Recently we became aware of Wendy Gritter’s keynote talk (mp3) at the Exodus leadership conference in January. Wendy is the executive director of an Exodus member ministry in Canada called New Direction. While it is what most here would describe as an ex-gay ministry, many things about it are unexpected. For one, you won’t find them using that term, “ex-gay” or many others associated with an Exodus ministry. Whether this is for show, or a sincere attempt to be different, you are free to explore here.
Many of her suggestions echo our own pleas to ex-gay ministries over the years; stop political lobbying, stop emphasizing “change,” genuine respect for those who are comfortable with their sexual orientation (even though this may come from a personal understanding of Scripture which diverges from their own), recognizing and removing the underlying tone which says that ex-ex-gays just didn’t try hard enough, and on and on.
We thought Wendy might just be a breath of fresh Canadian air and asked her to write a guest post to spur on discussion. What might Exodus, or any ex-gay ministry, be like if they were to take these suggestions to heart? What does it mean that an ex-gay ministry which may just “get it” more than any so far, grew out of a country largely unfriendly to the kind of fundamentalism that often surrounds their US counterparts? How close does New Direction come to your idea of what a fair ex-gay ministry should be, if it is to be at all?
Wendy will be available to respond off and on in comments, so don’t spare the hard questions. Her post follows:
—
Thank you for the invitation to write this piece. To be honest, my knees are knocking a bit.
I want to begin by saying I’m sorry. I’m sorry for the pain that some of those who follow this site have experienced from leaders like me and ministries like the one I lead. I’m sorry that some of you connected with this site who identify as Christian have had your faith questioned and judged. I’m sorry there is a felt need for a site like XGW. I’m sorry that it feels like legitimate concerns have not been listened to. I am sorry for the arrogance that can come across from leaders like me.
I suppose I’m not what some would assume to be your typical ex-gay leader. I’m not gay, not ex-gay, not ex-ex-gay. Not male. Not Southern Baptist. Not Republican. Not even American. I’m a Gen X postmodern whose perspectives are, depending on who you talk to, too liberal or too conservative, unorthodox or too orthodox, heretical or vibrantly Christ-centered.
The ministry I lead is over 20 years old. I’ve been at the helm for the last 6 years – although truth be told, the first 2 years I was just trying to get my head around what the heck God had called me to. It’s been the wildest learning curve of my life.
I deeply believe that God’s intention for sexual expression is the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman. God has also deeply convicted me of my own pride in assuming that I had a perfect pipeline to God and everyone who disagreed with me was simply deceived by the enemy or putting their own wants and desires ahead of commitment to God. I have had the opportunity that many conservatives have not had – and that is to come to know people who have deeply and honestly sought God through prayer and scripture and come to a different conclusion than I. Their faith was not trivial nor superficial, and though there were points of disagreement, I respect their deep commitment to God. And so, I’ve come to a place where I’m grateful that God has humbled me and given me the opportunity to listen, learn and engage with those who come to different perspectives.
I don’t think my job is to change the minds of all those who think differently than I do. As an eclectic Calvinist, I believe God is the one who convicts and reroutes us in our minds and hearts. My job is to walk in step with the Spirit and do my very best to do what he tells me to do. I find a lot of affinity in the words attributed to St. Francis, “Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words.” As I work and serve, I find more often than not that what the Spirit whispers for me to do is to simply focus on serving and loving those he brings across my path.
I do think there needs to be a safe place within the Christian community for those who experience same-gender attraction who have wrestled with scripture and come to believe a traditional biblical sexual ethic. I believe we have a long way to go to eradicate hateful and homophobic environments and responses in the Christian community. We have a long way to go to demolish the pervasive hierarchy of sin. And we have a long way to go to counter-act the perpetual sense of shame that many experience due to the reality of their same-gender attraction.
I work towards the day when a follower of Jesus who experiences same-gender attraction can be honest and open about that reality and receive support and encouragement in living a life that is pleasing to God. And I feel particularly called to do that within the conservative church.
I also feel called to speak to the conservative church about some of the ways I believe we have been distracted from the primary calling to support and encourage deeply devoted disciples of Jesus Christ.
- We have been distracted by the politics around homosexuality. I do think there is a place for Christians to engage in the public arena. God calls his followers to be a blessing to all nations and to represent him by being the presence of shalom on the earth. Unfortunately, in many of the Christian political efforts regarding homosexuality there is little evidence of shalom. The result is that many who need to hear a gospel of good news perceive God’s people to be hypocritical and unloving (“you say you love us – but you’re fighting to prevent/take our rights”). This has perpetuated a sense of alienation that I believe, grieves the heart of God.
- We have been distracted by a focus on orientation change. The heart of Christian ministry was summed up by Jesus when he said, “Go, make disciples, teaching them to obey everything I’ve commanded you”. The point of a ministry like the one I lead is to support and encourage disciples of Jesus in their journey to live out their sexuality in a manner that they believe is God-honoring. If in that process they experience a deeper ability to love their opposite gender spouse (if they were already married) or a greater capacity to engage an authentic romantic, sexual, marital relationship with someone of the opposite gender, that is a gift that can be gratefully received. But such gifts can’t be predicted, they can’t be guaranteed, they don’t follow a set of instructions, or come after just the right combination of root identification and eradication. There is a sense of mystery that necessitates an attitude of humility, discussion of realistic expectations, and serenity. So at the end of the day, “change is possible” is not really the main point. Life in Christ is.
- We have been distracted by the question of causation. While there is clearly a place for research on this topic, and those involved in ministry should have the integrity to stay abreast of current research, by and large the conclusions (or lack of conclusion) on this matter are peripheral to the call of Christian ministry. Because there is currently such inconclusiveness on this question, conservative Christians would do well to humbly acknowledge that rather than being perceived as ill-informed, blinder-wearing, or agenda-promoting.
In light of some of these distractions, New Direction Ministries, under our current leadership, have laid out some distinctives for ministry:
- We are pastorally-focused, not politically driven.
- We are relationally-focused, not program driven.
- We are discipleship-focused, not change driven.
- We are partnership-focused, not empire driven.
Our Core Values are to be relational, respectful, relevant and redemptive.
I acknowledge that there have been people who have connected with our ministry who have left feeling hurt, confused and uncertain about how to go on with their life having not experienced change. I wish I could pass the buck and say all of that happened before my time. Sexuality is incredibly complex. People are complex. Their stories, their experiences, and their journeys are unique. In this midst of this complex uniqueness, as ministers of the gospel we don’t always get it right, we don’t always discern appropriately. I hope, that as a ministry, we are learning and growing and improving. I hope that we have created an environment that is open and safe regardless of what happens with someone’s attractions. I know our staff are open to engage people where they’re at. If people disengage from the ministry, which could happen for a multitude of different reasons, we hope that they would always feel they could return for a hot cup of coffee and be received with warmth, caring and respect – regardless of where they might land on the ex-gay ~ ex-ex-gay continuum. When we can, we try to follow-up with those who have left while respecting their privacy and right to be left alone as well. We believe God loves unconditionally and, though regularly faced with our own limitations, we seek to imitate him.
I see a lot of triumphalistic “name it, claim it” kind of stuff in the church and it always makes me nervous. I don’t particularly see evidence that the Christian journey should be about getting all the things we want – or even about our individual happiness. We see in Jesus Christ someone who poured himself out for the world and he calls his followers to imitate him. Frankly, Christians aren’t very good at pouring ourselves out for others, especially for those who disagree with us. The world sees this – and it compromises our ability to share the love and life of God with our neighbors. At the risk of being misunderstood or called heretics, we want to engage, listen, and be the presence of Christ with those who hold differing perspectives. We want to hang out with all the folks that make church leaders nervous (and frankly want to be the kind of people who make church leaders nervous) – because we know that is who Jesus was and what Jesus did. We do this, in part, because there is more common ground than might be initially apparent. And I think there could be more understanding and respect.
I’ve been very encouraged by some of the conversations I’ve had over the years that were respectful, charitable and gracious. For all the caricatures Christians may have of gay people, I have encountered a whole array of responses – some not so nice – but many kind and thoughtful. I’m very grateful to those who, though personally holding a gay affirmative perspective, have acknowledged a place and even a need for a ministry like New Direction. And in those conversations, you’ve earned the right to keep us sharp and on our toes. You’ve been an interesting accountability partner at times – and my hope is that I will continue to be open to hear any appropriate critique that is offered. Likewise, I hope that in my engagement and offering of input, I will also earn the right to speak – particularly with those who name the name of Jesus Christ. The perception of polarization and enmity between Christians of differing minds on sexual ethics is so damaging to a unified Christian witness to an increasingly post-Christian, skeptical generation. I want to be part of doing something about that.
So, we seek to be a nuanced, moderate voice in this area of ministry. The attempt at introducing this level of nuance has, in part, been impacted by listening to the critique of people like those represented at XGW. The listening process has, at times, been difficult and frustrating. It can be discouraging to feel “lumped in” with others, despite real attempts to chart our own distinct course. It can be painful to reach an impasse and feel there is no way through. It is disappointing to be accused of being disingenuous in attempts at bridge-building.
But I’m grateful for this journey none-the-less. Because in the process, we have felt compelled to put “first things first” and recognize when second place things were encroaching on an essential focus on Jesus Christ. One of the contributors to XGW at one point, somewhere, said something like, “The mission of ex-gay ministries should be to support those, who for religious reasons, seek to not be mastered by their experience of same-gender attraction.” I think that is pretty darn close to what I would suggest too.
I am deeply passionate about contributing to a climate where anyone questioning, struggling or embracing an alternative sexual identity can encounter the presence of Jesus Christ. My focus in this area of engagement is unapologetically Christ-centered. Some might say that by the very nature of holding a traditional sexual ethic, I contribute to the inaccessibility of the gospel for gay and lesbian people. I believe the power of the gospel is not thwarted by a call to radical discipleship. And my prayer is that as we, at New Direction, commit ourselves to loving, serving and building bridges with same-gender attracted people, Jesus will be seen in and through us.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my heart for Christian ministry from a conservative perspective. I look forward to further conversation.
—
Wendy Gritter is the executive director of New Direction Ministries of Canada. For more information on New Direction: www.newdirection.ca
Wendy,
This is incredibly encouraging to read.
I will be praying that the Lord continue to bless you with wisdom, both in the day-to-day ministry of New Direction, and the broader discussion surrounding ex-gay issues. It would delight me to see your philosophy of ministry take root throughout Exodus and the Church at large, particularly as it seeks to minister to those who are affected by same-gender attractions and convicted of a traditional sexual ethic.
James
How refreshing to read. Thank you for a clear forthright epistle.
I admit I was preparing to grit my teeth and formulate a defensive posture when I started reading Ms. Gritter’s thoughts about homosexuals, marriage and church. Perhaps I have been jaded by some of my own experiences with religious people. But, reading this, I let down my defenses and I discover I would feel rather comfortable discussing with Wendy some aspects of my life …in an environment where we could be drinking a hot cup of cocoa or coffee.
The key word here is: respect. It’s a two-way street.
And would Ms Gritter respect me less if I had marshmallows in my cocoa?
Tip my hat to the lady.
Wendy,
I so appreciate your sentiment. I agree with your perspective on ex-gay ministry. It was a God thing that you were able to have a voice at the Exodus leaders conference. I have been daydreaming about this for some time, as I know others have wanted to see this voice represented in Exodus as well.
You have many other Exodus ministry folks nodding their heads in agreement. May God continue to give you wisdom, strength and love as you minister.
Wendy (and many of us) need to be aware that several Christian denominations, including the United Church of Canada, believe that sexual orientation–including homosexuality–is a gift of God and doesn’t need changing. Despite Wendy’s softer rhetoric, she is motivated by the belief that homosexuality is against God’s design, and she apparently teaches this to her flock. Poor sheep!
As a Canadian who’s met with one of the leaders of New Directions in Manitoba (They’ve changed their name over here to Living Waters) and I have to say even our ex-gays are a lot better than those in the states. They’re often a lot more diplomatic and a lot less hostile but that’s partially because up here the fight against gay marriage has already been lost.
That said, it also all depends on their audience I’ve found. Sometimes they’re incredibly diplomatic and sometimes they’re a lot more dogmatic. Either way they do tend to be a lot better than the ones in the states. The problem is that a view of the Bible that requires gays and lesbians to live celibately ultimately needs to come from a fundamentalist approach to Scripture. I know the leader of the group in Winnipeg when talking to a few friends of mine put the resurrection of Christ on the same level as homosexuality being a sin.
The biggest threat they do pose to gay Christians though is that they’re often used by the conservative Church to justify their treatment of gays. I was actually kicked out of a Church I was practically unpaid staff in because I refused to go see one of their leaders. They really are entirely lax on making Churches understand that gays are really people. They don’t promote the message that we’re not, but they don’t affirm that we are people.
Wendy:
Another Canuck here.
Couple of questions.
1) Would you define your use/understanding of the term conservative for me?
2) Knowing the political goals of Exodus International why does Canada’s New Direction affiliate?
While you are clear on your website you aren’t interested in political battles (moot point with passage of C-38) what does New Direction gain affiliating with a US political parachurch group?
3) What Canadian denominations do most of your clients come from and what are they charged (financially)?
4) Do you do referral clients you feel unqualified to assist to professional mental health services?
5) How many offices of New Directions are now operating in Canada and what are the professional requirements of your staff?
5) How is that safe place within the “Christian” (pentecostal?) community coming along?
I see your website uses the term ‘thousands’ helped.
I respect what appears to be the more realistic reporting of your website traffic and queries on the website sidebar.
Thanks.
Hi Everyone,
I absolutely welcome more respectful and accepting dialogue about homosexuality from people of all faiths. No matter what words are used to express beliefs, the fact is that many will continue to come from the perspective that homosexuality and same-sex relationships are outside of what they see as “God’s will” or “design.”
To that end, I think it is important for us to ask why we seek to engage in these types of discussions. What difference does it make if a gay, bi, lesbian or trans teen, raised in a conservative religious family, is exposed or forced to attend any ministry that believes his or her sexual orientation to be an aberration, regardless of how it is expressed?
Again, I think we ALL benefit from purposefully having these conversations, from every side, in respectful ways. There is a broader question that I pose: To what end are we seeking to have these conversations? And, what is our ultimate goal? I admit the bias of my own experiences, but we are deluding ourselves if we think that nicer language erases the harmful effects that ex-gay programs/ministries have on youth and adults.
Wendy,
Thank you and God bless you!!!!!! You are truly a breath of fresh air!
Wendy: Thank you for such a thoughtful opening letter. I studied your site and saw no mention of gender identity disorder (GID). I still wish to raise a question to you, and hope that is all right.
[Painting with a broad brush: GID is often described as dysphoria, that is an extreme internal conflict, internal chaos, sense of incongruity, and/or lack of peace concerning a person’s birth-assigned gender and their own self-perceived gender. We, with GID, often wish to ‘change’ from conflict to peace; we don’t wish to ‘change’ our sexual orientation.]
I am wondering how (or to whom) you direct your clients that decide to become at peace with their changing gender identity, and wish to further their transition toward the opposite of their birth-assigned gender? How do you welcome them back and let them go multiple times? That is, how does your ministry create an open door for people with GID to go back and forth, or to explore, so to speak?
To explain my concerns further: In the world of GID, I encourage my Christian friends with GID to go slow, explore carefully, and make small changes over time. In some cases, the friend may choose to pursue ‘reversal’ towards a ‘stronger birth-assigned gender’, and I encourage that as well. After all, God can give miracles, and I’m not in the business of making up God’s mind for Him.
My concern is that my friends (that attempt reversal) may join a Christian ministry group for peace and support as they explore reversal. They will normally join an ex-GLB group (finding an ex-GID group almost never happens). However, they instead sense that within a Christian group that ‘struggle’ or ‘conflict’ is an accepted norm among the GLB group members (which can quite add to the GID person’s own sense of dysphoria). They not only find no peace, but mention that the ‘open door’ to leave the group is not very open at all, but paved with a sense of guilt or failure.
People with GID tend to explore going forward, and then explore reversal, and then, ideally seek out a place on the gender spectrum that works for them. I sometimes think that we, with GID, are better called ‘explorers’ than called ‘strugglers’. Based on Romans chapter 14, and II Corinthians chapter 12, I encourage such a thoughtful, prayerful, and individual approach.
It seems to me, the reality is that the Christian community has trouble allowing such deliberate, thoughtful, prayerful, and gentle ‘exploration’, and leans towards ‘decisions’, ‘repentance’, ‘taking a stand against the enemy’, and other extreme measures that create a form of ’emotional gravity’, if you will. Perhaps these extreme concepts work for some within the GLB; but these are often a disaster for the GID folks. For the exploring person with GID, this can add to the sense of dysphoria all the more. And, in order to escape such a ‘pull of gravity’, they may explode like a rocket engine towards space and go far deeper into transition than needed for their current level of dysphoria.
And, they may not only escape the pull of bad counsel, but worst of all in my mind, they race as far from Christ Jesus as possible.
Have you therefore considered creating an environment that allows a GID client the ability to explore? Have you considered a similar environment for the GLB ‘explorers’ who are perhaps not ‘strugglers’?
Bene,
Let’s keep this a discussion and not an interrogation. Try to keep your comments down to one or two questions. Thanks
Hello Bene,
I’ll do my best to respond to your questions:
1) Would you define your use/understanding of the term conservative for me?
What I meant by “conservative” in my post was the reference to those who hold a traditional biblical sexual ethic.
2) Knowing the political goals of Exodus International why does Canada’s New Direction affiliate?
While you are clear on your website you aren’t interested in political battles (moot point with passage of C-38) what does New Direction gain affiliating with a US political parachurch group?
New Direction has had a relationship with Exodus since the ministry began in the mid-eighties. I guess I might make the analogy to a family – a family grows and faces difference and sometimes there are tensions and disagreements …. but where there is a sense of family you honour the relationship through growing pains and finding your own sense of identity. Honour is an important value for me – and while I might not have made some of the decisions that Exodus has made, I do honour their love for Christ and commitment to offer Christian support to same-gender attracted people. Truth be told, I have had my ambivalence about maintaining an affiliation with Exodus because there can be such negative perceptions about them. There is a part of me that would want to take distance from that. On the other hand, I have sensed God leading me to stay and seek to engage positively and offer input towards a more “bridge building Exodus”. It will be interesting to see how things develop over the next year or so. I have made it clear that the time may come when New Direction may move beyond a formal relationship with Exodus. Our focus on building bridges for effective ministry in the Canadian context will always be our priority – and if a relationship with Exodus hinders that – ministry will come first. It will be interesting to see, when the dust clears, if there will continue to be a place in Exodus for a leader like me.
3) What Canadian denominations do most of your clients come from and what are they charged (financially)?
Contacts to our ministry are an eclectic bunch. I would say many come from what could be described as evangelical churches. We’ve also had Catholics, Orthodox, mainliners ….. and frankly we’ve also had Muslims and Hindus. Much of our ministry is of a more informal nature – focusing on discipleship, mentoring, spiritual direction, support ….. and there are no financial charges associated with this kind of front-line ministry. When individuals determine that they want to engage a more formal counseling process, our counseling session fees are $70/session. Most of the Christian counselors in our area charge $85/session and up. Additionally, we have a policy of not turning away anyone due to inability to pay – so we do a lot of subsidizing of fees.
4) Do you do referral clients you feel unqualified to assist to professional mental health services?
Absolutely. We’re grateful to have built relationships with top notch professionals with a variety of specialities. In addition, if someone in the process of working out their sexuality came to a different perspective and no longer felt that connecting with our ministry was a fit, we would refer them to another counselor or organization where they would experience support and a sense of belonging.
5) How many offices of New Directions are now operating in Canada and what are the professional requirements of your staff?
We are working with contacts in about 15 Canadian cities. In each of these regions, we are connecting with volunteers who are at various stages of readiness to offer informal friendship and support to same-gender attracted people and/or work with churches in their area to promote relational engagement with same-gender attracted people. We are not seeking to establish offices per sae in these locations, but do seek to work with a local advisory committee in each area to provide support and accountability for the volunteers on the front-lines.
For any staff who are actually engaged in counselling, they all have masters level degrees in counseling. Our volunteers have varying levels of training, experience, and equipping – and their involvement in ministry is matched to their level of experience and training.
As we move forward, we will be moving towards a more informal model of ministry rather than trying to move towards a more formalized form of ministry.
We would rather focus on genuine relational support through friendship and mentoring than counseling – particularly as we work with volunteers across the country.
5) How is that safe place within the “Christian” (pentecostal?) community coming along?
I see your website uses the term ‘thousands’ helped.
I respect what appears to be the more realistic reporting of your website traffic and queries on the website sidebar.
As I recall, our website suggests that we have “touched the lives of thousands impacted by the realities of same-gender attraction”…. we did not say “thousands have been helped”. With 23 years of ministry under our belt and connecting with a few hundred a year, it is, I believe, an accurate description to say we’ve touched the lives of thousands. We are not saying that “thousands have experienced change” or any such thing…. but rather that we have been available for conversation, support and encouragement for thousands over our years of being a faithful presence.
You ask how is the “safe place coming along” …. slowly. I am encouraged to speak to pastors who are genuinely very open hearted to engage with same-gender attracted people. But they also have a lot of uncertainty in knowing how to go about that…. and often feel like bringing change into the congregation at large is still a daunting task. There is still a lot of fear and homophobia within the church to be sure….. but we try to work with those churches that have some degree of readiness to begin with rather than smacking our heads against the brick wall of a church that isn’t any where close to really engaging some of the complexities of sexual identity. I would also mention that in urban centers, many more people have gay friends and are open and eager to talk about how to engage in respectful, relevant ways….. and frankly more and more families have gay loved ones – and they too really want to know how to navigate a loving and respectful relationship with their loved ones. So this has also contributed to a greater openness to our focus in ministry.
You mentioned Pentecostals specifically, so I should mention that I have been very encouraged in working with the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. There have been some very open and engaging leaders within this denomination, eager to work with us, to learn and be challenged. In fact, I will be leading a workshop at their national conference this year – with the focus being equipping the church to engage and befriend our gay neighbors.
So, I am hopeful – but also realistic about the uphill climb ahead of us.
Hello Caryn,
Thank you for your questions and sharing your insights. I would be the first to say that I have a long way to go to better understand how to engage in helpful ways with those navigating GID.
I appreciated your comment “In the world of GID, I encourage my Christian friends with GID to go slow, explore carefully, and make small changes over time.” That seems wise and open to the Spirit of God at work in each individual’s unique journey.
My focus in engaging the church is to create a spaciousness for people to belong while they explore faith and sexuality. I would see this the same for the person dealing with GID. My primary focus is that people are afforded every opportunity to encounter the presence of Christ in the midst of their current reality. Part of that process means that God’s people need to be gentle and sensitive to the vulnerabilities and complexities of an individual’s journey.
I appreciated your observation that some move towards a ‘reversal’ and your openness to that for certain individuals. In a similar manner, I would observe that some in their spiritual journey move towards transition – and I would want to have the same generousity of spirit to recognize the need to offer individuals the freedom to do so – without the assumption that their faith is somehow counterfeit.
I am humbled by a keen sense of not being able to grasp the unique challenges of experiencing GID. I have come to know an intersexed person, I know someone excited and keen to finally have ‘bottom surgery’, and know several men who are dealing or have dealt with cross-dressing …. these are all very different situations, all very complex…. but in every situation I have encountered precious people who are seeking to navigate spiritual journeys as well as their sense of gender.
I would hope that New Direction would be part of the advocacy to promote a welcoming environment for individuals with GID to encounter Christ and explore spirituality in the midst of a loving and accepting community.
Along the way, I try to listen and learn as much as I can – and am grateful that you and others share with us your experiences and insights.
God bless.
I’ll take “softer rhetoric” over the other kind any day. Wendy, you seem like someone who would hug me and mean it. Thank you so much.
I think that this represents what many in the “emerging” church movement long for: a sense of belonging, relational approaches to issues that are very close to individuals, and a general concern for the wellbeing of these people. I thank God for you, Wendy. Even though I disagree wholeheartedly over this issue, I am thankful that you are listening to His Spirit.
Like Allyson said, “I’ll take “softer rhetoric” over the other kind any day. Wendy, you seem like someone who would hug me and mean it. Thank you so much.”
Namaste
Wendy,
I have a cousin that is living as a homosexual and cross-dresser. She (he) is a beautiful person but is highly resentful of all Christians. She feels persecuted by the right-wing political movement seeking to hamper rights for gays and lesbians. (Not that I blame her.)
I am a born-again Christian but I have found it difficult to align my acceptance of my cousin with scripture. I confess that I believe that homosexuality is sin but so is drinking to intoxication, stealing, adultery, etc. I would not be the first to cast a stone.
And as for my question, how can I help my very bitter cousin to seek a relationship with Christ? Even the mention of Christ or Christianity is enough to cause her to go into a verbal tirade. What can I do to represent the Lord that will not throw more sand in her eyes? Any advice is appreciated.
Most sincerely, your sister in Christ,
Mel
If you are Exodus affiliated, how do you feel about Alan Chambers – the head of Exodus – being so politically involved?
I think that Wendy’s ministry is a breath of fresh air. Just like there are those who vehemently oppose a priest’s vow of celibacy, nonetheless, they must train themselves to be celibate. A same sex attracted person who wants to fit with their belief system will need a place to go to achieve that goal. gay-affirming and ex-gay ministry can co-exist peacefully.
Wendy: Thank you much for your thoughtful answer. I think your heart understands Matthew 23:23 – the weightier matters of the Law are indeed the practice of mercy, the teachings of faithfulness to our God, and the giving of justice to the least. May Jesus therefore strengthen your hands, give you courage, and measure back to you the same measurements you are giving.
“To him who is able to keep you from falling, and present you before His glorious presence without fault, and with great joy” — to Him, I give thanks this eve. Your heart is one more encouragement among many others that our Lord has given to my heart these last months: Alan Chambers beginning dialog; Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse citing numbers rather than citing slogans; Warren Throckmorton listening to the desires of his clients and offering that the transgender are in a ‘gray area’; Mark Yarhouse reaching out to understand the transgenders and even those with GID.
I hope for the day when the church is known by non-believers as ‘those strange people that, even when they disagree, do it with such love’. And then, the world will once again know that we are His disciple-followers, and not just His sheep.
Much love in Christ always and unconditionally; Caryn
I think Wendy’s post is a heap of delusional gibberish (I’m tempted to say dishonest, but I don’t know Wendy, so I won’t assert that). It’s pretty much the same old crap wrapped up in a very beautiful and seductive package, like all good marketing programs.
A fundamental objective of all these outfits is to guide gay people away from living as they actually are and towards a life for which they are unsuited. Some of them may shout fundamentalist dogma, while others may speak softly with soothing comforting words, but the underlying substance is the same, with the differences being in the realm of style. If Wendy’s religion-based outfit were really different from all the others the objective would be to help troubled gay people accept who they are, and needless to say, it certainly wouldn’t be affiliated with Exodus.
I will assert as fact that full acceptance of gay people, including same sex marriage, is not only good for gays, it is good for all of society.
