At the end of this past January XGW noted the deafening silence made by Exodus while the movie “Prayers for Bobby” was being prominently featured in both mainstream and gay-specific news outlets. It was critically acclaimed and drew in millions of viewers for Lifetime, a mainstream cable network. An open thread featured here generated responses from people genuinely affected upon viewing the movie. But you could have heard a pin drop over at the blogs of the Exodus leaders.
For those who don’t recall, “Prayers for Bobby” is a book, based on the true story of Bobby Griffith, that was made into a movie about a young gay man who commits suicide when he can no longer endure his mother’s and community’s religious intolerance. Up until his death, Bobby’s mother Mary refuses to “give up” on her son, whom she takes to a Christian psychiatrist in an attempt to “heal” him, and fervently prays for his release from homosexuality. Her attitude changes after she is struck by the tragedy of her son’s death, and becomes an active supporter of LGBTQ equality. Prominent in the story is conflict between the acts and attitudes Mary engages in out of “love” for her son, and how “loved” Bobby truly feels.
“What do I say to my gay loved one?” asks Mike Ensley, as he prepares to answer in an article, published February 24th on the Boundless Webzine. Ensley worked for years as Exodus International’s “Youth Consultant,” until his recent layoff from the organization. Mary knew how to love her gay son: He may or may not have seen his behavior as sinful, but his perceived homosexual identity, in his mind, was independent of behavior. While she knew his belief to be in error, it was “right” to him. He was hurt and broken and needed the touch of the great physician, Jesus Christ.
Actually, those aren’t the words of Bobby’s mother. They’re the words of Exodus International. They’re part of a response to the question, “My friend says if I really love him, I’ll accept his homosexuality. Is that true?”
Ensley reassures his readers:
You need to be prepared for the person you love to hate you. They will probably insist that it’s you who hates them. This is their last line of defense against the truth, and it’s a strong one.
The culture we live in tells the gay person that you are the reason they are unhappy. It’s your refusal to celebrate homosexuality that is responsible for pretty much everything that goes wrong for them. Even when you refuse to debate or argue, even when you open your home and your heart to them, your love may be counted as hate.
…
We must continually pray for the Spirit to melt the hearts of the people we know — and to keep ours soft, fresh and resilient.
The most unsettling thing in Ensley’s article is the idea that he “knows” what’s best for a gay person even should a gay person insist otherwise; he “knows” how a gay person really feels even when they say they’re “at peace” with their Christian faith and their sexuality.
Another common quandary I’ve seen is when a person claims to be “at peace” with living a gay life and simultaneously professing faith in Jesus. Sometimes that person will even tell you they have gone before the Throne and been given God’s blessing for their gay identity and/or relationship.
You see, the “peace” a gay Christian will claim to have is not really “peace.” They might think it’s peace, but it really isn’t. It’s really just a “double-minded” rationalization they have concocted, and it is very “fragile.”
The truth is that people can find ways to be happy on either side of the fence; what really makes a person miserable is being double-minded. These are the people who know they can’t deny the truth expressed in Scripture, yet also refuse to let go of their on-again, off-again romance with sin. However there’s a natural relief a person experiences when any internal conflict has been settled.
Split devotions lead to instability. Resolve — whether it’s to do wrong or right — brings relief. That relief can easily be mistaken for holy peace — especially by someone who desperately wants it to be just that.
The difficulty then is being the person who disturbs that fragile calm. Now, I’d never tell a gay non-believer that they weren’t really happy. But if a person is claiming faith in Jesus, and it’s someone you are in relationship with, you can’t be silent. To just go along with it would be to disregard the duty that Christian love calls you to.
Knowing what’s better for others and telling them how they’re wrong and not really at peace even if they insist otherwise is tough job, but somebody’s gotta do it.
In short, Exodus International’s attitude towards Bobby Griffith – and all gays who are sexually honest – is the same as Mary’s was until he took his own life in response. So it’s understandable that the veneer of “love and compassion” they’ve worked so hard to show the public would begin to crack if they told the truth about their opinion of a movie that demonstrates such an attitude has – and still can – result in a loved one’s death.
