A member of the church pastored by the late Reverend Jerry Falwell has launched a website offering advice to homosexuals who want to find “healing from same-sex attraction.”
Debbie Thurman of Thomas Road Baptist Church, Lynchburg, VA, has set up TheFormers.com as “a place of fellowship for those who have found healing from same-sex attraction — or are on that journey — and their supporters.” Echoing a by-now-familiar refrain of ex-gays and anti-gays, Thurman writes that, “Even if science one day finds a genetic predisposition to same-sex attraction, we don’t believe gays and lesbians are designed that way.”
The site is a melting-pot of ex-gay resources, with little discrimination shown. Demonstrating an ecumenism that temporarily bypasses fundamentalists’ usual hostility to other religions and non-orthodox sects, the site links to Jewish ex-gay group Jonah and Mormon ministry Evergreen, as well as Christian groups across the spectrum, including NARTH and the increasingly extreme PFOX.
To get some idea of where Thurman’s sympathies lie, consider her defense of her late pastor, who infamously declared that AIDS was God’s judgment on both homosexuals and the society that tolerates them, and announced that gays would “literally crush all decent men, women and children.” He later blamed 9/11 on gays and lesbians, among others. In a letter to the Lynchburg News & Advance earlier this year, Thurman decried a columnist for saying that the late Falwell “spouted hate,” joining the call for him to apologize to “the Falwell family, Thomas Road Baptist Church and Liberty University.”
It seems the ex-gay movement has found itself yet another hardline advocate.
_________________________
Meanwhile, Box Turtle Bulletin reports on a new website about the history of treatment for homosexuality in the UK since 1950. The site will archive research carried out by University College London, in the UK.
Notice the statement she makes in The Lynchburg News & Advance: “There is a difference between godly [sic] offense and human offense.” The logic seems to be that offending someone through hate speech is justified when God condones it. Since I am a graduate of the affiliated Liberty University myself, I feel I am certainly in the right to take the utmost exception to that twisted thinking on their part. It is ludicrous from a theological perspective and Mrs. Thurman ought to know better that God would never condone hateful sentiment under any circumstance. This is another painful example of people using their religious beliefs to excuse their own hate.
This is a bit unrelated, but it seems that everyone is joining the ex-gay bandwagon.
This response is directed primarily to Andrew. I would have thought a graduate of LU would understand what the term “godly offense” means and would consider the entire context of my comments. (By the way, hats off to EGW for digging that up. And thanks for the exposure for The Formers as well.)
God’s truth is perceived as offensive to those who do not understand it. Remember Paul writing about the “natural man” for whom the truth is “foolishness.” I sometimes just forget when I am writing how biblically illiterate many people are, Christians included. I have grown up with the Scriptures and have had the opportunity to learn much in my schooling sessions with God.
Humans offend out of evil intentions or ignorance. My daughters also are LU alumnae. They got what I was saying.
As for the “crime” of loving my former pastor? Well, I plead guilty as charged. I had the privilege of knowing him, while those who still are under compulsion to deride his memory more than a year after his passing did not. He was old school in many regrards. But since my family and his each have their roots deep in Virginia soil, I can appreciate the entire context of the man, rather than the pretext of some of his isolated comments. (Did they teach you at LU about pretext and context in hermeneutics, Andrew?)
Is EGW implying that I agreed with Doc Falwell’s every comment? Well, let me set the record straight. He was a humble enough man to let me tell him when I disagreed. He listened, and if he felt he might be in the wrong, he adjusted. Why should I not love him for that?
So how do you feel about your former chancellor, Andrew?
Mrs. Thurman, thank you for your response. It is difficult in this world to find people who are unconditionally loyal to their friends, so I compliment you on your faithfulness to the late Reverend Falwell. I did not have the pleasure of meeting him in person while in this world, but I shall very much look forward to it in the next.
I would like to inform you that not only was I an LU graduate, but formerly associated myself with Christian fundamentalism. I was raised in a conservative Baptist church, was active in my faith since childhood, am formerly a youth minister, have participated in numerous missions and service trips, both domestic and international, and have had countless experiences teaching apologetics, theology, and yes, even the hermeneutics involved in inductive Bible study (so much for the perceived Biblical illiteracy). It is in this light that I take exception to the insinuation that I am some how inept because I did not perceive your vague reference to 1 Corinthians 1:23. It is all the more frustrating since, in context (your previously stated preference), the passage is teaching nothing of the sort you claim. The “godly offense” is a reference to the Jewish reaction to the Christian message of justification by faith in Jesus of Nazareth. Please be sure to review your exegetical analyses of a given text before reverting to ad hominem attacks in the light of assumed ignorance.
Thank you for pointing this out. I’m glad we all agree on this fact, because this is exactly what our side is claiming about your position, Mrs. Thurman. It is not that you have access to some metaphysical epistemology that we fail to comprehend and are thus offended by your bestowing upon us the awareness of our cognitive deficiencies. We are insulted by the ignorance of your position, which is due largely to contempt for seeking to understand the biopsychosocial etiology of homosexuality and a reversion to simplistic, reductionist reasoning. And when this absurdity is followed by an aggravated audacity to attribute to this process the category of “godliness,” the independent-minded person can hardly avoid bewilderment even if he or she comes from the same religious heritage as the claimant! (as is the case with yours truly).
Loyalty is not a crime and it is not that for which we take issue with you or the Rev. Falwell. We find it not to be an issue of faithfulness to a person, but the refusal to admonish the hate speech in comments that, contrary to your assertion, were not taken out of context and for which Rev. Falwell himself issued public apologies. Whether done with a pure intention (as I’m sure it often is) or with vitriol, it is irrelevant to the fact that hate speech is hate speech when statements are made that incite prejudice against a certain segment of the population based on their identifying demographic. And I’m sure that Virginians are not too different from society at large – especially not to an extent large enough that those in that society are unable to evaluate them fairly. To insist on it would be indeed a far greater pretext than that which allegedly contains the referred to “isolated comments.”
