that thinking right things and following lists of rules isn’t what being in relationship with God (or anyone else) is about.
Jesus also had a to say about divorce and remarriage, about wealth and attachment to physical things and about power and vulnerability. It’s interesting that some view being in a gay relationship as being in rebellion with God, but ignore our ubiquitous western attachment to our homes, cell phones, nice cars and big screen TVs. They ignore all the heterosexuals in 2nd marriages and have little to say about the worship of celebrity and power, including many Christian pastors. When I see ex-2nd marriage ministries, which steer everyone in a 2nd marriage to lifetime celibacy (1 Cor 7:10-11) or ex-possessions ministries which help people get rid of their material things, it may be a bit more consistent. But it reeks of hypocrisy to me right now – specks vs. planks.
It’s also interesting that when one raises the neutral and positive things the Bible says about slavery, the response is that slavery was different back then, but they act surprised and threatened when people argue the same about gay relationships.
I’m afraid the general conservative/evangelical/fundamentalist view of God and his love doesn’t make much sense to me at all. Why would any Christian of that persuasion be so eager to point out God’s love for everyone when at the same time they believe that God will eventually condemn them to an eternity in hell? Constant, unending, unbearable suffering as punishment? If God is going to do this to people, the notion of God loving everyone becomes meaningless. The questions posed above seem inconsequential if it all ends in eternal punishment anyway. (Evangelical annihilationists get around this somewhat, btw.)
PS. Like toujoursdan, I am a liberal Anglican, and my beliefs too can be summarized as “You’re forgiven … now go love your neighbour as yourself.”
To give them a choice?
How does one explain Romans 6:1-3? I think the point of the greatest commandment is that, if you love God, you will want to please Him (that covers sins against God), and if you love your neighbor as yourself, you won’t want to hurt them (that covers sins against others). If you keep those, you have the rest covered.
Grace is an interesting thing; it gives one both the freedom to live without condemnation and the desire to avoid that which would condemn us anyway – something the original commandments could not do.
As to the original question, I think CK has the common understanding well phrased. Left to our own designs, we tend to get rather legalistic. I often think that God did me a favor by allowing me this life, as I doubt I would have examined my faith nearly so deeply had He not.
I think millions of Jews, including King David (Psalms 119), would beg to differ…but maybe i should keep my mouth shut about that. It’s a point people always end up making anyway.
King David is a great example of God’s grace, but the differences between Judaism and Christianity aren’t the topic.
Gee, I only started the topic. Thanks for reminding me what it was. If people are going to bring up differences between “laws,” as YOU did, I’m going to respond to them.
But for some, the ol’ fashioned protestant work ethic just won’t allow them to get something for nothing. So they feel much better if they deserve their salvation. If they work for it by following the hard and difficult rules then they can truly rejoice in it. Cuz ya know you can’t really enjoy your luxuries if you didn’t earn them.
Of course, you also don’t want someone else getting for free what you worked so hard to earn. You want them to work hard too. And if they aren’t willing to work for their salvation, then by God they just shouldn’t have any.
“Something the original commandments could not do” can easily be interpreted as a differentiation between Judaism (or rather, Protestant misunderstandings of Judaism) and Christianity.
With this statement:
“Because of Jesus, we don’t have to worry about screwing up and falling out of favor with God, and we don’t ever have to try to earn God’s love.”
Exodus seems to voice a common and basic Christian misunderstanding of Judaism. Who among the Jews really believes they have to earn God’s love or favor?
In order to avoid Judeo-Christian bickering, let’s revisit the topic as expressed in the post:
“If God’s love is already upon Christians because of their faith in Jesus, and they have to do nothing to earn it, how is it many Christians and Christian organizations can justify ostracizing homosexuals?”
Christians’ assumptions and revisions to grace-related and law-related concepts in the Old Testament may be a key reason why some conservative Christians contradict their own values, discard grace, and selectively ostracize perceived sinners. They wrongly perceive the OT to be lacking in grace or heavy on legalism, and so perhaps they resort to selectively citing the OT when they feel motivated to be graceless in their own actions.
As a lapsed Catholic, it’s tempting for me to agree with Timothy — but I won’t. I’ve seen a similar gracelessness among conservative Catholics.
Mother Angelica’s cable network EWTN broadcasts smug graceless egotism day and night, as does the Catholic League in its paranoid and politically correct press releases. During my time on an e-mail discussion list of the Catholic antigay group Courage, one of the facilitators Fr. Rich Perozich consistently promoted a myth of salvation through good works and strict political correctness, and I saw similar rhetoric periodically from founder John Harvey.