Ah, the loonies sing a toon once again with one more loonietoon special.
I look forward to the day Exodus crashes. I don’t think it’s that far off. I would then like to take the name and start a new Exodus; that being focused on stabilizing sexual reality, erasing sexual lies and guilt through grouded therapy, and purport an “Exodus” from Christian sexual lunacy on just about every level be it gay bi or straight.
After all, Exodus is framed in “Let my people go!”. Soon, very soon.
I wonder what kind of Christian love he is talking about. Is it by his “Christian love” that everyone that professes to be Christian must be heterosexual and impose their values upon homosexual Christians? What are they expecting homosexuals to do, just forget there is ever a thing called sexual orientation? Then by “Christian love” they simply try to find anyone of the opposite sex to marry homosexuals without any romance and love just to get children to prove their heterosexuality? I thought the duty of Christain love is to lead people to seek the Lord by themselves. It is definitely NOT trying to give a picture perfect heteros fantasy slammed down homosexual’s throats and calls it God’s “only” ordained love.
The truth according to Exodus, especially after the Uganda debacle, is no longer the real truth. It is a packaged truth that comes not from above, but labelled “Exodus International”.
How sad — published only a few days after Exodus threw him out of their sinking and rotting ship. This is prob’ly what Mike E dedicated his life to for the week beforehand.
All that self-deprecating nonsense, for nothing; at the end of the day. Will Mike E never learn?
Easy is cheap, and cheap is easy.
We hope the twerp finds his own soul, some day. He needs to.
I nearly puked reading Mike Ensley’s article. I’ve had a number of conversations with Mike. If he ever realizes that Christianity is man made and that he is only quoting lines written by man, he will be devastated. He admits he has same-sex attractions. The definition of a homosexual is a person who has same-sex attractions. Yet he will not say that he is a homosexual. Its kind of funny how the dumbest people always seem to think they are the smartest and know what’s best for others.
Mike Ensley’s advice seems like a perfect recipe for more broken families (and even more suicides). It reminds one of the saying about doing the same thing over and over while expcecting a different result.
My advice to the gay person being rejected by family members who are taking Mike Ensley’s advice would be to let the family members know that if they want a relationship in the future, the gay person is open to that. Things change over time, and the family members may decide the relationship is more important to them than following the hateful advice of Exodus. But in the meantime, step away and create some space from the family members who are trying to show Exodus’ form of love/hate.
So . . . Ensley is supporting the actions that led to Bobby’s death.
first: “That relief can easily be mistaken for holy peace — especially by someone who desperately wants it to be just that.” That’s certianly true. I wonder if Mr. e is capable of looking in a mirror when he proclaims is not-gay-ness and his peacefulness,.
Followed by: “The difficulty then is being the person who disturbs that fragile calm. Now, I’d never tell a gay non-believer that they weren’t really happy. But if a person is claiming faith in Jesus, and it’s someone you are in relationship with, you can’t be silent. To just go along with it would be to disregard the duty that Christian love calls you to.’
Apparently, christian love, exodus defined, requires you to inform peole of their sinfulness long before you have resolved your own. The other kind of christian love actually pays attention to what Jesus said rather than a socio-political agenda which provides a livelihood for a number of people who freely admit that they haven’t resolved their problems.
I don;t know these people can function at the level they clearly funciton at. the dissonace owuld drive me crazy. wait. I think that explains it all. It has driven them crazy. they are so deranged by the thought of two people not agreeing with their self hatredthat they can commit any kind of intellectual and psychological mayhem.
Sam, your participation is welcome but please don’t preach, either for a particular faith or the lack thereof.
This bothers me a bit. So he’s saying you can be gay and happily so if you give up the Christian (or any Abrahamic) faith. He’s only interested in you if you claim to believe in Jesus and the rest be damned. That is not the form of Christianity I grew up in.