He was truly a humble man in many respects, this example being just one of many that could be said of a devoted father and pastor. I do not judge the man’s heart. But as an example from our mutually shared tradition demonstrates (Galatians 2:9-14), even great, Godly men are not free from the errors of prejudice.
I realize that sometimes we say things that don’t always come across in text as we might have intended, but this really does sound condescending. Your participation is welcome, but the discussion works much better sans this sort of attitude. If it was unintended, just consider that a bit of prophylactic commenter etiquette, lol.
As Andrew mentioned, I too understand the “offense” referenced to be in teaching that the Christ was crucified. This caused the Jews to be troubled — they knew about the scriptures, the promise of Messiah, etc. and the idea that He could be killed by men was just one more reason in their minds to disbelieve that Jesus was He in the first place. It was perfectly understandable response. For the non-Jews, this was all a lot of nonsense since they didn’t even know the story or at least didn’t take it seriously.
I have to admit, the misuse of this scripture and concept has frustrated me for some time. Many use it as an excuse when receiving critical or negative responses that are entirely appropriate. It’s one thing to be persecuted for Christ’s sake while sharing the Good News in love with a servant’s heart, but quite another to be rebuked for showing ones own human ass in anger.
And watching those who claim to be in “ministry against homosexuality” is a prime vantage point from which to see just that — people who should know better, essentially using the greatest expression of love in the universe as an excuse for ones own hatred and prejudice.
That was not necessarily directed at you personally Debbie, I don’t know what you do well enough yet. But I hope we can agree that there are more than enough examples to prove the point.
Welcome to XGW and thank you for participating in the discussion.
Andrew, I think we may both end up pleasantly surprising each other before this is all over. It seems we both have come to this table with some preconceived notions about the respective work we do. But that’s what dialogue is about — reeducation.
My apologies for not knowing your background and education. Of course, I had never heard of you before, as you are not likely to have known of me, either. It should not surprise me that XGW would be utilizing the services of someone like you, given the degree to which the gay rights movement has begun concentrating itself within the Church of late.
I will have to cop a plea to being unclear in my earlier statement that was dredged up to include in the XGW item here. You’re right in that many people would assume that I was referring to the 1 Cor. 1:23 passage, (“a stumbling block … and an offense”), but I would hope they would also note the surrounding verses for more context. I usually am careful to give supporting references, and I should have there. In fact, I was referring more to Proverbs 19:3 and to the general attitude of those who lack the discernment to be convicted (by the Holy Spirit). You and I both know people whose feathers are easily ruffled, as well as those who are patient to the point of being long-suffering toward their fellow men. The Word of God is offensive to many. I think that should be pretty clear.
I am glad you pointed out that my reference to the biblically illiterate was coming off as condescending. Quite right. That is the one attitude I most want to stay away from. We both see so much ignorance and we read statements we vehemently disagree with on a daily basis from one camp or the other in this great debate. It can cause a jaded attitude to slip out, and that is not going to help anyone. Forgive me. While the statement does apply in some quarters, there are points of legitimate disagreement in scriptural interpretation, and ever will be. Now that I know more of who you are, I can assure you that you won’t be hearing that again.
You referred to the doctrine of justification, which is a most important one and the basis for all of us to stand uncondemned before God because of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That is precisely what allows us “formers” to live in a new reality (putting off of the old and putting on of the new). I guess what troubles me most is the viewing of those referred to as ex-gay as some kind of existential threat to gays who want to be affirmed in that identity. I rarely see any kind of ad hominem attacks so vile as those aimed at us. Why is that? You say you are insulted by the ignorance of our position. Why not just shake your heads in disagreement and go on with your life (regardless of whether you personally are gay or are just a sympathizer, as that is not clear to me)? We are not trying to remove gays from the face of the earth, nor are most of us political activists trying to strip human rights from homosexuals. Many of us remain quietly in the closet so as not to risk persecution. If there is one thing I hope to achieve it is to get an open, honest dialogue going. Is such a thing possible? We shall see. It’s been tried unsuccessfully before.
I am well aware that many Christians are deserving of the charge of “lobbing truth grenades over their fortress walls,” as one gay journalist has said. People like you and me are in a position to change that.
I guess I have to ask you whether or not you believe that people like me have experienced genuine change. If you don’t accept our position, what exactly are you not accepting? Please be sure you are not equating me or The Formers with other organizations that may take a different tack. I welcome XGW to watch us. Please observe. We will be doing the same of you. Let’s see if we can’t bring some much-needed change to this arena.
As for the late Dr. Falwell, I would prefer just to let his memory rest.
Unfortunately, millions of gay men and women still have to live with Falwell’s legacy, their rights directly affected by the hate that he and other leaders of the Christian Right have stirred up.
“Unfortunately, millions of gay men and women still have to live with Falwell’s legacy, their rights directly affected by the hate that he and other leaders of the Christian Right have stirred up.”
Do they, Dave? Dr. Falwell was asked by Mel White and others to examine some of his pulpit rhetoric on homosexuality, and he did. I think you could see him toning things down a bit during the last phase of his life. He would not go so far as to affirm homosexuality as unsinful or normal behavior when He believed Scripture was quite clear on the subject. Mel was deceiving himself to think he could ever convince his old friend to change in that regard. Doc never stopped loving Mel or praying for him.
Unfortunately, Doc and I had just began scratching the surface in our discussion about these issues when he was taken from us. I know from our conversations that he had a compassionate, redemptive heart toward homosexuals. I also think he regretted some of the things he had said along the way that may or may not have led to others being judgmental or cruel. You should read his wife Macel’s recent book about him for some interesting insights.
