“Me, homophobic? Ridiculous. I love my homosexual friends.”
–Pat Boone, following his recent editorial comparing gay demonstrators to the Mumbai terrorists.
“It isn’t just that we believe gay marriage is bad for Christians, the culture at large, etc. But it is ultimately bad for homosexuals if we really believe God has something different in mind for them. This is true for anyone who desires the fullness of joy and peace that God wants them to have.”
–Bob Stith, the SBC’s National Strategist for Gender Issues, following the passage of California Proposition 8.
Members of the religious right are well known for informing the rest of us about their love; they denounce because they care. Laws must be passed to curtail certain “sinful” behaviors and relationships (the less popular ones, at least) for our own good, or so they claim.
But is an act of compassion truly compassionate if the people it’s aimed at must be repeatedly told that the pain being inflicted on them is “for their own good”? Can one treat millions of intelligent, responsible adults like two-year-olds and expect to retain credibility? Even some conservative evangelicals would answer that question with a resounding “No!”:
Our comical insistence that we are loving, despite our reputation, is a bit like a man insisting he’s a perfectly loving husband when his wife, kids, and all who know him insist he’s an unloving, self-righteous jerk. If he persists in his self-serving opinion of himself, insisting that his wife, kids and all who know him don’t understand what “true love” is, it simply confirms the perspective these others have of him. This, I submit, is precisely the position much of the evangelical church of America is in. Until the culture at large instinctively identifies us as loving, humble servants, and until the tax collectors and prostitutes of our day are beating down our doors to hang out with us as they did with Jesus, we have every reason to accept our culture’s judgment of us as correct. We are indeed more pharisaic than we are Christlike.
-Gregory Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Nation
Whose definition of compassion is more credible? Is “love” an esoteric concept that a spiritual elite must continually explain to the rest of us (by whatever force necessary), or are they the ones who have missed the mark?
Gregory Boyd is absolutely right. I’d like to add the following, from C.S. Lewis (who is not normally one of my favourite people):
Christians are sadomasochistic because their god was sadomasochistic.
They believe moral purity and love come with pain and suffering. So, they think antagonizing LGBT people and trying to make us “overcome” the “trial” of homosexuality will make us experience “real” love. It’s the same as the way the “Jesus” character chose to torture and kill his son/himself in order to pay for humanity’s “sins”, even though an omnipotent being surely could have done so in a less gruesome, painful and theatrical way.
That’s what Christians do? Even us gay ones?
Quoting myself:
We have VERY VERY different ideas of love. You idea of love is spreading YOUR conception of the gospel to the poor sinners out there– whether they are interested or not, without knowing whether they have already heard it and accepted it–or rejected it. In short, with knowing nothing about their spiritual state or how G sees them– or anything about them at all. In short, it’s all about you, and not about the people you allegedly love. And that’s not love, it’s narcissism.
A host of other good Christians are all happy to tell me how much they love me, and then follow it up with comments like ‘cancer on society’ and the whole vicious panoply of anti-gay, homophobic, lying rants. They will tell me how much they love me right before they tell me how much they hate my child-molesting, disease spreading, country-destroying, religion-despising, marriage-compromising, military demoralizing ways Sorry, if that’s love, I prefer hatred. At least hatred doesn’t assume I’m so stupid that I can’t tell the difference.
TheRadicalRealist –
I think you’ve got it backwards; the “Christian” God is sadomasochistic because “Christians” are.
People create their God to be in their own image. Be He judgmental, forgiving, or silent.
That artticle makes a valid point. We are not compassionate because we call ourself compassionate, our attributes/characteristics should come from our actions.
Shouldn’t they?
William, in which book did Lewis say that? It’s a great quote.
The word “compassion” is derived from a Latin word meaning “to sympathize”. A dictionary definition would run along the lines of “deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it.”
However, a conservative Christian definition of “compassion” is strongly influenced by somebody’s “status before God” – whether they know the “truth” or not – as demonstrated in this interpretation of Mark 6.34 from one Christian website:
“Jesus saw that so many people were lost because they did not have God’s truth in them. Jesus’ compassionate ministry on Earth was to reach out to the lost and teach them the truth.”