@Devlin Bach – why all the hate? You may disagree with Exodus, think they’re cooky, etc., but why do you want their organization to “crash?” If people want to delude themselves into thinking they can change their sexual orientation, shouldn’t they be allowed? Aren’t such people always going to exist, just as gays will always exist? You are like Voltaire predicting the end of religion. Do you really want to live in a world where everyone agrees with you?
I don’t necessarily agree with the idea that Exodus should fall apart — it would likely be replaced by something equally bad or worse. I would rather see it change in a way that would allow for those who become reconciled with their faith and sexuality without dropping either, to be considered a success.
However, wanting to see Exodus “crash” is not necessarily the same as not wanting to allow others to conduct their lives as they see fit. There are clearly others (Gritter/Marin) who have a similar theological view of the world, yet do not cause the harm and hurt that I see from Exodus related ministries and public policy history.
Hi David, sorry about the disparaging remark regarding Christianity. I usually try to respect other people’s beliefs. The religious right destroyed my religious beliefs and I’m pretty bitter toward them. Reading Mike Ensley’s article set me off.
Luke,
I believe all experiences have their usefullness, and I would not inhibit like Exodus does, a human’s inalienable right to any experience one may desire. I do see religious extremism as going by the wayside in the future because of it’s generally baseless dangerous nature, and that more and more society will come to middle point, mainly because of our ability to communicate with more information learned from the internet. Hence because of Exodus’s (and Side B for that matter) natural inclination to glaze over and slither away at the idea of rational thought concerning gay sex, I would like to see it “crash” and the name taken to represent a group that exits gay discrimination, rather than exiting gay altogether, a truly useless and impossible anomaly.
David,
I think Exodus evolving out of it’s present state into something better is a noble thought. However, the ideology of Side B seems hardly the answer, as they believe the same basic Bible tenants and are as heterosexist and homophobic (i.e. keep it in your pants for life, or else), toward gay sexuality as Exodus. You seem to have this fairy tale ideal that Exodus is the great fire breathing dragon, while Side B is some inconsequential minnow, yet both could be seen as intrinsically homophobic and detrimental to the evolution of gay rights. Would “Bobby” or Matthew Shepard agree with this benign approach toward Side B? I think it’s safe to say gays were being killed and hung on fence posts long before the inception of Exodus. I’m wondering how you separate the leaf and stem from their roots, or the fire from the nostrils on this one. I am also wondering if you find Side B with their basic sexual beliefs, a detriment to rational gay social structure, and do some get hurt by it. Could you explain your views on this?
Devlin– as always, a very thoughtful response. And bang on. The premise of side B and of exodus is basically this: gay is not good. Side B is just being nice about it, saying that this is my choice and it need not be yours.
It is very similar to the difference between Nice Christians and The Other Kind. The former keep it to themselves, the latter go all fire-and-brimstone on your ass. Sam Harris had some choice words about the NC’s enabling TOK, and betraying the validity of their own position in doing so. Maybe someone else can find them.
My friend John is a good example of an NC. He is New Apostolic, and personally has no problem with gay people, even though he is something like a bishop in the church. (I can’t remember his title.) But I doubt he will be lobbying to turn his church into gay affirming. And I doubt they will. Just as I doubt they will ever see the ongoing harm that is committed against gay people for the crime of being different, what I like to call the Crime Against Our Nature.
The problem is two-fold. First, the basic premise, that gay is bad, is flawed, because it is not a fact. It is an ideological position. Side B will admit it’s an opinion, but one they agree with. They betray their own cause in this statement, because it is either a sin or it is not, either G cares about it or he does not. Their beliefs that he does has no more validity than the beliefs of out-and-happy gay Christians, or atheists for that matter, that he does not. Side B appears to me to be about a coping mechanism to reconcile fact with belief and avoiding the destruction of self-hatred. Bravo. but it still doesn’t acknowledge that it is an ideological position.
The anti-gay industry insists that “gay is bad” is a fact, and is willing to invent other facts to support its truth value, as all ideologues will. Both anti-gays and side B’s require a severe distortion of biblical texts to fit a pre-existing agenda. (That’s a whole other topic).