Jerry Falwell’s perceived legacy in the gay culture war has been overblown and misunderstood, in my opinion. What troubles folks the most is the hypocrrisy many Christians demonstrate–and you can make a case that Falwell was guilty by association–when they rail against homosexuality while failing to deal with other sins that are even more prominent. To the extent we do that, it is shameful.
We can’t go around licking our wounds and pointing fingers of blame forever. As I said to Andrew, let’s do something to change the level of discourse and move in the right direction. We all have logs in our eyes that need to be removed before we dare to remove a splinter from another’s eye.
And David, I hope I also have adequately responded to your concerns. I wasn’t ignoring them.
Debbie, I’m not sure where to start. It seems you have replied to both my comments and Andrew’s as one. It’s a bit confusing, but let me just respond briefly and then let others if they like.
As far as I can tell, Andrew just started commenting here a few days ago. Also, XGW is entirely volunteer — I wasn’t sure if “utilize” was meant to be “employed” but I wanted to clear it up anyway.
XGW is a watchdog of ex-gay organizations and the issues surrounding them. Since nearly all of the ex-gay movement is spurred on by the Church in some way, mostly Protestant Christian, we do end up and always have ended up discussing matters of faith as they relate to that subject.
We go there because the Church went there first. What effect that has on gay rights advocates at large, I can’t tell you for sure. But it is my observation that again, those acting under cover of ministry — both sincerely and not — are the main source of lobbying against those things which make our lives (GLBT) easier to live. It would be odd not to expect some concentration there.
I’m rather confused actually by your mixing of ideas there. On the one hand you seem again to be using another verse that really isn’t on point:
People’s own foolishness ruins their lives, but in their minds they blame the Lord. Proverbs 19:3 NCV
I take that to mean that people screw up their lives and then shake their fist at God. You’ve added something in there about people who are patient and long suffering with their fellow man. Certainly that should be a trait of a Believer, but can certainly also be a trait of an atheist, or of someone of a different faith.
If what you are trying to say is that not everyone appreciates the Gospel, and some are actually irritated by it, I won’t argue that. But I hope you also won’t argue my point that many people who exclaim, as you have, that “the Gospel is an offense to unbelievers” are really reaping the result of their own hate disguised as help from God.
I could write a book on this one. For some understanding I suggest you first peruse the archives of this site. There may not exist a more rich collection of discussions on this issue from talented writers and brilliant commenters. If you are truly interested in why some have “vilified” ex-gays, that is an excellent place to start.
As for the viewpoint of XGW, you might start with an exchange that occurred just a few days ago. Jay is ex-gay as generally defined, in reality he is a celibate homosexual because he believes same-sex sexual relationships are sin as defined in Scripture. He was invited to post on this site and one commenter couldn’t understand why he was even here. My comments and those of Emily (another XGW writer) should give you some idea of how we approach individual “ex-gays.”
In general, if you are not lobbying to make my life more difficult or less equal to yours, that’s a very good thing. I applaud you for that. Our second major issue with, for instance, Exodus, would be the “product” they are selling. It holds out an impossible goal to those who are confused or simply believe as Jay does, emphasizing (thought of late they are trying to spin away from this in public) “change is possible” and using a lot of dime-store psychology to support their views.
When the mythical change doesn’t happen, they end up delusioned and often stripped of their faith. You will find a lot of those people come by here. They have been held to a standard to which no one else is held. People divorce and remarry, but no one seriously accuses them of adultery, chastises them out of the church, accuses them of corrupting children. Yet Christ was obviously heartsick of the idea of divorce.
There are people such as Peter LaBarbara for whom the ends always seem to justify the means. He repeatedly goes to the most promiscuous events which make up such a tiny segment of both gay and straight society in general, and uses it to claim that all gays participate in the same. These are lies and lies cannot be part of God. It’s become obvious to everyone that he spends a curious amount of time at those events, yet not one serious leader in the Church has rebuked him so that others could see that it’s wrong.
There is PFOX whose shrill voices are anything but helpful to anyone, least of all ex-gays. Regina blames the schools for making her child gay so she is out on a vendetta. I tried talking with them early on, they called us a hate group and won’t even communicate to verify facts. Our archives are full of the most file stuff you have ever heard, to repeat a phrase, and it comes from them, their web master, and their board members.
And talk about vile? DL Foster, who now has switched gears to a more gentile shtick, less than two years ago had the most horrific, vile, hateful stuff you have ever seen, much of it aimed at XGW. We actually had to ban him from commenting because he couldn’t be civil, yet Exodus thinks he is wonderful.
I could go on and on Debbie. The truth of the matter is, we wouldn’t need to exist if the major ex-gay organizations were telling the truth and treating people with respect. And while I welcome your participation here, and I will hold you to your own record not theirs, this is not a “bridges across” type site. Those attempts never seem to work because when one claims ultimate truth concerning an issue like this, there is no compromise by definition.
What we do want, and in fact expect, is a civil atmosphere where one can be passionate about ones convictions and view, but not to the point of disrespect for others as human beings with free will and their own views. Whatever claims of fact that are made for which the support is not common knowledge must be supported by authoritative sources. Those are pretty much the rules. If you can handle that, then by all means participate. But don’t be surprised if you encounter disagreement — that’s a given.
Yeah, David, I did not mean to use the broad-stroke approach earlier in addressing both your and Andrew’s concerns. Sorry.
I know we are all more or less taking the measure of each other at this point, and that’s okay. I’m a new player, though it’s an old game.
I will check out some of the other spots you mention.
I am not a big fan of PFOX. I can’t even get Regina Griggs to talk tome, so what does that tell you? I don’t want to be in anybody’s back pocket. My allegiance is to God and His Word. We are really one family, just different branches.
