A British journalist has gone undercover to investigate the ex-gay movement.
Lucy Bannerman of The Times (London) spent a week at an Exodus retreat at the LifeWay Ridgecrest Conference Centre, North Carolina, an experience she dubbed “six days of evangelism psychotherapy.”
The report does not contain much of surprise to anyone familiar with the ex-gay movement, sticking safely to the most ubiquitous characterizations, some of which are unfortunately never substantiated in the piece itself. For example, the article is boldly titled, “The camp that ‘cures’ homosexuality,” and yet little in the text establishes that Exodus was out directly to “cure” participants. Likewise, the main body of the article begins, “Welcome to ex-gay boot camp,” but this comes across as a lazy cliche, out of step with the story that follows. Why “boot camp”? Why not “retreat”? Or “conference”? Perhaps it’s a fair description – but Bannerman never justifies it.
The author also throws up a number of tantalizing claims without providing direct quotes or context. For example, she writes that “We are told repeatedly that marriage is evidence of healing,” but this is vague. One speaker “manages to link her gay ex-husband’s death from an Aids-related illness to his father’s links with the “Serbian mafia”,” but again this is vague, with no sense of context. Since these are the most interesting claims made in the article, it would have been nice to see more substantiation.
The ex-gay conundrum
Nevertheless, the piece contains some fascinating quotes that echo the concerns of Exodus’s critics. For instance, here a participant sums up the ex-gay conundrum in a nutshell:
I’ve been through all the arguments, like ‘If it’s love, how can it be wrong?’ … And if I’m being honest, I’d love to be openly gay and have a completely satisfying relationship with God. But I don’t know how that can be done. All I know is that it makes more sense to listen to the God who created the Universe than to my puny human emotions.
What “ex-gay” really means
A leader expresses the reality of “freedom from homosexuality”:
“I still have same-sex attraction,” she sighs at one point, “but it’s like elevator music to me now. I just don’t pay attention to it.”
Other participants profess a similar experience, namely that homosexual orientation just doesn’t go away:
[Riccardo:] I used to think marriage was the ultimate goal but I’ve come to accept that I’ll struggle with SSA for the rest of my life.
“To focus on sex is missing the point,” [Michelle] says. “It’s not about gay or straight. It’s about holiness and my relationship with Christ.” She wants to marry but admits that she may never be attracted to men. “Then it means I’ve been called to singleness.” And lifelong celibacy? “I’m surrendering to God’s way.”
Hey, if people want to be celibate, fair enough – but in the face of such testimonies, why does Exodus still take advantage of the hazy, misleading terminology of “change”?
Being gay is not the problem
Elsewhere, the article reveals other classic traits of the ex-gay movement. This, for example –
Chatting before his “Breaking the Myth of Masculinity” class, Riccardo, a doctor from Illinois, explains that he has come here for “encouragement and moral support” after tiring of anonymous encounters with other men.
– only confirms that while ex-gays frequently blame their woes on the supposedly monolithic “gay lifestyle” or on homosexuality itself, the reality is their problems often go beyond simply being gay. The problem for Dr Riccardo, say, is not being gay; it’s chasing after anonymous, promiscuous sex.
We also find the utterly silly among the guidance on offer at the retreat:
“It’s about doing what’s uncomfortable,” [Joe from Miami] tells the class, describing how he forced himself to watch baseball with macho sportsmen at parties, and to wear looser shorts when walking his chihuahua.
(Joe wouldn’t be the first ex-gay to be advised to do “macho” activities in order to overcome gay desire. I can’t help but be reminded of Ben Kingsley’s performance as an Edwardian hypnotist in the film Maurice, advising his homosexually tormented client to “stroll around with a gun”.)
Chambers claim flawed study in support of “change”
After the conference, Bannerman interviewed Exodus President Alan Chambers, who invoked the Jones-Yarhouse study in support of the possibility orientation change:
[Chambers] pointed out that a 2007 US study indicated that sexual orientation change was possible for some individuals going through religiously mediated programmes such as Exodus, and did not cause psychological harm. He said that “these conclusions directly contradict the claims of critics … that change in sexual orientation is impossible and attempting to pursue this alternative is likely to cause depression, anxiety or self-destructive behaviour”.
In fact, the very limited study demonstrated only a negligible possibility of change, lacking convincing criteria by which to verify change.