Perhaps I’m overly sensitive to conservative Catholic gracelessness — I was raised in a series of graceful parishes until age eight, when suddenly my family moved to a new city and a Catholic school in which salvation was measured solely by strict adherence to sacraments, rigid prayer of the Rosary, recitation of inaccurate science textbooks, and conformity to
worldly and partisanpseudo-Christian mores: Pope = near-perfection, men = good, women = bad, non-Catholics = very very very bad.There may be, broadly speaking, a common survival-oriented trait among all humans to think of themselves by default, individually, as better and more deserving than their neighbors. There may be competing and more advanced human traits that work in favor of community values and cooperation in order to achieve collective good.
Is it possible that some people (of all faiths) simply devalue the drive for community and succumb to the selfish animal instinct of survival of the fittest, which rewards self-ego at the expense of grace or cooperation with neighbors? Do some people use the language of faith as an excuse to rationalize their instincts?
I had a very close moderate-to-liberal Lutheran friend who counselled me when I was recovering from fundamentalism who used to say that “Grace falls like the rain, unless you open an umbrella you are going to get wet”. They strongly believe that there is nothing you can do to receive grace. Everything, including faith itself, is the work of the Spirit and we are completely passive participants. If anything goes against the Protestant work ethic that does. We want to be in the driver’s seat.
When I asked him about universal salvation, he called himself a “salvation agnostic” and said that universalism may be an implication but there may be others too.
Jesus, being a Jew and all that, would have given some thought and time to what being homosexual meant.
Jews ask questions, and Jesus, apparently being an ardent LISTENER, would have listened to the gay person to figure out and understand why or in what way they were gay.
I have noticed on the conservative TownHall, they don’t discuss the controversies of adulterous or divorced or serially married politicos. And in the rare instances they do, it doesn’t generate long, long threads of sermons and Biblical quotations.
But when one of their commentators makes a leap and blames gay people for something, the sermons and judgement and assertions on Christian belief blow up the thread.
Jesus was unmarried, and had no children. We don’t know if he longed for it, or ever had an opportunity for it. A condemnation of gay people, I think was made hastily and without a serious connection or experience with knowing what gay people wanted and needed from each other, God or their neighbors.
In other words, straight folks have made things up about gay people and are more willing to punish them than for ANY other human betrayal or failure known to man.
Jews don’t believe in certainty, or doing something out of expectation of heavenly reward. Or at least, that is discouraged. And Jesus being a Jew would have continued to question homosexuals, not HOMOSEXUALITY, until, I feel confident, he would have concluded that there is a difference among gay people, but that DIFFERENCE, isn’t SIN.
Emily K can correct me on that. But I think I might have that right.
Sins…the betrayal of trust, peace and individual accomplishment and common courtesy and physical health and safety, are in the capacity of everyone, but sexual orientation whether gay or heterosexual is not.
I think he would have recognized LOVE as opposed to sin. And recognizing it among gay folks requires a heart of love as well as a LISTENING heart.
And apparently, some of the substance of this issue is how Christians will numb themselves to listening and selectivity on who they will listen to, as well as consciousness expansion except for selfish reasons.
No one denies that society benefits from those who love and are loved. I don’t think I can fully understand why some Christians will deny that to gay people without LISTENING to gay people FIRST.
There is definitive benefit to preventing people from betraying another human being or assaulting them. But what benefit was EVER derived from KEEPING gay people from not only not having love, but everything else a human being MUST do?
When you don’t listen to another human being, the capacity to listen to God, I think is lost also.
And perhaps that was Jesus message all along.
The laws are part of my faith as well. I don’t swoop down on you every time you make an observation from your own perspective, please don’t do so with me.
There are fundamental differences between Christians and Jews with respect to their view of the OT (and God in general), and comments like yours above tend only to draw us into a back and forth over those differences. Your question was asked of and about a Christian perspective, so that is the topic.
If the thread was about a Jewish perspective and how JONAH deals with gays, I wouldn’t direct it toward, say, the failure of Jews to recognize Messiah.
Mike said:
No, Mike, as I said, mentioning the laws does not necessarily mean one is making a comment about Judaism – there is a common heritage but a very different perspective. Neither is the bad guy, the one “misunderstanding” the other. And we aren’t going to censor discussion over that kind of reasoning.
Why do some churches ostracize? To me, the answer is “lack of spiritual maturity”. It is the best answer I have learned. It is a simple answer, but incredibly pervasive in its application.
Imagine the Bible is like a wonderful car – a vintage Jaguar. A mature man drives the treasured ‘Jag’ carefully about the streets, and gently parks it in the driveway. His young son later borrows the keys… slams the ‘Jag’ into reverse, and rips down the roads with the smell of rubber at every street light.
The car never changes; the maturity of the driver is what matters.
The Bible never changes; the maturity of the spiritual leaders is what matters.
The first and most foundational of the ‘calls’ to spiritual maturity appears to be this: “The call to reconciliation must dominate the call to battle.” The calls are based on the six statements of Jesus in Matthew chapter 5, wherein He shows the essential differences between His followers and the followers of legalism: “You have heard it was said… but I say unto you….”