One of the biggest surprises in recent years for my partner and me has been the large number of people we see coming out of conventional marriages later in life, typically with children, and finally living as the gay people they always were but had denied. And then there are many married men who are still deeply closeted while seeking gay sex whenever they get the chance. They are neighbors, family members, friends, and other acquaintances. The sad part, of course, are the spouses who have been deceived and left behind, or remain in sterile marriages.
To a huge extent we can thank religious delusion for the continuing relentless campaign to maintain a social climate that produces unfulfilled frustrated lives along with their deceived spouses who are left hurting. The people and organizations who claim to be “pro-family” and want to “protect marriage” are actually promoting these dysfunctional marriages that are destined to fail.
A couple of thoughts:
There are some who say “you dare not be gay, son.”
“Become an ex-gay, and have a life in the sun.”
If you think that’s true,
here’s a question for you:
Would you want your daughter to marry one?
Many closeted guys have married a she.
For social approval it’s a major key.
What a fate for a girl.
The thought makes me hurl.
Just accept being gay as a way to be.
Thanks Wendy.
I appreciate your thoughtful response and your time. I wrote ND about a year ago and didn’t get a response. I appreciate you correcting me, I did not quote your site correctly.
As a Canadian evangelical trying to get info out, it sucks I have to come here.
I apologize if my questions came across as an interrogation.
Merci, salu.
Sorry David, I can’t take the broadcast journalist out of me. I’ve tried, I’ve really, really tried.;^)
Won’t happen again.
I understand Bene, esp if you have tried before to get answers to your questions and didn’t.
Richard, unless we want to become bullies ourselves, we have to allow for the fact that some will probably always have sincere issues of faith which prevent them from living the way you or I might. Do we force them to think and act differently?
If the answer to that is no, then might there be a place for a ministry like New Direction for those people?
XGW has always said that individuals have a right to decide their own path in life, but we want them to make an informed choice. Wendy seems to be taking a step in that direction by moving away from “change is possible” or causation theories, political lobbying, backhanded statements, etc.
Mel,
I would simply encourage you to look for practical ways to serve and show up in your cousin’s life. Your interactions and actions in being present in their life will afford the opportunity to be the presence of Christ. I would leave the ball in your cousin’s court so to speak – if they raise conversation about faith, then I would simply focus on sharing what relationship with Jesus has meant for you. At the end of the day, if Jesus really is who he says that he is, his love through you will be all that is needed. He is loving enough and powerful enough to touch your cousin’s heart at the right time – in just the right way to soothe and soften where there has been hurt and bitterness.
grace to you.
Allyson, Cowboy, GS …..
Thank you for your graciousness. I was a bit uncertain how the post would be received and I’m grateful that you sensed my heart.
Bene,
I don’t recall seeing an email/letter from you in the past. However, I am happy to engage further offline or on this forum if you are seeking further clarification about New Direction.
Richard,
Your cynicism is understandable. I know that nice words in a post don’t prove anything. The test of genuine love is not what is written on a blog – the test is how I relate to the gay and lesbian people God brings across my path. And it is in those relationships that I seek to demonstrate an openness, warmth, and consistent caring and love – regardless of where they are landing in terms of the expression of their sexuality. That is the best way I know to represent and be the presence of the Jesus I love.
David,
Thanks for weighing in on that ….
Wendy,
Thanks for having the courage to discuss with us.
I laughed when I read how you label yourself an “eclectic Calvinist.” Choosing the best of Calvinism seems to fly in the face of predestination…okay, it struck me as funny, guess you had to be there.
I deeply believe that God’s intention for sexual expression is the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman.
Your use of the word “believe” vs. know seems a departure from the conservative stance. Does this mean that it’s possible in your mind that you could be wrong?
I represent one of the funders of New Direction, and know Wendy personally. And yes, she is a good hugger.
I’ve become increasingly dissatisfied with funding the culture wars of the past – though I call myself an evangelical, the strident us/them approach doesn’t represent me or my interests. Wendy’s New Direction embodies the types of organizations that will attract the support of new generation donors like myself: ones that are full of grace, patient with the gray areas of life, comfortable with ambiguities. Thank God the old order is passing away.
Another Canuck here, albeit one in exile. 😉
This strikes me as genuinely different from what we’re used to from the mainstream ex-gay movement. I don’t think it’s just a superficial difference, as some have suggested. Disassociating pastoral ministry from the political manipulations of the Religious Right, and disavowing promises of “change” can only be a positive thing as far as I am concerned. I have hope that Exodus and its allies will learn from Wendy’s approach.
Dagnabbit, I always forget to check the “Notify me of followup comments via email” box. 😀
Wendy Gritter reminds me of Where Grace Abounds, an Exodus-affiliated ministry in Denver, where I was involved from 1991 to 1994. The leaders of WGA also maintained a non-judgmental tone and personal acceptance toward those who eventually chose an openly gay identity. Yet even though my experience with WGA was largely positive, I end up agreeing with Richard R above: “pretty much the same old crap wrapped up in a [more] seductive package.”
Wendy wants to have it both ways. On the one hand, she maintains that “God’s intention for sexual expression is the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman.” On the other, she seeks to express respect for those “who have deeply and honestly sought God through prayer and scripture and come to a different conclusion than I.”
But she can’t really have it both ways. If you maintain that certain ideas are absolute truth, revealed by God, how can you sincerely respect an opposing point of view? At best, religion can manage a sort of patronizing condescension, acknowledging that others are personally sincere even while treating them as misguided. Catholic theology offers a marvelous term—“invincible ignorance”—for those who refuse Catholic beliefs out of sincere conviction. The term says it all: Okay, we’ll grant your sincerity. But only because you’re incapable of recognizing our truth!
That is why religion lies at the heart of so many conflicts in today’s world—whether Muslim or Christian, Orthodox Jew or Southern Baptist. Strong religious conviction is fundamentally at odds with modern pluralistic societies, where people with many different beliefs must accommodate and live together.
I also have a problem with the idea that ex-gay ministries are fine for those who hold a particular religious viewpoint, as long as they respect the choices of others. Many of us have been through these ministries and know that in most cases they cannot help people meet even the limited goals Wendy presents here. Do we simply abandon those we know will find one dead end after another in these groups? Do we ignore the pain that we created not only for ourselves but for spouses and families when we were encouraged to “engage an authentic romantic, sexual, marital relationship with someone of the opposite gender”?
Or do we push back against the traditional religious view of our lives and choices, no matter how “tolerantly” expressed?
While I appreciate Wendy Gritter is not addressing this audience as would a pop-eyed, red-faced Southern preacher it concerns me that — even in the midst of our joy at not being sworn at — something also not be overlooked here .
Namely, at the end of the day Wendy Gritter is the Director of an anti-gay organisation. That fact has not changed, even if they’ve decided to alter their marketing efforts.
Why be concerned? Well, the “welcome”, the “embrace” will soon be followed by a rapid descent into a typical Exodus mind-bending.
For one: recommended reading from Wendy’s organisation still includes Leanne Payne and Mario Bergner; both of whom have no qualms calling homosexuality a pathological disease, and neither of whom have any qualms about presenting and false and damaging picture of that so-called “gay lifestyle”. (Actually, all in ND’s book list are disturbingly negative).
New Direction Ministries may have recently spent C$39K rejigging their websites, to not cause immediate offence, an approach Wendy has recommended, but all the links still end up at the same old insulting and damaged places. Bait and Switch?
A “welcoming church” is, I fear, for most people presenting themselves in that way, but a simple expediency : they see it as a way to coax us down that pathway that will lead us to Not-Gay. Eventually. And they promise to be nothing but patient until we are. But most of all lead us to their Jesus, because then our gay problems will get taken care of. Just don’t ask how.
eg: in interview https://www.christianity.ca/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=4551&srcid=2140
Wendy, I really would be more convinced if you took the opportunity — at all such times as that revealing interview ref’d above — to remind anti-gay Christians that the lives of gay men and women are not “stories of pain, fear and confusion”. Far from it, in general. And you know it, right? So why promote that sort of falsehood when we’re not listening?
Gay men and women need protection from abusive and harmful people as much as does everyone, but we do not need pity; particularly if it’s been whipped up by the same old ignorance that at other times and places causes discrimination and violence. To base your “new direction” on the same appeal to ignorance still betrays an ultimately dreadful attitude.
I don’t doubt the sincerity, but I also don’t doubt the real reason why: old-fashioned, predatory religious proselytism by anti-gay Christians.
Albeit nicely spoken, and seemingly creeped out by collegues south of the border, but arguably also holders of viewpoint that of itself is a direct cause of the anguish felt by some and the negativity felt by many more others.
ps: but, I am glad to see Wendy has had a change of heart re politics eg, for but one example apart from the interview above (C-250 and C-38, those being the Canadian anti-discrimination and civil marriage Acts). Etc.
NickC: Many of us have been wounded by the church, and I don’t wish to downplay those wounds, at all. Many evils have been done in the name of many religions.
But in this case of Wendy’s posting, she is actually quite on-target:
– On one hand is the argument of framework, that is, that Jesus Christ taught “In the beginning, God created them male and female” and then Jesus used that statement to justify His support for life-time marriage. [Matthew 19]. For any human to have made that leap-of-logic would be a statement of foolishness. For those of us that hold to the concept that Jesus was sinless and therefore did not lie, His statement becomes a ‘framework’ that subsumes the arguments of stability of sexual orientation and stability of gender identity.
I am a fully transitioned person, born male and now living as female. I am also a Christian and engage in Bible-based reasoning. The argument of framework is a key concept in my understanding. I must not ignore such a powerful argument.
Yet, my Lord Jesus, did not answer my prayers for ‘reversal’. Thus, I was forced to live the and experience the argument of ‘mercy’. I was forced to mature in my understanding of II Corinthians 12, if you will.
– Thus, on the other hand, I find Wendy’s comments very encouraging. For she is wrestling with the ‘weightier matters’ of ‘mercy, faithfulness, and justice’ per Matthew 23:23. She has abandoned the lesser matters of condemnation and legislated-conformity to the image of Christ. She understands the Laws of Moses that prohibit the ‘planting of two different types of seeds in the same field’ and the ‘mixing of two types of thread in the same cloth’. Does God care about seeds or threads? – no, but He wrote those laws so that we would not mix the spiritual with the medical with the psychological or with the political.
Have I been wounded by an immature Church? Yes, absolutely. My wounds, and the deep wounds of my wife being abandoned by the church, are recorded in other letters.
Has it taken me much time to practice the process of forgiveness — that is, to recognize the wrong they did as against me (lack of living Matthew chapter 5); to recognize that I am to assume the attitude of the ‘greater sinner’ (Matthew 18 parable); and for me to forgive them and stand by them in prayer for their needs (Galatians 6:1&2)? Yes, the practice of the process of forgiveness has been difficult for me, indeed.
Does the current church live out the words of Ezekiel 34? – “You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally.” Yes, the current immature church does live those words, and my Lord will measure back to them what they measured to others in His time – now, or on the Day of Judgment.
But do my wounds, my difficulty with forgiveness, or even the desire of the current church to rule others ‘harshly and brutally’ through political power, do these excuse me from walking in the mercy of God and teaching the mercy and faithfulness of God to others? No, I have no excuse. I must fulfill the Law of Christ. I must carry their burdens. And I must learn to bless those that have cursed me.
The furnace the church created to destroy, has become the furnace that purifies the gold of our faith in Him.
Again, I do not wish to make light of your wounds, the wounds of your family, nor of my wounds, and the wounds given to my wife and children.
But I therefore urge that we — the wounded and torn-by-the-church; that we — those that have been ‘forgiven much’; that we also ‘love much’, and stand with Wendy’s efforts, for there are many wolves in the immature church that may turn upon her.
Much love in Christ always and unconditionally; Caryn
Nick,
My concern as well. I am afraid that all that Gritters is not gold. I hold some reserve until she answers my question as to whether she considers it possible she might be wrong. When I see someone use the word “believe [deeply]” instead of know, I hold out a little hope. There’s a big difference between believing and knowing. One is open to logical persuasive dialogue, the other is not. So, I wonder which one truly describes Wendy. If her deep belief is really ‘knowledge’ in disguise, then I think grantdale correctly identifies her sentiments as “pity,” not respect.
Aparantly some of y’all aren’t able to understand the concept of having a belief but being willing to admit that you are not omnicient or without flaw.
Jeez, if we all followed your way of thinking, guys, the Presbyterians would spend all their time attacking the Baptists and the Methodists would be trying to run the Pentecostals out of town.
It is not only reasonable to say, “This is believe is true. I’ll try to convince you. But I respect your right to disagree with me.”, but it is the backbone of freedom.
If all of Exodus had Wendy’s attitude, I would find little fault in them. Ex-gays and ex-gay ministries certainly are entitled to seek to better themselves, even if you or I don’t think the efforts will work or that their goal is “better”.
NickC,
I found this statement you made curious:
Do you not think its possible for human beings to have different worldviews and different points of view and still be respectful? God help us if all the human beings on the planet have to agree on everything with everyone else in order to have any respect. I find the principles of Sustained Dialogue to be particularly helpful when human beings have differences and still want to respect each other’s humanity.
As a same-gender attracted person who is celibate and no longer pursuing relationships with women, I am thankful for ministries like New Direction. I value their encouragement and support. I am a happy, well-adjusted person and this is how I want to live my life. Would you deny me the comraderie with others who share my “meta-narrative”? Would you impose your views and your will on me by trying to shut down these fellowships that I find personally meaningful?
grantdale wrote:
Wendy, I really would be more convinced if you took the opportunity — at all such times as that revealing interview ref’d above — to remind anti-gay Christians that the lives of gay men and women are not “stories of pain, fear and confusion”. Far from it, in general. And you know it, right? So why promote that sort of falsehood when we’re not listening?
Well-written, grantdale. I would augment what you wrote with this reminder:
If gays (gay men, especially) have stories of “pain, fear, and confusion”, it is worth knowing that it is Christians who cause gays pain, Christians who cause gays fear, and Christians who cause gays confusion. It is not the fault of “homosexuality” that gays suffer, but it is the Christians’ fault. They should atone for it, and maybe, just many, gays will one day forgive them. Maybe.
The reminder that I give to gays is this:
The ONLY way to stop a bully from abusing you is to accept that you must be willing to be more vicious toward the bully than they are toward you. Otherwise, your love and nonviolence will be seen as license for them to continue abusing you. That is a fact of human nature which you ignore at your peril. grantdale is right: Wendy is the director of an anti-gay organization. I don’t want her to speak nicely to me. I want her to abandon all of her anti-gay efforts forever. Do we think that “dialog” is the right way to do that? Won’t she see that as weakness that can be exploited? After all, she wants to “dialog” with us. Should we assume that her motives are beneficial to us simply because it’s not wrapped in the typical Christian abuse?
This is a classic example of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Wendy, if you love me (not that fake “Christian love”), then abandon all of your anti-gay efforts forever and tell your Christian zealot brethren to do likewise.
Kinder and gentler approach not withstanding, New Directions still seeks to serve a market that holds disdain for homosexuality. Intentions aside, it still serves as a shill for anti-gay activists that base their arguments on homosexual physical love being a behavior choice.
So many Christian GLBT people have gone to great lengths to model their relationships after those which they believe God has prescribed (male/female marriage) while still remaining true to their God-given natural feelings. This is what should be celebrated, condoned and affirmed by the Christian church, rather than telling these folks that, after years of doing everything they can to change their orientation, doing the best with what they’ve been given is not enough. It is enough. And what we cannot do ourselves, Christ did for us on the cross. The End. With all due respect for the kinder and gentler approach, purchased services that are marketed with notion that it’s okay to disdain gay physical love are still the wrong way of addressing this issue. Beliefs are okay and a wonderful thing. But beliefs are always a choice, and are always chosen because they serve the believer in some way. Sexual orientation is not a choice, and needs to be treated with the same respect as other God-given atributes that we humble humans have been endowed with.
All of us have opinions and ideas that we believe are true, and understand that others disagree with us. That is the basis of a pluralistic society. We establish rules for how to reach decisions when we disagree, and we learn the give and take of seeing various points of view prevail.
The difference arises with questions of absolute truth.
Some physical facts are absolutely true. You may choose to believe the earth is flat, but in that case your belief is absolutely wrong. It’s not just my belief vs yours. It’s a question of verifiable physical reality.
My problem with religion (and I was editor of a Catholic magazine for 13 years) is the confusion between belief/opinion and absolute truth. Religions assert that some body of human opinion is in fact absolute truth, revealed by God. But unlike the shape of the earth, that claim can never be independently verified by any other evidence or standard.
That’s why I don’t feel I can find any common ground with someone like Wendy Gritter, who starts from a religious belief that homosexual behavior is immoral. She may strive to express a tolerant and accepting attitude; she may not actively agitate against my personal freedom. But at the end of the day I don’t believe what she offers to me as a gay man is true respect.
Regarding ex-gays themselves: I have no problem at all with individuals who choose to pursue a heterosexual identity even though their real attractions and orientation are homosexual. People should be free to choose their own lives.
But I also recognize that most individuals unhappy about their homosexual orientation are responding primarily to pressure and expectations from outside themselves–families, churches, and society that tell them it’s not okay to follow their own true hearts. I have a real problem with ministries like New Directions that reinforce those pressures by pretending to offer help that will ultimately prove ineffective for many, if not most, of their members. I know from my own experience that these ministries often serve only to delay the process of people coming to understand and accept themselves as they are.
I do not advocate shutting down or legally restricting these ministries. But I do believe that those of us who have been through them have an obligation to speak up about their limitations and the harm they can cause.
Is it possible we have been fighting this culture war so fervently that we have started to become what we hate, an intolerant, self-assured lot who demand absolute adherence to our own, infallible doctrines?
I think most of us here work for a day when all this is unnecessary because “gay” won’t even be a distinction, but instead just another trait of humanity. But does that mean we can’t find value in an approach like Wendy’s?
We should also be careful not to assign bad motives and actions from other organizations to New Directions. While I can’t vouch for their sincerity, I have found Wendy quite candid – let them stand or fall on their own.
As Timothy said, if Exodus were to adopt these same measures and mean it, I don’t think we would have much to complain about.
I am concerned that the ‘call to reconciliation’ and the ‘call to battle’ are discussed by Jesus in Matthew chapter 5. Jesus clearly states to His followers that the call to reconciliation must dominate our dealings with others, more than the call to battle.
J. James wrote:
J. Christ wrote:
I am glad that Exgaywatch takes no position of faith, for that allows persons of faith, non-faith, and even renounced-faith to post. I am glad for this forum’s neutrality.
I am also glad that J.James had the courage to post his/her concerns and viewpoint.
If I mark the left of the continuum as ‘reply in kind’ and the right of the continuum as ‘love and pray’, I can then create a number of scenarios by those that occupy different points on that spectrum.
History is filled with examples of those that replied in kind. It is a vicious dance of those that wished the title of the ‘sons of men’.
History has few examples of those that lived ‘love and pray’, and One of those examples forever changed human history. It is a dance that is ‘wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove’. It is the dance of those that desire the title of ‘the sons of the Father in Heaven’.
Tis quite a choice to be made, isn’t it? Sincerely; Caryn
David Roberts asks:
How do you see Wendy’s approach as being at all compatible with the idea that one day “gay” will be seen as just another trait of humanity? It seems quite clear from her own words that Wendy views “gay” as a condition that will always fall short of her god’s intentions for humanity. She could never (so long as she holds her current religious views) affirm that for many of us “gay” is our true and natural identity.
Wendy, would you dispute those statements? Perhaps I am misinterpreting you, but I think not. It seems clear that you regard homosexual behavior as objectively sinful in all circumstances, and that you could never fully affirm someone in a decision to embrace a gay identity that included sexual activity, even in a faithful relationship.
That is why I cannot find value in Wendy Gritter’s approach. I appreciate the moderation of her tone, but I do not find that she extends true acceptance and respect for my life as a gay man.
David,
I think most of us here work for a day when all this is unnecessary because “gay” won’t even be a distinction, but instead just another trait of humanity. But does that mean we can’t find value in an approach like Wendy’s?
I think you are onto something when you say that gay people have been fighting for equality for so long that they have developed some traits of those that they fight against – there is some intolerance there. I understand why its there, and I believe its an unfortunate consequence of having to defend ourselves like we do, but I do think we sometimes unknowingly exhibit this quality.
I do think that we can find a great deal to value in what Wendy says though. I think we just need to let our guards down a bit, assume that maybe she isn’t a wolf in sheep’s clothing and go from there 🙂
It is not a secret that my perspectives are informed and shaped by a Christian worldview. I know that xgw is faith neutral and understand that many different perspectives are held by those who engage with this site.
Paul asked the question if I would be willing to say “I could be wrong”. Not only am I willing to say that, I encouraged Exodus leaders to consider if this is something they could say. To me, this statement expresses the necessary humility to recognize that “I don’t have a perfect pipeline to God” or for those who don’t believe in God, that I do not have perfect, complete, with no possibility of error, access to absolute truth….. not in this lifetime anyway. If I had perfect access to absolute truth with no possibility of error …. why would I need faith? Why would I need God? Rather, for me, I desparately need God precisely because I don’t have perfect and complete knowledge. I wish sometimes that God would just write on the wall, “Wendy, you’re right!” ….. but in those moments in the stillness of the middle of the night when I ask, “If I am wrong please show me….” the only sense I ever receive is a deeper love for Jesus and a quiet but deep commitment to serve him as fully as I can. I would guess that to some that seems utter foolishness …..
I said in my post that I was grateful to listen, learn and engage with those of differing perspectives. I have listened and learned even since the interview in the article for Faith Today…. or since an interview with Listen Up TV that I’m sure someone will dig up at some point. When I said this has been the wildest learning curve of my life – I was serious 🙂 I expect that I will learn from this experience – which is why I agreed to accept the invitation extended to write a guest post – even though I knew I would walk into a storm. Not to hide behind any excuses, but when I took the role at New Direction I only knew a couple of gay Christians who didn’t share the same views as I did – and our relationship was so established that these issues weren’t a huge point of contention – we were always able to discuss things graciously. Then in the first couple of years with New Direction, most of my contact was with same-gender attracted people within the church who personally held a traditional biblical sexual ethic. Over the last couple of years, in large part thanks to blogs, I have had the opportunity to hear many more perspectives presented in a variety of ways. Perhaps it sounds naive, but I have gained a greater understanding (and continue to gain understanding) about how some things said in Christian circles come across to gay and lesbian people. I’m seeking to learn – but this is going to be an ongoing process for me. I can look back at things I said or wrote even two years ago and think, “I would have said that differently today – because I better understand now how that sounds to a gay person”. It isn’t only on gay issues that the Christian community can have a significant disconnect with those outside of the church with the language we use. Learning to communicate in respectful and relevant ways with a complex pluralistic post-Christian culture is challenging – at least for me.
But the reason I keep at it, even though it is uncomfortable ….. is because I serve a God “who so loved the world”. It would be easier and safer to retreat to a hidden enclave of people who all thought and did as I think and do. But the God I serve calls me beyond that to be his presence in the world. Not everyone wants to encounter that presence or accept that presence or embrace the life and values behind it. That is the reality of the free will that human beings hold.
Many want to know why a suburban mom like me would choose to serve in a ministry like New Direction. It was not because I pitied gay people. Early in my tenure with the ministry my sense of the Lord’s call was this, “I’m jealous for them. I’m jealous for their gifts, creativity and beauty. I’m jealous because my Body is not complete without them.” I have deeply felt the impoverishment of the church due to their unChristlike exclusion of same-gender attracted people. And so I have tried to be faithful in the best way I knew how, to work within the Christian community to create a safe place for a same-gender attracted person to be honest and real, to explore faith and it’s impact on their journey with sexuality, and to know that they are loved – by God and by his people.
For those of you who do not hold a Christian worldview…. that may sound like delusional gibberish. Nothing I can really say would likely convince you otherwise….
For those who do hold a Christian worldview – and hold a different perspective on sexual ethics than I – I hope that you will be able to hear that in the best way I know how I seek to be an advocate for same-gender attracted people within the conservative church – and in that advocacy I do seek to address issues of homophobic attitudes that do not reflect the heart of Christ.
It does seem a bit ironic to me that while on one hand there is justifiable critique of the Christian church for the ways in which it has contributed to negative treatment of glbtq people, on the other, when a conservative Christian does try to engage in a kinder, gentler and more respectful manner – and encourages the church to do the same, it is met with a label of “you’re just anti-gay anyway”.
For those of you who have acknowledged that these are at least some steps in a positive direction – I thank you.
Wendy,
“It does seem a bit ironic to me that while on one hand there is justifiable critique of the Christian church for the ways in which it has contributed to negative treatment of glbtq people, on the other, when a conservative Christian does try to engage in a kinder, gentler and more respectful manner – and encourages the church to do the same, it is met with a label of “you’re just anti-gay anyway”.”
That isn’t completely true. I am gay/ex-gay and I think you’re message is wonderful, even though there are social policy issues on which I’m sure we wouldn’t agree. I want to thank you for your message. It is a welcome one.
Nick: you wrote the following terms, and I’m a bit lost on your argument:
Let me first offer that I am not Catholic. I became involved with the Evangelical and Charismatic movements (these are Protestant).
So, in Evangelical circles, the ‘heart’ is considered to be a higher calling than the ‘behavior’. I noticed that you mentioned only ‘behavior’.
I’m also not familiar with the term “objectively sinful”. In the world-view that I’ve studied, “sin” is used to represent (1) anything short of imitation of Christ, (2) any action that is ‘not of faith’ (that is, against your individual conscience, (3) breaking the Law of Moses, and/or (4) a condition of all mankind.
These multiple Evangelical definitions of sin have caused my Evangelical friends to call me (1) sinful (since Christ was not a transsexual); (2) a person that walks in faith (since my own conscience is not against transition from male to female); (3) a sinful law-breaker (since some consider me male-for-life and I wear clothing that is female); and (4) no different from them.
Among the Evangelicals that I know, the term “acceptance” is equal to the term “condoning” or even “participating with”. I know that sounds crazy, given that Jesus accepted Romans, Canaanites, and a 5-times divorced Samaritan woman into His presence, and did not condone slavery, paganism, nor divorce. But the Evangelical church has great trouble with the term “acceptance”.
Please bear with me, and please do define your terms. After all, there are many persons that are divorced and even remarried to a divorced woman (and Jesus was fairly strong in His negative statements about those options). Yet, Jesus showed a very unique approach to that very situation in John chapter 4.
How do you think Jesus would have responded to the Samaritan woman (John chapter 4) if she was also a lesbian? Sincerely; Caryn
Wendy, I thank you for your willingness to be vulnerable – as every openly gay person knows, it isn’t always easy.
I think you’ll appreciate how many of us are deeply suspicious and not trusting of people like you – trust is not something freely given to someone who claims the title of a group that has been so spiteful, hateful, dishonest, and malicious.
I have two comments/suggestions/requests for you.