I’d like to have seen Bannerman dig a little deeper. She confirms a lot of what we’ve seen before, but doesn’t reveal much new. I’d also like to see British journalists digging into the ex-gay movement in the UK, instead of trotting out the usual American suspects time and again. A substantial survey of what’s happening in Britain has yet to be written.
Meanwhile, ex-gays are displeased with the piece, including Mario Bergner, Lisa Guinness and Peter Ould.
That, of course, is one of the two main problems with these ex-gay ministries. They blow hot and blow cold on the question of whether a change in sexual orientation is likely or even possible.
Alan Chambers says that he chooses every day to deny what comes naturally to him and that he’s not sure that he’s ever met an ex-gay, and yet we find him quoted here as saying that sexual orientation change is possible for some – although it has clearly eluded him all these years.
One of the articles over on the Exodus International website says that people who want to be heterosexual “like everyone else” are seeking the wrong thing, because even the heterosexuality that “ordinary” people have is flawed as a result of the Fall; what they need to pursue, and can allegedly achieve, is a “holier” sexuality more like that in the Garden of Eden before the Fall. And yet, marvellous to relate, this nearer to perfect sexuality, unlike the “fallen” sexuality of ordinary heterosexual people, can be expected to include ongoing same-sex “temptations”.
They publish books with misleading titles like You Don’t Have to Be Gay and Homosexual No More, and they conflate, separate, re-conflate and alter the meanings of words with a frequency and rapidity that make a card-sharper look hesitant and clumsy.
The other main problem is their political activities. All manner of “therapies”, ranging from unproven through dubious to downright fraudulent, are available to people: some for genuine illnesses and handicaps, others for non-pathological things that people just don’t happen to like about themselves. But only the ex-gay ministries, so far as I’m aware, seek to keep life as difficult as possible for people who decline their ministrations, and even press for laws and public policies to make their lives even more difficult.
Chambers also ignores the fact that Jones and Yarhouse lost track of 25% of the participants in that study. They took these out of the equation rather than noting that they may very well have been hurt by the experience and sought to distance themselves from it entirely. Indeed, there is no way to know for sure any of them might have gone so far as to have committed suicide. But given the overwhelming and continuing anecdotal evidence, combined with a hefty number of “missing in action” subjects, a responsible person should not taut “no harmful effects” so easily.
Seriously. Those “missing” people are people. Who knows why they went MIA. I mean, what if some committed suicide?! Disgraceful. As someone who is deeply involved in the Mental Health community, I’m appalled at the sheer disregard and seemingly flippant attitude.
Dave,
From the tone of Bannerman’s article, I might contend that her title was more sarcasm and eye catch rather than actual fact. From the quotes it would seem that Exodus may not have slammed “change” home as in the past. The link you provide titled “hazy misleading terminology of “change” ” is after all, a year and a half old. When Exodus is claiming that the attendees are “straight”, with same sex attractions, it would seem there would be nothing to change orientation wise. But then, there’s that gall dang same sex sexual thought and behavior glitch, that encompasses the cellular core of every being in the audience.
Maybe the term ex-gay, being ambiguous and misleading, could be more accurately replaced with ex-gay-sexual. It seems the movement is slowly gliding to more of a celibacy result, rather than the inital intent to “change” through fantasy dream spell. I think the term ex-gay-sexual more accurately describes the actual result for many ex-gays who think acting on SSA is a “sin”. The movement may be morphing into more of what might be deemed a gay celibacy “12 step” support program. This in itself is hopeful, as at best it can take the pressure off that one area of being expected to become hetero, and could also help deflate the ever failing “pray away the gay” faux pas.
Even though Exodus still prints on their websight the idea of walking away from homosexuality, this could be more of an advertising hook, as many do want to dispose of the SSA self, at all cost. If they were to say, walk away from same sex activity through celibacy, that may not have quite the attraction or dollar pull, though it would be accurate.
Bannerman’s article was a good read, and I think Exodus has a long way to go regarding integrity. But the smoking gun concerning a supposed “cure” being Exodus’s intent at that “boot camp”, may just have to stay buried in it’s holster. Unless by chance, you’d like to give her a call.
Randy Thomas is fawning over the comment about choosing “G-d’s will” over “puny human emotions”. But let’s face it. Love for me has NEVER been “puny.” I don’t mean “lust” – I mean, L-O-V-E. And to devalue one’s humanity like that just seems sacrilegious to me.