The followers of Christ that desire spiritual maturity hear the call to reconciliation, and let go of the call to battle. They define “love” as per Luke 10, The Parable Of The Good Samaritan: given freely even to your theological opponents; given without pay back; given even at a cost to the giver. They focus on the “opportunity”, search for a common ground, and place a minimal burden upon the offensive ‘gentile believer’, as per Acts 15. They hear the scriptures that emphasize peace – “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God” … such thoughts haunt their prayers. Their churches live out the saying, “Christ affirmed the highest path as the highest path, but He welcomed all that sought Him no matter the path they walked.”
The followers of Christ that do not desire spiritual maturity hear the call to battle. They define “love” as “tough love” per pop psychology: given only to those that will make concessions of behavior; given to those that pay you back with ‘repentance’; given always at a cost to the receiver. They focus on the “offense”, search to emphasize the differences, and place heavy burdens until the very opportunity of the ‘gentile believer’ is driven far away. They can only perceive the scriptures that emphasize isolation and war – “Touch not the unclean thing!… Throw out the old leaven!” … such thoughts haunt their prayers. Their churches live out the not-as-mature saying, “Know what is right and what is wrong; accept the right and reject the wrong.”
The immature race the car of the Bible, and even claim to be imitating Jesus Christ, but the damage they have done to fellow ‘drivers’ on the road of life has been immense.
Such immature spiritual leaders are my brothers and sisters in Christ, I apologize for them. I was once one of them. I try to never forget if it were not for ‘many bitter things’ that Jesus brought into my life, I would still be like them. I actually never wanted to be mature in Christ… I was drug into spiritual maturity kicking and screaming.
But I drive my ‘car’ more carefully now, for there are too many being damaged on all sides of the street. The one that is a peacemaker, is the one that is blessed… and the Man that said those words, made peace even when it cost a wooden cross upon His shoulders.
Sincerely; Caryn
You are quite right. What do sexual matters have to do when faith alone merits God’s salvation? Well, that only works under the false Protestant idea of Grace by Faith Alone, which is not biblical or logical.
Grace is free and you cannot earn it. Salvation is a free gift. But you must except it. A man is justified by what he does and not by faith alone (James 2:24) and we must walk as Jesus did, in the light (Somewhere in chapter 1 or 2 of 1 John). These aren’t options and it’d clear from James that works are not the offspring of justification, but they serve to justify.
There are sins to do not lead to death (1 John 5), but these are small (venial) matters. However, to misuse one’s body, no matter how much emotion is welling up for their lover, is a grave matter. I am not discrediting anyone’s interpretation of the Bible (see the dangers of Sola Scriptura ?) but the Church has always been clear about the ramifications of homosexual unions.
It seems to me there is a rivalry among Christians to one up each other and within themselves, as to how perfect they can be in the eyes of God. What a rabbit hole that could be. The original message and intent of the Bible got overlayed with several books in the Bible containing negative drama, of which is kept alive in current time. i.e. Sodom and Gorrah. People who resonate to fear will simply be attracted to it, and that is their path.
Sex has never been a strong suit for religious common sense, as the Bible is not a sex education manual. Common sense is coming on strong, and I think this culture war will be a passing phase. But can there truly be a bridge? Partially. But the bridge is within, not without. Agreeing to disagree is a start, but all truth lies within the soul. If people prefer to condemn, then they will feel the hate within themselves, damaging their love. Until people realize the severe harm it does to judge, there will be no full bridge.
Those who find their spirituality in Christianity must realize, they are God and must seek that within, not through negative drama. Making someone else wrong does not build bridges, it alienates. “Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and all else will come unto you” The kindom of heaven is within, then the fear resolves and all these illusions of hate fall away. When one truly reaches that point, this entire culture war is moot, for love trumps all, no matter who you’re sexing with.
Or, all of this religious stuff is really just so much hooey. If God exists– admittedly, an unprovable item of indifference to me– and if he is indeed the kind of being that we think he is– equally unprovable, but not necessarily a matter of indifference– then religion as we define and practice it on this planet has little to do with him apart from its unprovable, unjustifiable, and patently absurd claims that it does so. And if religion’s many claims about itself and its relation to god are just so much bushwah, why should I believe what it has to say about god’s forgiveness?
I do not need to earn, nor do I require, his forgiveness. If anything, given what is done in his name and/or attributed to him on a daily basis, it is quite the reverse. If it is done with his approval, then he is not a good being. If it is done in spite of his disapproval, then he is not whom we imagine or pretend him to be.
What is truly required of us on a spiritual level is to forgive others and to forgive ourselves. How much peace would that generate in the world? I have not noticed that the alleged god’s alleged forgiveness has made the world a better place. It has only served to fill it with people who have convinced themselves that they have it, and perhaps have no further need to pursue it, thereby justifying whatever harm they have created and nurtured. But they do know with certainty that god agrees with them about whom it should be withheld from– and why.