I’m intrigued by the use of “compassion” in the subtitles of Evangelical exgay books such as Thomas Schmidt’s “Straight & Narrow?: Compassion & Clarity In The Homosexuality Debate” (1995) and Alex Tylee’s “Walking With Gay Friends: A Journey Of Informed Compassion” (2007). Instead of being thrown straight into Hell, the lesbian or gay person is regarded as “broken” and therefore worthy of “compassion”.
Inevitably in both those books, “compassion” doesn’t mean that you genuinely get to sympathize with the lesbian or gay person’s actual suffering … only with what you’re led to *think* she or he is “suffering” from. Argh.
A genuinely compassionate approach would involve 3 things:
1) learning to ask questions first, instead of barging in with “all the answers”;
2) learning to listen and truly understand what is behind somebody’s suffering before trying to do anything about it; and
3) knowing how to deal with the source of the pain, instead of causing more pain.*
*- My internal response straight after writing that last bit was “Damn. Why don’t they teach REAL compassion in church nowadays??”
My answer would be: “Because church thinks it already has all the answers and is too prideful – or too scared – to ask questions.”
Patrick, I’m afraid that I don’t know exactly where the quotation came from. I was able to reproduce it verbatim only because it appears on the back of a little undated pamphlet entitled Christian and Gay: A Way Forward for the Church in Our Time, published many years ago by the Open Church Group, which is now defunct but which was one of the first gay Christian organizations in Britain. The pamphlet doesn’t name the book or lecture from which the quotation was taken.
As I said, Lewis is not normally one of my favourite people, but if you can find a “C.S. Lewis fanatic” – and I believe that there are quite a few of them in existence (my late mother was one for a time) – he or she may be able to identify the source for you.
It’s from an essay called “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment” that’s in the collection God In The Dock
Thanks, boo. I knew i had seen it– I was a great believer in CS Lewis when I was a boy and young man. He almost–almost– convinced me to become a Christian.
Here’s a link to it for those who are interested. It is an interesting read, espexcially in thel ight of this discussion.
https://www.angelfire.com/pro/lewiscs/humanitarian.html
So does no one hear believe in tough love?
I think it depends on motivation. Christians, like all heterosexists, are a mixed bag of loving people and homophobes. If (emphasize the hypothetical) anti-gays were right about the morality or homosexuality, then offering a voluntary chance for changing orientation is the compassionate thing. Obviously this doesn’t qualify every word and action as loving, only potentially loving and very debatable. I think it was also Lewis who said that if you’re a hypocrite feigning righteousness, calling yourself Christian is one way to do it. Homophobes and hypocrits aside, I think there are some heterosexists with their hearts in the right place. I offer myself as an example. When I changed from being heterosexist to pro-gay, I didn’t become more loving. I only became more informed.
What is never addressed on XGW is whether gays who want to change their orientation should. I believe in tough love so I think they should not be allowed and face the harsh truth of orientation is immutable. If you define love as “support whatever the individual wants,” you’d need to support voluntary ex-gay ministries.
What is never addressed on XGW is whether gays who want to change their orientation should. I believe in tough love so I think they should not be allowed and face the harsh truth of orientation is immutable. If you define love as “support whatever the individual wants,” you’d need to support voluntary ex-gay ministries.
The tricky thing is that puts you in sort of the same category as the we-need-to-deny-you-marriage-rights-cause-we-loooooove-you people. I think this issue actually has been addressed before at XGW. I don’t want to speak for anyone else, so here’s my view:
A very qualified yes, subject to a number of conditions:
1. Full disclosure that there exist no documented cases of change in orientation (many people may just be looking for celibacy anyway).
2. Never under any circumstances performed on someone under 18.
3. Prior effort made to explore the roots of the individuals discomfort with their sexual orientation.
4. No attempt on the part of the therapist to force any particular model of development on the client.
5. None of Richard Cohen’s man-cuddling tennis racket junk, just too creepy.
6. Complete disavowel of using some people’s discomfort with their sexual orientations as fodder in anti-gay political campaigns.
The catch is that I seriously doubt there are any ex-gay therapists working today who would be willing or able to fulfill those conditions.
What is love? It is a question that cannot be answered on the word alone. “Love” compells my brothers and sisters “in Christ” to condemn me to hell for being gay, and to actively promote laws that discriminate against me and those like me (because of this one small component of our being). I like best the idea that compassion (or Charity) bears the pain of another (got that from the Book of Mormon)–a Christian ideal if ever there was one. Someone once said, “Pain shared is pain halved and joy shared is joy doubled.” I like that.