I am well aware of the collapsed “Bridge(s) Across” project. No, there cannot be compromise on truth. One one side can own it. God will have to be the judge. My approach leans more to discipleship than to activism. But any ministry to strugglers is going to be labeled “ex-gay” and that is a political term to many. I can’t do anything about that except keep saying that’s not who I am. If I could disagree with my late pastor, I think I also can disagree with my fellow “formers” on some points while still respecting them. If they “disearn” that respect, that would be their choice.
I am all for civil and rational discussion. I still think we can learn useful things from one another and apply them to our common welfare.
I do have to say that you must clarify if you are saying that, in “selling the impossible,” Exodus is being dishonest about the possibility of change. It is a possibility, not a guarantee. Is anyone there making that promise? We surely don’t say that at The Formers.
Debbie I fully extend forgiveness to you for your comments. I can tell by reading your other quotes that you are a passionate person who truly cares about people. To answer your question, I do not accept the hypothesis that sexual orientation can be changed, but I do see how it could (note the emphasis) be theorized that some (note the emphasis) could have a wider range of variability on it. Let me explain further and in more detail. The common understanding, and the one I believe is supported by the research, is that, like many things about us, sexual orientation develops as an interplay between genetics, psychological constructs, and socialization. Genes set bounds or establish what I like to call hereditary ranges (called the genotype). This set’s the bounds. For example, let’s say we’re talking about height. Your genotype might be coded in such a way that you will grow between 5 feet, 4 inches and 5 feet, 9 inches. That’s the range. Now, the interplay of psychological factors (which includes behaviors) and social factors that influence how we eat, the sleep we get, etc. over the years we grow up determines at what point on that continuum we land. Another way to look at it is that genes provide a framework within which we develop. Now, having said that, there are things that you have no control over because it’s sort of hardwired into your system such as colors you like or what have you (although there is some evidence that even certain of these “set” things can be influenced at least slightly by environment). Our cognition, choices, and relationships all work together in such a way as to develop what we will be within that framework.
Given that background information (called the biopsychosocial model) I can see where there is potential for a person to have some movement on sexual orientation (since it was my understanding that an orientation was just that – something that orients or shapes or frames an individual) along a particular continuum. In other words, if sexuality were a scale from 1 to 100 with strict homosexuality being a 100 and strict heterosexuality being a one, individuals could have different genotypical boundaries. Let’s say that a person who is gay and has always only felt attractions to the same sex has a genotypical range of 85 to 95. Maybe a bisexual goes from 35 to 65 so he experiences attractions to both (and so on and so forth you get the point). It is therefore conceivable that one could have a very wide range say from like 15 to 75. So, it’s possible that this person could identify as gay at one point and then, through whatever factors influence them, “move” back toward the 15. This, by the way, is only hypothetical. It’s something I am expostulating for the sake of discussion.
Now this theory would raise a lot of questions as far as precision of the interaction of the causes, but theoretically it would be possible to see movement. I personally do not believe I have ever heard a story of a person who was 100% gay that switched to 100% strait with NO residual homosexual attractions. If you know of any, send them my way. Even for those who report some sort of “change” it is usually statistically insignificant (which means the change can just easily be attributed to chance). Most studies that have been done on people (actually I’ve never heard of one to the contrary) seem to demonstrate that any kind of movement is difficult if not impossible and at great anxiety to the client. However, if the theory is correct, then it should be possible to see changes. I’m only speculating here, remember that. The old Freudian theory of the weak father/overbearing mother MAY be the case here and there, who knows? The thing is that no controlled study has been done to offer evidence that Freud’s theory has any merit. Instead, the studies show it doesn’t correlate. Perhaps these people who change are actually bisexual who move from repression of one part of their personality to another with the change being instigated by social pressure or religious conviction? That’s my belief now, though I do want to test this theory out as we begin to understand more and more about the interaction of genes and environment. Maybe a good topic for a Ph.D. thesis!
On the issue of dialogue, I agree it’s necessary, but until fundamentalists in our faith get off the soap box, it’s not going to happen. Fundamentalists need to gain some humility to recognize that maybe, just maybe, even if it’s 0.000001 chance, THEY could be wrong. It’s a healthy belief to hold. I believe it was Dave who said that one can believe strongly and passionately and yet not think themselves so astute as to be free from error. The fact that no two people on this planet have the exact same theology point by point is evidence to the fact that God has not enlightened certain institutions or denominations to the exclusion of others. I, personally, when studying the background and cultures of the Bible, do not find that there is a prohibition of loving same sex relationships. Homosexual relations used in religious cult worship of the Canaanite god Molech? Don’t even think about it! It is that context against which the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 21(?) are written. So, since I don’t see the Bible and homosexuality per se as mutually exclusive, I have no problem incorporating it into my belief system, but perhaps I’m wrong. I’m open to being corrected if wrong.
The reason I share this with you Debbie is that the actions on the right wing don’t match their words. If fundamentalists really believed that everyone is ultimately responsible to decide how they will live, it is contradictory to pass laws that limit their freedom to marry or be denied inclusion in federal antidiscrimination laws. They base their arguments on slippery slope fallacies as if because two gay people get married it will destroy the institution of marriage. Europe has had equal right in these areas for decades and marriage has miraculously survived. If you want to present yourself as an organization that believes change is possible (granting you the premise that it should be changed to begin with), then you are free to do so. From what I can gather, and that with which I would agree, is that all the folks that run this website are saying is, don’t inspire false hopes based on anecdotal evidence. Be honest (which should be the hallmark of any Christian ministry) and tell people that there is no credible scientific study to date that provides evidence that alteration of one’s sexual orientation is possible. Help them to understand that this is a religious belief that you have based upon your own experience and you or your group’s interpretation of the Bible. In psychology we call that “informed consent” and if you can’t respect the client enough to do that then you are violating the ethics of the profession and should consider another field (and if you are not a professional, informed consent is still the Christian thing to do).