What is also required is consciousness: “Know the truth and the truth shall set you free…”
Also required is a desire to leave everybody the hell alone, the ultimate practical expression “Look not for the speck in your brother’s eye lest you miss the beam in your own.” “Nothing needs minding so much as other people’s business” is not a creed that generates peace or well being, though it has been known to generate plenty of cash and political power. The sort of thing you might find working among the scribes, the Pharisees, and the hypocrites.
Wow!!! I just had a flash. A popular carol is playing in my head: “It’s beginning to sound a lot like Jesus, every where you go…” except that I am skipping the wholly unnecessary, energy-sucking, divisive, and destructive tragicomedy of sin, suffering, death, damnation, salvation, and redemption– basically the wrapping paper for the bargain basement gift of “philosophy” that is “God’s forgiveness”– that organized religion has has attached leech-like to what is some pretty straightforward and ultimately practical advice.
Prince M,
Looking back, the Church was clear on a great many things throughout history when it came to scripture and doctrine. However, we have seen the fallout of these mistakes by these ministers of God and the pain the Church has caused others in the name of Jesus Christ.
Unfortunately, it will not end until Christ himself returns.
The question being posted in this topic is: If God’s love is already upon Christians because of their faith in Jesus, and they have to do nothing to earn it, how is it many Christians and Christian organizations can justify ostracizing homosexuals? After all, every Christian is a sinner that is justified through faith, so their sexual acts should have nothing to do with how much God loves them.
Because Christians think they are pleasing God by bashing sinners and gay people are definitely sinners. I mean just look at them, they’re different!
According to Hebrews, the Word of God is a sword and as Christians, it is our job to use the Bible as the swords God made them to be. Whenever we see someone in error, we must quickly point it out with the sword tip, then rip the person’s heart in two with our sword blade. The gaping wound we inflict on the heathen pagan will then be open to be filled with the grace and love of God.
Why do we have to do this? Because we are commanded to. After all, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for ……. correction ” (2 Tim. 3:16) It is our job to correct people, because frankly, the Holy Spirit just doesn’t cut it anymore.
This is more important with gay people, as they are more in error than any other group of people. Their efforts to love people directly undermine our Christian values, namely to judge others. Our need to judge people is so important, there is an entire book of the Bible with that title! The gay agenda will cause Christians to put themselves in another person’s shoes and will result in thoughts of compassion. This will stand in the way of our ability to make insulting, demeaning comments about the lost. Sure, Jesus showed mercy and compassion to everyone, but I bet he was secretly cursing them out in the back of his head.
In closing, it is important for us to set people on the right track. If we can’t fix them, then at least they’ll be lower than we are, and knowing we’re better than someone else will make for a real fuzzy feeling inside. Ostracizing gay people is just one of the better ways that Christians can feel like they’re doing a really great job for Jesus.
(BTW, this post is satirical. I am a gay Christian myself. 😉 I had fun writing it.)
No, the devil was always in the details.
Rape, prostitution, carnal seduction – bad.
Consensual love and affection – just don’t get caught.
But, the new call for unashamed love and holy matrimony! – It is not clear what the Church should to do!
I think what we are supposed to get from the whole “free grace” thing is that we have been forgiven even though we do not deserve it. Therefore (and that is an important word!) we are to forgive others even though we may feel they don’t deserve it.
As far as earning God’s forgiveness, if you have to earn something, it is not a gift. If you do not believe forgiveness is a gift, then the burden of earning it falls on you. All that this does is cause us to turn our focus in upon ourselves, making sure we do what we need so we can receive forgiveness.
I had a professor of Greek who said on the first day of class, “Ok, you all have passed. Now, do what you need to do to learn what you need to learn.” That was such a gift!
God’s grace is the same. Through Christ we have “passed.” Now, what do we have to do to learn what we need to learn? If, in Christ, we all have passed, how do we also help those who are in the “class” with us get the most out of the class?
The whole having to “earn” God’s love just puts the roadblocks to living fully back into place.
David: I’m not sure if your last comment was addressed to me, but i would have to say that my comments were not anti-faith in the slightest. They were anti-the-notions that the church is required for anything that has to do with god, and that the idea that god has to forgive us for being his creations. That is a logical contradiction that I doubt the fount of reason would endorse.
It’s just that for all or any type of sin there are consequences and God prefers and/or requires us to at least try to live within His perimeters v.s. our own. He Knows what’s in our hearts and has His perfect reasons we may not understand.
Lean not on your own understanding
And Christians are sinners and imperfect as anyone else but trying to get God’s word out and correctly is not always easy in this world, especially when all struggle with sin and cannot live up to the example of Jesus.
The narrow path many times appears hypocritical but is intended to reveal this narrow path.
My people parish from lack of knowledge.
Seems to be human nature to sabbotage ourselves and each other rather than try to apply God’s message.
Those without sin cast the first stone.
Scripture does address all the issues and conflicts. It’s basically directed toward the individual to have a personal relationship with God and deal with one’s own sins directly.