I don’t buy the “we do this to you because we love you” argument. I think it’s a cop-out. This whole “love the sinner but hate the sin”? From most evangelicals I have met, it’s just a convenient out for the hate that lies right beneath that smiling countenance (I’m reminded of Piper Laurie in “Carrie” she has this beatific smile on her face as she’s stabbing her own child to death. Sheesh!
Jesus is all about free choice, right, I mean, one has to choose Jesus of their own free will to be a Christian- God never forces us to worship Him- so why do so many Evangelicals think they can usurp God’s place on the throne and deny that free choice to those with whom they disagree and/or dislike?
That’s what I call CHUTZPAH!
Bill
Thanks William and Boo. Thankfully I have God in the Dock on my bookshelf.
A couple of thoughts on this:
1) when someone tells you that you are dirty, sick, unclean, and especially, sinful and in need to salvation (which they offer, of course) it is the biggest mistake in the world to assume that 1) it’s true, and 2) that they are telling you for your benefit, and not for their own. The concept of sin, especially YOUR sin, becomes the expression of their will and their way of seeing the world, and if it is making you unhappy, or interfering with your life, then that is probably a good test of its truth value. Likewise, you pay the price with happiness in your life, while they reap the benefits– or, validation– and the “glory”.
2) (somebody else wrote this, not me, but i liked it enough to save it) Do we give people a pass they don’t deserve, because they are able to hide behind their religious beliefs? When people gather for the express purpose of denying equality to another group of people, what else can we call it but hate?
From a religious perspective, is it really possible to love someone that you don’t see as an equal? Is it possible to see someone as less than equal without hatred, or without at least contempt? If so, how?
3) (me again) You don’t hate anyone. Honestly, you don’t. The Biblical message is all about compassion, about loving your neighbor and all that. You love homosexuals. You really do. You just don’t like their same-sex-lusting, public-fornicating, disease-spreading, marriage-ruining, child-molesting, society-endangering ways. And really now, where’s the hate in that?
4) love the sinner hate the sin is a copout on so many levels. It allows others to do the hating, you just get to follow along. It makes you feel better aobut what you’re doing.
5)to the homobigots– Lest you accuse me of hating you, of being intolerant, of calling you names, let me be clear. I do not hate you, or really, care anything about you. I only wish that you would mind your own business, and stop insisting that you have the right to mind mine–because of what you call your “religious beliefs”. You can believe whatever you want, and teach it to your children, and spew it in Church to your heart’s delight
. It’s a little like love the sinner, hate the sin. I don’t hate you. I don’t care anything about you. When you show the same respect to gay people that you show to all of the other people you believe are going to be sent to hell forever by your just and loving god, then I will believe that it is not bigotry at work.
The whole “we persecute you out of love” argument is very familiar to me from years of reading Catholic history and lives of the saints. That’s the way Christians once justified persecution and forced conversion of Jews.
Just one example:
Vincent Ferrer, a Spanish priest of the Dominican order, was a sort of traveling evangelist of the 15th century. He was known as a miracle worker–healing the sick, casting out demons, even raising the dead. He was also known for his anti-Semitism and campaigns for forced conversion of Jews. He would lead mobs into synagogues, demand that the congregation convert on the spot to Catholicism, and turn the buildings into churches. Jewish chronicles call him “the scourge of the Jews.”
But here’s how the web site for a St. Vincent Ferrer Catholic Church in New York describes him:
“Of special interest to New York is St. Vincent’s great love for the Jews… In fact, much of his preaching was addressed to the Jewish community. His convincing eloquence had converted the famous Jewish rabbi Paul of Burgos, who died Bishop of Carthagena in 1435.
“Since the Jewish community was the moneyed and money-lending section of the community and had control of the finances, they were bitterly resented by the people, especially the poor. St. Vincent Ferrer did not hesitate to preach against what he considered the unjust practices of the Jews against the poor…
“In the uprising against the Jews of Valencia in July, 1391, Vincent proved himself to be their friend, father, and protector… He went among them, consoling them, instructing them, and exhorting them to receive Baptism.”
Ah, yes, forcing “change” as a sign of love. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
Of course the religious hypocrites love us.
They love us in the same way that a drunken wife-beating husband loves his family.
We provoke them, and they think we are just asking for it.