The second premise, that religion or belief in Jesus is the cure to the problem, is equally flawed and for the same reason. Religions cannot agree about the nature of G and his message to the world. But this is the one thing they are sure about? They claim that this is a religious problem with a religious answer. Both are self-serving assumptions, and the “religious answer” clearly false. They have yet to produce the slightest bit of evidence that religion is the cure, but they have provided PLENTY of evidence that it is not, as the sorry lives of Lonnie Latham, Ted Haggard, and a host of others will attest. As the Jones and Yarhouse “study” clearly showed.
The simple humility of Peterson Toscano stands as a direct refutation to this nonsense the religion has the slightest expertise in this matter. He spent 20 years of his life testing this religious solution, only to find it as empty as the promise of an immediate and surprising ability, not to mention the desire, to play a harp for eternity. (As Mark Twain commented, if that isn’t hell, he wouldn’t know what is).
If G only sends us the burdens we can bear, we can only assume that if Peterson had been a weaker person, he would now be heterosexual.
The premise for the statements that religion understands the problem of homosexuality and has a solution for it is a self-serving load of crap. It is not about religion, thought it is often claimed to be. It is about how much the very existence of gay people bothers, offends, entices, scares, and obsesses some straight people, and some who-wanna-be-straight-but-ain’t.
That’s ideology.
I am frustrated often in how professed Christians or any other person influenced by religious belief on this issue. There seems to be an extreme simplicity with which to answer the origins or reasons (if they care there are any) for homosexuality.
The other part is how to react to it or homosexuals themselves. This is also simplistic, and usually begins with ignoring what gay people have to say or feel about it.
And as we live in an age when so much religious doctrine is abandoned as integration or scientific discovery warrants about a LOT of things, this is still the most contentious sticking point, way beyond ALL other things.
Homosexuality is not a cultural, social or political invention as religion is. Neither are the aspects of gender variance that present themselves.
For any of this to be remarked on in every culture known to man in their ancient texts or storytelling, makes the quality not nearly as unique as most religion can be.
So, why is homosexuality still treated as a theme and theory on a broken or non functioning heterosexual person? Isn’t there a critical function there of being able to see the illogic of such a thought?
And to have to justify, explain, bring the conversation from so DEEPLY up to the basic, is beyond exhausting and frankly, makes me think that the collective psyche of the heteros not seeing the forest for the trees a broken function unto itself.
The origins of gay people are unimportant. But the character of a person, whatever their background that offers a variety of talent and equal potential as a gay person under the same or similar circumstances is what matters.
And literally, this comes at the expense of understanding that simple moral value for society.
This is one aspect of the human condition where one is taught to hate it, and respond with disdain or violence.
The other forms of disrespect to the civil function of society such as thieving and assault and so on, one doesn’t have to be taught how to react with revulsion or fear. It is instinctual to do so. It is a function also of a civil society to have empathy for the person assaulted or treated unjustly by another. There really isn’t as natural an instinct to assault a gay person as we’re told either, it’s literally instructed and rationalized.
And there is no reason to feel repulsed or distrustful of a gay person who has enough resemblance and quality of life function that one wouldn’t know unless told.
Indeed, why would anyone assume otherwise unless the resemblance and behavior WAS so complete and utterly workable in society?
That a gay person is private or keeps it secret isn’t a symptom of a deceitful gay person, but a society that prefers the deceit to find fault.
That is the real duplicity of the heterosexual attitude about gay people.
The duplicity of claiming moral superiority while setting up all manner of social obstacles for gay people to trip over, and then pointing a finger when a gay person actually does trip.
And this claim of moral superiority is as ridiculous as a white person doing it based on their skin color alone. As if the segregated black person is and should remain blind and silent about that duplicity.
The same is expected of gay people and their silence a condition of integration, however painful or deceitful that silence.
This is the hierarchy of the strong claiming dominion over the weak. Or who is perceived as weak. This is a symptom of demanding control over those who have the ability for self determination and independence, and pretending they don’t have it or should.