The messenger is not the one to please. We need to pray for wisdom and discernment as not to be deceived by anything, ourselves or another, regardless of their perceived authority.
There is only one authority.
We have to know within ourselves the difference between whether we are just confused, or our we offended/rebellious to an accusation, a religion, a person or even God.
It says in the bible to put it to the test. Apply it’s knowledge and test it out.
I like the scripture that is something to the effect of … better to appear a fool than to prove it by speaking out of line. Something like that.
I think it’s in proverbs. Although I find proverbs tough. I think the scriptures convict us which is not fun but I definitely think there is a higher purpose.
Unfortunately we always feel bad about finding our imperfections especially when feeling accused by anyone even ourselves. So we struggle with levels of narcissism.
Which if you think about it … the ultimate narcissist is Satan as he thought he could be better than God and tried to deceive Eve about that.
While God’s love is indeed unconditional and cannot be earned. His blessings are very much conditional and based on our obedience to his laws. You will not dwell in the kingdom of God, the Father, if you do not abide by his laws. To some that may be unfair but if you think about it from a logical point of view it is pure common sense. Put yourself in God’s place. You have the absolute perfect home and these people who have no respect for your authority all of a sudden take up residence in your home. They destroy your furnishings, they mock you every chance they get, they are absolutely the worst guests you have ever had in your home. Now imagine being with them for an eternity with no chance of them ever leaving, does that sound like heaven to you? Of course not. So why would you expect God to surround himself with people like that as well? God’s love may be free of charge but you have to earn his respect, you have to earn his loyalty. You have to earn a relationship with him. That is not free of charge, that takes work, effort and determination to do it God’s way.
As far as changing one’s sexuality, I am proof it can be done. I have changed mine. Men, women, they were all a bunch of body parts, nothing more. It was all about what pleased me and as soon as you were done, you could leave. For sixteen years, all my fantasies were strictly same sex fantasies. Though I dated men. (I’m a woman) Even when I was married, I would still fantasize about women when I was with my husband. In my thirties, I did try to “hook up with women” but God is good and it didn’t happen. He knew once I went down that road there was no going back and I would be lost. I came to realize I was an sex addict and have been in recovery for three years. My attraction to women has all but faded. Once I dealt with the all the pain that drove me to addiction to begin with, my same sex attractions went away on their own. I am now much happier than I have ever been. I have a wonderful four year old boy. I am deeply involved in my church. I have a purpose to my life and as unhappy as I was during my addiction, I am seven times happier now. God has restored me. Does that mean I don’t have any problems? No. Does it mean my addiction doesn’t try to raise its ugly head sometimes? No. [Though I have noticed when those same sex attractions start raising their ugly head it is because I am not wanting to deal with some difficulty. The minute I do deal with it, the attraction goes away again.]
Change is not impossible and to discount the thousands of experiences by people who have found true happiness outside of homosexuality makes you no more than closed minded bigots you are so fond of accusing us of being. My sexuality is my decision and I have the complete authority and autonomy to direct it in a way that I feel is most authentic and beneficial to my well being and if that means rejecting homosexuality you have no right to tell me that I am doing untold harm to myself. For those who choose to be gay, that is their choice but you don’t get to take my choice away because it does not enhance your political agenda and you don’t get to invalidate my change because it is detrimental to your cause. God restored my authentic sexuality. He gave me back control, dignity and a sense of power. He gave me back my life and I won’t allow anyone to mock my transformation.
According to my understanding of scripture, there is nothing logical about the Kingdom (1 Cor 1:27-29). While one who loves God will desire to know Him better and to please Him, simply following laws will get you nowhere. To do so emphasizes the works of the individual, not the Grace of God.
With all due respect, Dena, this is a perversion of all I know about God and Christian doctrine, regardless of your view of homosexuality. What is your faith?
So you are saying that those who act on their same-sex attractions are forever lost? What does that say about the mission of ex-gay ministries and reparative therapists?
This recurring theme has been noted by others here recently, and I’m beginning think it has merit. Could it be that those who do go through ex-gay programs (you didn’t say if you were or are in one) are seeking help with sexual addiction, mistakenly believing the problem is their sexual orientation? A large number of testimonies from those who consider themselves ex-gay success stories report problems that certainly seem to amount to sexual addiction.
First I would submit that, if you are a believer, you do not have absolute authority or autonomy over anything – you gave that to God.
Anyone has a right to report the facts, and you may feel free to challenge them but you can’t take away their right to provide the information. In the end, it is up to the individual to look at the information provided, and make their own decisions. As it becomes more and more clear that literally changing one’s sexual orientation is almost never truly an option, we can only hope that ex-gay ministries will try to help with things that can be changed, such as sexual addictions, promiscuous behaviour, and all the things which have plagued mankind from the beginning.