Boo:
I find it curious that gays always demand that ex-gays must “prove it.” Their behavior and self-identity aren’t enough. If they don’t stay in the ex-gay closet, they are fair game to be ridiculed called every name in the book.
So how comes gays never have to prove they are gay? Ann Heche was gay and then not. Billie Jean King was gay and then not. Dozens of high profile gay leaders have testified they are no longer gay….but they are just called liars and vilified as frauds and internalized homophobes. And the answer is always the same: “Oh, they were never gay in the first place” or “They are just fooling themselves–they really are still gay.”
So how come gays get to decide that nobody else can really be ex-gay becasue they aren’t and don’t want to be? What if only 1 or 2 in 100 homosexuals feels successful in reorientation. They don’t have rights to be who they choose because they only represent a tiny minority of homosexuals–like gays compared to the rest of the population?
Just why is it that anything they have to see is labeled an attack and/or a conspiracy. I mean, how paranoid and intolerant is that.
untwisted:
The way “proof” (actually known as evidence) works is, the person making the extraordinary claims has to provide the evidence that supports those claims. That’s true in every case. In this particular case, the extraordinary claim is that one can actively change from homosexual to heterosexual. That means people making that claim is the one required to back it up. The fact that there have been no reliable data regarding change indicates that the folks making the claim haven’t backed it up.
Gay people have no such extraordinary claim to back up. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t plenty of evidence to show that gay people exist. Studies on gay people in the US go back all the way to the 30’s and each subsequent study builds upon the data to produce the model of homosexuality we have today.
See the difference? How do we know gay people exist? Besides the obvious fact that we’re all over the place and visible, there are plenty of evidence to back up our existence. How do we know ex-gays exist? We don’t—because there is no evidence of such.
Untwisted- leaving aside for the moment the fact that Anne Heche never identified herself as gay and has also disavowed her mother’s exgay activism…
I find it curious that gays always demand that ex-gays must “prove it.” Their behavior and self-identity aren’t enough. If they don’t stay in the ex-gay closet, they are fair game to be ridiculed called every name in the book.
That depends on the context. If an exgay person just wants to live their life, then they don’t have to prove anything to me or anyone else. A professional in the mental health field, however, has to be held to a much more rigorous standard regarding the claims they make about the services they offer. Simply put, it isn’t the ‘exgays” themselves who must “prove it,”* it’s the therapists.
*Except, of course, for exgays who pimp themselves out to antigay political crusades. If you’re pointing to your alleged change in sexual orientation** as a rationale for denying gay people fundamental human rights, then you must expect your claims to be received with somewhat more skepticism
** And of course, if you read up enough on exgay organizations, you find that the “change” they refer to by becoming “exgay” is not an actual change in sexual orientation. Usually it means that their attractions continue to be directed towards the same sex as they have always been,*** only now they are trying very hard not to act on them. Or have you not noticed how the overwhelming majority of exgays are celibate, and of the few who get married, their children are usually adopted?
*** Unless they’re bisexual, of course, but the exgay movement always conveniently ignores bisexuality, see above mention of Anne Heche
I am intrigued by the claim that ex-gay is somehow a seperate orientation from heterosexuality. I spent most of my life fighting my gay orientation, believing that I was in actuality a heterosexual with an homosexual problem. Just as it has been stated before, if someone is ex-gay, then they are simply just heterosexual. The rub is that there is no credible proof that sexual orientation is mutable–thus the incredulity when someone claims to be ex-gay. And with the religious right’s insistence that homosexuality is only about “certain behaviors” that are abhorrant, disgusting (especially among men) and must be avoided, then ex gay as an “orientation” is meaningless. I spent most of my life not participating in homosexual acts, yet I always knew that I was gay.
All gays don’t always do anything. You will get more respect if you give it — please don’t generalize entire slices of humanity like that.
As Boo already illustrated, the question is absurd on it’s face, though one obvious response is that there is no organized movement of ministries, organizations and therapists out there claiming that one can be made gay (and worse, offering to do it for a fee). If there were, I suspect you would find plenty asking for proof that it could be done and if even the attempt might be harmful.
Again as Boo noted, most here have not voiced concern about how an individual personally deals with their sexual orientation and relationships. The rub comes when others, usually in an attempt to deny rights or privileges, attempt to use the idea that one can change ones sexual orientation on demand as “proof” that GLBTs do not need equal rights in matters such as marriage.