I mean, I know “denial of self to carry the cross” is a high virtue in Christianity, so maybe as a Jew I just can’t relate to this. And I know for many men and women of the cloth, living ascetically and facing suffering is a way to get closer to Jesus (which theologically for them is getting closer to G-d). But really, how far does one need to go?
Emily, for many ex-gays (including those of us who tried to change on our own), emotions become the enemy. The love and attraction we feel towards someone of the same sex becomes the inescapable, tangible symbol of the failed struggle. So I believe many ex-gays, such as Randy in the example you gave, begin to see emotions as the enemy, particularly same-sex oriented emotions.
So, dismissing these as “puny human emotions” and placing them at odds with God in a zero sum gain equation is the logical extension of this fight. The dieter’s relationship to food is an apt analogy — food becomes the enemy, but one can not banish food from one’s life. The analogy breaks down in that one can, if so motivated (fear of hell is a great motivator for some) live without intimate relationships (celibacy).
Even if one manages to do without such relationships, however, it is highly unlikely that the desire will leave. So, almost like the boy whistling through the graveyard to mask his fear, ex-gays can mock those “puny human emotions.”
I find “puny human emotions” such as joy, pain, peace, grace and definitely LOVE; all these are actually given by God. To reject these “puny human emotions” would mean rejecting the whole system of emotions that God had given us.
That means Randy believes that it is God’s will for us to be like robots, and that also means we are serving a “militant God” that denies us the right to think for ourselves. If that is the case, in “God’s will”, we are not suppose to feel anything, and that we are created as “zombies”.
Then there would be no more argument on scriptures in regards to whether something like homosexuality is acceptable or not. We will not even “feel” what is God’s will. Because we would already be following it by default since we were born.
Gosh, such is the kind of God Randy believes.
I thought that the article, as far as it went, was a pretty good overview considering that it was written by a virtual outsider. She is not coming from the position of someone who has struggled with unwanted SSA, and I’m guessing she has no strong Christian faith, but then the majority of Times readers are likely to fall into these categories too. The insight into the workings of ex-gay ministries will be news to many UK readers, in particular the snippets of information that reveal the activity of these groups within the UK.
I agree with Dave that it was a missed opportunity to delve deeper into these UK ex-gay practitioners. With the tide of British public opinion moving more in favour of accepting gay people, and towards rejecting anything seen as religiously fundamentalist; such UK groups have sometimes shyed away from mainstream publicity. These days they (including Living Waters and True Freedom Trust) are much less likely to make open claims of gay ‘cures’. However, many within them are still heavily influenced by the rhetoric of Comiskey, Worthen, Bergner and others, and often still follow (sometimes indirectly) the discredited theories of reparative therapy put forward by Elizabeth Moberley. They still use words like “change” in ambiguous ways that can mislead those fearful of their SSA in church communities where gay is very definitely not good.
From reading the links at the foot of Dave’s article, it seems that Ms. Bannerman managed to get into a Living Waters workshop. She might have been better talking to a representative range of those who have spent time in this and similar ministries over the years – perhaps not such an easy task. Then perhaps she would have met both those who had been discouraged by such groups, and also been able to assess what sort of change had resulted in the lives of those who had benefitted from them.
Remember, for those dealing with SSA whilst in anti-gay churches, these ‘ex-gay/celibacy’ groups have in many cases been the only ‘safe’ option where they can talk to people who fully relate to them, whilst still remaining inside the narrow range of organisations who hold to the conservative biblical worldview so important to their faith. At least the rise of the internet, and groups such as GayChristianNet, now offers places where they can hear other viewpoints.
As to the bold title in the Times; many headlines are confected by newspaper editors rather than the writer themselves.
There’s a more accurate technical term for that kind of marketing hook. It’s called “bait-and-switch.” It’s generally seen as unethical. I believe there are even laws against it, at least in some instances.
I did have more to say about the article, but I am left bereft after reading Peter Ould’s alarming posts on his blog. All to typically, he immediately raises paedophilia when discussing consensual, adult gay relationships. But then offered this chilling piece of opinion.
In answer to a question about ‘an Indian judge in his seventies who had married a girl of ten’ and ‘Was it morally all right?’ we got the following.
It’s not the first time Peter has made such a comment, but this was nauseatingly flagrant.
Peter Ould complains that he wasn’t interviewed for the article. After that disturbing exchange on his blog, I have to admit feeling sorely tempted to forward it to journalist and demand that she does interview him.