1) stop saying “same-gender attracted”. That is not who I am. I am gay. I am homosexual. I spent over 10 years of my life trying to change my orientation because of the blatant lies of ex-gay ministries. To reduce me to “same-gender attracted” is insulting. Would you like us to refer to you as “opposite-gender attracted”? Do you think that would adequately describe who you are as a person? Would that adequately describe heterosexuals in general? Heterosexuals are more than just “opposite-gender attracted” people. They are humans. They have hopes, dreams, sorrows, etc. I know you claim to be “opposite-gender attracted”, but would you really like to be referred to in that regard?
2) I will not trust any Christian who is supposedly sympathetic to GAY people if they refuse to denounce the explicit lies, bigotry and hatred of conservative Christian leaders. Will you publicly speak out against those who encourage stereotypes and speak lies about us? When you publicly speak out against them, then I might consider you to be acting as Jesus did. Know this, if you speak the truth against those who lie about us, you will become an outcast – just like “same gender attracted” people as you so call us.
Thank you for being willing to dialog, but please understand if some of us, who are so accustomed to the blatant lies of Christians, do not trust those who take on that title. I hope that you actually follow Jesus – from your comments I suspect that you do. But always remember, conservative “Christians” (whose behavior is the opposite of the Christ) have done more to alienate people from Jesus than they have done to lead people to him.
You mean a conservative Christian worldview. Please do not confuse the spiteful rhetoric of the religious right with Christianity.
As a person of faith who seeks to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God I submit that what Wendy has shared is a humble and merciful approach to the mistakes and sins of the church against those who are same gender attracted.
We, as a church, have been scared to embrace most people with non-traditional gender identities for most of our history. Many of us are just starting to grasp the concept of truly loving our neighbours as ourselves (regardless of what gender(s) share the bedroom next door). This is to our shame and can only change as we learn to live in true community with each other.
I hope this dialogue begins to open up opportunities for more relationships to be built between those who have identified with the traditional “Christian family” and those who don’t fit that same mold.
I am a gay Christian from Toronto who belongs to Wendy Gritter’s denomination, the Christian Reformed Church. This denomination congratulates itself on how well it has “dealt” with the issue of homosexuality because it did so long ago, – early in 1973, when medical literature considered all gay people to be psychiatrically disordered ‘sexual inverts’. The conclusion of scripture concerning gay couples is dealt with solely in terms of the aberrant sex acts of the mentally disturbed. the official stance obliges gay people to seek medical therapy to ‘heal’ their disorder.
In 2002 the denomination published “ministry guidelines” which consisted of changing the copywrite date of the old report and providing nothing but Exodus resources, claiming that these come from the ‘medical community’.
So no one in my church or hers has heard the church officially declare that gay people are no longer considered to be medically sick. We are all officially mentally disordered.
In the past thirty years these documents have been used as clubs to keep all people with dissenting views in line. Ministers have been defrocked, church leaders have had their licences to preach revoked and people working within the church have been fired from their jobs simply by publicly disagreeing with the report.
New Directions has played a huge role in this situation, because any time the topic comes up within churches, the leader of New Directions are summoned, including Wendy Gritter, and they all validate every outdated, negative myth about the lives, and psyches of gay people, as well as extole the wonders of ‘therapy’, all of which conforms to the outdated stance.
Wendy, in your speech you called on your colleagues to live on the edge, live with risk, keep Christ in view and create a safe place for gay and lesbian people. My church in Toronto, as you well know, actually began doing this over twenty years ago. They invited gay people in, and stuggled long and hard concerning how the church should respond, as well as how to deal with the ludicrous, outdated and academically worthless document that is now being regarded as doctrine.
They finally concluded that gay couples could no longer be denied membership. They provided an honest public statement about this and declared that they did not want to drag the denomination into the issue and hoped they could be left alone.
Denominational leaders, including some of your personal friends reacted as if we had launched a nuclear attack against them. Through a brutally narrow syncodial inquisition, as well as a kangeroo court at classis we were pushed to the brink of being immediately thrown out of the denomination unless we signed a statement assuring all that we would abide completely with the outdated stance. You were allowed to played the usual Exodus role. We were not allowed to say anything. We were lucky that your friends’ wish to oversee our church as an outside commitee to make sure that gay couples were not tolerated was outvoted.
Please consider the irony. Now you want to create a “safe place” for all gay people to engage in dialogue and exchange views. At First Church we actually had that. However, after our experience with you and your friends, I can tell you that you will not hear anyone from my church raise the issue publicly in the next decade.
I have tried to see your speech as genuine, but like other writers I can’t square it with your list of recommened books, which describe gay relationships as pathetic expressions of immature and disordered psyches. Whether you want to hold these views as a private person does not bother me, but as a self-described leader of all people in the church who struggle with same-sex attraction, which supposedly includes me, it bothers me hugely that these are the ‘resources’ you recommend to people who know next to nothing about gay people.
It also bothers me hugely that you will never, ever publicly acknowledge that the medical profession changed its stance over thirty years ago, that gay people can develop a deep and mature relationship with Christ without having to deal with their infantilism, narcissicm, and all the rest, and that gay couples, regardless of your biblical stance, can actually love each other.
Whether you are being completely honest in your speech,or whether you are compartmentalizing what you wish to happen and keeping this in a separate box from what you know actually is happening in our denomination, I don’t know.
I do know that being part of a bridge-building exercise with people who endorse Moberley, Nicolosi, Cameron, Payne, et all, – as you still do, – is beyond me.
I want to wish you well, but I honest can’t.
Don Baxter
Wendy:
Can you please explain what you mean by “traditional biblical sexual ethic” and can you give examples of it from the Old and New Testament?
Are you referring to the type of sexual ethic like Solomon who had at leat 700 wives and concubines? Esau who had three wives? Jacob who had two? Abijah who had fourteen?
Are you referring to the type of sexual ethic in which a woman married her husband’s brother if her husband died? (Penteteuch Book 1; 38:6-10) (Genesis 28:6-10)
Are you referring to the type of sexual ethic in which a raped woman is forced to marry her rapist? (Penteteuch Book 5; 22:28-29) (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
Are you referring to the type of sexual ethic in which, if a wife is unable to bear her husband a child, then the husband can have sexual relationships with the help?
Are you referring to the type of sexual ethic in which female prisoners of war were forced to marry their capturers? (Penteteuch Book 5; 21:11-14) (Deuteronomy 21:11-14)
Where is there a clear-cut example of the “traditional biblical sexual ethic?” I’m sure you will bring up Adam and Eve, but are the only ones?
If the traditional biblical sexual ethic is so vital to living a Christian life, why didn’t Christ marry? Or do you believe he did?
If the traditional biblical sexual ethic is so vital to living a Christian life, why wasn’t the Virgin Mary impregnated in the traditional manner?
Do you believe marriage is between two souls or two bodies? And, if the body is important, what happens if the body is incapable of functioning properly? Is it still a marriage?
Is an opposite sex couple truely married if they willing choose to not reproduce but still be sexually active?
What if the above mentioned couple is way beyond their fertile years, are they truely married?
This woman’s statement is not “respectful” dialog, in my opinion. She is apologizing for faith based bigotry while perpetuating a softer side of the same bigotry. This incites me more than the Westboro Baptist fanatic type. At least we know what we’re getting with those folks.
Wake up everyone. This woman is emotionally disturbed and troubled, spooked by her biblical literalism while recognizing she might be wrong! Do we encourage this?! Her words remind me of a racist apologizing for racist tactics yet perpetuating racist ideals in her children (It’s wrong and unchristian to think of blacks as an inferior race, but honey, I don’t want you dating a black man).
So disgusting, vile, and vulgar. I want to go take a bath.
Don, you refer to many things we don’t have readily available for review. I realize from your comments that you have a personal history with Wendy, and New Directions, but most here don’t. As I mentioned before, it would be helpful if comments were somewhat shorter than the original post 😉
For example, if your point is that Wendy is not sincere in her comments because her ministry recommends books containing erroneous theories of causation, etc., then say so and show us where those are connected with New Directions. It is a valid point to make, but let’s keep it factual for those who are not so close to your situation there.
NickC said:
I didn’t say it was. I asked if we could not find value in it. Specifically, would it not be better if Exodus ministries would drop their political lobbying efforts, quite promoting or even expecting sexual orientation “change” and just work with people who want help with promiscuity, sexual addictions, etc?
I didn’t hear her say it was absolute truth. On the contrary, I heard her say she may be wrong, which is why she respects the understanding and beliefs of others. I think we may need to be sure we are responding to Wendy, and not the accumulated wrongs of others imposed on her. Those wrongs are genuine and painful, but will we only respect someone who agrees with us 100%? We don’t even agree nearly that much around here.
Alan, this thread isn’t a debate about one view of scripture over the other. I think it is clear that Wendy has a different understanding of how God views same-sex relationships than many here. I personally disagree with her on that issue myself. The topic of the thread is whether her approach to such ministries as Exodus would be an improvement over the current situation for all involved.
(Don B — that’s what I am afraid of.)
David/Timothy…
I think there’s two main elements to the “issue” many have with ex-gay ministries and the people that advocate them. You appear to have berated people about only one of these, and are failing to acknowledge the real concerns to be held about the other.
The first is a matter of style. It is clearly very easy to distinguish the violence that falls from the mouths of all too many from the way that, say, Wendy Gritter addresses people. And I don’t doubt — from what I’ve seen over the years — that she is genuinely as she appears. I appreciate that, and hope others do too. (including, say, Alan Chambers and his relationship with people such as Hutcherson et al).
The other issue is one of accuracy. Regardless of where one lies on a religious spectrum, there is simply no need to resort to peddling falsehoods about gay men and women; particularly if those claims do not ultimately have any bearing on the religious viewpoint.
Or is there?
It almost appears, at times, that many seem to think that the demands of their faith cannot stand on their own merits as a demand of their faith. Instead, perhaps to sound more convincing, its all got to be heavily larded with unsupported or outright incorrect “facts” and “research”. Few of us need reminding how that all works within (nearly) every ex-gay group I’ve ever come across, and neither do either of you.
If they addressed both of these issues — both the way they talk and what they talk about — then I wouldn’t be interested enough to even bother trying to find fault.
Personally I couldn’t care less if someone thought they, or others, should/must only have sex in a heterosexual marriage. No more than I currently care if someone refrains from pork or beef or alcohol or wears a headscarf in public, for religious or cultural reasons.
But then again I’ve never heard anyone state that eating pork is anti-family, and I’ve never heard anyone claim that failing to wear a headscarf will take 20 years off your life… and even if a few did in our societies, nobody would try to make political capital out of such obviously absurd claims at my expense or to the detriment of others.
It is good to be spoken to in a respectful and gentle manner. It’s also good not to be slandered, or gossiped about; regardless of the tone used.
Two issues… and, personally, I regard the latter as the more important.
Can ya see where I’m going with this?…
David, jeez, why didn’t you just say so… 🙂 (I bet you did, but anyway…)
The topic of the thread is whether her approach to such ministries as Exodus would be an improvement over the current situation for all involved.
No, not all. See above.
For some, perhaps. They would be those people who have been abusively pressured into attending an ex-gay group by others. Nothing we’ve seen should make anyone suspect that Wendy herself or New Direction would support such an approach. I also don’t doubt many parents, pastors, congregations and people in general should take Wendy’s advice.
Alas, there’s that other issue still remaining… so… no, not all. Some.
David:
Sorry. I am just trying to understand her vocabulary. Just as when Catholics talk to Protestants and vice versa, terminology and the definitions of them are important because sometimes we use the same term to mean different things, and sometimes we use different terms to mean the same thing. So too with Gay Christians talking to Ex-Gay Christians and those in the Ex-Gay Christian community.
But if the thread is only to talk about her approach, then, while I see it as more tame than Exodus International, I see her goals are the same. The approach is differerent, but the expected outcome is the same.
A parent may want their child to do something they do not want to do…like eat brocholi. The child hates brocholi and would rather eat carrots. But the parents are opposed to carrots. Now one parent beats the heck out of the kid everytime he mentions carrots and shoves the brocholi down the kid’s throat. The other parent is nice and sweet and does sweet and nice things and talks sweetly and tells how carrots are bad but brocholi is good. Same result different approach. So the kid eats the brocholi and throws up 2 seconds later.
Now for the kid beater, the kid does what he is supposed to do out of fear. When he eats the brocholi, he resents doing it and hates the parent for it. For the sweet nice parent, when he is unable to eat the brocholi he feels guilty and sad and defective as if he has dissappointed the nice parent.
Either way it’s a lose lose situation for all involved.
Sorry – I don’t think I know how to properly do the quote thing …. anyway…. this is a response to Nick C.
He said:
I think you’ll appreciate how many of us are deeply suspicious and not trusting of people like you – trust is not something freely given to someone who claims the title of a group that has been so spiteful, hateful, dishonest, and malicious.
I do appreciate the deep suspicion …. and did not expect with this post that magically people from XGW would trust me, like me, agree with me etc. Nor do I think for a moment that this is a new conversation …. it may be new for me personally, but I do know that many of you have been around this block many, many times before. That so many of you are willing to weigh in speaks to how deeply these realities run…. and if anything, while it is difficult, I also appreciate the opportunity to listen.
I have two comments/suggestions/requests for you.
1) stop saying “same-gender attracted”. That is not who I am. I am gay. I am homosexual. I spent over 10 years of my life trying to change my orientation because of the blatant lies of ex-gay ministries. To reduce me to “same-gender attracted” is insulting. Would you like us to refer to you as “opposite-gender attracted”? Do you think that would adequately describe who you are as a person? Would that adequately describe heterosexuals in general? Heterosexuals are more than just “opposite-gender attracted” people. They are humans. They have hopes, dreams, sorrows, etc. I know you claim to be “opposite-gender attracted”, but would you really like to be referred to in that regard?
Nick – I am certainly very comfortable referring to you as gay – particularly now that you have indicated that this is what is most meaningful for you.
My intention with using “same-gender attracted” is to be descriptive – certainly not insulting. You may be very certain about your gay identity. But I know many who experience attractions to members of the same sex who do not identify as gay. It is in deference to these people that I use a descriptive phrase like same-gender attraction. I would rather describe than assume an identity for people.
I also don’t think that describing same-gender attraction in any way adequately describes a person – it simply describes an aspect of their reality.
I’m curious though, do you think that saying gay does adequately describe your personhood? It would seem to me, and correct me if I’m mistaken, that gay people are much more than just their gayness as well. I’m not sure there is any one identifying word that would adequately describe anyone – we are all more complex and multi-faceted than that.
2) I will not trust any Christian who is supposedly sympathetic to GAY people if they refuse to denounce the explicit lies, bigotry and hatred of conservative Christian leaders. Will you publicly speak out against those who encourage stereotypes and speak lies about us? When you publicly speak out against them, then I might consider you to be acting as Jesus did. Know this, if you speak the truth against those who lie about us, you will become an outcast – just like “same gender attracted” people as you so call us.
I’m not sure where you would get the notion that I would ‘refuse’ to speak out against ‘explicit lies, bigotry and hated’. It is true that I am not really an activist at heart – I am a pastor at heart. So while I do a fair bit of speaking within the Christian community and a bit of writing for Christian publications, otherwise I am not out in the public square speaking on these issues. This blog is by far and away the most public I’ve been (and it is pretty nerve-wracking for me :))
When a gay restaurant owner was beaten in a city in which I’d been invited to preach, I spoke very clearly that not only should we as followers of Jesus be grieved that such a crime of hatred had been commited but also challenged that church to start a fund for the reconstructive surgery this man would need. This is a little thing, but one practical example of the ways I seek to speak out – in relational, practical ways.
I have not, to my knowledge or intent, perpetuated a notion that ALL gay people are struggling, in pain, not coping etc. etc. Some same-gender attracted people are, some are not. Some opposite gender attracted people are, some are not. I would very clearly say that there are gay and lesbian people who are very wonderful people who love well and are valued members of their communities.
What I believe about sexual ethics arises from what I believe to be true about God …. it does not arise from a negative view of gay people. And I do believe that those who hold a different perspective than I should have the same freedoms that I enjoy. (That’s about as political as I get folks)
One of the real challenging areas to navigate is this whole concept of ‘brokenness’. Christians talk a lot about brokenness – and this is one aspect of language that can be a real disconnect in conversation with gay people. As an eclectic Calvinist (thank you to the one who got a chuckle out of that …. i stole it from Mouw from Fuller), it is a basic part of my theological framework to view the world through the lens of creation, fall, redemption. In creation, we see God’s good intentions. In the fall, we see all things broken and marred by sin. In redemption, we see God restoring all things. In my framework, we are caught in the tension between the ramifications of the fall, the taste of redemption – but the incompleteness of redemption this side of the new heaven and the new earth. So when I speak of brokenness …. it is simply a reality of our human experience. When a gay person hears me speak of brokenness, some seem to hear giving lip service to general brokenness but an insinuation that I view them as more broken. I don’t. But since perception is reality, I have really been wrestling with how to articulate my worldview in a way that can be heard more completely. I am willing to try to wrestle this through …. but as of yet, don’t have any great and startling insights on how to more effectively communicate what I believe.
The Jesus I know and love wasn’t forceful or coercive … he was always invitational. He was so full of love – and yet peopled hated him enough to kill him. I don’t expect all of you to trust me, my heart, my motives …. and I know that some of you will hate me. At the end of the day, it isn’t before you I will stand ….. I believe it is before Christ that I will stand – and so my deepest desire is that he will be pleased with my feeble attempts to be a representative of his love in this world.
Thank you for being willing to dialog, but please understand if some of us, who are so accustomed to the blatant lies of Christians, do not trust those who take on that title. I hope that you actually follow Jesus – from your comments I suspect that you do. But always remember, conservative “Christians” (whose behavior is the opposite of the Christ) have done more to alienate people from Jesus than they have done to lead people to him.
While it may be true that the behaviour of Christians has at times done more to “alienate people from Jesus than they have done to lead people to him”, this to me reveals the staggering mystery of the God that Christians serve. He knows we are frail, weak, stupid and in countless ways do not fully represent him – yet it is through relationship, through us, that he trusts us to bring his message to the world. He must have a great capacity for sorrow this God I serve. His heart must break as he sees many things done in his name that are not consistent with his character or intention. This is why I seek to proceed as humbly and as gently as I can …. to serve a God who could make it all right and all perfect in a moment …. if he wanted an army of robots to serve him …. he rather takes the risk and endures the pain of granting free will and the freedom to mess things up really badly to the human beings he made, whom he loves, and with whom he longs to have relationship. Who is like God? That’s why I serve him – I want to serve a God who loves enough to weep, who loves enough to risk and endure being rejected…… and I that I would learn to love, in even a small part, the way he loves.
Wendy-
Just to clarify for everyone. In your post immediately above, you are responding to comments from NickR not NickC. I don’t believe we two Nicks know each other.
David Roberts-
You respond above to a statement of mine, in which I assumed that Wendy believed the traditional Christian moral view of homosexuality was “absolute truth, revealed by God.” You reply:
That statement by Wendy was made after my comment, and (I again assume) at least partly in response to it. I appreciate her clarification, and am happy to learn I am wrong in my assumptions about her beliefs. In re-reading her original post, however, I don’t find any acknowledgement that the traditional sexual ethic might be wrong, and that she would not regard it as revealed truth. So I think I had some basis for leaping to conclusions as I did.
Wendy, are you now acknowledging that the traditional Christian view on the ethics of homosexual behavior–you know, two people of the same gender actually having sex–could be wrong and might need to be adjusted in light of better understanding of homosexuality? I don’t mean that you would actually embrace or argue for that position, only that you acknowledge it is a possibility.
By the way, I don’t use my full name here because I don’t want every comment I ever make to pop up when some of my relatives do Google searchs (as they do). But for anyone interested, Wayne Besen has just posted a video interview with me on his site, Truth Wins Out. Look for the interview with Nick Cavnar.
wendy wrote,
One of the real challenging areas to navigate is this whole concept of ‘brokenness’. Christians talk a lot about brokenness – and this is one aspect of language that can be a real disconnect in conversation with gay people.
I think that concept of, “You were born a worthless piece of excrement!”, which is CORE and CENTRAL to conservative Christian doctrine, is not only causing a disconnect with gay people. It’s also causing a disconnect with ALL people who are tired of hearing a message that they were born bad and should feel very guilty. It is not *people* who are broken and wrong, but your *faith itself* that is broken and wrong. It is your abusive, human-hating faith that inspires you to “talk a lot about brokenness”. You feel bad about your “sin nature”, and you also want other people to feel bad about their own personal “sin nature” as well. Guilt and shame work well to draw people back into church, right? Wolf in sheep’s clothing indeed!
If you disagree that this doctrine of “born bad” is harmful in terms of gaining new converts to your religion, then I suggest you head over to barna.org and look at the trends that Christians admit to. The younger people get, the more likely they are to be openly hostile to the Christian message, which is to say, the gospel. And the core of the gospel is this:
“YOU ARE INHERENTLY EXCREMENT!”
And I wholly reject that, and I think it is abusive for you to continue talking about it, no matter how true it feels to you. If that destroys your whole religion, then so be it. Maybe your religion is inherently harmful and therefore deserves to be destroyed.
I understand NickC, I was probably also going on clarifications Wendy made in another venue where a similar question had been asked. I understand where you are coming from because I am there as well. One only has to listen to the interview with Peterson posted yesterday, or the average mess from Matt Barber and company to realize there is a great deal to mistrust out there. I just don’t want to emulate such people in my dealings with someone like Wendy.
In the interest of clarity and honesty, let me speak to a few of the things Don Baxter raises.
I’ve never been personally introduced to Don. He has emailed me a number of times. Initially, I replied to Don’s (rather long) emails …. but it seemed clear that Don was not interested in actually conversing with me – but in making assumptions about me based on what other people wrote, said or did. So, of late I have usually not responded to his emails. I will engage those truly seeking to engage – but that didn’t seem to be the case with Don.
Don and I do belong to the same denomination and live in the same region. It is why his emails have pained me. I often felt lumped in with others – despite attempting to chart a distinct course in leading New Direction.
Don and I will likely never agree theologically on sexual ethics. But I would have hoped that Don and I could have actually talked together.
I do think I need to clarify that I don’t think it is accurate to suggest that I have had a huge role in issues in our denomination. I have not had any official voice in any capacity. At one meeting I requested to speak during debate, was granted that request, and made one very simple comment, “Please let us remember that these issues touch the lives of real people.” After that meeting, someone came up to me in anger indicating that they did not want me to speak on their behalf. (I don’t know if that was Don or not). The reality is that homosexuality is a contentious issue in our denomination. There are many who quietly hold dissenting views to the official position. Don’s church has been a safe place for gay couples. It was when Don’s church indicated that they would open the offices of minister, elder, and deacon to those in faithful gay partnerships that the “nuclear” response Don refers to occured. This was a volatile church polity issue. It is not part of my role with New Direction to be officially involved in church polity matters – in my own denomination or any other denomination. Any involvement we might have is behind the scenes sharing our experiences in ministry. And as I ‘ve sought to articulate in my original post, part of that sharing includes speaking about the ways the church has been distracted – too much political involvement, too much emphasis on orientation change, too much arrogent certainty about causation ….. so when I share ministry experience I seek to share the nuanced and moderate voice of New Direction that seeks to focus on supporting and encouraging devoted disciples of Christ, who experience same-gender attraction, but personally hold the belief that it is not God’s best intention for them to engage in gay relationships.
The question of resources that New Direction recommends is an important question – and I would submit not a simple black and white issue. From my perspective, I think what has been particularly harmful about Moberly, Nicolosi or Payne, is when their insights are taken as blanket fact and projected unanimously on the experiences and journeys of same-gender attracted people. We certainly do not endorse that. What we have found, over many years of engaging with Christian same-gender attracted people, is that some of the insights of these authors have resonated with their experience, and they have found some of the insights to be very helpful to them in navigating their journey. Others have not found that the insights resonated. So we try to take a very discerning approach with these authors – and present some of their insights as an option to consider for greater understanding of one’s own journey. We do not use them in a reparative therapy sense – because we do not do reparative therapy. I would not disagree that the way some things are phrased by these authors are not helpful – and could perpetuate a negative view of gay and lesbian people. This is a tension for us – and we have already weeded out quite a few resources that have been on resource lists in the past. One example would be Mario Bergner’s book – which is still on the list. Mario was a personal mentor to one of my staff members. Mario had a very clear and deep focus on personal discipleship – not orientation change per sae – in this mentoring journey. His personal story in his book is a story of deep discipleship. Does he say things I would never say? Yes. Does that mean we throw his book out? We’ve felt it wasn’t worth throwing the book out. Truth is, we really haven’t found many resources that fully and accurately reflect the nuance we seek to embody. Eventually, our staff may do some writing of our own ….. but at least for me, I don’t feel like I have earned the right to write extensively on this topic yet. I’m still listening and learning. So we have books on the list that Don and others would take great exception to ….. and the parts they would take exception to, we probably aren’t thrilled about either. But we would submit that there are aspects of these books that clearly point to Christ for same-gender attracted people. Your cautions are valid – and we may need to add some type of disclaimer on that page on the website. As for Cameron, I have no hesitation in publicly stating that New Direction does NOT endorse his work. I don’t think he is quoted in some of the older books that are listed …. but if he is it is not in any way intended to be an endorsement of him. I would also say that I share some deep concerns about some of the articles that come through NARTH and can well understand the justified critique some of you have made.
My apologies if I indicated the wrong Nick …..
Ok – I think this really is in response to Nick C 🙂
He said,
I am saying that I could be wrong in my interpretation of Scripture on this issue. I believe what I believe deeply ….. but I’m not so arrogent to suggest that I am God and perfectly know His truth without any possibility of error….. I don’t think my beliefs would change with any further information about homosexuality. I know that sexuality is complex. I know that for many people it seems that there are significant biologically based predisposing factors that may contribute to their experience of same-gender attraction….. I don’t think people choose to experience same-gender attraction – and likewise don’t think they can choose to not experience sga either. I don’t believe what I believe about sexuality because I think people could change their sexuality based on some faulty understanding of the causation of same-gender attraction. Rather, I believe what I believe about sexuality because of what I believe to be true about God’s character, his image and his intentions for humanity. I don’t believe he withholds love from people, is a tyrant who unfairly prevents gay people from loving and being in intimate relationship. But I do believe that He has asked us to image him in the sexual union between two people in covenental relationship – and I believe that can only truly happen between husband and wife. I believe we have the capacity to experience love and intimacy even when we’re not sexually involved. I know many of you disagree with me on these matters …. and I can accept that. But it is what I believe to be true.
J. James said:
James, you can disagree with someone or their beliefs, but rhetoric like this helps no one and seriously diminishes your credibility in the discussion. Either way, it’s not appropriate here.
I would never support an ex-gay ministry, so there are limits on how supportive I can be of Wendy and her ministry, but Wendy’s comments here and over at the Throckmorton blog are refreshing to me. An Exodus leader not trying to use the legislature to ram their beliefs down my throat is something I could get used to.