However, the idea that anyone is taking away your choice to determine how you will behave in life is a Straw Man, because no one could even if that were the goal – and it isn’t. We do object to groups such as Exodus, Focus on the Family, et al lobbying against the basic rights of gays in this country, and so should you. If they can do it to us, others can do it to you.
Dena,
did you go through an ex-gay program?
Ah Dena’s figured us out. The reason we provide sympathy to those recovering from ex-gay ministries is a political agenda and a cause.
Oh yawn. I get so weary of this foolishness.
Look, Dena, live how you want. Woo hoo we’re all happy as larks for you. I am sincerly glad that you are no longer behaving compulsively and don’t see people as body parts.
But, sweetie, just so we’re on the same page, if same sex attractions that have “all but faded” start raising their ugly head, it suggests – to me, anyway – that maybe, just maybe, you aren’t quite the proof of change of orientation that you think you are.
But you are pretty typical of ex-gays. Preaching change (that doesn’t look at all like heterosexuality when you look closely), condemning others, assuming that gay people mock God, lashing out angrily, convinced that gay people want to “take away your choice”.
Let me guess, you also lobby politicians about how “you changed” so therefore gay people can be subjected to whatever anti-gay political agenda you can think of.
Well guess what. I really am glad that you are happier now. But I wish you were less angry (jeez, if this is seven times better, I’m glad I didn’t run into you then).
And I am very glad that some in the ex-gay community are beginning to look beyond the homophobic lies that you swallowed hook, line, and sinker. They have stopped attacking gay folk and assuming the worst about them (destroy your furnishings, they mock you every chance they get, they are absolutely the worst guests you have ever had in your home). Instead they are building their own relationship with God and leaving the rest of us to do the same. Perhaps with prayer and time you will join them.
In the meanwhile, God bless you and have a happy new year.
That last post was tame compared to some of her other writings. Burroway would have a field day.
Dena Leichnitz
https://www.defendingtruth.org/groups.asp?group_id=11
Apparently, David, she has no qualms with Exodus and their ilk fighting gay equality. For her, unfortunately, it’s not simply about changing an “unhealthy” sexuality.
https://www.defendingtruth.org/content.asp?content_id=167
Wow, I’ve never heard of her before. That’s some pretty wacky stuff. I’ve travelled with some pretty conservative, even fundamentalist Christian crowds in my day, and don’t remember anyone who would agree with that “earn God’s respect” stuff. Very strange.
If you’re a sex addict, does it really matter the gender you are attracted to? By saying she is hetero now instead of homo is like a smoker saying he/she’s been reformed because he/she no longer smokes menthols, only regulars now. Or an alcoholic saying he/she’s reformed because he/she now only drinks wine now instead of beer.
Because for people like Dena, homosexuality is the same thing as sexual addiction. People like her can’t fathom the fact that for truly homosexual-oriented people, being same-sex attracted is about falling in love with someone of the same sex. (really it doesn’t sound that hard to get when I type it out…) Never mind the fact that there are virgin gays, as well as monogamous ones – just like in the heterosexual population, where there are polygamous ones, and compulsively sexual ones as well.
David,
From what Dana posted, it isn’t really clear that she is/was suffering from sexual addiction at all. She says that she had same sex fantasies, but then says that she never acted on them. There doesn’t seem to be anything in her post to indicate compulsive actions to go along with any fantasies that she might have had. It is my impression that sexual addiction involves a lack of control over one’s actions that would lead to compulsive sexual activity, not just fantasies. She seems to have exercized a good deal of self-control by not following through on these fantasies. This seems to be in stark contrast to what I have heard from other people who describe themselves as sexual addicts.
I wonder if ex-gay organizations are now trying to apply sexual addiction as a catch all for people who are gay, but aren’t happy with their orientation. John H. in another thread went to great lengths to try and say that ex-gay groups are so helpful to heterosexuals who are sexually addicted and for unclear reasons are engaging in homosexual activity as part of their compulsive behavior.
Sexual addiction may be one of the latest terms to be used by ex-gays in a way that has little if anything to do with the generally accepted understanding of the term.
I think the main thing about these ex-gay “ministries” is that they prey on those who have difficulty loving and accepting themselves so they’ll stick any label on these people to make them feel even more unworthy of God’s love and grace. Sad, because the true Christian message is that God loves us, warts and all. It is also the Christian message that we must love ourselves in order to love others. Not a love that is full of pride, but a love of knowing we are children of God, created in his/her image, and channel of his grace for ourselves and for others. That is why, in my opinion, while these “ministries” may tag the label “Christian” to their name, they certainly do not deserve the title. These ministries will only love God provided he agrees with their agenda. They will only love their neighbor provided their neighbor lives up to their standards and shares the same beliefs that they possess. Of course, they love themselves. If you read ex-gay ministry statements, the words “I” and “me” are used more times than I care to count. “I have been saved,” “I have changed,” “God has changed me.” While on a small scale that might be good and proper, the fact is Christianity is about the “we” not the “me,” and, like the parable of the Good Samaritan, the “we” sometimes includes those we would rather exclude.