Peter O. has very little to stand on anymore – but at least i give this to him, and that is the fact that he has admitted that sociological / scientific reasons (they are *all* promiscuous, drug-abused, co-dependent, empty loveless cases) are not sufficient to oppose gay equality: it must be done with moral “reasoning” (his Bible).
EVERY TIME when he is pushed hard enough to define legal reasons to oppose gay marriage, he comes up with the “slippery slope” of bestiality and pedophilia. Typical.
I also want to add that for those Christians who are sexually honest and choose to be celibate as a way of dealing with their SSA, I support their chosen “suffering” (for lack of a better word). It’s when people become so ingrained and obsessed with achieving “change” that they will diminish all that opposes them that I have a problem.
Rather, celibate people embrace their “puny emotions” as G-d-given, and accept the fact that they are anything but “puny.” They won’t scoff at them, but live with them in union, seeking to channel them into their devotion. I have a problem with using “denial” here – this to me implies lying about something that’s absolutely true. But maybe in the Christian sense my description of celibacy is sort of what that means.
Peter O being the guy who couldn’t bring himself to distance himself from Paul Cameron:
https://www.peter-ould.net/2008/02/16/god-gays-and-the-church-a-brief-review/#comments
https://www.peter-ould.net/2008/02/11/god-gays-and-the-church/#comments
A few months ago a priest at the church I attend was talking about the two “types” of religions: internal and external. She talked about how internal religion focuses on enhancement, improvement, bettering oneself. Its source, then, has to be love, because only love can do those things, which ties into the commandment of Christ which, of course is also the Jewish commandment, “Love.” Love G-d, love neighbor, love yourself.
The external religion looks to eliminate, destroy, get rid of, and diminish what one sees in onself and what one sees in others. Its source then, is has to be hate, because only hate can cause these things to happen.
Interntal religion seeks to bless, external religion seeks to blame.
While reading for this blog for the past few months after hearing that sermon, in the back of my mind, I kept hearing that sermon again, but I didn’t “get it” until reading this blog right now.
It seems to me that Exodus is an external religion whose motivation is hate: hate of oneself, of one’s neighbor, and possibly hatred of even G-d herself because, even if they are convinced G-d is not the author of their sexual attractions, they are still confronted with something that most people don’t have to deal with and it breeds contempt within them. So they use this hate to try to eliminate their sexuality or alter it to fit the norm at the expense of hating themselves and their LGBT neighbor.
It also seems to me that those who are at peace with G-d and their sexuality tend to be of the internal religion which can also be labled “spirituality.” It’s not a matter of trying to destroy one’s sexuality, but rather, finding a way to enhance one’s acceptance of their sexuality to improve their ability to love G-d, neighbor, and oneself.
How does watching baseball make one closer to G-d? Most of my family (who are straight) are soccor fans? Does that count? Does watching a sports program count for going to church? ‘Cause if that’s the case, my entire family are regular “church-goers” then.
If they (Exodus) really want gay men to become straight, they need to make them watch female mud wrestling or something like it, not watching nice looking guys in tight pants playing sports.
Jeez, I never thought of that. People so intent on forcing their sexual impulses down should probably be careful if they’re attracted to – er, sorry, “tempted by” – men with athletic physiques. I mean I know they spend their days trying to “de-sexualize” the same sex, but I doubt watching the object of their desire – er, temptations – will help de-sexualize anything.
I’ve chuckled to myself more than a few times when reading Randy’s review of a movie or television show. They often include very homo-erotic themes and it’s pretty obvious that he doesn’t have an ounce of what “Joe from Miami” might one-dimensionally call “machismo.” The gaydar returns strongly on that target, so yes, it does seem rather odd to recommend gay men who want to be straight watch a bunch of hunky tight ends.
Hmmm, I take issue with that statement, maybe. Since Exodus asks their male flock to act like these masculine guys and do the behaviors they portray, that would mean, they would have their clients mud wrestling with each other. Sex and wrestling is too easily co-mingled. Probably not the sport of choice for gay males in straight-training boot camps. Unless of course, they took the high road and had the gay guys wrestle female mud wrestlers. An interesting concept when you picture upper execs in Exodus demonstrating the latest wrestle-the-gay-away concept. The irony is, the girls would most likely win.
But then, that’s one more dollar for the therapist.
Dave, I would like to thank you for exploring some of the shortcomings of Ms. Bannerman’s Times article. I would further argue that she cannot substantiate much of what she wrote because it is simply false.