There are also some indications that Wendy may not be the only one in Exodus concerned about Exodus political activity. Randy Thomas, Alan Chambers and Mike Ensley have all made some changes in the way they blog this year that makes me think they are concerned about how exposed they may be to the IRS for their political activities. Mostly, they have been emphasizing the difference between their personal opinions and the Exodus organization.
Those recent very minor changes in their activities will not stop me from filing a complaint with the IRS after the next election. I think Exodus has so violated the IRS rules prohibiting political activity by charitable organizations that even if they change course, they should still lose their charitable tax exemption and face whatever tax penalties that might entail.
David Roberts wrote:
James, you can disagree with someone or their beliefs, but rhetoric like this helps no one and seriously diminishes your credibility in the discussion. Either way, it’s not appropriate here.
I accept that, but I wish to challenge you and I hope you will be open-minded enough to read what I write and take it seriously. Whether you accept it or reject it is okay with me, but at least have good reasons for doing so instead of the blanket dismissal you’ve given what I’ve written.
Wendy was preaching a core part of the conservative Christian doctrine, and that is the idea that people are born bad, worthless, and rejected by God “right out of the box”, so to speak. You will rarely encounter a conservative Christian who will lay it out like that, but, when pressed, they will admit that it is true. The gospel says that you are born crap, and that only because of the human sacrifice of Jesus do you have any value to God. I think this is a wholly abusive message and thus it is harmful to people. There are other Christian churches that do not preach this message, and that is the kind of Christianity that I support: the kind that heals and uplifts, not the kind that tells people that they’re trash if they don’t follow the church’s rules and kicks gay teenagers onto the street.
It sounds to me that you are of the camp that says, “We should respect others’ religious beliefs.” Abusive ideas and words do not get a free pass simply because they’re part of someone’s religion. That is my challenge to you. Please take it to heart, and if you reject it, I hope you have noble reasons for doing so, because the reason I do what I do is because I think it’s wrong for people to exploit religion in order to abuse people.
You know how sometimes a conversation with an anti-gay is pointless? You can prove each and every accusation that they make to be wrong and they’ll just keep finding another reason to believe that you are vile. At some point you realize that it just doesn’t matter what is factual or true, they hate you because it is a matter of faith with them, a core belief that you are evil.
And nothing that you say or do will ever change that belief. They don’t want to change their views. They like hating you.
To my dismay, that is what I am seeing here to some extent – but in the other direction.
Some of you are determined to hate Wendy and her message. You have a core belief that ex-gay ministries are inherently evil. And no measure of respect that Wendy brings nor any of her attempts at reconciliation will appeal to you.
You want to think Wendy is evil. So you will.
I hope that those who are doing this can recognize what you’re doing and stop it. It really isn’t admirable. Yeah, it’s fine to question and be cautious. But to start with “all ex-gay ministries are inherently evil” is no more logical or reasonable than “all gays are inherently evil”.
Let’s not do what the anti-gays do. Let’s actually listen and allow our opinions to be driven by what is presented. Let’s not plug our ears and let hatred rule.
Timothy Kinkaid wrote,
I hope that those who are doing this can recognize what you’re doing and stop it. It really isn’t admirable. Yeah, it’s fine to question and be cautious. But to start with “all ex-gay ministries are inherently evil” is no more logical or reasonable than “all gays are inherently evil”.
If you are addressing me, then I must disagree with the way that you have characterized my position. I think anti-gay organizations are abusive because, by definition, their aim is to make the lives of gay people worse, or, at the very least, to prevent the lives of gay people from getting any better. Anti-gay organizations are opposed to gay people finding respect, acceptance, and happiness. Maybe there is a difference in degree of that opposition among different anti-gay groups, but “less abusive” is still abusive. I reject and resist the abuse of gay people and there is nothing wrong with that at all.
Let’s not do what the anti-gays do. Let’s actually listen and allow our opinions to be driven by what is presented. Let’s not plug our ears and let hatred rule.
I don’t hate them. But if they push me, then I will push back harder, and I will hit them where it hurts. If they don’t like that, then they can stop pushing me at any time they want to. The choice is theirs, but I refuse to lie down and take their abuse.
I cannot stress this strongly enough: bullies abuse their victims only as long as their victim gives them permission to do so. Putting on pink triangles and whining, “Stop hurting me!” only encourages more abuse.
Timothy Kincaid, you’ve lost me.
I do appreciate that Wendy Gritter wants to make nice, as do a few other ex-gay spokespeople like Warren Throckmorton. I don’t hate such people or consider them evil. I don’t even think Alan Chambers, Randy Thomas, and Joseph Nicolosi are evil, though I might categorize some of their specific statements and actions that way. (I’ll refrain from an opinion on Paul Cameron.)
However, I do regard the Wendys and Warrens as fundamentally misguided in their attempts to help people deal with homosexuality.
Wendy says that her object is to
I’m sure she is sincere in her goal. But I deplore the fact that, in practice, entry to her “safe place” requires gay people to renounce any expression of their sexuality, or even to try to bypass their true orientation by entering a heterosexual marriage.
(I realize that Wendy does not prescribe marriage as an antidote or even a goal. Nevertheles, she speaks of the outcome of a heterosexual marriage as a “gift that can be gratefully received” even if it “can’t be predicted, … can’t be guaranteed.” All I can say is, for the straight spouses who naively enter marriage with someone whose primary orientation remains gay, pay close attention to that “can’t be guaranteed” part.)
I personally followed the direction Wendy describes for 30 years, including the marriage. I have seen many, many other people try to live in that type of “safe place.” And at the end of the day, however sincere and well-meaning Wendy’s intentions, I believe that her approach is more likely to harm than to help.
So while I do appreciate Wendy’s conciliatory tone, as long as the point of her post on this site is “to spur on discussion” (quoting David Robert’s intro), I don’t think it is hateful for some of us to respond critically to her positions.
J. James said:
Welcome to the 7th grade.
James, this is a discussion, not a soapbox from which you should feel comfortable reminding us of how much we should hate someone. Are you concerned that if our anger and rage is not maintained at fever pitch, we are somehow weak?
I find your rhetoric interchangeable with those who are staunchly anti-gay. You are war-like and violent in your verbiage, and that is simply useless to any adult discussion of these issues. Please keep that in mind should you decide to comment further.
Wendy-
I do want to offer a brief response to you directly, since you answered my question on whether you acknowledged that traditional sexual ethics could be wrong.
I appreciate your statement that “I could be wrong in my interpretation of Scripture on this issue,” even as you affirm your own adherence to traditional norms. Obviously, I not only disagree with you on the basic beliefs, but think that in this case the traditional Christian position regarding homosexuality does great harm to many people. But I think your statement goes as far as anyone could reasonably ask in showing respect for other viewpoints.
NickC said:
Responding critically, as long as we are civil, is in many cases the only honest reaction to give. However, I hope we can agree that some comments in this thread have gone far beyond just being critical.
We need to realize first that Exodus and/or other organizations like it are not going away anytime soon. Since they will be around, and since people do have free will in how they deal with their lives, should we not encourage an approach such as Wendy’s over the current situation?
IOW, what is our response to be if we were asked tomorrow for advice on how to make Exodus better? if our only answer is to shut it down, then we won’t have much to offer, will we?
I’ve tried to stay out of this one because I am not a Christian– and because I agree with just about everyone, even Wendy, whom I find refreshing in the face of the usual bile and garbage spewing forth from anti-gays who profess to love me. As I have often said, I would much prefer their hate to their love, because at least their hate is something I can trust.
What I don’t see coming from Wendy is hate, though as a number of people have pointed out, Wendy is associated (whatever that might mean) with groups who, whatever their stated intentions, or whatever they may have somehow managed to convince themselves they ACTUALLY believe, are in fact what I would call hate-groups. Why? Not because they merely oppose equality before the law for gay and straight, though that in itself for many people posting here– myself included– is a fairly good indication that hate is on the agenda.
No, what makes these groups hate groups is this: they actively support, condone, and believe in the rightness of anti-gay prejudice, and work towards the maintenance of that prejudice, whatever its consequences to gay people. Worse, they are willing to tell any lie, distort any truth, spread any viciousness in the support of that prejudice.
Even worse, from a believer’s standpoint, is their willingness to slander G by insisting that he believes exactly as they do, and agrees wholeheartedly with their religious, social, and political agendas. Why, G even wrote it down in a book, the oldest extant copies of which date from hundred of years after the events which they describe, and which has been interpreted and used to justify any number of atrocities and injustices.
Anti-gay is a social prejudice– very old, deeply ingrained, rarely questioned– which has no rational basis, but does have extreme and demonstrable negative consequences both individually and socially. The conflation on this social prejudice with the word of G is the great sin here. Jesus had NOTHING to say about it, and you would think he would, seein’ how he is G and all, and how important it clearly was to G. NT pronouncements (possibly) on the subject (maybe–if only G was actually CLEAR and used words we know the meaning of) are strictly Paul, not Jesus. Paul never met Jesus, and tho’ he talks about him a lot, he ignores what Jesus had to say (judge not, pray in private, for starters) in favor of the Laws on Planet Paul.
So, Wendy, this is my statement to you:
I don’t know you, but you seem to be someone who is motivated by good intentions. However, I truly believe that you, like so many others, have conflated a social prejudice with the word of G. I’m sick to death that the course of my life, and my happiness, and those of millions of people just like me, can be subject to your prejudices, whether you prefer to call them your religious beliefs or just admit them for what they are. I am equally sick that gay people are imprisoned, attacked, murdered, executed, used as political fodder, vilified, condemned, persecuted, jailed, slandered, libeled, and accused of all sort of things that are simply NOT TRUE because someone doesn’t approve, or believes their God does not approve.
These are my questions for you:
What will YOU do to combat this prejudice? What statements will you make? What actions will you take? Will you say to Alan chambers: “Your statements are hurtful and wrong.” Will you say to J&Y: you’re study does not actually show that change is possible. Will you say to THE PETER that lies in the service of G’s word are not acceptable.
The reason is this: if you are not willing to stand up to the prejudice, the lies, and the hatred– all in the name of g’s love– then I can only conclude that you support and condone it in the name of your own personal prejudice.
Ben, you might want to clarify who “THE PETER” is 😉
Ben,
Those are reasonable questions to ask…
But I think that Wendy has taken the first step by making some of the statements you requested. She addressed Exodus with her proposals to move away from an anti-gay, reorientation focused, politics driven organization to one that seeks solely to meet the needs of those who want to live according to their religous beliefs.
I am happy that she is part of Exodus and that they are taking her suggestions seriously.
Peter Labarbera, the non-woman who somehow leads concerned women of america
True, timothy, she has, and that is why I did not accuse of anything untoward. The question will be there for me, though: does she have the consciousness and the willingness to confront anti-gay bigotry for what it is on a consistent basis, all while in service to her belief that gay love is not what G wants?
I don’t agree with it, but I can live with it.
David Roberts,
I think it is wrong for people to abuse gay people, and I think that anti-gay organizations abuse gay people by definition in that anti-gay organizations, by definition, want the lives of gay people to get worse or at least not get any better than they are. Additionally, I think that humans should resist abuse because the alternative (tolerance) will be seen by the abusers as permission to continue their abuse.
There are many reasons why you could disagree with my position (above) You could possibly argue:
1. Exodus isn’t an anti-gay organization any more
2. Exodus is an anti-gay organization, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they want to harm gay people
3. Wendy may be the head of an anti-gay organization, but her conciliatory language evinces her good intentions
4. Resisting abusers is a bad idea because being kind works better than being harsh
5. You don’t want harsh words to appear on your blog because it gives ammunition to your enemies
6. ???
If you disagree with me, then I can accept that. We can always agree to disagree. But at least have the decency to tell me the reason why you think I’m wrong. This is a serious issue and it deserves a serious answer.
I could be wrong, but I think Peter just babbles on podcasts with Matt Barber, who definitely is employed by CWFA. I’m not aware that he ever led the organization.
I think Wendy deserves an ‘A’ for effort and an ‘A+’ for courage. And in the end I do think that we’d all be a lot better off if the ex-gay industry in the U.S. took the same tone and attitude as New Directions does.
However, I doubt that American ex-gay businesses will ever change their approach so drastically because it would hurt their bottom line. There’s still a lot of money to be made in America, marketing to those who hate homosexuality.
There also remains the issue of comparing personal beliefs to personal characteristics. In order to save credibility, the ‘hardline’ American ex-gay groups are experimenting with framing the whole matter as one in which we should agree to disagree. That cannot and should not happen. Characteristics are God-given. Beliefs are chosen, and the two can never be interchanged in terms of how they are viewed. If they could, then no one would ever be in possession of a bad attitude or antisocial personality because their beliefs – affirmed at the same level as characteristics – would validate their behavior.
In addition, I have some comments about imitating Christ. Let’s remember that Christ did not get married or have children. He also had nothing at all to say about homosexuality. I think that if ex-gay leaders really want to show some leadership – as Christians – to the gay community, they should first forego their heterosexual relationships and biological families and live the life of celibacy and service that Christ did. Then, with everyone playing by the same rules, both sides could truly start listening to each other.
J James,
Wendy is not the head of Exodus. She leads New Directions, an affiliate.
She has tried to take her group away from being anti-gay and towards being a religious support group that seeks to help those who wish to live according to conservative understanding of sexual ethics. Her group does not seek to coerce gay people or impact their civil rights. She is not seeking to make the lives of gay people worse.
You may not like the purpose of her group. You may think that the religion of those who join her group is wrong. You may think that gay people should joyously accept their orientation and live as God created them.
I wouldn’t disagree with any of that.
But when you decide that we should “resist” Wendy’s group, what you are saying is that others have no right to disagree with you. And I find that argument to be something that I do not view with favor.
I am content with my orientation and with my faith. But I cannot tell others that they must accept my beliefs. That is no better than the terrorists who insist that all infidel much convert to their religion or face death. That is no better than ex-gay groups that truly do seek through the political system to make gay people’s lives so difficult that they will want to “change”.
Wendy and her clients are entitled to their beliefs. And all that we can legitimately demand is that they do those who disagree with them no harm. I believe Wendy has met this standard and gone beyond.
David, you are quite correct. It had it bass-ackwards. But you know, I’m a gay man, and if i know my stereotypes, anything about Barbra is bound to dazzle me, and anything about a Peter is an obsession of mine (at least according to THE PETER, and truly, a cigar could never bej ust a cigar)….
so, i apologize for my confusion, and if either of the gentleman feels slandered by the mistake, I wholeheartedly apologize to him as well.
Hello Ben,
Let me first off say that I am, “equally sick that gay people are imprisoned, attacked, murdered, executed, used as political fodder, vilified, condemned, persecuted, jailed, slandered, libeled, and accused of all sort of things that are simply NOT TRUE because someone doesn’t approve, or believes their God does not approve.”
Under our core values, New Direction says, “Same-gender attracted people should be treated with the justice and respect that is consistent with the good news of Jesus Christ.”
I understand that you are not a Christian – so you can shorten that to simply read, “treated with justice and respect”.
I am not able to track some of the horrific abuses of gay and lesbian people like XGW might simply in terms of limited hours in a day. As I’ve said previously, I am not an activist, I am a pastor at heart. You won’t likely see me publicly commenting on this event or that statement or calling on the carpet particular organizations ….. that doesn’t mean that privately I am not concerned or grieved …. it simply means that my focus in ministry is being involved in the lives of real people – not wading into the culture wars and adding my own pride and self-righteousness in pointing out how everyone else is wrong ….
The number one core value of New Direction is that we are relational – that means the way we go about things is relational – not big public statements, or big political interventions, or big ad campaigns or whatever….. you would most likely find us in the coffeeshop expressing in conversation the groaning we sense over the injustice, fear and hatred we see in the world – including that which is perpetrated against gay people.
I think the most effective way for me and our ministry to have influence in the Christian church to counteract homophobia is building relationships with church leaders and sharing our nuanced perspective, sharing our stories…… being able, for instance, to share my story and experience of having some of these difficult conversations …. and speaking into the potential and hopefulness of reflecting a more respectful and loving exchange that actually might come close to being Christ-like. (Sorry….. more Christian language ….)
I get that many hateful actions towards gay people have been perpetrated in the name of God. And it grieves me deeply. But my making sweeping public statements denouncing this person and that person ….. will have limited fruitfulness in actually changing attitudes and hearts within the Christian community. And frankly, I don’t think it would help or bless gay people that much either. I need to earn the right to speak here ….. and realize I’m not anywhere close to that yet ….. but I also need to earn the right to speak to the church …. and that will not come through public statements – it will come through relationship and service. I truly want the church to engage with gay people in an authentically Christian manner – one that is loving, respectful, willing to serve ….. Some would brand me naive or deluded ….. but I do think you can love, respect and serve someone with whom you have disagreements. But I honestly believe that this kind of systemic, environmental change will only come through relationship.
Perhaps not what you want to hear – but I’m just not your gal for big public pronouncements.
Thank you for your response. I wasn’t really referring to you having to be on a mission. It was more along the line of this: you’re in a meeting with someone, say, Pastor Phelps, who makes a statement something along the lines of, oh, “Emplyoment protection is contrary to G’s will” or even, “GOD HATES FAGS.”
What will you do?
Just to clear up any confusion between Peter LaBarbera and Matt “Bam Bam” Barber.
Barber is the Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America, the position previously held by Bob Knight. The organization is (at least nominally) headed by a woman.
Before becoming a Concerned Woman, Barber gained attention for being fired from Allstate Insurance when he wrote anti-gay screeds on WorldNetDaily and used his work bio to try and lend himself credibility.
Peter LaBarbera is the head of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, an organization created by ex-gay Michael Johnston (of drugs-and-unsafe-sex orgy fame). Before this gig, LaBarbera was a spokesman for Illinois Family Insitute.
While LaBabs has been both a shill for the Family Research Council and a Concerned Woman in the past, it has been quite a few years.
Phelps is a bit extreme, that’s too easy 😉
I might wonder how Wendy would respond in a meeting with Exodus leaders and James Dobson. How would she respond to comments from him about how the “gay agenda” represents the greatest evil in our time. Or perhaps a statement about the need for the Church to make banning all forms of gay marriage a priority. Or cutting to the chase, claims from him that “change of orientation” is possible and should be emphasized.
I’ve not found any reason to believe that Alan Chambers disagrees with Dobson on any of these points, or that he has ever made it known if he does. Chambers has often responded to comments about LWO speakers by saying that Exodus has no control over LWO, that it is entirely a FOTF affair. Perhaps, but even so does anyone there actually disagree in the first place?
And lest anyone question the use of “Bam Bam” Barber, that was his stage name as a boxer. He actually likes to use that in his bio, remarking that he was undefeated as a professional. I could only find where he fought 3 times in 2003 professionally, though records concerning the matter are not easy to find.
Timothy Kinkaid,
Thank you for your response.
In regards to Exodus v. New Directions, my bad. Guilt by association. One becomes the other all too quickly.
You wrote:
“But when you decide that we should ‘resist’ Wendy’s group, what you are saying is that others have no right to disagree with you.”
You misunderstand what I wrote. Of course Wendy has a right to disagree with me. I’m not arguing that the government should incarcerate her and prohibit her from speaking. Instead, I am arguing that no one has the right to abuse me without expecting me to defend myself. And an anti-gay organization isn’t one that simply “disagrees with me” on the subject of homosexuality. They actively want to deprive gays of their rights, they actively want the general populate to reject gays, and they certainly do not want the lives of gay people to improve. This isn’t a matter of “disagreement”. It’s a coordinated group of people with a purposeful goal: to do gay people harm.
I know that we all want peace. Though it may be hard for you to believe, I want peace as well. And in this desire, I think we lose sight of the fact that our eagerness for peace will lead us into dialog with people before we pause to ask ourselves, “Is this group worth talking to?” I think that’s a very fair question to ask of any group that doesn’t think that being gay is a non-issue.
If we must discuss getting other people to accept our beliefs, then know that it is my belief that it is always wrong to hurt other people unless you are defending yourself from someone who’s trying to hurt you. In other words, it’s always wrong to go around hitting people and cursing people for no reason, but far be it from me to criticize you from defending yourself from such people. I am completely intolerant of any other belief that says it’s okay to aggressively attack someone else who has done nothing to harm them. This is the very foundation of civil discourse and likening it to terrorism is insane. If people want to have a discourse with me, then they first have to stop the attacks and the abuse. Otherwise, they can expect me to retaliate. I refuse to lay down and accept abuse, especially if it comes from someone else’s faith. If you criticize me for that, then you are trying to deny me my right to self-defense.
I’m a frequent reader, but it’s the first time I ever post.
I am not an ex-gay. I’m a lesbian who has never fought her sexual orientation. It took a few time to adjust, but eventually I’ve been OK with it. I have been lucky enough to have an understanding family. It has not been easy for my parents, but they came to terms with who I am.
As far as religion is concerned, my spirituality is important to me, and I’m touched by the teachings of Jesus on many aspects. However I don’t consider myself a Christian, but not an atheist either. I believe in a loving God, who created me like I am, and wants me to live according to the way he created me. It means, in part, that I’m attracted to other women. I say in part, because that’s not all I am. My personality is more complex that what drives my sexually.
I heard about ex-gay ministries a few years ago, and I was sincerely appaled and very saddened. That’s why I stay informed of what happens on that front.
Wendy’s post is quite interesting. I salute her open attitude, the absence of hate in her message, the absence of “marriage is going to cure you”, her respect and the tone of her responses, who show a genuine desire to discuss.
Of course I can’t agree with some of her views. I will never be able to understand how one can only “image” God in a heterosexual relationship. My view is that God is larger than that. If he created me for what I am, then how can he not be pleased if I express my love to my beloved partner, with whom I have a long term, exclusive and faithful relationship? What problem could he possibly have with that?
Wendy, I just wish that when someone comes to you saying that they have trouble reconciling their faith and their same-gender-attraction, you’d direct him or her to numerous resources available explaining how one can reconcile faith and homosexuality. I have no problem with the concept of choosing to live celibate and I too believe that love and intimacy is possible in a non-sexual relationship. As lone as the person making those choices understands and respects that I chose diferently.
I also hope that you don’t spread lies like homosexual relationships never last (of course some don’t, but some heterosexuals don’t either), a lot of them do and a long time. I hope that when someone tells you that hey have chose to pursue gay relationship, you don’t tell them that they’ll never be happy.
I finally, most of all, hope that you tell them that being GLBT is not all about sex, it’s about love, it’s about craving with your heart for love and companionship of a same-sex partner.
If you don’t already, I hope you will eventually be able to understand all that. In the meantime, keep up on the way you are, remain open minded and keep discussing.
Sincerely,
Sue
J James,
I agree that one ought to oppose those who are anti-gay activists or groups. But we are talking here about Wendy Gritter and New Directions.
Please provide for me any evidence that Wendy or New Directions:
1. actively wants to deprive gays of their rights
2. actively wants the general populate to reject gays
3 certainly does not want the lives of gay people to improve.
4. is a coordinated group of people with a purposeful goal: to do gay people harm.
5. is someone who’s trying to hurt you.
6. has a belief that says it’s okay to aggressively attack someone else who has done nothing to harm them.
7. or is in any way trying to abuse you.
If you cannot support these accusations, please don’t make them.
Wendy,
I want to apologize for the accusations I made about your involvement in the attack on my church. I appreciate your clarification. I objected to the three hour presentation you made to classis. Now I realize you thought it was just another day at the office. What you did not realize was that the timing of your presentation was part of the systematic attack against us. Most of the people at my church assumed you were part of the gang. I think you should know that.
Back to the thread.
I also appreciate your explanation regarding your use of Moberley and Beringer, et all, – that you wince at some of the statements as well, but that you find pragmatic value for much of what they say. On its own your explanation hits me as fine. But I do want to point out that many other people do not deal with these books in the same way.
Here are just a couple of examples from Beringer, – which I am not throwing at you, – I’m hoping that you view them as unhelpful as I do.
“The homosexual’s relationship with his same-sex partner is based more on a projection of an illusory image from his heart than on real love for another person” 116
On male homosexuality being connected with paranoia:
“The change from “I love” to “I hate him” constitutes the same love-hate dynamic found in same-sex ambivalence in homosexuality. Dr. Frank Lake in his book Clinical Theology lists several adjectives that characterize paranoia. There are especially applicable to the homosexual condition – “defensive, opinionated, suspicious of detractors, wary of critic; always ‘establishing’ his position against those who seem to be encroaching on this rights, litigious, argumentative. … In today’s homosexual community this persecution has wrought a generalized paranoia, which is manifested by militant gays and lesbians crying loudly for their rights. Militant gay groups lobby government officials with a litigious and argumentative experitise unmatched by any other special interest group” 120
This is what has happened to me, as well as others when we tried to meet with people in the church to help them better understand what being gay is all about. When the topic of gay relationships is introduced, often the alpha male in the group quotes this garbage authoritatively in front of us, leaving us in the defensive position of trying to prove it’s not true. When his authority is called into account, he will invariably point out that the leader of New Directions recommended this book, which convinces many people in the group that these observations are worthy statements.
This ‘breed’ of person is ALWAYS eager to engage gay people in public meetings at church, which is one reason few gay people in my neck of the woods even want to be bothered showing up.
Now, I realize you don’t approve of this taking place, but I would still ask you to reconsider recommending books like this, because I think it’s hurting your reputation as well as your desire to build bridges as much as it’s impeding ours.
Don Baxter
“
Hi Sue,
Thanks for weighing in.
I certainly know that there are some gay couples that are very happy – who care deeply for each other, love each other well, and live contented lives together. I would not seek to represent all gay couples negatively – or all gay couples positively necessarily. Each gay couple is unique – just like each straight couple. Some are healthy – some not. Some are happy – some not. Relationships can thrive – gay or straight. And relationships can fracture – gay or straight.
I wouldn’t tell someone with a gay partner that they will never be happy – I would really have no idea whether they would be happy or not. Nor would I wish a bad relationship for anyone. Sometimes God shows up in a person’s life through a bad relationship – but I know God can work in many ways and my heart does not wish ill for anyone.
I would absolutely agree with you that gay attractions are much more multi-faceted than just sexual. Part of educating the church is helping them to understand the fuller sense of relational, emotional, spiritual attraction that gay people experience. Additionally, we also seek to debunk the myth/stereotype that all gay people are oversexed, sexually addicted or participate in sexually devient behaviours…… these are again harmful stereotypes that can perpetuate a sense of “justifiable homophobia” in the minds of some ill-informed people.
Hello Don,
Apology accepted. I know that is has been very difficult for gay and lesbian people in our denomination – and that your particular congregation has endured some very unchristian responses to their ministry to gay and lesbian people. I was saddened to hear of some of the very hurtful letters your pastor and council received – and know that these responses did not reflect the heart of Christ.
One further point of clarification, I did not make a 3 hour presentation. My presentation was 45 minutes and the agenda was to simply present the ministry of New Direction. At that point in time, not being an elder or privvy to the business of Classis – I had relatively limited knowledge of the issues with your congregation and personally did not make a connection between my presentation and those larger realities. That may be hard to swallow…. but really I’m more naive than people might think. I was just excited about the opportunity to present the ministry to Classis.