The ideology of most religions have strict ideals about gender and IT’S role, rather than the roles of individuals and their talents and consciousness.
One doesn’t have to abandon their basic beliefs or understanding of how human beings have progressed to a less primitive and reactionary polyglot existence and must continue to progress to accentuate all the positive aspects any individual can have, INCLUDING gay people.
They are hard pressed to prove how doing this makes for a less civilized and cooperative society. And we can and do hold the truth that the most fundamentally strict religious communities have terrible records on human rights, especially with regard to gender.
So there is much instruction on that. Much that is no longer a social experiment that has made things go horribly wrong where the value of gay lives have been elevated to equal and full partnership.
It is not brave to continue in such duplicitous values and hope that no one will notice or challenge it.
The real courage is in admitting it’s not working and joining in what definitively does and acknowledging that it does.
I already know it’s not THAT hard. Nor is there any particular risk or reason to fear anything to the point of the kind of human sacrifice that Bobby Griffiths represents.
Which makes this really a matter of deep moral and intellectual cowardice and not a legitimate stand against social chaos or immorality.
Especially when it’s not YOUR child on that altar of human sacrifice. Or maybe especially because it is.
Regan– as always, right on. I had this to say in another context:
They make other people LESS THAN, people who have done them no demonstrable harm (other than existing– their easy, common complaint) whom they do not know, and whom they clearly know nothing about, the more so when they claim expertise. And their reasons for doing so? A set of fears, lies, prejudices, distortions, half-truths, history, misinterpretations, wishful thinking, and dirty, shameful secrets. There may be a diamond or two of truth contained in these reasons, but these are a few very small sparklers in a veritable mountain of dung. I would never claim that gay people are perfect, but I would certainly claim that the anti-gay industry has made every effort– and a good livelihood for a number of people– to make our lives as difficult and unpleasant as possible, all the while claiming to love and/or pity and/or help us. In other words, they criticize us for being handicapped and conveniently forget that they knee-capped us at birth.
@Devlin
I think that even bad ideas have their usefulness. One of the benefits of being raised in a fundamentalist christian church was that I was taught to believe unusual things about science, sexuality, life after death, etc (even by the religious standards, the evangelical belief in the “surprise” afterlife is very unusual). Thus, I regarded all “normal” people, e.g. my peers, scientists, the media, psychologists, etc. with skepticism. The idea of biblical inerrancy imbued in me the notion of consistency – e.g. if a book was truly the word of god it could not contradict itself or contradict empirical observation (I still think to this day the liberal intepretation of the Bible as a “metaphor” is even more pathetic and self-serving than a literalist interpretation). It was this profound skepticism fostered by social “otherness” and belief in consistency that ironically led to my eventual rejection of all these beliefs. Had I been raised episcopalian, where there are no real beliefs but just a bunch of relativistic feel-good selective intepretations of scripture, I might still be going to church to this day.
@Everyone else
I am totally agnostic and have no reason for believing any more that homosexuality or any other form of consensual orientation is a “sin.” However, as a person who has struggled with a feeling of “otherness” my entire life, the ideas put fourth by people like Jospeh Nicolosi makes sense. Perfect sense. It’s like he’s describing my childhood to a tee. Shy, withdrawn, no friends, alcoholic father, sadistic abusive (really) older brother, and over-protective / emasculating mother. Actually my sexual orientation (if you can call it that) is not the problem – I’m actually a masochist because of the way my brother treated me when I was a young child. I have gotten aroused by pain, humilation, being tied up – not people, male or female – since I was in preschool. I realize that that is something that was indelibly conditioned (but not inborn) into me and is not ever going to change. People have told me that this is because I was sexually abused, but I know I was not ever abused sexually. So that is an example of an explanation that DOES NOT resonate with me.