I realize other faiths hold similiar beliefs in that God loves us unconditionally. But the majority of these ex-gay ministries are supposedly Christian based, so I make my statements accordingly.
Yes, I stand corrected on that John. While what I said concerning the recent discussion of sexual addiction and ex-gay ministries is true, I overlooked Dena’s claim that she had never had a sexual relationship with a member of her own gender and how that fact affects her claim to have a sexual addiction. While I’m guessing she could have had obsessive thoughts about sex, that doesn’t appear to be enough to qualify for sexual addiction.
Wow I missed that too! Not to say that it was intentional, but the way it was written was really misleading.
I don’t challenge this experience either, but it’s not fair to challenge the life experiences of others, with one’s mind-exclusive, and EXTREMELY RARE experience of gender attraction fluidity.
Dena Said: “He knew once I went down that road there was no going back and I would be lost. I came to realize I was an sex addict and have been in recovery for three years. My attraction to women has all but faded.”
So, if once you go down that road there s no going back, then sexuality cannot be as fluid as you suggest. It would appear the only thing you changed is your supposed obsession with women. After all, had you been an active lesbian — as you clearly showed you have NEVER been, then there would be “no going back”. In essence, ex-gay ministries can only help gay virgins.
Dena, there’s no logic to your logic. In fact, your logic seems to help SUPPORT the gay rights movement rather than stand as evidence against it. You have several columns on your own site where you say gays don’t have to be gay — that we shouldn’t give “special” rights to people based on who they sleep with (which we already do, by the way, they’re called heterosexuals) but then you turn around and say “once I went down that road there was no going back and I would be lost” this is the exact opposite of any philosophy of change, if there’s no going back, there’s no point to any ex-gay therapy. —Which is what many of the ex-gay survivors have been saying for years!
Then, you come in with the clincher, Dena, you say “My attraction to women has all but faded.” So it hasn’t faded. It’s done everything close to fading, but is still there. Heterosexual women generally do not have fantasies about women. Certainly not to the exclusion of fantasies about men. Heterosexual women might have one, or two over the course of their lifetime but not enough to experience such things as surges and fades in frequency of those fantasies. You have not changed.
For if you had changed, you would not have any fantasies whatsoever. All you’ve done is figure out a new mindset and skills to control the effect the fantasies have on your life. That’s not change, that’s a makeover. You’re still you, still having fantasies under all that ex-gay makeup.
And before you try to make the comparison between alcoholism, drug, and smoking addictions. First of all there are people who enjoy these activities without becoming addicts. They can enjoy these things often without becoming addicted. If addiction is like homosexuality, then the majority of gays are simply “social homosexuals” and not addicts. Secondly no addict experiences cravings before their first use — yet all gays note that they have fantasies and feelings long before they do anything about them. And third, cravings go away. I’ve been alcohol and nicotine free for over 3 years now and have not had a craving in more than a year. So the addiction model doesn’t work as a comparison.
Heterosexual women generally do not have fantasies about women. Certainly not to the exclusion of fantasies about men. Heterosexual women might have one, or two over the course of their lifetime but not enough to experience such things as surges and fades in frequency of those fantasies. You have not changed.
You don’t whether I have changed or not. I can tell you that neither my attraction to men nor women make up the core of who I am anymore. I don’t feel the need to define my sexuality to please you. Next, even if I have a twinge of attraction now and again, they go as quickly as they come-they don’t drag out over days, months and years as they used to. I recognize it for what it is-an unmet need and then I can go and do something to fix it.
And before you try to make the comparison between alcoholism, drug, and smoking addictions. First of all there are people who enjoy these activities without becoming addicts.
Yeah and there are people who do crack and can still function day to day-what’s your point? My point wasn’t about addiction as it was this so called biological basis for homosexuality. Alot of things have a biological component, alcoholism, obesity, rage-does that make any of those things more valid as choices because there is a biological basis for them? NO! BPD (Borderline Personality Disorder) has been linked almost extensively to domestic violence. Do we excuse domestic violence simply because it has a “biological component” through BPD or do we still hold the abuser accountable?
Secondly no addict experiences cravings before their first use — yet all gays note that they have fantasies and feelings long before they do anything about them. And third, cravings go away. I’ve been alcohol and nicotine free for over 3 years now and have not had a craving in more than a year. So the addiction model doesn’t work as a comparison.
Oh I see your cravings for cigarettes can go away but my cravings-for lack of a better term-for female encounters can’t-is that what you are saying. Only if you are addicted to chemicals can you relieved of cravings? Well I have been celibate for 17 months and in that time my craving for anonymous sex with men or women has been nil.