I do struggle with what books to put on our website. You may have noticed that we have already pared down the list a fair bit. I will work on putting some type of disclaimer on our resource page related to our posture on causation and change. The challenge is, there aren’t very many helpful and/or current resources out there.
Thank you Don for responding to my reply. In all truthfulness it has always saddened me that the divide between us seemed so impassable.
Ben and David,
David said,
“I might wonder how Wendy would respond in a meeting with Exodus leaders and James Dobson. How would she respond to comments from him about how the “gay agenda” represents the greatest evil in our time. Or perhaps a statement about the need for the Church to make banning all forms of gay marriage a priority. Or cutting to the chase, claims from him that “change of orientation” is possible and should be emphasized.”
Some of these questions seem fairly political to me …. not to cop out on answering the tough questions – but to publicly ask me what I would say to James Dobson (like I’d ever be speaking with him anyway 🙂 …. is essentially asking me to wade into political matters since FOTF is clearly deeply involved in public policy.
I think it cuts both ways….. we’re seeking to stay away from political involvement period. That means not commenting on issues like gay marriage …… at least not publicly. In private conversations I am happy to expand further on my personal views – but for the sake of our organization’s commitment to not be politically involved – such conversations are personal and off the record.
What I can say here is this:
While matters of sexuality are significant, I think it is ludicrous to suggest that it is the greatest evil in the face of genocide, the AIDS crisis, global poverty, and utter lack of stewardship of creation – to just name a few of the major crises of our time.
The church has been distracted by many aspects of gay issues (as I stated in my original post), and clearly, since I’ve been willing to say these things in such a public forum as this, I would hope I would have the guts to say the same to any influential Christian leaders I may have the opportunity to engage with.
I serve New Direction with great passion and with a particular calling. And I think sexuality is important …. but I do think the church needs some perspective …. until we can say we’ve done everything that can be done to prevent unnecessary death, disease, starvation, war etc. we’re drastically missing the point if we make gay issues a priority while we justify selfish non-engagement on these other weightier matters. For myself, I seek to be faithful in the specific area to which God has called me to serve. But my mind and heart seek to be alert to the significant and pervasive crises of our day ….. and in my life and lifestyle to live as a follower of Jesus, engaged in seeking to bring shalom and justice. I fail miserably …. I face my own selfishness, individualism, consumerism etc…… but in small and hopefully faithful ways I seek to stay open to the Spirit’s prompting to pour myself out for those in need. For those of you who listened to the Exodus address …. I did touch on these things briefly.
MCC member here. We have a lot of ex-ex-gays (neoPente and evangelical) and ex-obligatory celibates (Catholic) in our congregation.
Wendy, I think your comment is spot on: “So at the end of the day, “change is possible” is not really the main point. Life in Christ is.” We differ in interpretation of the “clobber passages”, and likely differ in hermeneutic style considerably (MCC pastors are often trained in UCC or liberal non-denom. seminaries, and are nowhere near “literalistic” ). I’d suggest that you need to refer your clients who decide that celibacy isn’t right for them to some resources from inclusive churches or writers, so that your clients don’t drift out of touch with a Christian community. You say, “of course I could be wrong”, which is good, and I say OCICBW as well – we will find out in the end.
At any rate, there are plenty of inclusive churches that have quite orthodox core theology. We preach the lectionary, have intercessory prayer circles, have Bible study groups, have “special topics” groups for newcomers, those grieving a loss, those who wish to have some Old Time Gospel and testimony with their Bible study, service groups for various outreaches to food banks/kitchens and homeless services, etc. – a pretty standard church, except for the inclusivity and the marked socioeconomic, educational, and racial diversity of the congregation relative to most others in town (a result of being “the gay church” in this mid-sized city). We are getting heterosexual members that visited with an LGBT friend and stayed, or who liked the hospital chaplain (our ministers often have to moonlight), or like being in an urban racially and economically mixed congregation. So, I see Christ working in these people. Better the gay person should come here rather than become bitter at Christians (the ones he knows about) and drop out.
Wendy, I would admit I find your position and approach to be refreshing waves to the LGTs. I do not see you imposing values upon us or having political agendas. However, I do believe both parties have a long way to go before reaching the middle line, with most the LGTs still on the defensive, and some choosing to fight back.
The middle line would be the stop of any mentions in regards to sexual orientation, and just a concentration on Christ and more pressing issues affecting the world. I do believe neutrality can only happen once the person is treated as a person and not by a brand of sexuality.
People who are left handed may find some comfort in a ministry that tries to build bridges in understanding of the condition. But I believe in Christ that would guide us to say, “What? You have a left hand? So what, I have a right hand, but at least we have hands. Just make sure our hands are used for good. I see your left hand is dirty but hey, so is my right hand! We are all sinners!”
But of course that would not happen now in New Direction. You are still using “Same-gender attracted people” even though you were adviced not to. And of course you would notice in our society today the words ‘gays’ and ‘lesbians’ are overused, but the word “straight is never used unless in the window of discussion for differentiation in sexual orientations.
And if the day happens when people no longer marginalize others according to sexual orientation New Direction and even Exodus would cease to exist, and probably both would concentrate on dealing with major epidemics of starvation, wars, nuclear arms and others. That is why, even though you are kind in your approach to sexual orientation, people still feel the sense of discomfort. But we do try to peep over the middle line to see if you are getting here. But I do hope it will be soon.
Bear in mind too that I am writing this in the notion that sexual orientation is not something the inspired writers of the Bible or Christians would understand, and I know many still take that stand. But I am speaking on behalf of many others who are non-Christians, but to still be labelled ‘same-gender attracted people’ up to this point of age. Some have rejected Our Saviour because of this. Perhaps someday, I pray against all odds; New Direction would be the first to acknowledge Christ loves us just the way we are and sins in action has little to do with a sexual orientation. God speed to you my sister.
I no longer attend church and I guess I have stopped being a Christian to all intents and purposes.
I do feel that the root of the problem is holding on to a religious world view that does not affirm you. For me, the Bible simply doesn’t simply because of when it was written and the worldview of the men who wrote it. There was no concept of sexual orientation, thus it would be most unexpected if there was any sort of overt support for gay relationships!
My relationship with my partner is really far more important to me than any religion, and whilst I appreciate that some would find it less easy to walk away, its not a decision I regret. I simply couldn’t remain in an institution which was institutionally homophobic. I felt a hypocrite for doing so.
I suppose I feel that conservative theological positions on ngay people are simply wrong and harmful, so I would always try and assist people to come out of conservative religion as a priority.
Good to see you around here, Mike. I am kinda sad that you left the Church – not because I generally care what religion people are, or even whether people have “faith” at all, frankly, but because as a fellow gay Anglican in the same diocese, it feels like losing an ally!
I’ve stuck with the Church despite all kinds of things, particularly being gay and generally having a very liberal, secular (ie non-theistic) interpretation of my Christian faith.
In my parish, I have always been fortunate enough to have felt affirmed and celebrated. (And to me, the local parish is where the stuff of Anglicanism really “happens”, not at the “Communion” level.)
I share your view of the Bible, but for me that’s not a big issue. I guess my approach to Scripture boils down to finding the common thread that binds my experience as a modern person in a modern worldview to the experience of the ancients in their ancient worldview.
Hello Nancy,
I would also rather see someone at MCC or other affirming churches than to abandon the church and become bitter toward Christians and/or God.
I don’t doubt that the Spirit is at work in your church.
In the midst of all of this, my deepest desire is that glbtq people will encounter the presence of Christ and have every opportunity to build a relationship with Him. Sexual ethics are secondary to that.
You just lost the fanatical anti-gays, Wendy. Peter LaBarbara and Matt Barber considered it a travesty that Wheaton (a university mind you) even allowed a liberal leaning man to speak without rebuking him each time they disagreed. I would say that puts you on a very bad list somewhere, lol. Don’t worry, most of the good people are on that list anyway. We can have coffee.
Wendy:
I am glad to hear you feel that way; however, bear in mind that as long as “sexual ethics,” mainly homosexuality, are considered a barrier to full acceptance in a Christian community, there will be members of the LGBT community who will be turned off on God and religion and it will be the Christian community’s fault, not the LGBT person’s. It will be that particular Christian community that will have to answer up to Christ when asked, “Did you do unto others as you wanted them to do unto you?”
I have a question: In New Direction, if someone goes through your ministry and they become Christian according to your faith’s norms, but sexually nothing changes, and they find a mate of the same gender, are they still welcomed in New Direction or would they be asked to leave?
David,
You guys might get a chuckle out of this …. but please remember, I’m Canadian. I barely know who Peter and Matt are…. 🙂 It is one great thing about Canada – there isn’t the same kind of weird personality cult in the Christian community as there seems to be in the US. To be honest, I simply don’t have time to keep up with all the American culture war stuff….. I’m too busy drinking coffee 🙂 hanging out with real people, having hopefully meaningful conversations, that are personal and real.
Alan,
To clarify, New Direction is not a church, not a live-in program….. and our emphasis is increasingly on the development of resources for equipping the church. We do continue to run some support groups and offer one-on-one engagement that includes counseling …. but I’m not sure there is really anything we could ask people to leave. If someone has a partner – but still wants to engage with us (knowing what we believe) then that’s great. Our focus is relational – and we won’t cut off relationship as long as they want to have relationship with us. I suppose if they were being disruptive in a group setting (ie. trying to convince all the other members to get a partner)…. we would transition to engaging them one-on-one rather than in group….. and that is simply to ensure a safe place for those who are seeking to live within the guidelines of a traditional sexual ethic. If you are discipleship focused rather than change-driven – as we seek to be – you will know that discipleship is a winding, often unpredictable journey. If we say, “We want to walk the road of discipleship together” but then as soon as they did something we disagreed with we dumped them ….. that would be pretty shallow, conditional, ministry indeed. However, if an individual gets a partner and no longer feels comfortable engaging with us ….. we would release them graciously and urge them to go forward with God. We’re not responsible for people’s lives. We don’t have to control people. I believe God is big enough that we can release people into His care.
Timothy Kincaid,
I think that Wendy supports 1-7 that you listed because she wrote this:
“I deeply believe that God’s intention for sexual expression is the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman.”
Therefore, she believes that anyone who falls outside of this intention is going against God’s will. (And we only need read the Bible to see what Wendy’s god does to people who disobey him.)
For Wendy to convince me that she did not want to harm gays, then she must repudiate that belief. She could write something like, “It doesn’t matter whom you have sex with provided that it’s consensual and you’re not violating anyone’s trust. We don’t attribute sins to sexual mores, and gay people are worth just as much as straight people, and gays do not have to repent.” Do you read Wendy writing that anywhere? Perhaps if you believe that Wendy wants to do good for gay people, then you should provide some evidence of your own.
Remember, even a little bit of harm is still harm. And yes, I’m angry and filled with distrust. Think back to the late 1970s. It was the Christians who to have bumper stickers that read, “Kill a Queer for Christ”
Tell me why I should forgive them fully and completely when they do not fully and completely repent of their sin toward us. Yes, it’s positive that Wendy writes tame things like “Christians have been distracted by homosexuality.”
I would much rather see an admission like, “Christians have abused gay people horribly. It was completely unfair and unwarranted. The misery of gays has come mostly from the hands of evil and malicious Christians.”
Is that not the truth?
J.James: I’m certainly not Wendy. I’m a male-to-female person with Gender Identity Disorder (GID). I’m often called a ‘transsexual’ (and it doesn’t bother me). I am still married to Bon, and therefore often called SSA (which doesn’t bother me either).
Yet, my belief system concerning the “intention” of God at creation is a three part framework that includes: (1) stability of sexual attraction, (2) stability of gender identity, and (3) stability of marriage. This is the same as Wendy’s belief system, best as I can tell. [I derive this from scriptures; Wendy seems to derive it from Christian concepts – different reasoning processes, same conclusion.]
At any rate, Wendy has stated that she holds to a concept of ‘intention, fall, and redemption’. This is a classical Protestant position consisting of three parts. The devil is in the definitions and the implementation of the processes.
You (J.James) keep focusing on ‘intention’ and reaching a full conclusion based on just ‘intention’. You are missing the emphasis on the other two parts of the concept. You are also not noticing Wendy’s on-going definitions.
Wendy keeps focusing on ‘intention, fall, and redemption’. She has continued to stress that ‘intention and fall’ include herself; and that ‘redemption’ is available to all. She has articulated her ‘discipleship’ and ‘relational’ concepts as part of a ‘redemptive process’. She has even stated that the relationship should remain, even if the SSA person decides to pursue a gay-affirming church or gay-relationship. Thus, she has not advocated a one-size-fits-all redemptive definition.
I offer, J.James, that if you continue to focus on only the ‘intention’ concept, you’ll miss a great opportunity here to see just how radical Wendy’s opinion is – she is focused on ‘redemptive processes’ that include a non-condemning long-lasting relationship.
I think Wendy has imitated the position of Jesus Christ, quite well.
J James,
Clearly we are not going to agree.
Caryn LeMur,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I understand what you’re saying from your own perspective. From my perspective, what I would really like Wendy to say is something like this: “Gays do not have to repent of their homosexuality, and they can be openly gay and still go to heaven.”
*That* would be truly radical. It would also be the ultimate act of benevolence and kindness toward gay people.
Perhaps, but it would also be tyrannical to demand that Wendy say such a thing if she doesn’t believe it to be true. I can and do hope that she continues to take these small steps in faith so that one day she understands the matter as I do. But what you ask is total submission of her mind and will to yours. That’s the same as any other bully., and again it is not helpful here at all.
Also, as far as I can tell she does not contest the second half of your statement anyway, though I will let her clarify.
Besen has released an excellent op/ed today on his website, which is worth reading by everyone interested.
David Roberts,
There are people in the world living under *real* tyranny, where they and their loved ones can be tortured and killed at whim, and otherwise starve to death unless they make a risky chance to escape their living hell. I’m describing places like North Korea, Burma, and parts of Columbia.
For me to like to demand that a conservative Christian back down from the belief that “Gays must repent of their homosexuality or else be abused by Christians and tortured forever in the fires of hell!” is equivalent to tyranny? I’m pulling a Pol Pot on Wendy by asking her to repudiate the long-held Christian belief that gays deserve hell on earth and in the hereafter?
I hope you can back down on the hyperbole, because what you’re likening me to is just plain crazy. If anything, it has been conservative Christians who have subjected gays to tyranny (“Kill a Queer for Christ”).
Furthermore, was it not you who excoriated me for my “hateful” words, but now claim that it’s “tyrannical” of me when I ask someone else to do the same?
I had to smile… I agree with both J.James and David.
And, I want to thank you both for keeping the heat low in this particular kitchen, so to speak. This is a tough audience for Wendy, Alan Chambers, Stanton & Mark, and Warren T. And, I thank my Lord Jesus that the GLBT community is pressing on for dialog, understanding, and healing, even though the pain of our own wounds and the memories of betrayals linger on.
Sometimes, we all must vent. I have done the same. And I am glad when people listen to my venting.
But… I should step aside for the moment. I too, am most curious now how Wendy will respond to J.James’ thoughts. And, I need to keep the focus on her.
Much love in Christ always and unconditionally; Caryn
James, you seem content only with revenge and your browbeating is getting in the way of genuine discussion. Insinuating that Wendy has anything to do with that vile slogan is a good example. I suggest you drop this thread and read more of XGW before commenting on a new one in the future.
Quoting Caryn:
“the “intention” of God at creation is a three part framework that includes: (1) stability of sexual attraction, (2) stability of gender identity, and (3) stability of marriage”
Very friendly said, I fail to see how a stable, long-term and exclusive same-sex union does not meet these requirements.
1) Stability of sexual attraction – my attractions are very stable. There is nothing in this that says that in order to be stable, an attraction has to be towards opposite sex. Globally, as well, the percentage of hetero/bi/homosexuals persons tends to stay the same, through all ages and time. The perception that there are more now is caused by the oppenness of a good number of LGBT about their situation.
2) Stability of gender identity – for myself, my gender identity is pretty much very stable, as it is for the majority of gay/lesbian and straight persons I know. I totally respect the fact that among humans, some persons feel they should belong to the other sex, and they must be able to change sex if they want to. It’s another very rare thing that happens sometimes in nature, that’s all. Info is missing for past history, but I suspect that this as always happened as well.
3) Stability of marriage: once two people have found each other, if the couple is to last, it’s going to last, with efforts and good will from each partner. This is no different wether opposite or same sex.
Wendy, thanks for the kind response.
David Roberts,
I did not intend to put that vile slogan into Wendy’s mouth. I only bring it up to remind you of who drew first blood in this fight and how badly the wounds hurt. The primary reason why gays have gone through so much pain and suffering is because conservative Christians were so malicious. But you’re right — while I haven’t forgiven the wrongs which were done, I shouldn’t bring it up that vile period in Christian history because it’s not fair. It would be like Wendy bringing up the sign that Harry Hay carried and asking me to account for it. I apologize.
I’ll try to nuance a few more layers of what I believe …..
I don’t think someone who experiences a homosexual orientation needs to repent for that experience. I would differentiate between attraction / orientation and behaviour. I am grieved when I hear stories of gay oriented people staggering under a sense of shame or condemnation simply for experiencing attraction to their own gender – something that they did not choose.
I also do not view sexual ethics as issues of justification…. in other words, I do not see it as a salvation issue. To me the whole area of sexual ethics falls under the area of sanctification…. in other words the journey of a Christ-follower of growth and maturity in being transformed into the image of Christ.
To expand this beyond homosexuality for a moment….. for those who are biblically literate, think of King David – a man after God’s own heart …. who clearly did not live within the guidelines of a traditional sexual ethic (ie. sexual intimacy reserved for the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman). Not only did he have multiple wives, we also know that he committed adultery. Does anyone question whether David will have a place in heaven?
There are most definitely areas of mystery that I do not fully comprehend. From my reading of scripture I know that God does not wink at sin….. He is holy……. but he is also full of mercy and it is his will that none should perish ……
While I do not doubt for a moment that I will rub shoulders with many of you in the new heaven and the new earth, there is much that I don’t know. What I do know is that I have not been put in the position of determining who will go to heaven and who will not…. so I will always seek to encourage people to know and love God more deeply …. and leave the rest in God’s hands.
The Westminster catechism suggests that the chief end of man is to “know God and enjoy him forever” ….. that is what I will encourage those I encounter to experience.
Sue: you quoted me correctly, and I see that I did use neutral language, when in actuality, I meant to use specific language. My error. My statement needs to be fixed to the following:
Here is my belief system concerning the “intention” of God at creation. It is a three part framework that includes: (1) stability of opposite-sex attraction, (2) stability of congruent gender identity, and (3) stability of life-time marriage.
There. I think I said it more correctly this time.
I’m bisexual, and so, the intent-at-creation for #(1) in my life is just not there. Really, some men are hot and some women are hot, and either can be in my dreams or fantasies. I’m Male to Female (MTF), certified with GID, and post-op. So, the intent-at-creation for #(2) in my life is not there for me either. I count myself lucky that Bon, my wife, is still with me after 32 years of marriage. But we have separated and reconciled twice before my GID went into on-set; and nearly called it quits after the GID went into on-set.
So, Caryn strikes out on 2 of 3 (or on 2.9 out of 3.0). Yet, Caryn shrugs. Why? Because I’m just simply another piece of evidence for the fall-of-mankind.
The dividing question among Protestants is normally not the intention of creation nor the fall of mankind…. Instead, there is enormous dispute over redemption:
– Some will greatly differentiate between the act of redemption, the process of transformation, the process of sanctification… others will put it all together as a single process (or, even as a single point-in-time).
– Some will greatly differentiate on the accountability process (to your own conscience? to the church? to society? to the legislative process? to your neighbor? to God?)… others will consider accountability not worth of discussion.
– Some will form conditional friendships for the sake of your conditional ‘redemption’; some will excommunicate you formally for the sake of your final ‘redemption’; some will send you letters in secret removing you from the congregation for the sake of the church’s ‘redemption’.
If a preacher states, “God created man & woman in the Garden and that was His creative intent.” A chorus of ‘Amens’ can be expected from most Protestants.
If a preacher states, “And then, Adam and Eve fell and mankind fell with them.” Again, the chorus of agreement will be loud and clear.
But… should that same preacher mention the concepts of redemption, transformation, sanctification, accountability, and friendships… then all chaos erupts… should he dare to define love as Jesus did in Luke chapter 10, he may be defrocked.
Try it. For fun. Read Luke chapter 10 in a protestant church from the pulpit. It’s called the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Cross out “Samaritan” and write in “Homosexual”. Cross out “priest” and write in “pastor”. Cross out “Levite” and write in “Elder”. Then give it a go. You’ll shock your audience to suggest that a Homosexual can fulfill the words of Christ better than a Pastor or Elder… but then, you’ll understand how greatly Jesus shocked the audience by using the term “Samaritan”.
Wendy,
I just wanted to jump in here quickly and thank you for spending so much time and energy posting here and carrying on in discussion. Two of my favorite words and traits come to mind again and again as I read your thoughts…..
humility and grace.
It may sound odd to thank you for such things….but…
thank you.
Wendy – Yours is the most enlightened statement of a Christian ex-gay ministry I have read. Although, as a clergy person in the Anglican Church of Canada who works with many gay clergy and laypersons, I do not agree with the basic premises of ex-gay ministries, I find your openness refreshing. As a servant of Christ, I could never exclude gay persons from my church fellowship, nor deny them any support or service – social or sacramental – that the Church offers people in the name of Christ.
The vilifying of gay people by “christian” leaders is odious and represents a failure to live out the Gospel. What’s gone on in the Anglican Church of Canada and the U.S. Episcopal church has, shamefully, resulted not only only in ludicrous rhetoric surrounding homosexuality, but in actual schism in the church. Unfortunately the lack of trust gay people have for the Church is very much warranted. Who would want to commit themselves to something which often denies their personhood generally (remembering that most gay people do not even define their personhood by their sexual orientation as many Christians define them) or ends up excluding them in subtle and not so subtle ways? Gay Christians are among the bravest people I know. In the congregation on whose pastoral team I serve, there are both male and female same sex couples who are either legally married or who are in long term loving relationships. They are a full part of our community as we minister one to another and build one another up in the discipling process as we seek to follow Christ.
Wendy, again, you are a breath of fresh air. Let’s dialogue openly. Let’s not pretend, through ‘prooftexting’, to have the fullness of the mind of God in Scripture. Let’s love, and stretch, and grow in Christ in the humility that Christ calls us to until it hurts. I believe this is what God wants of us – regardless of sexual orientation. Let’s all pull together and witness to a needy world.
Thanks Pam …. it has been an interesting ride 🙂
Let’s say Billy is being punched in the stomach every day in the school yard by several other boys just because he’s different. Certainly we can all agree they are bullies. Then one day, along comes Jeff and he tells Billy, “I’m not at all like those other boys and I want to give you a hug every day, and talk with you. And I’m only going punch you in the stomach once a week.” So, the question is: Is Jeff a bully? Or is he a “breath of fresh air?”
I suppose that many would find the following statement by Wendy, for example, to be fairly conciliatory: “I don’t think someone who experiences a homosexual orientation needs to repent for that experience. I would differentiate between attraction / orientation and behaviour.” I find it offensive. Why does she presume it is within the realm of her authority to make such pronouncements, one way or another? Does she have any expertise on the issue beyond religious superstition? Could she hold a job that didn’t involve being a busybody dissecting the personal lives of others?
I’ve been with my partner for 26 years, and I have no doubt that Wendy would think it best if we dissolved our relationship – to please her god, of course. After all of her love-bombing, at the end of the day she seeks to destroy our relationships.
Wendy,
Thank you for your response. While I find this discussion beneficial in that at least one person from an ex-gay ministry is willing to have an open dialogue with those of us on the opposite side of the fence, I feel the discussion is likened to that of a Catholic talking to a Protestant. But unlike such a discussion, both Catholics and Protestants can find a common thread in agreeing upon “doing God’s will” and so can cooperate in things such as feeding the poor, clothing the naked, having co-ministries in caring for the homeless etc.
But I really don’t see a common thread between your ministry and Gay Christians for one very big reason – we cannot agree on what is considered the “traditional sexual ethic.”
As an Orthodox Catholic (in an Episcopal Church), “traditional sexual ethic” is too broad a term and does not carry the same definition for me as it does for you. I am assuming (since you never responded to my inquirey on this very subject) that for you “traditional sexual ethic” means one man, one woman, male member with adequate sperm count, and female unit with adequate ovums, and that sexual contact between these two persons is exclusively for procreative purposes.
I do not see the term “traditional sexual ethic” in such a light. There are so many varities of traditional sex in the Bible alone ranging from one man, one woman to one man and multiple women, etc. Almost all cultures (past and present) on all continents, have some form of homosexuality within their framework of sexual ethics. So I find your terminology unsuited for what you are trying to convey. It is clear you are claiming that a one man, one woman senario is the “traditional sexual ethic,” but in fact it is only one of many “traditional” sexual ethics that exist.
Even in the realm of Christianity, prostitution was not only acceptable, but even taxed by the Church at one time. Until modern times, it was common in many countries for men of some wealth to have multiple wives in various cities and towns (such a case occurred in my family history).
The reason I point this out is because when an ex-gay ministry, or someone representing one, uses such terms as “traditional sexual ethic” it is automatically negating homosexuality. My sexual activity (having a sexual relationship with my partner) is as a traditional sexual ethic as a one man one woman sexual unity. Homosexuality is part of the human experience from the very beginning as many historical records will point out.
Richard said:
For the same reasons you feel free to consider her a bully? Honestly, who is the bully here; the one who is candid about their own beliefs while respecting those of others, or the one who requires the other to comply with their own?
The very existence of a contrary view seems to drive some people crazy, and I’m afraid that really does tend to validate charges of intolerance against us. Just as with J. James, I understand the pain and anger charging this issue, but we just can’t lump everyone into the same bunch.
If nothing else, this thread had helped me understand the danger of the oppressed becoming the oppressor.
David:
David, what is the goal of the ministry she works for? Is it to let people decide for themselves God’s plan for them or to convince them to abandon being gay and conform to what is referred to “the traditional sexual ethic?” Wendy may not “bully” those she encounters the same way Fundamentalists in the US do, but is not her ultimate goal to convince a homosexual that he or she is not fulfilling God’s plan of the one man one woman sex package?
Judge yourself on that one. Debates are a healthy part of a discussion because it causes both sides to rethink and validate their opinions and beliefs. Just because some of us are supposedly being driven crazy by an opposing opinion doesn’t necessarily mean we are intolerant. I think it makes us more cautious when confronted with any type of ex-gay ministry. Caution does not necessarily mean intolerance nor insanity.
Yes we can. Just as we can lump all Christians into one lump. Then within the lump we and separate into sub groups. So too with ex-gay ministries. We can lump them together under one roof: EX-GAY MINISTRIES. Then we can divide them up accordingly: OPPRESSIVE, SEMI-OPPRESSIVE, NON-OPRRESIVE, etc.
Keep in mind that Gay Christians are some of the most oppressed people in the Body of Christ. And if we appear oppressive it is because we have had plenty of role models to show us how to do it. But again, don’t mistake being oppressive with being cautious and realistic.