Case in point … I also sat in on the “Overcoming Guilt and Shame” workshop that she describes. I was there to lend moral support to the presenter, Bonnie, who is a friend of mine and serves on my ministry’s Board of Directors. Not only did Bannerman describe Bonnie in unnecessarily snarky terms, but she failed to report the most critical piece of the workshop – what she deemed to be the “strange practical exercise.” Yes, participants picked “derogatory name tags out of a hat,” but they ended by exchanging them for nametags containing words of affirmation, acceptance and grace. It was symbolic reenactment of God’s welcome and love and a repudiation of the judgmentalism LGBT persons have often experienced in the body of Christ. Bannerman either didn’t “get it,” perhaps because she left early, or she was deliberately misleading her readers. Either way, how can anyone give the rest of her article any credence? Especially when she is so clearly biased.
Finally, since she used Bonnie’s real first name, I’m going to assume she used her roommate Michelle’s real name, too. That’s just despicable.
Whether or not she used Michelle’s real name I obviously don’t know, but it seems reckless to deduce the assumption that she did from her use of Bonnie’s real name. If I were writing such an article I would certainly feel it my duty to use pseudonyms for the participants in order to protect their privacy, but I’m not sure that I would see any reason why the presenters of the programme should have the right to have their identity concealed.
“Michelle” and “Bonnie” seem like common enough names. If Karen didn’t point out that it really was the presenters name, I am not sure that anyone would know or care. She is writing for an English audience that has even more degrees of separation from the conference.
Ex-gays have their own language, their own culture, and are deliberately unclear about what they mean by their comments. It makes it so very easy to criticize anyone who writes about them. How could any regular person possibly get things straight without spending months learning the language, culture and code-words? If they were more straight-forward, they wouldn’t have such problems getting their story out.
It was symbolic reenactment of God’s welcome and love and a repudiation of the judgmentalism LGBT persons have often experienced in the body of Christ.
Jeez, step back for a moment… where did all that “guilt and shame” come from to begin with? Is it just because of (excessive) judgmentalism, or is it there a more basic and core attitude that cannot help but degrade the lives of some others, regardless of the nice church lady language used?
I put it forward, those negative feelings come about because of the type of people that would go so far as demand a woman be disinvited from a conference simply because… she is unashamedly lesbian. (emphasis mine, and the example is entirely deliberate)
That’s right. Even so much as allowing an open lesbian to perform music — even if she’s appearing alongside her father (a pastor and professor of theology) — and you are endorsing the mythical homosexual lifestyle.
If that isn’t “judgmentalism”, what on earth is? Doesn’t she know she should be ashamed of herself and hiding under a rock???
More importantly: what does this sort of treatment result in? We could simply ask the target herself, Emily Saliers.
Hurt. Hurtful. Such rejection is capable of hurting even an intelligent, open lesbian who has the support of friends and family. What does it do to those who aren’t in that position?
What did those gay men and women hiding in the congregations take away from such a welcoming attitude as that displayed toward Saliers? We all know the answer to that.
Until ‘certain people’ are actually capable of showing the same respect to and offering the same dignity to unashamedly gay men and women as they do to those who are torn up by strife and rejection … they are part of the problem of guilt and shame, not the solution.
Not to be just negative, here’s a idea: could the (completely unqualified) Bonnie Doebley bring herself to offer “nametags containing words of affirmation, acceptance and grace” to people that also allows them declare “And I am happily gay.”?
A bridge too far that one, because, alas, it is that toxic fear, the “guilt and shame”, that drives people into such company to begin with. It’s all about refusing to accept that some people are gay — instead we must play labelling games with them. Play our game, and we’ll let you sing music for us; refuse and we’ll publicly ostracise you.
A scam, and about as respectable as an oncologist who invests in a tobacco company.
That bears repeating.
OK. You’d mostly prefer to play “shoot the messenger” instead of dealing with the substance of what I wrote. Fine. Just continue to talk among yourselves.
ok. So…if that response is considered “shooting the messenger”….well….maybe sometimes the messenger just needs to take a shot.
Now wait a second, Karen. You have an opening here and I don’t think anyone is best served by the wounded victim exit. Where exactly are grantdale “shooting the messenger” (you) in their comments? There is a clear, bitter irony in a group of people lamenting “guilt and shame” from within an organization which is largely responsible for imposing same. If you disagree with the premise, fine — say that. But no one is attacking you personally or as the bearer of some message with which you are not complicit.