However, I do have this sort of nonsexual emotional/romantic attachment to males which would probably be sexual if my entire sexuality were not bound up in the masochism thing. I really do feel that this is because of the way I never had a father OR ANY OTHER MALE FIGURE ,even friends really, cause the shyness and secluded neighborhood. So I could never get into guy things. Whenever I attempted to play any sort of sport or engage in physical activity, I was either told no (by my mother) or got made fun of because I “threw like a girl”. But nobody would teach me the right way to throw. I’m 25 and to this day I can’t even play touch football with some guys for fear of not knowing some term or rule and totally making a fool of myself. Now guys don’t have to play sports or be “manly”, that is not the point. I was also into computers. I remember this one summer my uncle came to visit from another state, and he understood programming and things that I was into (this was when I was about 12), and it was the first time in my life when I felt that somebody actually took an interest in me and things I cared about.
This is not to say this is true of all homosexuals – most are probably born that way. But, ironically, the ex-gay ideas/movement has actually made me feel BETTER about myself, because they helped me understand that I was not crazy, that the feelings I was having my whole life of resentment and feeling neglected and were not imaginary – that there really are fathers who love their sons, and there is nothing wrong with a boy wanting male affection or at least recognition that he exists, and that I was not just feeling sorry for myself. So, I don’t care what you say, it resonates true for me, I’m not about “praying away the gay” or anything like that, but this concept has helped liberate me from so much guilt and pent up anger, and really – really, forgive myself and others in my life. I don’t like Exodus or religious people, but Nicolosi does not try to force anything on anyone (I have not gone to him, but read him), so stop all the hatin’!
@Luke:
You still don’t get it. You can’t disparage ANY faith here, not just Fundamentalist Christianity.
I know plenty of Episcopalians who have great faith. Bishop John Shelby Spong, who might be one of the “liberal metaphor interpreters” that you find so pathetic, has written a great deal of work based on his scriptural studies, which, “right” or “wrong,” is none the less evidence of at least an attempt at intellectual exegesis. Another example is my (quite faithful) fellow alumna from art school. Yes, art school.
From how you write, it seems that you still indeed have a great deal of pent-up anger (well, writing helps get that stuff out). This is not the place to express it. This is also not really a place you will find many friends and supporters of the writings of Nicolosi.
So congratulations for finding your “liberation,” although I’m not quite sure what it was from. People come from crappy circumstances. Most likely, more often than not.
And in any case, this is not a virtual therapy forum; most of that stuff is none of our business.
Luke, no one here has said that one can’t stumble onto insight about oneself even while following a deeply flawed premise. But too many others are hurt by the more direct result of reparative drive theory and the “faith” so many anti-gay and ex-gay organizations put in it. Pointing this out is not hate, and the price for your insight is too high. I can only speculate that some legitimate psychotherapy with a psychiatrist less burdoned with confirmation bias might have helped as much or better (or for matter still would).
Your issues seem ill-suited for a forum such as this. As for the religious comments, see Emily’s comment above.
Sorry for seeming so out of place. The main point I was trying to make is that the people whom one disagrees with are usually sincere, and are usually at least partly right. I guess I am just one of those peculiar persons who can see many sides to every issue. And yes, I agree that the damage done by many of these organizations is actually probably greater than the benefits, but I think that critical thinking skills are what is really needed to stop from becoming a victim.
Luke, you’re welcome to comment but please cut out the passive-aggression. It smacks of high school mentality and we’re trying to make this forum one of sincere grown-up conversation. If you really feel you are one of those people that you described, and that you are too out of place for that reason, you are welcome to find a forum where you do feel like you belong.
I think this is an issue for “Bible” Christians. The Bible VS Gay issue stems from the refusal to understand Scripture other than a book of dictation. God speaks, man writes word for word exactly what God wants to say. End of story. And the English translations are exact, perfect translations of the originals. End of story.
That the different books and different parts of each book need to be read in different ways should be obvious to “Bible Christians” and it amazes me that its the Orthodox Churches that pick up on this more than the ones whose only claim to revelation IS the Bible.