As I stated earlier, a Protestant and a Catholic can work together because they have a common thread. For example, at the homeless program at my church (which is Episcopalian) we have Catholic, Lutheran, and Methodists who contribute to the program. Since our aim is to provide showers, food, and clothing for the homeless, we can all work together with no problems.
Despite our different beliefs, our common thread is our works.
But that can’t happen between a Gay Christian and an ex-gay minister or worker. Could you, David, see yourself working side by side with Wendy counseling or witnessing to someone who is gay and needs help? Would not your goals be in conflict? She would eventually tell the gay person that he or she is not right … that the sex he or she is having is not part of the traditional sexual ethic. Would you stand there and smile and nod your head while she tell the gay person that?
I don’t think that is her goal.
If I’m seeing the whole thing correctly, Wendy’s ministry is as an ex-gay ministry should be (assuming they will always be there whether we like it or not): She’s not out trying to convince people to change; she’s working with people who are already convinced that homosexuality isn’t God’s plan for them, and have already decided for themselves to “abandon being gay”.
There is a world of difference.
Having just found this thread, I read through it and wanted to make a quick comment.
It is my belief that conservative (“anti-gay”) theology will always exist, at least during my lifetime, because it has been the norm for way too long — and even as I type this, there are young “same gender attracted” people growing up in conservative congregations who will (sadly) be imprinted with this belief system. This is, IMO, the tragedy of modern Christianity.
Therefore, there will always be “ministries” devoted to “helping” these imprinted persons in their desire to follow this theology.
Therefore, there will be those who will feel the need to terrorize families and churches with massive fear-based initiatives and programs — such as those espoused by Exodus, FOTF, Peter LaBarbera, etc. — and there will be those who do not.
I am glad that Wendy is at least trying to provide a counter-weight to the terror groups, even as she must inevitably crawl into bed with them in order to be heard by them.
I would only hope that by leading with Love, she will help convict the Randy Thomases and the Alan Chambers’ — as they continue to align themselves with the terror tactics of the Dobson-like groups — that they needn’t sacrifice their Christian credentials in order to do their “ministerial” work of providing support for people who have suffered the needless teaching that they must “change” from gay to whatever.
It is a tricky place to be for both Wendy and for those of us who believe that we can only ask for tolerance for our beliefs by giving tolerance to those who disagree.
If a Christian gay person approached me privately and convinced me that they were completely and totally unhappy with their SGA and BEGGED me for a link to SOME kind of program that would “help” them, I would rather send them to someone who I know will love them “as is” and will not turn them into little anti-gay Soldiers of Jesus.
Wendy’s group seems to fit this model since it’s based on relational Emergent friendship which is all-inclusive rather than the “let’s sit in a circle and tell everyone who we masturbated over and dump guilt onto our backs and ostracize the failure and don’t wear designer jeans or do anything that looks too gay” type of homophobic therapy that is prevalent in too many “ex-gay” ministries today.
I cannot see Wendy showing gay porn in churches like LaBarbera does. I do not see Wendy or her people circling the graveyards of victims of violence holding hate signs. I do not see Wendy spending untold hours in her offices meeting with lobbyists trying to undo pro-gay legislation, and learning how to establish a political power base.
I can disagree with Wendy on theology, but I can also praise her attempts, assuming they’re genuine, to rid her group of the stain of the anti-gay agenda and culture war mentality which has poisoned, and is continuing to poison, American ministries.
It’s nice to know that it’s possible to step OUT of the culture war and it reminds me that I can also do the same.
Alan S. asked some terrific questions. Thank you, Alan, for your very sane questioning. But I think I do have an answer at least for one:
I think your analogy is off here. Better to ask if you could stand side by side with Wendy and serve food to the homeless. I believe I could.
I do not see Peter LaBarbera doing the same. He’d be there with his video camera in one of the bathroom stalls looking for a little homeless on homeless action.
Wendy,
Thank you for your explanation, and I think I have pegged you wrong. For that, I apologize. I can tell you are very sincere about your wanting to atone for what conservative Christians have done for gays. I hope you will understand that many conservative Christians have come before you in the name of “love” and actually not been loving at all. There has been far too much pain and lies and this has only resulted in anger and distrust, particularly in my case. My first instinct is to doubt and counter attack. You have incredible patience to put up with me and it’s a testament to your character. It is my sincere hope that you may help your fellow Christians cease their warrantless historical persecution of gay people.
Again, my apologies, and my sincere thanks for the good work you do.
Thank you Steve, Dave and J. James for listening with me…
In my original post, I said that I was a Gen X postmodern…. the idea of a story unfolding is a powerful image for me. I’m not a rigid, black and white thinker ….. and for some that already means I’m wishy-washy, a moral relativist and likely to burn in hell. (yes, I get it from both sides, so to speak).
At the risk of sounding a wee bit like a broken record…. but recognizing that it does take patience and perseverance to demonstrate a level of genuineness….
The goal of our ministry is: to create a safe place for same-gender attracted people to journey towards wholeness in Christ.
Key words there:
safe place – a safe place isn’t coercive, a safe place isn’t controlling, a safe place doesn’t determine for someone else what their journey should be
journey – this evokes the understanding that people need space to travel, space to hit the uphill climbs, the rugged terrain, the green meadows …..
wholeness in Christ – wholeness is an inclusive term to us – it may mean that a person becomes more whole in Christ because they really finally receive that God loves them, they may become more whole in Christ because they learn to let go of shame, or forgive themselves and others, let go of bitterness, grow in maturity, heal from trauma, are equipped to relate to others in healthier ways ….. there are numerous ways we move TOWARD wholeness in Christ …. recognizing that we all “limp” so to speak to heaven … we don’t arrive at perfect wholeness on this side. We don’t assume that wholeness does or must include changes in the direction of a person’s attractions – it could be that – or part of wholeness could be to not be mastered by attractions that the person believes are not God’s best for them.
So I don’t think it is fair to suggest that our goal is to break up the relationships of gay couple everywhere …..
We exist for those who seek us out …. and if after a season they feel they don’t fit anymore we seek to release them with grace. God is the hound of heaven who pursues people with perfect wisdom, timing etc. We don’t have to hound people ….. we do need to serve and love and be available….. but we’ll leave any hounding up to the Holy Spirit. Is there a time to speak a word of truth in season? Yes. But this word in season had better be preceeded by a clear demonstration of love and service and listening and prayer and it better be preceeded also by a willingness to be quiet and wait …..
Funny thing, my little daily calendar with verses from the Message yesterday read, “Charm can mislead and beauty soon fades. The woman to be admired and praised is the woman who lives in the Fear-of-God” Prov. 31:30
What is the goal of New Direction? To live in the Fear-of-God ….. not an afraid kind of fear, not in an anxious kind of fear, but in bold love kind of fear ….. to not just be charming and soft spoken and gracious (as important as those things may be) but to take risks for what we believe is consistent with the character of the God we love and reverence.
It’s a risk to comment this publicly on this blog. We’ve already received emails chastising me, suggesting that New Direction no longer offers hope….
I pray that consistently throughout all of my comments I have pointed to Jesus Christ – who I believe is the source of all hopefulness. Life with Jesus is costly, it can be difficult, it is often full of suffering…… but for those of us who know him and have his life within us…… we know he is our hope.
One other quick thing …..
We really don’t consider ourselves an ex-gay ministry at all. David asked me to use that term for simplicity’s sake …. but it isn’t a phrase I like.
I suppose I would say we’re a ministry of “presence” ….. we’re available for those seeking the encouragement and support they desire to live a life that is consistent with their beliefs and values ….. or seeking a safe place while they figure out their beliefs and values. We seek to offer input when it is requested …. and love and listen otherwise.
Wendy said:
Bingo, that’s the heart of the matter for me. The arrogance by which ex-gay ministries often plot the course of others is not anti-gay, it’s anti-God. In their defense, this is a malody from which an entire segment of the Church suffers. The past few decades have seen the rise of to the American Religion, which really has more in common with nationalism than Christianity.
And just to clarify, on the term “ex-gay,” I didn’t mean for Wendy to change her terminology, only that I was going to use the term in my description so we would have a common reference (just a misunderstanding there). A large segment of the thread concerning New Direction on Warren’s blog dealt with what to call ex-gays, and I was hoping to avoid that distraction on this particular post. However, I did note in my intro that New Direction does not use the term themselves.
WARNING: EXTREMELY LONG POST TO FOLLOW. David Roberts may want to cut me off.
I genuinely appreciate Wendy’s openness, her disavowal of dogmatism, and especially her willingness to engage in real dialogue here with those of us who hold different positions. But before we all jump aboard the loving-Wendy bandwagon, I want to restate my fundamental objection to what she is doing, which led me in my first comment to label her post as “pretty much the same old crap wrapped up in a [more] seductive package.”
Yes, there will always be gay people who, for whatever reason, seek to live without acting on their natural sexual orientation. That is their right. Having been happily married for many years, I particularly understand those who want to preserve an existing marriage, even if they’ve come to realize they are gay.
Because I affirm the right for each person to choose, I have no real problem with counselors and support groups helping people who choose to be ex-gay, post-gay, or whatever we want to call it. I’ve sometimes drawn the comparison to someone counseling a Catholic priest who’s struggling with his vow of celibacy. I disagree with the Catholic church’s position on clerical celibacy, but I can still respect a priest who wants to be faithful to his personal vow.
But here’s the problem I do see: In real life, support groups like New Directions do not serve only people who’ve made a fully conscious, mature decision about their sexuality. In my own experience of these groups, I found that most people involved were conflicted not because of deeply held religious convictions, but because of fear, stereotypes, and pressure from family, churches, and friends. This was especially true for young people.
Over and over again in small group sharing, I heard people struggling with the basic question: Why is this wrong? It feels so natural to me. Everyone has told me being gay is wrong and I’ll be unhappy, but that’s not how I really feel. What’s wrong with me?
Because these ministries were based on a religious view that homosexuality was not—ever—truly God’s will for an individual, they could not answer, “Maybe there is nothing wrong with you. Maybe for you, accepting that you are gay and seeking a healthy life and relationships will be the best choice.” All they could offer was another round of empty promises and religious platitudes. Everyone nodded piously, then half the members headed back to the parks and bathhouses. From what I could see—and I saw a lot—these ministries often perpetuated a life of anonymous, furtive sexual hook-ups followed by crushing guilt and shame.
I will never forget one guy, a long time participant in one group, sharing that he’d been in the park picking up someone for sex, as he frequently did on his lunch hour. He was on his way to his car or the bushes with someone when he realized “I don’t really want to have sex with this guy. I just want to talk with him and experience some intimiacy with another man.” But of course, he went ahead with the sex anyway.
Others were saying, “Wow, this is such a breakthrough for you!” “You’re really making progress!” All I could think was, “Yeah, but you’re still blowing the guy!” (Sorry for the crude language, but let’s get real here.) There wasn’t any evidence his new “insight” was going to change his sexual behavior. He’d just finally embraced some of the group’s jargon.
I’ve seen too many people trapped in those stunted half-lives to be able to offer any affirmation to someone like Wendy Gritter. I accept her good intentions, but I believe that in real life she creates harm to at least some people she seeks to serve.
Someone asked earlier on what we would say if the ex-gay minsitries asked our advice on how they could improve. Here’s my bottom line:
1) I affirm the right for each person to make his or her own decisions about sexuality, whatever the motivation. I don’t regard ex-gays as failures because they do not accept their homosexuality, as long as they are genuinely successful and happy by their own standards.
2) I think there is a place for counseling and support groups seeking to help those who’ve made a serious, mature decision not to embrace a gay identity despite their orientation
3) Nevertheless, I cannot personally affirm or respect any such counselor or support group unless they also encourage conflicted participants to consider that an openly gay life can be a possible healthy direction. I realize that such encouragement is impossible for many, due to their religious views. They have a right to run their practice or ministry according to those views. But I have a right to point out—loudly and clearly—that by doing so they ultimately harm many people.
I am genuinely moved by Wendy’s apology: “I want to begin by saying I’m sorry. I’m sorry for the pain that some of those who follow this site have experienced from leaders like me and ministries like the one I lead. I’m sorry that some of you connected with this site who identify as Christian have had your faith questioned and judged. I’m sorry there is a felt need for a site like XGW. I’m sorry that it feels like legitimate concerns have not been listened to. I am sorry for the arrogance that can come across from leaders like me.”
Last summer, in advance of the Ex-gay Survivor Conference, several of us (former EXODUS leaders) issued a similar apology — very similar in tone. We were also sorry for the pain we had caused, sorry that that we may have caused some folks to question their faith or the sincerity of their desire to “change”, sorry for not listening.
Last summer, the official response from EXODUS to our sincere apology was angry, dismissive and sarcastic. That piled hurt on hurt and gave the impression that EXODUS simply did not care. Now, in Wendy, I have renewed hope that someone is listening…
NickC, you seem to be arguing from the possibility that there is a perfect, utopic, third option. No one says you can’t disagree, strongly, with the premise behind ex-gay efforts – I do. But here is the point-blank question to clarify the issue of this thread:
Would Exodus ministries be more or less harmful overall if they were to follow the direction Wendy has charted? Even if framed as the lesser of two evils, I think the answer is clear.
The third option – no ex-gay ministries and no need for them – does not exist and may never in our lifetimes. Do we scoff at any positive change in the mean time?
Nick C. (do I have the right Nick this time 🙂
It is a risk to engage in pastoral ministry ….. spirituality, sexuality, emotional health, relational realities ….. these are deeply personal, deeply intimate and often vulnerable places in a person’s life. Taking the risk to engage means also taking the risk that you could bring harm inadvertently …. saying the wrong thing at the wrong time or for the wrong reason. I would be the first to say, ‘I’m a clay pot. I don’t always get it right.” I know I’ve certainly experienced harm in my life’s journey from well meaning people who meant to help and support. I’m not sure you could ever fully guarantee that no harm would ever be experienced – even though clearly you commit yourself to the highest standards possible to “do no harm”. So I suppose, all those who care for people and want to be a supportive, encouraging presence within the guidlines of our own perspectives and practises, could just pull out and say the risk is too high …. and be paralyzed in the fear of causing harm ….. but you know there are others out there who are so arrogent they don’t even see potential risk, they charge in and “help” with little humility, little teachability, little grace ….. and create havoc in their wake that they can just write-off by saying “they didn’t believe enough, pray enough …..” or whatever.
So, hopefully those with a little more humility, more grace, more patience, more tolerance for mystery and grey areas will stay engaged …. taking the risk to be a positive presence in people’s lives.
I can’t be double minded on this issue. I do hold a perspective I believe to be true about sexuality. But I don’t hide from anyone that there are alternative options out there. When someone comes and is very ambivalent, I want them to navigate through that ambivalence and really own where they land…. I don’t want them to just adopt what I believe …. because if they don’t really own if for themselves, when life gets hard (as it most usually does at some point) those convictions will not prove to be an anchor in the storm. But if they have looked at all the options, wrestled through what they really believe and own it – then these beliefs and values can be an anchor in life’s storms and challenges. So in a practical sense, I have no problem pointing someone who is ambivalent to GCN where they can get a sense of both Side A and Side B. I don’t have to convince people what to believe, I have to keep showing up with a servant heart, willing to listen, and be the presence of Christ.
Now to be honest, I pray like the dickens for people when they’re ambivalent….. because clearly I would hope they would come to the same conclusions as i do ….. but prayer is fair game wouldn’t you say?
Caryn,
Thanks to you too for your kind response.
I’m happy I’m not part of any organized confession and my spirituality is personal.
In my view, it’s much more simple.
-God created the majority of beings as heterosexuals (if not only for the reproduction). However he constantly has created some beings homosexuals. All this is part of his plan.
-He wants me to live in respect of who I truly am. He does not want me to live a kind of relationship (in my case, heterosexual relationship) I’m not supposed to have, because he knows that in this case I would be lying and making people unhappy, and I could not be true to myself.
For another person, the following is achieved by being heterosexual; for another, it’s by being bi, or by progressively understanding they should be of ther other sex.
My moral compass, for sexuality matters, is simple: what I do with another consenting adult is nobody’s business, as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody. And genuine, deep love is never a sin, and it’s always what God intends.
This has been a very interesting discussion. Peace to you all.
David Roberts:
My answer is: If Exodus ministries followed Wendy’s example, they would be less harmful to those of us who are NOT involved in them. They would not be pushing political agendas seeking to restrict our equality in society, and they wouldn’t be actively spreading lies and stereotypes about our lives. But I’m not sure they’d be that much less harmful to their own participants.
I am not arguing for the third option. I acknowledge that there will always be some people who seek to follow the “ex-gay” path, and I explicitly state that ministries for those people are valid. My concern is for those who come to these ministries still very conflicted about the direction they should take, and who are offered only one option as the right choice.
Hence the need to do a better job alerting people so they can make their own informed decisions – one of the main reasons for XGW in the first place. You seem to essentially agree on all points, so I’m not sure what you take issue with.
Not taking issue, just answering questions you raised. It was you who said: “NickC, you seem to be arguing from the possibility that there is a perfect, utopic, third option.” You then defined that third option as “no ex-gay ministries and no need for them.” As I pointed out, that’s not at all what I was saying.
Even so, I agree that the standard I present for ex-gay ministries is utopian. Ministries based in traditional religious views will never be able to “encourage conflicted participants to consider that an openly gay life can be a possible healthy direction.” And that’s why I think that even the most well intentioned ministry does more harm than good.
I do understand the impulse to welcome Wendy as a moderating voice in the culture wars that surround these issues. I’m just explaining the reasons I cannot personally join that chorus.
And I think at this point I’m just repeating myself, so I promise that will be my last comment on this thread.
I think that there is inherent in this question a common misunderstanding about the nature of ex-gay ministries. There seems to be an assumption that ex-gay ministries are evangelical – in the sense that they go out and try to recruit gay people and convince them to change their ways.
I don’t think that many ex-gay ministries operate in this manner, and I specifically doubt that New Directions has such an outreach program.
In the two decades that I’ve lived in LA, I have seen, for a matter of a few months, one woman with a table in West Hollywood trying to “reach out” to gay people with a “message of hope”. Her tactic was a sign saying, “We apologize for the way the church has treated you” which was followed up by ex-gay propaganda.
But eventually she realized that the gay folks in West Hollywood were not looking for her “message of hope”, didn’t believe her nonsensical tales of the evils of homosexuality (a quick glace proved otherwise), and saw through her non-apology pretty quickly, so she went away.
But other than this single instance, I’ve not seen any proseletizing. Generally ex-gays go to find ex-gay ministries (or hear about them in church), not the other way around. Most of the advertising I’ve seen had more of a political goal than it did any true effort to change the minds of gay folks.
I doubt Wendy sees convincing a homosexual of anything as even a minor goal of her ministry, much less that he or she is not fulfilling God’s plan of the one man one woman sex package.
Ala “Change is Possible” billboards. I’m sure some think that a gay person driving down the freeway is going to see that sign and have a V-8 moment, but I suspect that is not the real intent.
Steve Schalchlin,
I would, without a blink of an eye, stand side by side Wendy or someone like her to feed, cloth, and provide showers for the homeless. In fact, I do every fourth Sunday at my church. But our focus is on feeding someone who has no food. So while there may be some who are also in the program who are against gay rights, etc. (be they other volunteers or the homeless who show up), the fact is the focus is not on our sexuality but on doing God’s will. By the same token, we have Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans who all join in, and we don’t wear badges to distinguish our denominations. Religion is not even discussed because our focus is on doing God’s will. In fact, I remember one priest saying (in a friendly, light-hearted manner), “If everyone just shut up and did God’s will, maybe Christians would work better together.”
What I am trying to say is that I could not stand side by side with Wendy or someone like her if we were both counseling a person who is struggling with his or her sexuality. Neither she nor I have a common thread in that regard. We would be at odds in that regard. And it would only confuse the person seeking help if we pretended that we weren’t.
I don’t think Wendy is an evil person, or someone out to get anyone, and I feel she is convinced of her intentions. And maybe she only helps those who seek her out.
But most gays at one point seek someone out because we have been so indoctrinated on how homosexuality is a “sin”, how it is “abnormal” and “against nature.” And how many of us here on the EXGW blog sought “help?” And how many of us were convinced that we wanted out?
Well, neither would I, Alan, so that goes without saying. Your point above was that you can put aside differences with others of differing theologies in order to do things not connected to those theological differences.
At least, you could have enjoyed my image of LaBarbera look for “homeless one homeless action.” 🙂
Steve Schalchlin:
🙂 yes, i enjoyed your take on LaBarbera.
I am grateful to Wendy for her openness and politeness, however, I’m skeptical of any organization whose words are at odds with some of its actions.
ND claims (sincerely, I believe) to try to avoid politics — yet it is an active member of Exodus. That membership serves to advance Exodus’ antigay and anti-Christian agendas. ND’s words seem inconsistent with its actions.
I have some questions that are intended to ascertain the degree to which New Directions supports Exodus’ political activities.
Does New Directions pay membership dues to Exodus?
Do New Directions or its leaders pay fees to attend Exodus events?
Does New Directions assist in marketing Exodus in Canada?
Does New Directions distribute Exodus publications or press releases or refer people to Exodus resources?
Does New Directions invite ex-gay leaders or ministers (if so, whom) to events, or participate in events and activities with other religious or political organizations (if so, which organizations)?
Timothy,
OK, that word “evangelical”. You know what is meant by that. (All too well!)
Now the other part, again from Exodus’ own policy statements:
outreach + promise of reward = proseletizing.
As for Gritter herself, can we suggest… go back through her 1 hour address at Exodus 2008 Leadership conference (as example) and count how many times she refers to “the missing” or variations thereof; such as “reach that other nation”, or “how would an unchurched gay person hear this?”.
Who on Earth do you imagine she’s talking about???
As we’ve read it, Gritter’s frustration with Exodus is not about their proseletizing — that she takes as part of their mission, even as she also appears genuinely dismayed over what she sees as a wrong-headed approach to what they are doing. The current approach is also seen as increasingly, obviously, wrong-headed by others in her estimation.
(eg: run to near the end of the address where Gritter refers to survey data showing “91% of 16-29 year olds think Christ followers are anti-homosexual”. Gritter follows this with “We know [Exodus is] not anti-gay — we know it! But there’s been a disconnect.” And this followed by the all important “we need to be for the missing”.)
I’m sorry but we are in agreement with NickC in this regard: having been battered for so long with out-right messages of rude condemnation and appaling behaviour, we also fear that any of us could be lulled by a less strident tone into ignoring what remains core to the message and purpose of Exodus and all the member ministries.
The cynic says this is a deliberate tactic. The citizen wishes more people behaved as Gritter does. The person hopes she, along with the rest, will ultimately be ignored and/or regarded as superfluous.
(And, yes, we can entertain all three viewpoints without contradiction: we live and die by Shell Oil’s scenario planning methodology!)
Honestly, I’m a little flabbergasted with your comment that “other than this single instance, I’ve not seen any proseletizing.” Flabbergasted because, Timothy, you’re not one to over-extend yourself in such a way.
By their own accounts, Exodus began with “Brother Frank’s” (Worthen) advertisement in 1973 that combined both evangelical outreach and the promise of a reward.
There’s much we’ve agreed with in your comments (and that of others) about the new direction for New Direction (and by extension, possibly of Exodus itself). But your views about what is ultimately motivating the revisionism is not one we agree with, and nor is your seemingly whole-hearted approval of Gritter and the new New Direction. The final message doesn’t appeared to have changed, to us, for us, even at the same time we can all (hopefully) appreciate the revisions made to the script, the new costumes and the addition of a some new actors.
Any group the promotes Mario Bergner and his awful viewpoints is not one we can completely trust with the lives of others. I would like to think Gritter is open to knowing why and taking the corrective step, but I fear her acknowledgement of the problems followed by a side-stepping of them by using a caveat suggests this will not occur. They’ve been there, done that… and already decided that even the unsuitable is adequate for their purpose; so it seems.
Hence we find ourselves, somewhat in dissappointment, back at square one…
grantdale,
Perhaps I’m being too subtle in my distinction about the way I was using the word “evangelical”.
Yes, they are part of evangelical Christianity. Yes, they want to spread the Good News of their faith. Yes, they would love to share their message with all gay people. But they aren’t knocking on my door on a Saturday morning with pamplets.
And those folks out there sceaming about hell and shaking bibles at the gay pride parade passing by are not ex-gay.
Perhaps Brother Frank was advertising his tapes in magazines 35 years ago. But as best I can tell there isn’t any advertising towards the gay community going on now. And if there is, I don’t think it is a message of “You’re a SINNER”.
But for some reason folks seem to think that recruiting people out of a “homosexual lifestyle” is a primary part of ex-gay ministries. Maybe it is in some – I certainly don’t claim to be all knowing. But if so, I’ve not really seen it.
What I’ve seen is folks who already believe that homosexuality is evil and are looking for someone to “cure” them. I really don’t think an ex-gay ministry really appeals much to anyone else.
Timothy,
already believe that homosexuality is evil … don’t think an ex-gay ministry really appeals much to anyone else.
Well, we can certainly agree with that! (with the usual proviso around “evil” etc)
I suspect we wouldn’t be heading down a distracting path of what “evangelical” means if Exodus was a group based on conservative Islam. I’ll only note that “advertising” is only one form of “marketing”. Door-to-door is only one of the many outlets available.
And also happy to agree that much of Exodus’ direct efforts currently appear quite (deliberately) intended for people other than “the gay community”. In fact, directed at anyone but; and not for any high purpose. But we also acknowledge that Gritter’s is suggesting a new approach for Exodus — one that combines an initial approach via religious recruitment, to be later followed by the Gay-go-Away.
Yeah, real clever. Didn’t see that one coming!
Or we wouldn’t have if we weren’t familiar with Mario Bergner.
Perhaps it’s better if we gave you a few names and left it to you to pick out some (increasingly obvious) common threads with this new-found public face: Chad, Peter O, Alan.
And then work backwards 🙂
(for New Direction itself, we’ll also leave it at another observation: it was under Gritter’s leadership that ND adopted Richard Cohen as a “resource”. He was only dropped after… what?)
Apart from that… it’s a sunny 78degF here in Melbourne, and we have some bikes calling our names; not to mention the “compulsory” catch up with friends in the pleasant garden of the Bridge Hotel overlooking the river – cheers!
Have a great bikeride guys. I’m off to coffee, church, and brunch in that order (to be followed by laundry – ugh!!)
I would speculate that Wendy’s kinder and gentler approach is highly influenced by the fact that she is located in Canada, a country where religion has much less of a stranglehold over the culture than here in the United States.
I would also speculate that we will begin to see a kinder and gentler approach here, as I sense that fanatical Christianity has reached a cyclical peak in its influence due to a developing backlash in response to their compulsion to overreach. It’s telling that the backlash is coming not only from those evil secularists and liberals, but from some factions considered to be within their fold. One gay related example is the recent Barna research study on the attitudes of young people. Another is Peter Labarbera defending himself against Christian critics, and whining about Jim Wallis being invited to speak at Wheaton College.