I hope that in the days ahead we will all be able to continue in a productive dialogue. Oh and Dave, I found your site in a Google search while I was researching the views of prominent Christian psychologists on this topic and a link to your site where you were evaluating Dr Warren Throckmorton came up and I clicked on it and lo and behold here I am. The thing I like best about the posts you guys put up is that the major points are all referenced. I’m glad to be part of the dialogue.
I’ve been giving a lot of thought to this overall discussion. It’s come full circle for me. While it has been instructive to try to comprehend the prevailing mindset of those who so easily justify homosexuality as the right thing–indeed, the only possible thing–for them, I must go back to the opening of this discussion and what brought me to it.
Andrew was trying to pin me down to a scriptural reference that would justify my use of the phrase “godly offense” (as opposed to “human offense”) in a letter to the editor of my local newspaper. David seemed to think it something that also needed clarifying. Of course, I question why it was brought up in the first place in a short item, the news value of which was in my launching a new ministry outreach, since I have written many things over many years. In reflection, I have come to see this nitpicking as representative of what’s wrong with this entire conversation. Really, the fact that “Christ crucified”–the linchpin of all church doctrine–can be a stumbling block to Jews and an offense to Gentiles says it all. The world is divided into Jews (God’s chosen people) and Gentiles (those who are not Jews). Who else is left?
All the mental and theological gymnastics I have seen here proves just how much of a stumbling block and an offense God’s reconciling truth remains. Jesus IS truth. He himself said so. God sometimes has to offend us. It’s how He turns us. First we’re angry. Then we’re convicted with “godly sorrow.” At that point, we have a choice. It is a given that humans will offend each other since we live according to our sin nature unless or until such time as we place our hearts under new ownership, or as Oswald Chambers puts it, we give up our right to ourselves.
It seems to me affirming gays are absolutely insisting on their right to themselves. Is it inconceivable to them–to most of you who hang out at XGW–that God might give some the grace to change or even to live celibate lives of untangled devotion to Him? They/we are sneered at as unhappy, unfulfilled, pathetic, suppressed simpletons. Yet, even celibacy is a valid option for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, however few take it.
It matters little to me or to the overall debate whether homosexuality (or any of its rainbow spectrum variations) is a fully genetic condition or a biopsychosocial one. Its onset still is not a choice. You will never hear me saying it is. We inherit many others things in this fallen world we’d just as soon have no part of.
I find it quite interesting that Paul essentially opens the book of Romans, the same epistle in which he lays out the doctrine of justification–again that linchpin of Christianity that is so offensive to many–by citing homosexuality as one specific form of sensuality to which God abandons those who reject the authority of His Word and the one who was the Word incarnate. And please, don’t waste your time trying to convince me that Paul meant something else in Romans 1:26-27. He did not. The unnaturalness of same-sex acts lent itself well to the point he was illustrating. He also went on to list a host of other sins, all of them egregious, all conceived through some kind of lust.
In the final analysis, all that matters it that there is absolute truth, revealed to us by God in His Word, and that we can know it. We are either for God or against Him.
You are going to say that I am humanly offending you, but I submit I am just a messenger of the other kind of offense. So you may “shoot” me if you wish. I am not the one you are really angry with, so it won’t matter. The mot offensive and evil thing I can do is to refuse to share the truth or to pretend it doesn’t matter.
I don’t know how many ways that I haven’t already employed I can tell you how much my heart goes out to God’s gay children. It breaks over the pain you have suffered–I have known that pain–but even more so because I understand Colossians 2:8 captivity. I’ve been there, too.
Yes, people do experience real, lasting change. They are delivered, through a power far greater than science (can the law be greater than the law giver?), from homosexuality and a host of other things. I am one of them–set free first from a 10-year-long battle with major depression and then a much longer struggle with same-sex attraction. My father was delivered from a lifelong battle with alcoholism, my mother from a lifelong struggle with anger and guilt. My husband was delivered from a serious drinking problem. Our marriage was restored. My daughters have their own stories to tell. It seems God has worked overtime in my family. We are one “cloud of witness” in and of ourselves. Why? Because of the amazing grace of an amazing God.
At the end of the day, I am not likely to change any minds or hearts with anything I’ve said here. I knew that coming in and it was not my motive. But I will have remained true to the God who lives in me. That’s the only thing I can control. He set me free from the tyranny of needs and showed me something greater and higher. Yes, there is something that exceeds even happiness, that thing we are ever in pursuit of, Mr. Jefferson. There is peace with God and with ourselves. There is reconciliation, necessary because of the rebellion of the one who tried to be God.
Well, I’m done. We have walked along the road together for a way. Now, we have come to a fork; I must go one way, you another. There is really nothing else to say. At least you’ll never be able to say, “Who was that masked woman?” The new kid on the block has now introduced herself, sans mask, sans pretension. This is who I am and ever will be. If you want to know more, check out The Formers.
The peace that comes through the Light of the World be with you all.
Ms. Thurman,
I am Regan and I’m a heterosexual woman and I’ll give you a perspective that I think is important.
One, that Biblical reference and instruction are not something a person is born with. I come from several different cultures, all of them denied freedom and extremely damaged by Biblical interpretation to mean unchallenged control, dehumanization and constant blocks to full realization and instruction to those not like them.
You claim that the celibate gay person, or the gay person who is living a life that in public that looks heterosexual, has the goal of getting on the right side of God. But this will not inform the public on who gay people really are or their full potential as such.
Piety, or the claim that this is PREFERABLE for gay people to aspire to diminishes the responsibility of heterosexual people. Not only in THEIR ignorance, but the gamut of responses that gay people confront.