I don’t know of even dozens, but even if I did, this would be anecdotal evidence and not worth much. And again, I see no widespread condemnation of anyone who decides to become ex-gay, though just what that is might be confusing. Ideally, it should mean someone who is heterosexual, so the ex-gay moniker would seem unnecessary.
In practice, it seems to indicate someone who has decided to be celibate or a bisexual who has decided to emphasize the heterosexual attractions they already have. While there are caveats (marrying someone just to prove change, or making such a decision based on societal pressures or shame, for instance), generally I don’t have any problem with this at all if that is truly that person’s desire. Quite frankly, it would be none of my business.
Now it is quite another thing when someone exclaims that they are now ex-gay and begins to systematically denigrate and work against the rights of GLBTs. In my opinion, such a person has earned a negative opinion and scrutiny. A good example of both types exist in the person of John Paulk. When he worked with Exodus and Focus on the Family, he contributed to their fight against the rights of GLBTs, worshiping the idea of being heterosexual. He received a great deal of negative commentary and scrutiny, especially by those who knew his sexual orientation had not really changed. Eventually he was caught in a gay bar on film.
After a while he left the ex-gay organizations, moved and has opened a rather successful catering business. He appears from the outside to be quite happy and is still married to his wife. I am genuinely happy for him at this point and couldn’t care less about his orientation. But he had to get away from Exodus, et al, in order to achieve that. I believe we even posted a while back on how well his life seems to be going.
Now if you want to discuss the topic, that’s fine, but let’s stick to the facts and leave the talking points aside.
About the religious right’s ‘love’ for gays, all I have to say is that the Phelpses at Westboro Baptist Church, spend a good portion of their income and time picketing funerals out of ‘though love’ for people they believe are damned to Hell.
Nick C,
something interesting about Jewish people during the middle ages – being “moneyed” and “money lenders” – is that they (WE) were forced into it. Since we were already children of the devil (John 8:44) and “christ”/”god”-killers (Matthew 27:25) we might as well do the “evil” jobs of society; including usury. We were not allowed to own land and for the most part were not allowed to engage in the activities of full citizens. So additionally, being a money lender or a banker was one way for a Jewish person to make up for their lack of power as a citizen in a largely hostile, Christian world. The Spanish were particularly vicious. They expelled us in 1492. Plus that whole “inquisition” thing.
Rabbi Tovia Singer of Outreach Judaism answers a question asked about a similar situation that occured with the head rabbi of Rome.
https://www.outreachjudaism.org/rome.html
David, we did post on how well Chef John Paulk is doing. He made quite a turnaround. In fact, he is GAWgeous! He looks like a wonderful chef and I might not even mind if he catered MY gay wedding (I’m not getting married, I’m just saying.) If I found out he still contributed to FOTF or Exodus, I wouldn’t ever patronize his business. But no evidence of that is on his website. His photos speak for themselves. At one point, he even had muscular servers in tight black sleeveless t shirts! But he updates his photos all the time so those are long-gone.
Emily, not to steer us off track, but I think the object by extension in those verses is all of mankind. I realize we are talking across all sorts of social and theological barriers here, but I’ve never interpreted those scriptures to single out Jews, at least not in the big picture. I do understand that they have been used that way in order to justify some horrible things.
Untwisted,
Perhaps I missed something, but when did Billie Jean King become not gay. I happen to have worked directly with her about 20 years ago. She was gay then and is still with her (not public) female partner. Her partner does not want any extra attention.
Now she was married to Mr. (can’t recall his first name) King (and in the closet) a long time ago, but they divorced long ago. In fact 20 years ago, I know that the two were working together on World Team Tennis and seemed to get along fine.
So please don’t disparage Billie Jean by implying that she is somehow ex-gay. Her coming out was painful, but in the long run, it was great for her. She isn’t going back into the closet.
Rob
The Phelpses are a different case. They’re quite clear they hate gays.
Boo,
I think those are all reasonable requirements for loving therapy, except the under 18 rule.
Ephilei-
Someone over 18 goes into therapy voluntarily, with an adult’s mental resources. Someone under 18 will usually be coerced by their parents to be there, with a child’s vulnerability. It’s unethical and dangerous.
As for example:
https://www.bilerico.com/2008/12/the_gender_gulag_voices_of_the_asylum.php