As much as fanatical Christians may tend to withdraw from the prevailing culture, they still want to engage that culture, and in order to do that they require some level of credibility and respect. The persecution of Jews was a staple of Christianity for centuries until it became socially unacceptable after the Holocaust. Martin Luther, if he lived today, would be consigned to a position of irrelevance at the far fringes of our culture.
But it is still acceptable in our culture to seek out and listen to the voices of virulently anti-gay bigots such as Peter Labarbera getting a few seconds of air time in this news report on WGN-TV. I never see stories in the mainstream media concerning blacks or Jews that include comments from a KKK spokesman, but the KKK was once considered a legitimate voice. Fortunately for gays this is in the process of change, and the bigots will wake up one day and realize they are isolated in a corner and have become irrelevant.
It has been my intention to be transparent throughout these comments and so I’ll try to clarify some more aspects of New Direction’s connection with Exodus.
Mike asked:
Does New Directions pay membership dues to Exodus?
Membership dues are $200/year. These fees would not cover the administrative time of the staff who send referrals to us.
Do New Directions or its leaders pay fees to attend Exodus events?
Yes.
Does New Directions assist in marketing Exodus in Canada?
Because of some of the negative perceptions of Exodus, I have been very upfront with Exodus leadership that I will work under the name and brand of New Direction in Canada. We’ve sought be intentional over the last few years to articulate our distinctives in ministry – which I’ve shared in the original post.
Does New Directions distribute Exodus publications or press releases or refer people to Exodus resources?
Usually, people have found Exodus prior to finding us.
Does New Directions invite ex-gay leaders or ministers (if so, whom) to events, or participate in events and activities with other religious or political organizations (if so, which organizations)?
In 2005 we brought Mark Yarhouse to Toronto to offer a one day workshop. We particularly appreciated his weighted interactionist hypothesis in the area of causation and the sexual identity guidelines that were much more comprehensive and option offering than a typical reparative therapy framework.
This month we brought in an American author who published under a pseudonym his own story and journey …. someone who would say his attractions have not changed but he continues to live within the guidelines of a traditional sexual ethic. His seminars focused on, “A Heroic Journey” and “Healthy Male Friendships”.
Otherwise, we have essentially done our own teaching (at least in my tenure). We have not worked with other religious organizations (though we are often invited to teach at their events) and we’ve not worked with any political organizations (at least in my tenure).
I’d also like to bring some more clarity to New Direction’s vision related to having a missional focus.
We have increasingly focused on encouraging Christ-followers to befriend and be present in the lives of the gay people in their “circle of influence”. It is our desire that gay people would actually encounter the presence of Jesus as they engage and relate to Christ-followers (which clearly hasn’t often been the case in the past). Whether the gay person is a person of faith or not, our vision is that their encounter with Christ-followers would be an encounter with shalom. If anything, we remind Christ-followers to not engage in relationship with gay neighbours with an agenda …. but rather in seeking to be present we encourage discernment, listening, serving, and grace. As I said in a recent newsletter, “Quite frankly, it is more important to us that queer people meet Jesus and have every opportunity to develop a relationship with him, than the final outcome of the expression of their sexuality.”
So when I referred to “the missing” in my Exodus talk, I was referring to those who have not yet had the opportunity to encounter the love of Jesus Christ. As I have said previously, I don’t see anything about Jesus’ ministry that was coercive – he was always invitational. So my deepest concern is to be a catalyst in the Christian community to learn to engage in such a manner that Jesus will actually be seen by those in the queer community. The gay affirmative church is already doing this. But I hope that those who name the name of Jesus, who affirm a traditional sexual ethic, can also engage in a manner that is open, non-coercive, and focused on Jesus. At the end of the day, if a gay person develops a relationship with Jesus, they will need to determine God’s call on their life regarding their sexuality. No one else can determine that for them.
I believe that God wants his followers to be an expression of his shalom on earth. We fall short of that all the time. But if this is the aim, then it is a no-brainer that those who hold a traditional sexual ethic should be part of seeking to eradicate homophobia. We should be part of trying to encourage true friendship – even if that requires navigating through areas of disagreement. And we should be part of honouring our neighbours – not caracturizing them.
My colleagues and I all have friendships with gay people who hold a different perspective on sexual ethics than we do. We genuinely enjoy and appreciate our friends – and listen and learn and are blessed. We don’t have to try to change our friends – we have to show up and be a true friend and hopefully be the presence of Jesus. We hope to share that model with the conservative church – because we believe it reflects Jesus.
grantdale…. you made reference to Richard Cohen being adopted as a resource during my tenure ….
I don’t believe that is the case ….. but you have perhaps researched me better than i myself recall. In any case, it was in listening to critique that we made the decision to take distance from Cohen.
We can’t guarantee we won’t make errors along the way ….. what I hope we can model is teachability and a humility to acknowledge past mistakes. As I’ve said, I’m on the wildest learning curve of my life.
Upon further reflection, I do need to say that we have worked alongside the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada here. EFC could be considered a political organization because they do interface with government leaders and advocate in the courts. However, EFC has several departments – one of which is ministry partnerships. It has been with the ministry partnerships department that we have partnered and worked together. It didn’t even cross my mind in my earlier post – because we have not worked with them on political issues. My apologies for not including this in the earlier post.
Wendy: Any idea yet on how EXODUS leadership may respond to the changes you are suggesting? In particular, do you have any estimate on the percentage of EXODUS member ministries who agree with your suggestion that EXODUS “make a clean break” from politics? Any idea on what sort of resistance such an idea (maintaining political neutrality) might stir up within EXODUS — and why?
As one of the original Founders, I can tell you that this was always the intent — to focus on ministry only. We believed that anything else confused and clouded our mission of communicating the love of God to the gay community. Over the years, we have watched in dismay as EXODUS has taken this disturbing detour. Are you hopeful that you might be able to inspire EXODUS leadership to get back on track?
Hello Michael,
The questions you ask are important but difficult to answer. I’m not sure how Exodus leadership will act in response to some of the nuances I’ve suggested. To this point, it seems that there is some thinking and processing going on….. but I really have no idea how this might translate into action at this point.
A few leaders either personally connected with me at the conference or have since emailed to communicate a sense of resonance with my address ….. but I really don’t know the percentage of those who would find affinity with New Direction’s approach. The leadership conference did not have 100% attendance of all the leaders – and I don’t know if those who did not attend have listened or not.
As for resistance, people can be resistant to change for many different reasons. I have heard that some ministries are concerned that New Direction “no longer offers hope” but this seems to be based more on us taking distance from re-orientation being a main focus. I do think there are Exodus leaders who feel it is their moral responsibility to engage in political engagement ….. so I would imagine that to them the idea of non-political involvement seems like they are not living out their understanding of their calling…. As you would know, Exodus draws people from many different traditions within the Christian church – so there are perhaps different perspectives based on some of these traditional backgrounds. As a Canadian, I have a hard time really understanding how religion and politics seem to be so intertwined in the US.
I don’t have any grandiose ideas about inspiring Exodus leadership …. though I do hope that by sticking around and continuing to engage with humility and grace, that some fruit will emerge. In a similar manner, I would guess that there are different people observing this dialogue for different reasons. But I do hope that persevering through this dialogue without adversarial or snarky remarks will speak for something.
Overall, however, I am hopeful that the Christian community can emerge into a less adversarial, less hostile, less harmful approach in ministry in this area. There are points of common ground. I think we would all want to experience the day when someone who experiences same-gender attraction could be honest and real in their faith community without a sense of shame or judgment. I think those of us who name the name of Jesus, all want to see God’s people more fully representing the love of Christ in our culture. I trust we all want to bring about a deeper sense of shalom in our fractured world. So I am hopeful that there will be less polarization ….. and despite the challenges at various points in this dialogue, I am also grateful for those of differing perspectives who have listened to and engaged with my thoughts. I hope to see more of this in the future.
Thanks Michael for your graciousness in the process.
Wendy,
I truly, TRULY appreciate your message, but I just have a small suggestion -you seem to talk about the Christian community as if it only encompasses conservative Evangelical groups. There are many Christian groups who don’t believe that being gay is a sin. So when you mention “the Christian community”, you might instead say something like: some Christians….
Wendy, I agree with Jayhuck. The particular Christian communities you’re talking would be more correctly labeled “non gay-affirming Christians.”
Wendy: I also thank you for your graciousness. I would really appreciate the opportuntity to meet you or speak with you by phone sometime. I think you would find that we have much in common. God bless.
Hi Wendy — re:
reference to Richard Cohen being adopted as a resource during my tenure… I don’t believe that is the case… but you have perhaps researched me [etc]
Wayback Machine has a better memory than, I dare say, any of us here. If you’re not familiar with Wayback… basically it trawls around and keeps a back record of webpages. So understand we are not relying on our memory. We are using a fact about New Direction. We didn’t research “you”.
I simply went back to an old dump of the ND site — we do those from time to time — and found the old page that listed ND’s suggested references. I used the URL to search for the page history. (we have dumps of the ND site dating back to looooong before you appeared!) It took all of 5 minutes.
The ND “suggested resources” page did not list Cohen before you started. It didn’t list him on 26 April 2003, after you had started. The reference list was updated on the ND site on 12 Feb 2004 — and added Cohen’s hideous “Alfie’s Home”. Who added that book to the list, and on who’s advice… well, we cannot tell and we’re not in a position to find out (even if we even wished to… we’re more than a few miles away from Toronto).
And, we’re sorry, but we simply cannot accept “teachability and a humility to acknowledge past mistakes” if that is a patent excuse (ref: Alan Chambers). We hope you can personally rise above that.
(There’s only so many “Oh, really?, I didn’t notice. Not my fault. Gee, how terrible that makes us look. I promise to stop that.” one can apologise for… especially if it all happens on your watch and is repeated time and time again. Suspiciously, frequently. And almost never carried through. Again… Alan, not you.)
You may have a desire to “help”, but with that — professionally, or at least socially — comes a demand that you be knowledgeable.
On that…. Mario Bergner, hmmm???
We hate to be Cassandra, but consider that as our middle name 🙂
(If we bring a jaundiced eye to this site, we hope it’s at least tempered (mostly) by people knowing we also carry the baggage of our cynical Australian sense of humour and the perspective that comes along with it. There really isn’t much we don’t tolerate — or as we would say, “put up with” — at the end of the day, apart from the obvious intolerables… but thickly-spread B.S. is not one of them. Even if the person has a PhD and an ego to match.)
Wendy, I am afraid I have to agree with Grantdale on this:
(There’s only so many “Oh, really?, I didn’t notice. Not my fault. Gee, how terrible that makes us look. I promise to stop that.” one can apologise for… especially if it all happens on your watch and is repeated time and time again. Suspiciously, frequently. And almost never carried through. Again… Alan, not you.)
I would add other excuses like: Gee, EXODUS is very diverse…We can’t accept any responsibility for what our member agencies may say or do… or, Gee, that was the leader before me…. or, Gee, that was three years ago…
EXODUS does give the impression of never clearly, boldly and corporately owning up to its “mistakes”> Classic example: last year’s official EXODUS radio spots that promised “sudden, radical and complete change” — then an “oops, we’re sorry if we gave the wrong impression. We meant the CHURCH could suddenly, radically and completely change — NOT that gays could suddenly become straight.”
EXODUS leadership never explained how such a “mistake” could happen. Very slippery when it comes to taking responsibility. Too many “oop”s and “gee”s. Gives one the impression the either (1) EXODUS is lying or (2) no one is minding the store — or both.
Jayhuck and Steve – you’re both quite right – a good reminder for me to be more specific
grantdale & Michael….. i don’t appreciate b.s. either. So, while I really don’t remember that particular book or how it got on the list, I have no intention of relying on a “gee, I don’t remember” pattern of excuses. You’re right to point out that pattern when it seems the “go to” response.
Wendy: Here is what I would like to see: Redesign the EXODUS homepage so that anyone who signs on could quickly and clearly determine EXODUS’s mission, philosophy, policies and beliefs. In particular,
(1) A clear statement that EXODUS does not promise a change in sexual orientation from gay to straight — and an apology for giving that impression either intentionally (as in the radio ads) or unintentionally. It’s simply not true.
(2) Either do away with entirely — or give an honest explanation of what words like “ex-gay”, “former homosexual”, “freedom from homosexuality” and “change” actually mean. These phrases have been referred to — even by some past and present EXODUS leaders — as “hype” and “Christianese”. Such linguistic sloppiness has confused, misled and ultimately harmed many people. Last Summer, Alan Chambers said he wanted to “officially retire” the term “ex-gay”, but I have seen NO official action of any sort.
(3) A permanent and prominent spot, on the front page of the website, that clearly and unmistakably denounces bullying, hatred and violence. Folks should not have to search the archives to find out that EXODUS condemns such behavior and attitudes.
(4) A statement similar to Alcoholics Anonymous’s “10th Tradtion” about avoiding political affilations and remaining officialy neutral on political matters. This is the way we designed EXODUS and the way it should have remained.
EXODUS needs to focus on how it communicates and how it is percieved. The webpage would be a great place for EXODUS to keep its promise to get honest with the public.
Hi Michael,
I wouldn’t disagree with your suggestions. I may take and integrate some of them into the homepages of the three websites that New Direction operates. We currently have these statements in our distinctives – but not on the homepages.
Wendy,
I am trying to appreciate all of the positive things you are saying here as well as the goals or directions that you are trying to move towards. I would like to make you aware of what I see as potential problems.
I have been on the receiving end of ‘ministry’ from New Directions for two decades, and I think one big problem you are going to have with your change of focus is the lingering ghost of Pat Allen, (now Lawrence). For others, Pat Allen began New Directions and led it for more than a decade. She was a relentless promoter and I don’t think there was a church council or church magazine in all of Ontario that did not hear her speak, or carry her story, -disfunctional childhood, sexual abuse, descent into homosexuality and a life of alcoholism, infidelity, misery, emptiness that still makes up for her, The Gay Lifestyle. And then she was made “whole”.
She moved on to Exodus leadership at the time the group became political and she now heads Exodus World Alliance where she is still trying to combat the “promotion” of homosexuality world wide, by campaigning to keep it illegal in Barbados, and bemoaning that it was dropped as a mental illness in China. For a real descent into Hades, check out the resources on her website; Cohen, van den Aardweg, Cameron, Satinover, Nicolosi, Mediger, Paynne – the whole nine yards.
Aside from parading as Canada’s Healed Lesbian, she led a vigourous campaign to “Counter the Pro-gay Church Movement”, equipping people to use all sorts of mantras to stop gay people at the door of any church.
The mantra she employed for Metropolitan Community Church was that they were “promoting their gayness instead of bringing honour to Christ”. This was at a time when one third of the congregation of MCC had committed themselves to being 24/7 AIDS buddies during the height of the epidemic, but nevermind.
Like you, she claimed she was not political, but she always seemed to be visible as the The Healed Lesbian whenever gay rights were being debated, and she always endorsed the arguments used by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, – that legislation against discrimination against gays would protect pedophiles from being fired; that legislation recognizing gay couples was wrong because there was no such thing as a monogamous gay couple, and so on.
I know many people who still think of New Directions from that context of Pat Allen.
The other problem comes from your own history. Earlier in your carreer, you were promoting all sorts of Exodus literature aside from Richard Cohen, no doubt because you felt at that time they were worthy. One of them was Jeffrey Satinover’s Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (?) – the one which claimed that homosexuality was dropped as a mental illness due to the hostile threats of gay activists against the medical profession.
I’m not trying to be negative in reminding you of this. Bless you, you got rid of many of these books, and it seems that you are willing to consider doing more.
However, some people are going to be very cautious for a long time to see how genuine your change in attitude is. Some people have lasting memories of the times they were clobberred over the head during church discussions by people using these ‘resources’.
I’m not sure how you can or should deal with this, but I just thought you should be aware of it.
Don
Don Baxter,
Please contact me privately regarding Exodus Global Alliance. I am working on a research project that involves them. Thanks.
Don,
I understand what you’re saying …. though truthfully you likely know much more about New Direction’s history than I do. I had not heard of the ministry before I applied for the position of executive director in the spring of 2002. I started out part-time (my youngest of three children was still in diapers and I worked almost exclusively from home). There was so much that was new to me ….. and initially I did really rely on what others before me had done and said. Over time, in part due to listening to the critique of people like yourself – but also in large part due to the patience of my friend and former colleague David (a celibate gay man) from whom I have learned a great deal, I began to better understand what I have now articulated as “distractions” for the church (causation, orientation change, politics – the three big ones). It took me a while to think through the bigger picture of cultural engagement and I’m still thinking and learning. I feel it is really only the last couple of years – maybe three – that I feel like I am able to grasp a clearer sense of what the mission and vision of New Direction needs to be in today’s context. Even moving towards a greater focus on relational engagement at a simpler level feels like quite a significant shift to me given a legacy of focus on counseling and support groups with very specific goals. But as I look at the ministry of Jesus, as I look at moving beyond some of the legacy of the past, as I look at the future and my deep desire to build bridges and actually earn the right to represent Jesus to gay people – I am convinced that respectful, relevant and redemptive relationships are the way forward. Note: by redemptive I simply mean a relationship that embodies the presence of Jesus Christ who, I believe, is about the work of redeeming all things.
So I can’t speak to much from the past, other than to humbly ask for grace from those who encountered New Direction in the past, to give us the space as we seek to chart a distinct course for the future. I would expect that it will not be quick or easy to emerge from the shadow of the past….. but I will seek to continue to lead in a consistent manner to earn the right to engage relationally. I expect God will have me serving in this role for some time to come – and I hope one day to earn the respect of those who disagree….. a la “We don’t agree with her on sexual ethics, but we don’t doubt her love for gay people.” If some day I earn that respect, I will know that I have been faithful in reflecting the Jesus I know and love.
I do hope Don that one day we can have coffee together…. I’m sure you have some insights that would help me in my ongoing thinking and reflecting.
Wendy said:
Wendy, at the risk of piling on, I would like to make a personal note. Since I come from the evangelical world, having grown up the son of a Baptist minister, I think I know what you’re trying to say up there.
But what it SOUNDS like is that you’re only goal for establishing relationships is to convert people. To get them “redeemed.” It gives one the feeling that you’re not really interested in non-affirming gay people unless it’s to get them recruited to your version of Jesus.
I’m sorry if that sounds harsh, but if I were to enter into a relationship with you, it wouldn’t be to change you. I might disagree with you things and we could even have a few rough debates, but I wouldn’t approach becoming your friend with the hidden agenda of converting you to something.
It’s an inherently dishonest relationship.
What is your attitude about creating these “relationships” across the divide? What goal do you really have in mind?
Hi Mike,
I can’t find your email address. Let me know if you would like me to provide mine.
Don
oops! it’s mairhart (at) gmail dot com
Wendy, still grateful to have the opportunity to follow this bridge building expedition. I linked both blogs to GCN as well! 🙂 But you are correct that it will take time to “earn the right to represent Jesus to gay people.” It will take time and consistency… The message you have to share is not your burden alone either…. Christians as a whole have centuries of damage to undo when it comes to living as genuine “Christ-followers” and it will take time… Christians will have to “earn the right” to represent Jesus to many people in our world today… I am so very cautious when choosing to which of my “Christian friends” I introduce my girlfriend…
Steve, coming from a very conservative background myself, I think I hear what you’re saying about doubting the sincerety of relationships founded with “bridge building” as the intent. However, if in fact, individuals are known as “Christ-followers” by the love they demonstrate… and if in fact the values of “Christ-followers” are to live as He purportedly did (ie, in selfless service to others, in defense of the weak and powerless, in playful generosity with children and the childlike)… wouldn’t that kind of person be a great friend to have?
Regardless, the words we use are so loaded with emotional experiences… and for those of us who have been hurt by people using the power of “the divine” to strengthen their stance, those familiar words ride into our souls on waves of emotion. But if we break down the word redemptive , it has so much more meaning than that to which it’s often tied in traditional Christianity… When Jesus said He was to “redeem” us, Christian culture often interprets it as “save us from our sins” and usually, it’s the biggies like sexual immorality, stealing, lying… But a great deal more could be inferred from that word that what we often think (or words such as “salvation”)… For instance, “To restore the honor, worth, or reputation of” and you can fill in the blank here… me, you, God…
I think what I hear Wendy saying here that she wants to build relationships that restore the honor and reputation of Jesus’ name which places the redemptive work on herself and not the salvation of her friend. And that she wants to live congruently with the values of this Jesus that she loves…
Please keep in mind also that it isn’t just those in “ex-gay ministries” that have some redemptive relationship work to do… In our culture and society today, all those wearing the name “Christian” have make up work, including gay Christians. Unfortunately, there will always be those false shepherds who use their power to abuse the weak… Be it as that may, Christians are each called to care for the least, to live in peace, to act justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly before the Creator, to speak truth (and I know we often may disagree as to how that looks exactly!) in love…
I really do believe that truth and love will prevail, and in the end, it is the peacemakers who will be called children of God.
Biana, I don’t form relationships in order for that friend to impose his or her own version of Jesus and “redemption” upon me. I make friends in order to make a friend.
If a spiritual connection forms, and if we share our particular journeys, and it leads to one of us having a personal revelation or healing or “redemption,” that’s fine. But I am skeptical of people who make friends with me only to convert me to their religion.
And that’s what that verbiage sounds like, whether it’s intentional or not. I don’t need someone standing over me looking at their watch waiting for me to come to my senses.
Steve, I can understand what you’re saying. I was simply saying that the words “redemptive relationships” doesn’t necessarily equate with “relationships to bring about prescribed spiritual redemption”… Merely that they seek to have redeeming value… Again, semantics… The concept of “redemptive relationships” is part of Emergent Christianity, a relatively young movement in “the church” which seeks to live life authentically and in community despite differences…
I am a side-A, gay, not-sure-how-it-all-plays-out Christian in a committed relationship with a woman… certainly nobody’s poster child for an “evangalist”… 🙂 and each friendship I have is driven by the desire for it to have “redeeming value”, something of worth, a relationship which will sharpen my spirit and my character… Not so that others will come to the same beliefs I have about religion or spirituality… But so that I can be challenged in my own journey… And how I choose to behave in any relationship is with authenticity, congruent with my understanding of how Jesus lived and loved.
You make an excellent point as to why we need to be aware of verbiage… in any relationship, personal or otherwise! A problem noted multiple times over that creates barriers between “ex-gay” folk and the gay community at large is the difference in intended meaning behind the word “gay”… If we are ever to bridge this divide, we have to be willing to shed our definitions and try on another’s, long enough at least to seek understanding…
While I am familiar with the nauseating variety of evangelical Christianity that would advocate making friends as a means to convert them, I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that this is what Wendy meant by “redemptive”.
I think she was just expressing in her own language what most of us might hope of our friendships and relationships – that they’re fulfilling, positive, life-affirming, and spiritually and emotionally beneficial relationships. This is what I’d look for in friendships – and if I were in a particularly spiritual frame of mind, I might even describe it as “redemptive”!
I would see that as a two-way street in a friendship, of course, and hope Wendy sees it that way, too. That’s the whole point of relationships, isn’t it? To share (and enjoy) the experience of human growth?
My staff always challenge me in my great difficulty to leave “christaneze” behind 🙂 ….. sadly, I’m not that proficient – but still committed to the process of learning …..
I have consistently tried to communicate (ie. through our newsletters etc.) that our focus on relational engagement is to be without an agenda. So Steve, I quite agree with you – if I’m encouraging a Christ-follower to befriend their gay neighbour …. I will encourage them to be a true and good friend – period. That, in and of itself, I hope will have a redemptive effect on the Christian community being less hostile and/or misinformed about gay people.
Now, as a Christ-follower, I believe that the presence of Christ is in his followers….. so our hope is that as we are a good friend, as we love, serve, form meaningful relationships (love your comments on that Bianca) …. that our friends (gay or not) will encounter the presence of Christ – not by what we say, not by an agenda – but simply by who we are.
If our friends encounter the presence of Christ in us…. that is really up to them what they will do with that encounter…. perhaps they’ll ask us about it and perhaps we’ll have the opportunity to speak about what our faith means to us …. perhaps they’ll never ask about it – in which case, I would suggest we continue to enjoy the friendship and simply rest in knowing that God is present in ways we may not see or discern.
My gay friends bring a lot of richness into my life …. they help me loosen up a bit and laugh more …. we share meaningful conversations about all kinds of things …. they enjoy my kids ….. and I enjoy them.
So sorry for unclear language in the previous post ….. it is good to be reminded of the kind of baggage people have from their own past experiences ….. and I’m always glad for an opportunity to try to bring more clarity rather than assumptions behind the scenes.
Dave – thanks for weighing in – we’re on the same page 🙂
Bianca said: A problem noted multiple times over that creates barriers between “ex-gay” folk and the gay community at large is the difference in intended meaning behind the word “gay”…
I agree, but I think that while we have been wrangling over semantics, the general public has already solved this problem — they have figured out long ago that “gay” and “homosexual” mean the same thing (a person who is attracted to the same sex) just as “straight” and “heterosexual” both mean a person who is attracted to the opposite sex.
“Gay” may have had a more “political” or “social” connotation in the past, but now it’s part of everyday vocabulary and conversation. “Ex-gays” may not like it, but “gay” has just become slang for homosexual. It’s a synonym. To say that someone is “gay” says nothing about the person — except that they are attracted (primarily or exclusively) to their own gender.
And I would have to agree with you Michael about the public’s consensus. The only reason I brought up the “wrangling words” was because it was a semantics issue at hand, ie. Steve’s concern that “redemptive relationships” were about converting someone to a particular view of redemption was getting in the way of him hearing what Wendy was saying. My only point was that in order to build bridges, we have to be willing to look at someone else’s statement through their lenses of definition and meaning… So much time is lost on trying to convince each other to see the world exactly the same way we do, which just creates defensiveness, and eventually builds walls. Rather than expect others to use my definitions in order to make their point, I try to set aside my own definitions and try on theirs, at least long enough to understand them… And that was my only, only, only reason for bringing up the example once again! I’m sorry! 🙂 I think you and I are on the same page when it comes to how the majority of society attributes meaning to the word gay and why “ex-gay” is a word of contention…
Bianca: I may be old-fashioned, but I still like “homosexual” since it’s not politically or socially “loaded” — and everyone seems to know what “homosexual” means: attracted to members of the same sex. We really don’t need new words like “SSA” (Same Sex Attracted) since we already have a word that conveys that.
That’s what really bugs me about Alan Chambers and Randy Thomas continuing to call themselves “former homosexuals”. It’s dishonest — especially when they both admit ongoing sexual attractions to men. “Former” means: “no longer” — and they still are.
Michael,
Good points. I like “homosexual” as a clinical term like “homo sapien” or “caucasian”, but as I don’t go around calling myself a caucasian, I also don’t call myself a homosexual.
I’m too lazy, and the fact that the word is ____sexual puts far too much emphasis on the sexual aspect. To me, the sex I have with my partner is the least definitive part of our relationship. If, for example, my partner and I were rendered incapable of having sex with each other or anyone else, we’d still have a lot of things that bond us.