Next, are you a sex addict, if not then don’t act like you have an inkling how it works. It is a given that we are sexual beings, we are not alcoholic beings, we are not cigarette beings, there is no innate need to have any of those things in our body but the need for sex is there from day one. Therefore the cravings come long before the ability to act on them. At three I was fantasizing about boys. At six I was trying to copulate with the neighbor boy. At seventeen, my fantasies switched to females-being that I lived in an all girl environment for two years it isn’t surprising. Now I am back to strictly all male.
“once I went down that road there was no going back and I would be lost” this is the exact opposite of any philosophy of change, if there’s no going back, there’s no point to any ex-gay therapy. —Which is what many of the ex-gay survivors have been saying for years!
I wasn’t just talking about going back to sleeping with women since I have never slept with one anyway. I was talking how my addiction was taking me further down a path I didn’t want to go and didn’t seem able to control. The desire to do more outlandish, more dangerous and really stupid things was so far out of my reach it is a small wonder I am not dead from all the things I did. It wasn’t about the women because they were just the next thing, nothing more, nothing less. Just something I could possibly use to get a bigger hit. It was about what they could do for me because I sure wasn’t going to do anything for them. I was looking for the next person I could use because people were pretty irrelevant in my eyes. That is how addicts see things. So it wasn’t about me being afraid of being a lesbian, it was about me not even recognizing who I was anymore. The road I was referring to was addiction not lesbianism, lesbianism was just a minor stop on what would’ve been a very dark and scary path.
Lastly it is not about what minstries or what therapy can do to help people. It is about what God can do. And he can do plenty. Plenty of active gays and lesbians have changed. You don’t get to decide who changes and who doesn’t. If the change is authentic to them who are you to say it isn’t? Should I doubt whether you are in recovery from cigarettes and alcohol because a year ago you had a craving though you said you gave it up three years ago? So what was that about? Am I to call into question your whole three year battle because of one feeling, one year ago? I guess you haven’t changed either, if I am going to judge you by the same standards you judge me.
Dena, you are free to comment but please try to be more concise (i.e. shorter comments). Also, please respond to questions put to you.
Dena’s second post leaves more confused than the first. She talks about being celibate for 17 months, but also says she never had sex with women. So, I am guessing her last sexual encounter 17 months ago was with a man.
She rejects the addiction model and also claims sexual addiction.
I hope that one day she can find some sort of peace.
Sure I get to decide.
On the day that someone lobbied congress claiming that they changed and so can I, I got that right. On the day that someone testified in church that they changed and so can I, I got that right. On the day that someone lobbied the APA claiming that they changed and so can I, I got that right.
Because, Dena, I have the right not to be lied about.
If you want to define change in some way that is meaningful to your life but doesn’t seem to be consistent with any other definition of “change”, go for it. Enjoy your life. And your change.
But when you seek to influence the laws of the land, the policies of the church, or the principle of health care and how these impact me, that is when I have the right to demand that your words be truthful and have meaning that is clear and well understood.
How many is plenty? And what do you mean by “active?” Sexually active? All the ex-gays I have encountered are either ex-ex gays or in gay ministries, and the ones in the gay ministries always seem to be the most angry and bitter people I’ve ever met, and overly defensive.
Dena, you don’t get to decide either. Nor does Exodus International, nor Focus on the Family, nor legislators, nor judges. The problem that faces all those who say change is possible is the inability to believe that God could make someone sexually attracted to their same sex because it does not fit their interpretation of who God is and what he/she is all about. But God’s creation is made of a lot of things that don’t conform to our definitions. Take the penguin…it’s a bird, has feathers, has wings, but swims like a fish instead of flies. Is God flawed with making a bird incapable of flying? Is it the penguin’s fault? Should a penguin seek repairative therapy so it can fly?
If you went on a diet program and spent hundreds of dollars and didn’t lose a pound, and I was your best friend, should I lie to you and tell you, “Oh, you look great. Invest more in that program! It seems to be working.” Or should I be a true friend and tell you that your wasting your money on something that isn’t working?
As a Christian, if someone is doing something against the message of the Gospel, then yes, we are obligated to say something. If someone is being deceived and hurt, then it is our duty as Christians to let them know. That is one of the beautys of the Ex-Gay Watch organization.
If you had a cigarrette and a beer in your hand I would doubt you. I would also doubt you if you kept talking about cigarrettes and alcohol or every conversation you turn into a “I quit smoking” campaign. Most people I know like that have apartments that always smell of a too heavy application of Lysol.
CORRECTION
How many is plenty? And what do you mean by “active?” Sexually active? All the ex-gays I have encountered are either ex-ex gays or in gay ministries, and the ones in the gay ministries always seem to be the most angry and bitter people I’ve ever met, and overly defensive.
I meant to say ex-gay ministries…so it should read…
How many is plenty? And what do you mean by “active?” Sexually active? All the ex-gays I have encountered are either ex-ex gays or in EX-gay ministries, and the ones in the EX-gay ministries always seem to be the most angry and bitter people I’ve ever met, and overly defensive.
sorry for the oversight