Indeed, the majority of things gay people are confronted with are paradoxes, impositions and standards not required for anyone else. Heterosexuals are not required to adhere to the Christian faith or lifestyle to attain full citizenship rights, but a great deal of responsibility is on their shoulders, to my mind…to make YOU feel good about what you’re doing.
You are working to convince gay people that virtual sainthood is required in their mortal life and that you’re most qualified to be in control of that life.
Such a requirement demands too much and unfairly before you understand or know anything else.
Nor does such existence realistically allow for the depth of emotion and isolation that a gay person WOULD normally feel and does.
Especially while very young and vulnerable to erratic emotions, lonliness and insecurity.
We human beings are social creatures. Our personal appearance, the state of our homes, the beauty of our children, and especially, the affirmation of our romantic relationships and families..IS normal.
Why should a gay person be engaged in all that…but at a distance from participation?
Why should a gay person endure this exposition from heterosexuals, but have none of their own to share?
I think your religious faith has anesthetized you to the needs of the gay person. Through all of this, I have found no empathy.
You mentioned your husband’s issues with alcohol. If you knew anything about homosexuality, you wouldn’t have made such an analogy to share.
Were you someone with experience with discrimination, threats from the dominant culture for your job, ability to care for your spouse and children, or the ability to form a romantic relationship at all…say with a BLACK MAN prior to the Civil Rights Act of 64′ THAT would put the analogy more in it’s appropriate place.
You assume much, as too many people do, that you already know enough about homosexuality and homosexuals to make your claims.
And I resent, RESENT the interference of those like yourself that keeps other people from EVER learning the most important thing of all, that some of us had a hard time learning: that gay people don’t NEED you as much as YOU think.
You’re in no place to decide they do, and exploiting the paranoia and fear and hostility that is taught regarding gay people to say that it’s being gay that’s the root of everything, marks your prejudice.
You’re belief and activity is NOTHING NEW. Gay people have had precious little time to speak and act for themselves. THEY need time, YOU’VE already had to express what YOU believe.
Now, what reality is, MUST have a chance to come out and teach us all.
I don’t need to hear from another Christian what they think about homosexuals. What would be refreshing is if you shut up for a while and let someone else teach about homosexuality who has to LIVE IT and what you and I can to do enhance gay lives without them having to BE us.
The variety in sexuality, and the unique perspective on gender roles is MUCH needed. and as we’re all unique and different anyway, the interpretation that gay people are not to exist…..is especially arrogant and wrong.
And given the considerable patience and due process of law (instead of violent reactionary behavior) that gay people have shown, I’d say that you’re demanding far more than you’re entitled to as it is.
Nothing is certain until you allow some things to reveal themselves. And gay lives have been too hidden and threatened for you or I to know as much as we should and can.
And such opportunities shouldn’t be squandered because of a tradition you’ve taken the worst kind of advantage of.
I really do wish to be done with this conversation as meaningful dialogue here is becoming an exercise in futility. But Regan reopened it so I will give her the courtesy of a reply.
Regan, I appreciate your perspective, but there are lots of misrepresentations and non sequiturs in your comments.
“You claim that the celibate gay person, or the gay person who is living a life that in public that looks heterosexual, has the goal of getting on the right side of God.” No, I don’t. I said “peace with God.” That’s what we all seek, even if we don’t realize it. We can’t put ourselves into right relationship with God. Impossible. That was the work of Jesus’ atoning death. Christianity 101.
“Heterosexuals are not required to adhere to the Christian faith or lifestyle to attain full citizenship rights, but a great deal of responsibility is on their shoulders, to my mind…to make YOU feel good about what you’re doing.” Homosexuals already have full citizenship and the same rights as any other citizen. They want to be accorded “suspect class” status, but because homosexuality is not an immutable (or a continuously desired) condition like race, that is problematic. Alveda King of the famous King family, and a civil rights leader in her own right, has pointed this out quite emphatically. The second part of your statement makes no sense whatsoever to me.
“You are working to convince gay people that virtual sainthood is required in their mortal life and that you’re most qualified to be in control of that life.” This you have somehow inferred but I have never said. Wrong.
“I think your religious faith has anesthetized you to the needs of the gay person. Through all of this, I have found no empathy.” Then you have not read everything I have said. How can I not empathize with those whose feelings I have shared? You, on the other hand, have sympathy but cannot empathize as you have not walked in their shoes. But sympathy is also a good thing. I faced social stigma, but thankfully not outright discrimination in my former life. I think I can understand enough of its harmful effects without having been there. If I were required to have lived through that first, then you could apply that same rationale to the problem of poverty and leave the poor to help themselves because no one else could imagine their pain.
“You mentioned your husband’s issues with alcohol. If you knew anything about homosexuality, you wouldn’t have made such an analogy to share.” That was not meant to be analogous with homosexuality, but an illustration of God’s power to transform. Look at the context.
“I don’t need to hear from another Christian what they think about homosexuals. What would be refreshing is if you shut up for a while and let someone else teach about homosexuality who has to LIVE IT and what you and I can to do enhance gay lives without them having to BE us.” Those people are speaking loudly and clearly already. I have a Christian duty to help those WHO WANT HELP. Let me say this one more time for the hearing impaired. I am NOT trying to convert those who are happy being gay. God bless them. They are winning what they so desperately seek. Look around you. Would you have me abandon the others?
“And given the considerable patience and due process of law (instead of violent reactionary behavior) that gay people have shown, I’d say that you’re demanding far more than you’re entitled to as it is.” You lost me again. What is it that I am demanding?
I’m afraid you are serving up the same salad with different dressing.
Ms. Thurman claims it is her Christian duty to further injure and misinform those who need help — and to ignore the well-established evidence that ex-gay programs are frequently harmful and counterproductive. Very sad.