Ensley is claiming that we Christians who are gay are really not “happy” (a kindergarten word used by a theologian but oh well). His claim is that we “know” what the Bible says but ignore it. Well, I know the Bible says Jesus had brothers, yet I firmly believe Mary was a virgin before , during, and after Christ’s birth. I don’t ignore the passages that say “His brothers” but rather I understand them differently. The same with the “clobber passages.”
The difference between Ensley’s understand of the Bible and those of Gay Christians is mainly that he doesn’t go beyond the written page while Gay Christians do what the majority of Christianity has always done, and that is to search for the understanding.
The Early Church had much better access to the original scriptures and yet the belief in the virginity of Mary was one of the earliest beliefs about her. They didn’t ignore the passages that talked about Christ’s brothers, they simply understood them differently. Gay Christians are doing the same thing with the “clobber” passages that the Early Church did – and that is to look for the meaning and understanding, not the “literal” word of Scripture. And the move from taking the translators of Scrtipture at face value has improved our understanding of Scripture, not just for the LGBT community but the Christian community at large.
Has the content of the answer on exodusyouth.net changed?
The date is 2009-01-03, the Autor is Mike Ensley, but below stand: Answer by Mike Goeke, former VP of Exodus International
PS
David,
I spent a good part of a day last May with Andrew Marin of the Marin Foundation at his speaking engagements at Azuza University in Southern California. We had lunch, tooled around campus/city in my car and talked a lot about beliefs and Christianity. The guy is golden. I mention this because you put “Marin / Gritter” in the same Side B category saying both have “similar theological views” and both do not “cause the harm and hurt” re gay sexuality. David, they are not even close.
Andrew Marin founder of The Marin Foundation of Chicago does not advocate celibacy for life for gays holding heterosex as a glorified magnate. He does not discriminate against gays with the literal “clobber” gay sexual interpretation of the Bible painfully turning away those that don’t “zip up their pants”. However, and I think this is highly important, he does hold as one of his views as do I, that the biblical interpretation of homosexuality is referring to pedophilia, which logically fits with the inclusive “thieves” and “murderers” passages in the Bible. It still holds true today and actually makes the A Grade called logical common sense.
The guy walks the example of Jesus like no other and he would never turn anyone away or guilt trip gay people leaving them confused shut out “hurt” lost and in tears like Side B for not following what I call Side B’s Non Biblical Faux Eunich Sex Diet. He is also open to secular therapy for gay Christians. The thought of Andrew Marin turning away people because they are gay sexual is humorously insane. In short, he is anything but the “Side B” exgay-sex-crowd you have married him with in your statement. Putting Marin and Gritter in the same light truly elevates the definition of oxymoron.
Andrew Marin stands for what I stand for, helping gay people in all religious faiths and secular beliefs resolve their sexuality and love and express themselves for who and what they were born to be in the light of God. Andrew Marin fully unites (non-hurtful), Wendy Gritter disparagingly divides (hurtful). I’m not a pussy foot fag David, I call’em as I see’em. Life is too short for such nonsense.
Maybe you would consider contacting Andrew as I think a guest post by him could be quite refreshing in the light of recent events. And if I am not mistaken, his first book should be out by now called Love is an Orientation, as he was taking a sabbatical to finish it when he got home from Azusa last May. In light of his expanded view of reality, I’m sure it would be a fantastic read.
In the future, please portray him in his true non judgemental Jesus filled light with which he walks. He has earned it. He deserves nothing less.
Ben in Oakland —- You’re right on. Excellent portrayal.
Devlin, there is nothing in your comment which even resembles what I have seen and heard from Wendy Gritter. For that matter, though I think he is a truly amazing young man, your near deification of Andrew Marin is over the top, even a bit frightening. What you explain as “calling them like you see them” feels much more like an excuse to be judgmental. Quite frankly, it is getting old and I am unwilling to watch you continue to bash others in a wholesale fashion as you have a habit of doing here — in this case those who categorize themselves as “Side B.”