Homo-amorous is more appropriate, but sounds needlessly specific (and also like some sort of dinosaur) but is more descriptive of what I feel is central to being gay. If it were just about sex, I think it would be a hell of a lot easier to “leave behind”.
I don’t want to leave it behind, I’m just saying that if it just amounted to behavior, then it would be very easy to stop being gay. Obviously it’s much more than that —which is the fly in the ointment of the ex-gay industry.
Jason–thirty years ago, I tried to get the words “affectional orientation” in to replace sexual preference, which i loathed, and sexual orientaton, which placed too much emphasis on the sexual.
I could have sex with a woman every day for the next twenty years, and it would never make me straight, nor would i ever love a woman like I love my husband. due to his school work, our sex life is way on the back burner, but that doesn’t make me love him the less, or make me any less gay big fag homo.
that to me is one of the worst lies of all of this ex-gay crap– that this has only something to do with my actions, not my being.
I like “same-sex attracted” because I think it accurately describes what could be an ambiguous orientation. Sometimes people have one gay relationship their entire life, and otherwise date the opposite sex. Others are bisexual the whole way. Still others switch back and forth between same-gender and opposite-gender relationships over periods of years at a time. Social conservatives use the term “SSA” to make all non-heterosexual orientations seem like fleeting, casual lifestyle choices, rather than something permanently ingrained. And, just because one is not cemented one way or the other, does not mean they are not “same-sex attracted.” I understand how it can be a loathesome term for some, as “SSA” also sounds like something that belongs in disease terminology, something that needs to be treated. As though everybody is heterosexual first, but happens to be “suffering from SSA.” That being said, I like SSA merely as a descriptor. I’m Same-Sex Attracted. DEFINITELY. Not casually, not in a fleeting sense.
But I’ve said before, my favorite term is “queer.” I like this one because I think it describes my entire being. Honestly, EVERYTHING about me is kinda queer. 😎
Emily: alas “same-sex attracted” could also describe near every STRAIGHT person on Earth.
Same-sex attracted to… what? Fishing trips with the mates, tick. Tennis with the girlfriends, tick. We’re really trying to refer to pair-bonding, not same-sex friendships; even though they too will obviously also be based on some sort of mutual attraction. Just not the kissin’ kind.
(And we loath “queer”. It seems, at least here, to have been too often adopted by young heterosexuals with strange haircuts and a lack of hygiene, rather than indicating anything in particular about affectional, romantic, sexual interests. It had its’ day, in the 90’s…)
I suspect “SSA” seeks merely to avoid saying “gay” or “homosexual” — the words that ARE in common currency — and also to deliberately create a sense of distancing (or even disconnection) among those who ARE homosexual but don’t want to be.
I’m trying to think of anyone who uses SSA, preferentially, and who doesn’t also see gay as some sort of “condition” open to being “overcome”. Like a fungal infection, or something.
Is it really that hard for people to just use “gay”? Perhaps I’m just feeling rather frustrated at the moment, but I’m growing tired of all the minutia surrounding why we use this word and that. To most of the known world. gay means one is primarily romantically attracted to others of the same sex. It doesn’t necessarily mean you are happy about it, or accept it or anything else – it just means you are.
Perhaps the first step for those in ex-gay ministries should be to stop making such a big deal over having that term applied to them. It would certainly be more honest than the passive-aggressive “gay-identified” which I think Exodus has been trying to push for the past couple of years. They can’t even say the word without adding a little mini-policy statement.
The irony being that they feel no need to explain the words “change” and “ex-gay” which they use on billboards and advertising propaganda.
I like “gay”.
I know what it means, my neighbors know what it means, my family knows what it means, my community, city, state, nation all know what it means.
In fact, the only people who don’t know what “gay” means are the phobes and the ex-gays. And I suspect they really must be trying terribly hard to keep it that way.
I have never ever ever understood those who have such a horrible distaste for the word gay on one hand, yet honestly think we’re supposed to buy into “ex-gay” as a seperate orientation unto itself. boggles my little mind.
The big stink they raise over using the word gay does nothing but draw attention to how bigoted they are against gay folks.
I so appreciate what Wendy has expressed here and at the Exodus leaders event. She is a tremendous encouragement to those of us who are committed to ministry without political entanglements, humility in regards to unresolved scientific questions, and invitations expressed in an accessible language. I am also grateful for the hospitality extended here in this forum.
Sonia
I have been reading and pondering these comments, it has been very interesting…
For me personally, I am being challenged in my own way of thinking. I have tried on numerous occasions to type out a response to both Wendy’s comments as well as those who may think differently than her. It is causing me to dig deeper and formulate a non apologetic stand on who I am as a person. I have written several responsed only to delete them before posting, because I want to give an honest comment..
I understand Wendy, and her words, and the way she is expressing herself, and the respect that she is showing. That is evident.
I also understand the view point of those who believe differently than her, and the respect that they are showing. (though I believe that there are some responses that were more reactive rather than self reflective)
When ever you have differing views of something, you will be challenged to walk with others, dialogue with others, and come to a place of knowing that there is a difference, yet respect still plays a part in that relationship.
It’s actually coming to a place that says…okay, you fundamentally believe in something else, which goes contrary to what I think, yet, I will respect you, because you respect me. It challenges us to guard our words, guard our actions.
For me this thread is doing just that. My experiences have been on both sides of this issue. What I do not want is to have to apologize for who I am. I will not apologize because of my faith, and that expression of my faith…but I long to walk with others in that expression.
What I am finding in this thread is that we sure use a lot of fancy lingo, and the new terminology and nuances and what have you, and that is all good, yet, are we getting to the core of the main hurts and wounding that people are expressing?
We have all experienced hurt, pain from both sides. Ultimately we will hurt each other, with things we say and do. Our actions, often cause a reaction. This is no excuse, rather, how do we heal, and move on. Often times when we are offended, it is because there is something in us that needs to change…rather than pointing a finger at the other who offended us. How are we reacting and responding?
Wendy is showing us that she is willing to walk the talk. Does she have an agenda? Probably, but so do the rest of us. We all have the thought in the deep center of our being, that fundimentally thinks…if I plead my case, or say the right things, or do the right things, that person may eventually believe what I believe. That person will then be just like me.
What we forget then is that each person is on a journey. Each person has the right to be on the journey that they are on. Each person has the right to be informed, educated so they can make their own decision, rather than letting someone make their decisions for them.
For me that process has taken 40 years. I come from a faith based background and believe in Jesus, and do not apologize for my faith. It has caused me to look at my life, and how I live it…rather than looking at others and thinking that is how I should live. I have allowed the Holy Spirit to challenge me, to open my eyes to the Biblical standard of God ordained words. It is me who will stand in front of God, who will be judged according to what I did, and what I didn’t do…so I am constantly being challenged to live a life pleasing to God, rather than pleasing to other people. Yet, that does not mean I am to live judging others, and their experiences. I am not here to point fingers, rather look at my own life, and reflect…is there any wickedness in me, that needs to be changed? Is there ways that I react to what others say, that needs to change?
I am change focused…I do not want to be the same person tomorrow, and this is a way of living that isn’t feelings based. It is not about how good I will feel, or how good I will look, rather, a refining and evolving into the man I am created to be. I am not here to change others, that is no ones job. But I will share my experiences with others, my story, because it is mine to share and only by invitation, with respect and honor to all those involved in my journey.
gays, ex gay’s, ex-ex gays…we are all on a journey, all processing life, and the experiences that we have had, and all are coming to different conclusions.
I was going to say that no one decided for me how I am living…yet that would be a lie. For me my journey includes a profound Damascus Road experience, which has radically changed me forever. No “human” told me that I should live this way or that way, rather God himself defined me…and continues to mold me and shape me, and with that, no apologies are needed.
He clears the path infront of me, He give me wisdom and understanding. My prayer is this, that each one of us come to a place of realizing that it is not others we look to for our definition, that we realize that we are all unique and wonderful in God’s sight and it is He who defines us.
Blessings…
Wendy,
Thank you for your heart of compassion, yet uncompromising devotion to Christ.
Just recently (about 5 months ago) I was lifted out of homosexuality. I cannot lie and say that I do not struggle… I still “feel” as if I’m walking, slowly in the midst of a thick fog… but I know that Jesus is worth the fight. I get discouraged and then He lifts me up and leads me to sites like yours to let me know I’m going the right way. He is most gracious and overwhelmingly kind, I deserve death for eternity, I know I do. The hope that keeps me going is that He didn’t call me out to “turn me away”. I desperately NEED Him to water my faith of a mustard seed.
Romans 8:28
And we know that all tings work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
I was created to worship my Creator, not His creation.
I’m learning to trust Him, He’ll surely see me through.
May God bless you as you seek to glorify Him!
Wendy,
Thank you for your heart of compassion, yet uncompromising devotion to Christ.
Just recently (about 5 months ago) I was lifted out of homosexuality. I cannot lie and say that I do not struggle… I still “feel” as if I’m walking, slowly in the midst of a thick fog… but I know that Jesus is worth the fight. I get discouraged and then He lifts me up and leads me to sites like yours to let me know I’m going the right way. He is most gracious and overwhelmingly kind, I deserve death for eternity, I know I do. The hope that keeps me going is that He didn’t call me out to “turn me away”. I desperately NEED Him to water my faith of a mustard seed.
Romans 8:28
And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
I was created to worship my Creator, not His creation.
I’m learning to trust Him, He’ll surely see me through.
May God bless you as you seek to glorify Him!
I too have read Wendy’s original post and the dialogue with great interest. At first I was concerned about the tone of some the dialogue. However, I was pleased to see a thread of respect that ultimately weaved it’s way through the dialogue as questions were raised, challenges made and stands taken.
I too would say as you, Kenny, have so well expressed…”I am change focused…I do not want to be the same person tomorrow, and this is a way of living that isn’t feelings based. It is not about how good I will feel, or how good I will look, rather, a refining and evolving into the man I am created to be. I am not here to change others, that is no ones job. But I will share my experiences with others, my story, because it is mine to share and only by invitation, with respect and honor to all those involved in my journey.”
It is in the interaction with others, whether of like mind or not, that we become who we are intended to be. Learning and becoming are life-long processes enhanced by experience on our own and with others as we journey through life. How, unfulfilling life would be without this.
I do not believe the day will come that I will ever be able to say I know it all, I know I am right, I know the truth. At least not in this life where being human in itself is imperfect.
I do believe that we are all created uniquely for such a time as this. I will walk my journey with integrity being true to what I believe and when I encounter others on their journey, to listen and share with authenticity and respect so we may grow from the experience and continue on our journeys even if we, as Kenny said, “come to different conclusions.”
Wendy,
Thanks for your words, they are interesting. I would ask the following for your comment:
1) What is your typical response to someone who is struggling with SSA?
2) Have you considered that the Bible is not inerrantly “the word of God” and that the cultural situations at the time of writing may have had effect on what men allowed into the Bible?
There has been talk and writings about the fact that pedophelia was rampant when the Bible was written, and therefore the verses referred to such acts.
Thanks for your input. I do think one needs to cut to the chase if this cultural war is ever going to resolve. You must hold whether those beliefs in the Bible really hold water. They must be taken to task by reason, not opinion. Not to mention the plethora of Leviticus statements on other death sentence issues, like working on the Sabath, that are just plain silly. There is no back story to much of the rhetoric in the Bible concerning this subject of homosexuality. It seems they are more than not, fear based horrific rules out to control the population, giving absolutely no reason in fact.
These are the topics and qustions most priests and clergy hide under the carpet rather than answer. Using common sense, can you be a sport and give your insights?
Devlin, the last comment here was in March, you may not get a response.
yeah, rolling the dice here, thanks David.
Hello Devlin,
My typical response to someone struggling with ssa is not typical. Each person is unique – their journey and story are unique – so there is no typical response. I would first of all want to know why they are struggling: are they struggling because they hate themselves (some internalized homophobia)? If so, i would want to work through that self-hatred to self-acceptance. Are they struggling because of a conflict with their spirituality and sexuality? If so, I would want to explore where they are spiritually, what their values are, what the tough questions for them, and help them own their values and develop a plan so that they are best equipped to live consistently with those values. (Which by the way, may or may not line up with the values of New Direction. If their values do not line up with New Direction’s values then we would explore potential referrals with them) Are they struggling because they have behaviours or patterns that feel out of control that they want to address? If so, I would walk with them in equipping them to experience more mastery and management over their behaviours / addictions etc.
Secondly, you’ve asked about how rigid my hermeneutic is. My hope is that I have a humble hermeneutic – that is I recognize that my interpretation of Scripture is fallible and I want to be open to listen, learn and continue to refine how I view and engage Scripture. I do think that cultural context has implications in Scripture. I also think that Scripture is not meant to be a textbook of rules – rather it is a story that demonstrates the move of God towards humanity. This movement is loving and good – and at least for me – mysterious and beyond my full comprehension.
At the end of the day, I believe Scripture points us to God and as human beings, our lives are incomplete without God. This side of heaven, with all of our flaws and mistakes, we are invited to be in relationship with God – and as that relationship grows, in part informed by Scripture, we better understand God’s will for our lives. Wrestling to know what that will is – for me – is an ongoing reality of the journey of faith.
I don’t view Scripture as some archaic, outdated book. I see it rather as a living document. That is, the Holy Spirit continues to illumine the will of God for those in relationship with God who are open to listening and hearing what the Spirit is saying. I do think one needs to consider the whole of Scripture rather than ripping this or that verse out of context. And, to be truthful, I think it is really challenging to understand and know what to do with certain aspects of Scripture. The safety for me is that it isn’t just a book that is old and hard to understand – it is a story that is still unfolding and through the presence of the Holy Spirit I get to be in relationship with the storyteller. For me, however, that necessitates a humility as I seek to interpret the story for others – I need to rely on the leading of the Holy Spirit – and I don’t always perfectly understand or interpret what he seems to be saying. So even though I have been a preacher of Scripture for over ten years, I seek to do so with humility and gentleness – forever grateful that I can entrust my hearers to God. I think one of the most significant tasks of preachers of the gospel is to equip people to hear God for themselves – through Scripture and through the Holy Spirit. Some would say this is relativistic and far too skewed towards experience. I think it is simply personal – and the God I have come to know is personal and knows me personally. The balance to this is that God calls us into community where we submit what God has been saying and teaching us – and we have the opportunity to learn together. Where this happens in mutual love and submission and servanthood – it is a good thing. Where that happens with weird power issues and broken trust and self-righteous, judgmentalism – it can be a very hurtful thing ….. and something that I believe brings grief to the heart of God.
What this means in the nitty gritty for same-gender attracted and gay people is that I hope they find themselves in a humble and secure community where they can have the safe and spacious place to wrestle with God and hear what he is saying to them – and then share that with their community of faith. In sharing, it is my prayer that they will encounter feeling valued, honoured, and deeply encouraged to continue to move forward with God, continue to wrestle with him to more fully understand and own his will for their life.
Thanks for your reply Wendy. I hope another reply is not too much to ask.
There are a few things I take into consideration when determining value in a belief:
1) Is the belief presented fully, research background etc 2) does it make sense 3) is it motivated by evil (D’evil) 4) is it motivated by good (God)? The answers are either yes no maybe or unknown. If I get 3 yes, it is a good balanced common sense idea/belief. If not, it is discarded.
With you being a straight white woman, you cannot fully recognize the chemical biological reality homosexual and bisexual people know as real and undeniably authentic regarding their sexual attractions. And the confusion they are experiencing at the hands of fallable religious beliefs.
However, you are a woman. And I portend that you most likely know the burdens women have suffered at the hands of religious bigotry. You know when you are right and religion has done you wrong. You know the chemical reaction your body feels, the anger it induces, the rage it provokes, when you know in your soul you are right and are being told you are unacceptable, without merit and just plain wrong.
I entertain to you, that if you teach that homosexuality is detestable to God, that you might want to put yourself in the “woman being religiously persecuted” position, and feel again, the burn.
It is that kind of reaction that gay people feel when they are told they are straight and their homosexuality is inadmissable and rejected as a real authentic human trait. It is the same “burn” that blacks have felt, that Jews have felt, and that all people at some level have felt from religion, when not a member. Are you simply propelling past models of negative religious warrior behavior, onto the next sacrifical lamb that seems to be blocking your set world view, i.e. homosexuality?
I would imagine that people that don’t “line up with New Directions” and are shipped off to other counselors, may feel greatly dis-service by religious mentors, feeling great rejection by your organization, possibly shaking their emotional foundations to the core.
I get, you have compassion for the human race. What I am not sure of, is how far that compassion goes when determining true and false “fallable” beliefs for your flock. Of that I find you still suspect. Do you import into your consciousness, that the biblical verses face value, about homosexuality are true, and therefore determine your counseling tech?
You say you are listening to God, which makes you a channel/psychic in current day terminology. I propose that all channelled information is subject to conjecture and embellishment by the channel. The Bible is a partially “channelled” document, leaving it potentially fully open to interpretation, due to the channels potential portense to embellish. With this in mind, regarding your values when interpreting a fallable belief in the bible, how do you go about validating correctly that homosexuality is detestable and against God’s will? What formula do you use to determine correct beliefs from fallable beliefs?
You have a chance to make a difference in peoples lives that need assurance that their sexuality is ok, fully, without reservation, without flaw, and is a native part of the human template. If your bottom line is hard core bible beliefs for New Directions, the game is lost, there are no winners. With rejection as the basis, instead of acceptance, the persecuted might as well take up residence in Iran, and step up to the gallows. When it comes to the rejection/acceptance model, there is no in between. None. At some level, no matter how much sugar and spice you toss on it, the persecuted will feel hanged.
Thanks again Wendy. It’s the open honesty in your writings that can make change realistic.
Please let me know your thoughts.
Devlin Bach
Devlin,
With all due respect I believe you’ve made some assumptions about me – that perhaps even if you’d read through all the comments on this long thread you would have a better sense of my perspective.
I do believe that God’s best intention for sexual intimacy is within the covenant of marriage between husband and wife. I understand that you clearly disagree with this. However, this is not the same as teaching that homosexuality is detestable. Rather, I spend a great deal of time teaching in the Christian community that the ground is level at the foot of the cross – that we all, gay or straight, come to the same place needing grace – needing Jesus Christ.
I have been very clear about saying that I believe that part of my role is to normalize the experience of same-gender attraction for those who can’t personally relate – and did so recently on my newly launched blog: http://www.btgproject.blogspot.com (the post “the biggest limper” in particular). I know that there are some who say, “there is no such thing as a homosexual – only heterosexuals with a homosexual problem”. I do not think this statement is helpful at all. I think it smacks with an arrogence that alienates and shames. A huge part of the advocacy that I seek to do within the Christian community is to speak to our shared humanity, the dignity and value of all persons, and the love of God for all persons.
In terms of making referrals – that is out of respect for a person’s ability to choose and own their own path. As I have said previously, New Direction mentors gladly stay part of an individual’s life regardless of their beliefs and values if they invite us to continue to be in relationship. We love and care for people – not just because they agree with us and do as we do – but because they are deeply loved and valued by God.
Finally, I have spoke out decisively against anti-gay rhetoric – including that spoken by those who identify as Christian. My staff and I have many opportunities to engage families in crisis when a child comes out. Often Christian parents have very high freak out levels and we consistently advocate for parents to offer love and acceptance. We are grieved when gay people feel rejection because of their experience of same-gender attraction.
I do think you can offer acceptance even when there are points of disagreement. You may disagree – and I can accept that.
I do get that you are more for letting the Holy Spirit “do the wooing” and not ones limping mind. In some ways I see you as the feminine part of Exodus and Alan Chambers as the masculine. You stay open and want to talk about it, Alan, well, he just kind of bumbles and hides out. But I do believe that you live in an ideology that is disruptive to those who are not within it. The us and them, if they just “got it like I do” mentality, in itself is separatist. And it engenders fear.
If they just got “Jesus” then all would all be ok and we would then have more limpers in our club who think like we do. I think a good example of how it has not worked as one may want, is in the fact there are so many “Jesus” people who are still very very conflicted, and very separate, hence the model is flawed in thinking it’s the only way. That is in itself, inaccurate and separatist.
I know why the model is flawed, it is the underlying structure of the mind BELIEFS that set the chism.
That is why Wendy when you say, your free will choice belief, that God’s intention for marriage is between a man and a woman, a polarizing conflict ensues, and causes fear in the marketplace. The belief of the conditional mind sets up the conflict with the heart, or unconditional love. Snap, a break sets in between mind thoughts and spiritual reality. You may therefore be calling forth the disonant term “tolerating” gay marriage, rather than call forth the harmonious term, that being to include gay marriage in the tapestry of human love bonds.
If your God is unconditional love like you have said, then that God would have no opinion either way about marriage. God is love, and nothing else. Fear comes in when mankind tries to interpret what God’s love is, relegates it to categories, hailing conditional love to set in. And love with conditions is a man made love, not God’s love. The, I will love you if you believe as I do, conflict arises.
I think this is the level playing field at the foot of the cross you grapple with, as we all do to some degree. It is level, but lets THINK about it and put it into boxes, probably not a good idea. Staying level in all situations could be the best ploy, though the mind would surely have a say in that, letting conflict based beliefs taint love.
Regardless of whether you believe homosexual and bisexual lovers are second class and not deserving of marriage and sexual expression, really isn’t the point. The point is, will you realize that God’s love truly is unconditional, and build your beliefs around that.
Having had the privilege of experiencing “the other side” or “heaven” with “the veil” completely dropping twice in my life, I can tell you that the concept of God being a punishing God is fully false. It is a grave error, and unfortunately, many have built their realities on this flaw. The truth is, God is perfect peace.
I believe that God the Father, and the man who is a father of human children, have been significantly intertwined in the Bible, making a human Father, and God the Father, meshed. One knows well of the punishment a human father mets out. God the Father is the exact opposite. It may be our job to separate the two.
If all had memory with no veil, we would not be having this discussion. You would be marrying gay couples with full support and love. But you hold a mind based God model, so be it. It is quite popular. And I accept your reality as yours.
So yes we can agree to disagree. But at the end of the day, God the Father’s love will win out. Not the human mind’s interpretation of God’s love. This is why your country has legalized gay marriage, regardless of fear based beliefs. The entire world will be this way some day. That is the meaning of Christ returning, it is the return of unconditional love on all fronts, not merely a return of a male figure. Peace knows we don’t need another slaughter.
I understand the threat some Christians feel around the acceptance of homosexuals as part of their humanity they must at some point accept. And I also understand the threat gays feel by being told they are wrong in the church’s eyes. I also know first hand, the difference between God’s unconditional love and mankind’s conditional love, and the two teams that play the game. I’ve played on both. Tossing the ball back and forth can be emotionally devastating. But on it goes.
Regarding this cultural homosexual man made threat, my peace lays in; this too shall pass.
Peace
Devlin said:
Setting aside whether one agrees with you or not (along with the meaning of “the veil dropping”), how might you react if this type of statement were made by another in defense of “God is against gay marriage (or any number of things)?” Don’t you think your comments are crossing over into dogma?
Hi David,
Thanks for your reply.
My reaction when someone says “God is against gay marriage (or any number of things)” hits me like playing a beautiful cord on a piano but the strings are out of tune. God might play the perfect concerto called the multi sexual human race, but the out of tune strings, being mankind’s interpretation, warp the output. It sets forth a glitch, turning harmony into dissonance or discordance. My inner response would be that this person does not know what perfect peace/love, or God, is. Depending on the atmosphere in which the belief was stated to me, my outter response could bring forth a list of replies, from; interesting thought, care to dialogue, to thanks for sharing, I’m going skiing now.
To those who might put my knowledge that God is perfect peace and/or love, and only this, into the category of dogma, I would ask them, what produces peace in the long run regarding the topic of discussion.
I will always concur that peace/love is the natural order and stands the test of time, is unalterable eternal and unambiguous, and real. For me, this is what I know. Beliefs however, are changeable uneternal and are ambiguous and can be frought with controversy and fear. Is the idea that perfect peace/love/God is dogma? Maybe to some who are filtering with belief, but in and of itself, the concept needs no defense that it is real. So I do not concur that I am wallowing in the dogma category with regard to my statements. I think the “God” word has been so stigmatized, that replacing it with love/peace would have this discussion make more sense. Regarding the Bible, they got it right, God is unconditional love. That is all God is. And the term “God” is the descriptive label. All other statements that lack peace and love, “God says” is heresay, conjecture and muddled man made beliefs.
With regard to sexuality, gay people are in “the know” about their sexuality. They have first hand knowledge that they are attracted to the same sex. This is unalterable by beliefs. They know they are capable of the same love sex and intimacy as heterosexuals. It is not a “belief” to be defended, it is a reality to be lived. It does not fall into the category of dogma, or the unprovable. It is factual knowledge, standing the test of reason and time, regardless of opinion.
I do believe Wendy Gritter wants peace instead of war, and this is admirable. I think her courageous ploy however, is to tolerate nicely through belief, rather than include fully through God’s love. I must say, getting people to “agree to disagree” soas to stop war, is priceless. It’s a start. It brings discussion to the table, and teaches angry souls to calm down. This is her piece in the puzzle. For that I thank her. I also however, see that she is not addressing the cause of the war, that being the origin of her beliefs. Her beliefs, separate. Her beliefs, discriminate. They do not support homosexual expression. They do not produce peace for injured parties. “Sorry” is meaningless without change. In this she has not been forthcoming with research about her beliefs, why she believes what she does, do her beliefs produce peace, and from what I can tell, they are not up for discussion. Much like Alan Chambers, the discussion of beliefs is where they lock the door.
Regarding the cultural war on homosexuality and gay marriage; it is not my desire to try and change the minds of the Christians of the world, for me that is a useless waste of energy. I am more inclined to call HRC and write a check, a big check, to thwart off the discriminative November initiative to ban gay marriage.
In time gays and lesbians, like many other minority situations of this world that have sustained tyranny from erroneous dogma, will also live in peace with the rest of the human race. Will that mean that God’s perfect peace, or peace and love will prevail? Yes. Is that dogma? That is a question I would now pose, to you.
——————————————————————————–
Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars.
Devlin,
I would rather have dialogue with someone like Wendy than someone who would attempt at every turn to discredit my personal beliefs. Wendy’s listening to God has no less merit than you “having had the privilege of experiencing “the other side” or “heaven” with “the veil” completely dropping twice in my life.” Who is there to validate your experience but you?
New Direction has helped me seek a personal understanding and peace to Christian held beliefs and living sga. The fact that New Direction remains out of “politics” and does not seek to “change” me or make me “ex-gay” is what attracted me to seek them out. Do I believe everything New Direction and Wendy do? No. But it has been the first place I have been respected and walked along side of despite our differences. I certainly did not get that in the church or even in the gay community, both who claim to accept/love unconditionally.
No two journeys are the same. We are all unique. Therefore our journeys are unique. We cross each others paths only for a moment and for a purpose. We should be seeking to help each other in that moment to find its purpose, as different as it may be for each of us. That is when God’s perfect peace and love will prevail.