It’s also sad that such harmful consumer scams are legal in the United States — provided that the scam artists dress their snake oil in religious language.
In her response to Regan, Thurman resorts to strawman arguments like “suspect class” — projecting her own quest for special status as a Christian onto others. She needs to learn to speak for herself, and quote (rather than misquote) those of us who seek equality under the law.
I would like very much to know the identities of everyone who is providing Ms. Thurman with the money (mammon) required to subsidize her website, her hate propaganda about AIDS and lifespan and “suspect classes,” her hours of commentary at XGW and TWO, etc.
At 30 plus years of age now, I know that if I want help, I would get it from qualified psychiatrists who knows something about me and the real struggles I face in my life, be it stigma or discrimination from church or society. And I know very well it has nothing to do with who I am.
But even in all our struggles, I believe one should not seek a “ministry” that inject such dogmatic views that could cause me to reject the very person I am and making me believe the only way God will love me is to let “Him” (according to Ms. Thurman) demolish my own sense of self and existence.
At least, some of us had been through the experience and know. But my thoughts are for those who are still coerced into thinking there is something wrong with themselves, and like a moth to a flame seeking the light they get burnt.
Ms. Thurman’s Christian duty is to give options, not advice. But even the options she gives must be coated with informed choices. By the way Ms. Thurman is choosing to reject the information we give, I shudder to think what kind of “help” she can offer, other than her way, her word of God; a path that many have taken with age consuming and excruciatingly painful consequences.
I am sure there are some bisexuals and celibate members she hold claims to have ex-gayed, but I am curious to know how many more would have been turned off by her type of “education” and “Cameronion research”, such that Peter LaBarbera would be proud of.
“I would like very much to know the identities of everyone who is providing Ms. Thurman with the money (mammon) required to subsidize her website, her hate propaganda about AIDS and lifespan and “suspect classes,” her hours of commentary at XGW and TWO, etc.”
Oh, for Pete’s sake, Mike. Here’s an idea. Why don’t you go on an investigative mission to find out those nonexistent people. That might keep you busy and out of trouble for a while. So how much money do you think the Web site cost? Take a wild guess. I spent almost half of last month’s pay check on it.
I have a home office and am my own boss. I make a pittance in freelance writing and editing fees. This is such a joke, it is pitiful. Why are you so obsessed over money? You have some serious paranoia, dude.
Yuki, most of the people who come to us are already Christians or are seeking to be. We have so many hurting people in our own churches, we do not need to go looking for them anywhere else. You needn’t worry that someone is going to accost you on the street and cart you off to a recovery group. You’re safe.
Wow. So much paranoia here today.
Debbie Thurman:
If I have the same rights as a heterosexual, then why does the federal government not allow my partner and I to live together in this country? Why can’t we submit a joint tax return? Why is that he can only get a tourist visa instead of being given resident status?
If gays have the same rights as heterosexuals, then why are Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, and Mormons raising millions of dollars to eliminate marriage in the state of California?
If we have the same rights as heterosexuals, then why are there ex-gay ministries? Why are there religious organizations that deny our existence or claim we are just a biproduct of bad parenting?
True, if I get fired from a job on the basis of being “gay” I have the law on my side. I can hire a lawyer, pay lawyer fees, court fees, sue the company that fired me, wait four years before the case hits the courts, meanwhile get a minimum wage job, sell my house, my car in order to pay all the fees and court costs. Relocate because the skills I have are specific and where I currently live there are limited places to work, etc etc. (This really happened to a friend of mine). Then finally go to court and have a homophobic jury that sides with the company. Not enough evidence to prove the person was fired on the basis of sexual orientation discrimination.
Condition? You make homosexuality AND race sound like a disease. “Nurse, what’s the condition of our patient?” “He’s Hispanic.””Quick. Give him ten shot of penicillin. Isolate him till his condition improves.”
I am as white as a ghost and am only 1/4 Mexican, so I can hide my condition anytime I want to. I can look and act like a white American like the best of them. But I am still Hispanic whether I eat tacos or hamburgers, whether I say “Por Dios” or “Oh my God.” My outward behavior can reflect my true self or hide it. Same goes for my homosexuality. The mere fact that you say it is “immutable” does not make it so.
Debbie, do an experiment.
Call your local army recruiter and tell them you want to enlist. Tell them you’re a lesbian and your partner wants to enlist as well. See how equal you are under the law.
Call an adoption agency in Florida and tell them you are a lesbian couple who want to adopt a child. See how equal you are under the law there.
Call the Immigration Department and tell them you want to sponsor your lesbian partner from another country. See how equal you are under the law.
Call the IRS and tell them you are a lesbian and you and your partner want to file a joint income tax return. Feel the equality slip from your fingers.
Call a school district from the midwest and tell them you and your partner want to move there and teach. See how fast your equality melts away.
Get a friend and pose as a lesbian couple and walk down the streets of a major city in the US and get assulted. Then call the cops and report it. Then listen as the cops and the judge and your lawyer tell you it’s your fault for not being discrete. “You should have know better.”
The next time you claim gays have equal rights, aside from “you have the right to remain silent,” please explain in detail what you are referring to.
Ms. Thurman,
Thanks for responding. First I will answer to your ‘those who want help’.
I make, sometimes a statement that addresses the general and common belief among Christians regarding THEIR responses to homosexuals, not just homosexuality. And yours are no different, as I wouldn’t expect them to be.
But you, knowing full well the collective and traditional power and influence of your religion….suddenly becomes a defenseless and misunderstood individual with regard to the negative influence of that religion.
‘Those who want help’ wouldn’t need it, nor necessarily adhere to the also impossible..yes impossible, standards your religion demands..but for that negative and powerful influence on much more than the religion itself.
Christians are not waiting for gay people to come to them of their own free will and never have. Most people are inculcated from birth into whatever faith community and most of us are hard pressed to AVOID you.