Actually, my first post was more of an experiment to see how long it would take grantdale to use a red herring to try to discredit me and move the conversation away from the topic of the Times article. Not long, as it turns out.
grantdale, here’s another one for your collection of grievances. I also publicly opposed the invitation of our two worship leaders at our Methodist General Conference this past spring in Fort Worth. Not because one of them was openly gay and the other reputedly lesbian, but because both are pro-LGBT activists who are in open disobedience to the teaching and policy of our church. As with the Saliers, for me, that’s a case of denominational integrity. I don’t expect you to agree with that, but there it is.
Now, perhaps you could explain to me how either example has bearing on the veracity of Ms. Bannerman’s article. I don’t intend to discuss mine (veracity) anymore with any of you.
I realize that you think you are in heathen territory Karen, but you still need to mind your manners. If you are indeed simply commenting here to elicit some sort of personally motivated exchange with grantdale (or anyone else), then don’t.
Grantdale’s comment was entirely germane. You commented on statements you say you witnessed at the same meeting as the journalist written about in the OP. Grantdale illustrated the sad irony (and I would also say hypocrisy) of those same statements and expounded on the subject specifically. You can’t ask for a better exchange than that.
Honestly, the only Red Herring I see here is your attempt to claim they were “shooting the messenger” (victim logic) and now that your original comment was just some sort of trap for other commenters. Is it so much to ask that you behave yourself and discuss things civilly with others, even if you disagree and think they are all going to hell?
Let’s head back to the subject please. Can you not see the irony of what you describe?
Karen, save it. I haven’t been interested in discussing (or finding) your veracity for quite some time. God only knows why you’d want to admit to deliberately coming here to be shallow and manipulative. I will however always feel free to make observations about how what you espouse effects people. So will all of us. That’s why we’re here.
(You’ll note we took care not to mention you by name. I’m not sure how many would have joined the dots except for your grab at attention. For those who do like to read a little deeper, the hypocrisy and denial was there for them to uncover. Now everyone knows.)
Whatever.
That Times article largely covers very old ground for many of us here. We already know what role-playing games go on in Exodus as a substitute for knowledge or honesty (or too often, even self-reflection). That a reporter readily found it only suggests they have eyes in their head. It’s not news, for XGW.
What we did pick up from the article was the reporter’s pointed observation about just how depressed these people were. Weighed down by that guilt, shame, and sense of failure. Perhaps broken for a moment by a few minutes of nonsense with name-tags. And then back to the tears and brokeness.
If someone was to decide they need to be celibate for whatever reason , that alone cannot explain a cause for all that deep distress (if in fact it is any cause at all). There have been more than enough through the ages that have chosen that sort of life, and remained more or less content with their choice. Life is never anything but up and down for near all of us, but rarely do we see years of complete anguish over one’s overall direction in life.
The clue, we think, is that for many it’s more than that. It’s not of free will, choosing a direction in life, but a deeper need to conform — conform even to the scalding opinions of those who actually have little concern for you except to see you singing the same hymn.
There are some old and brutal methods of forcing conformity on those who otherwise would not, guilt and shame being just two of them. And those are as brutal as a whip.
For all the claimed love and care for those in their grasp, I have yet to see but a few ex-gay promoters genuinely acknowledge the ‘failures’ as equally worthy, let alone the hurt they cause in the unashamed who wouldn’t dream of ex-gaying themself.
That’s what we took away from the article.
Karen Booth wrote:
I wonder if there is any real difference from the ex-gay point of view in being “openly gay” and “being an LGBT activist”?
Being openly gay is its’ own form of activism. It tells the world that one is not ashamed of who they are, and that they are willing to hold their head up, despite the slings and arrows that might come their way. In a conservative religious situation, it would be a very brave thing to do.
So, I can’t imagine that there are too many openly gay people out there that Karen Booth wouldn’t object to.
Worship leaders. Not speakers, not preachers, not those there to exclaim their views. Worship leaders.
Because in Karen’s world you can’t be in disagreement with the majority on these issues and still worship God. If ever there was an illustration and example of arrogance and self-righteousness, there it is.
Well guess what, Karen. Your theology is heinous, your arrogance is appalling and your righteousness is as filthy rags. I think that your rejection of your neighbor wounds Christ. I think that your spiritual pomposity is sinful. I think had you been alive in Jerusalem some 2000 years ago you would have led the chorus of “Crucify Him!!”
But I also think that God’s grace and mercy extends to you. And I still believe that you can and do worship God.
I guess that’s what separates your way of thinking from mine.