That part of the statements of yours is typical of the disingenuousness confronted by gay people and those of us who support them.
It’s akin to ‘we’re just following orders’. And consciousness flies out of the window regardless of the negative outcomes the ministry you represents creates and maintains.
Albert Einstein said that the most serious problems of the day can’t be changed by the consciousness that created it. Religious teaching has created an gender based artifice regarding the role of gender in sexuality.
It is a monster that men and women who naturally would and only could challenge that artifice have yet to live down in this supposedly civilized culture.
Women and homosexuals the world over are treated with isolation and inferior status if not outright brutality.
And this, because of defiance of their aspect of natural law and no one else’s. A law artificially created by MEN.
And it’s men, who wrote religious texts, enforced them and maintained selective illiteracy and fear among the masses and still do.
It’s gay men and women NOW, who are the easiest socio/political object of that isolation and inferior status. It’s an imposition, not a result of actual inferior or uncivilized behavior.
Don’t try and minimize the influence of what you represent and how that happens.
“Those who WANT to”.
I come from a familly who had light skinned members. Light enough to pass and walk among white people undetected. The things white people do and say, the things anti Semites do and say, the things MEN conspire to do against women, the things that straight demand and claim….when they think no one will hear them…well, we know what goes on, Ms. Thurman.
Whether or not a human condition is immutable or not, you’re commanded to treat a person the way YOU’D want to. We also know that genetic legitimacy never saved anyone from the brutality of discrimination and injustice.
And how mutable do you really think sexual orientation is if you forget what it would take to make YOU homosexual, or what it HAS already taken to make a gay person WANT to not be gay?
Under Jim Crow, and sometimes not…I remember a time when I didn’t want to be black.
In certain situations I often wondered if life would be easier if I were male.
And a boy I knew from the Soviet Union broke my heart when he vehemently said he hated being a Jew.
And a flawlessly beautiful Japanese friend of mine hated her eyes so much, she considered plastic surgery on them.
The list goes on of what human beings have done to one another to be MADE to hate themselves and go through any expense, pain, plodding struggle with changing and contunued unrealistic expectations from a dominant culture. Not because it’s right or moral, but because it’s stronger and not stronger from benevolence either.
Were you invested in changing society to accept homosexuality as a varient, rather than evil indicator of inferior ability or threat, then I’d believe your sincerity….JUST so we’d know IF gay people really WOULD want to change.
But we don’t know as much as we could because so much Christian teaching AVOIDS being open about LEARNING what homosexual people really need, want and their place among us WITHOUT religion beating down so much POSITIVE opportunity.
And your belief that gay people are demanding more than they deserve or that their needs come at the expense of someone else’s echoes the opinions of some historically vicious people. You should know that too, coming from the South and you’re obviously not stupid.
Would you change places with someone gay? Would you want to live the way they have had to traditionally?
If you don’t, then you don’t believe your own statement.
It’s the stakes here, Ms. Thurman. Immutability is the last argument refuge that can only come from those who know they won’t have to live with the socio/political consequences of such a belief. YOU have more of a luxury of saying such things, AND the luxury of choosing to know gay people in the way that means the most.
A world without so much racism, sexism, homophobic injustice, without compassion for those who have lived with it.
I work to have a world like that, do you?
The transformative powers of love, equality, justice and empathy is what I believe in, Ms. Thurman.
Not what you believe is required of your religion’s disciplines.
I know that homosexuality is universal and indigenous to all human life, and your religion is not. That alone should tell you of how appropriate homosexuality is, not understanding the mytery of it’s existence is even LESS reason to eliminate it or achieve disappearance through religious threat.
I trust how gay people respond to equal standing and true kinship to their heterosexual peers, than the response garnered through religious and socio/political coercion.
Your religion hasn’t been around as long as the human condition of love and what ethical decisions towards other people can be made when the golden rule is applied faithfully AND most of all consistently.
Passing judgement on gay people from centuries of isolation and it’s results is like passing judgement on how blacks were MADE to respond to Jim Crow.
As for your analogy to the transformative power of Christ and God and your husband’s alcoholism: alcoholics didn’t exist until the fermented product of grains and fruit was drunk, and alcohism has immediate, direct and profound RESULTS that make a human being dangerous and difficult to live with.
THAT would require abandonment and transformation.
Just WHAT would you want gay people to transform into that’s SO special?
Gay people don’t need to abandon their orientation to be good, productive, committed to their full potential and love each other and the rest of us.
Heterosexuality is not a virtue, nor moral choice, it’s a human condition, as is homosexuality that none of us chooses.
We can choose to be decent and compassionate of one another.
And expecting that a gay person must be responsible for consequence of capitulation to a socialization that would have them disappear, is far from compassionate.
Especially knowing the historical context from which their transformation is derived.
I get the feeling, Ms. Thurman that you don’t want to address what I’m saying any further. But non confrontation or answering to it, is more of a symptom of your certainty that you have nothing else to learn.
I was raised in church…and temple. I had the good fortune to know a Native American grandmother whose experience with missionaries was devastating and left her family scarred for life.
Another part of my family died altogether because of racist policies during a public health crisis.
Even after all the damage that Christians did to my family, we still know and respect those Christians who don’t wear it on their sleeves and part of their good work is listening and understanding THEIR LIMITS when it comes to certainty and how they effect others negatively.
We respect Christians and went to church to LEARN something else, other than the negative we’d experience.
You called me deaf. Check yourself, YOUR messages isn’t new, it’s not news, it’s not revelatory.
Anyone who has heard the same thing all their lives, need not hear it over and over again.
It’s reaching out to gay people with respect to equality and justness and clearness of consciousness born of empathy and it’s results that would be what YOU have’nt learned or heard, and should.