If I were to use this method of categorizing positions on the issue, I would be “Side A.” I do not share the theological views of Side B, but then I am not required to. Part of the difference between Side B and those who this site primarily monitors is that they do not judge me, nor do they make it their mission to change public policy or civil laws to make my life more difficult or less equal to anyone else’s. They also don’t spread a lot of false information about GLBTs or take money in exchange for programs filled with pseudo-science to “convert” them.
I can debate them and befriend them, but unless they ask me for guidance, I’m not going to preach to them about their personal faith. Doing so would go against my own values. We get that you have some serious personal animus towards those who consider themselves Side B. Any further demonstration of that is unnecessary and inappropriate.
Concerning Andrew Marin:
We posted a voice interview with Andrew almost a year ago, and he participated heavily in the comments that followed. This was before most people had even heard of him, at least in this venue.
The book is a great first step. I did not agree with every word but I felt strongly enough about the message to endorse it. I didn’t take that action lightly, and I will explain more after it has been officially released. I do recommend it highly for the challenge and for the honesty the writer has put forth.
I have asked Andrew if he has any reservations about my placing his ministry and that of Wendy Gritter together to illustrate an alternative to current approaches. He has assured me that this is all good, and that he respects and agrees with much of what Wendy espouses today.
We should not forget that Wendy and New Direction left the Exodus network, and one does not make such a move without some good reasons. If we are not willing to allow for others to grow and change, then what is the purpose of any activism?
What I have come to understand and embrace as a Side B perspective embodies a generous spaciousness that is non-coercive. This means we value the self-determination of each individual in relation to issues of both faith and sexuality. We will not disparage the faith of gay Christians who personally hold to a Side A perspective – nor will we focus on trying to change their mind or position. While there may be opportunity for lively theological conversation, this happens in the context of true friendship where there is a mutual trust and respect. We focus on encouraging each follower of Christ in their spiritual journey. For fellow Side B gay Christians, we seek to be an encouragement to them in line with their personal convictions.
In our blog, we have the opportunity to engage people from diverse perspectives. It has been a place of grace and welcome for people to share their thoughts and journey.
It is additionally a place where I will be increasingly committed to speak out in relation to issues of justice for glbtq people as demonstrated in my post about the Uganda conference. I believe speaking up for justice is an essential part of living out my faith.
Perhaps there will always be those who view me as “disparagingly divides (hurtful)” but I will try to quietly and faithfully continue to work at building bridges.
Devlin (and any others),
Please don’t be so desperate to find a conservative young man with sticky-up hair who is apparently ‘respectful’ to gay people. You are ripe for manipulation. They exist, they always have. They almost always disappoint.
Andrew Marin has two ways of speaking : 1) to GLBT people, and 2) about GLBT people.
Having spent several hours carefully listening to the disturbing latter, and being blown in the ear by the former… one young man would have a lot of explaining to do, to us.
He would, except for one fact: he is a professional, conservative evangelist. From that fact alone: we get it.
Why is it that his address to a straight audience is a Class-101 message about how to manipulate a gay person? Huh??? Go ask him for it, and listen carefully.
And… we agree with David R completely as regards your elevation of Marin to the status of the gods, even given the fact David very generously permitted Marin to spin like all heck in the phone call he has linked to above. (We near puked at his ‘explanation’ about his on-air praise of Peter LaBraWearer.)
We’ve had sharp words about Wendy in the past — words we have happily moderated since she took New Direction out of Exodus — but we have to say at least one thing in Wendy’s favour* — as best as we can tell, Wendy does not seem to talk to gay people in a way that is different to the way she talks about gay people. To the best of our knowledge, she certainly hasn’t run two opposed “courses”; nor been flat out misleading about her ultimate intentions. We cannot say the same about Mr. Andrew Marin.
Devlin, you should apologise to Wendy. Really. At the very least you should at last say that was an ill-informed call on your part.
And please be more alert to the disarming charms of deliberately charming young men you share cars with. You can get arrested that way, in some States.
——————————
* In case you read this Wendy: this may seem like faint praise, but please accept it as it is. Without needing to change what you were doing, you did give us hope when you walked away from Exodus. Your recent and timely words against the persecution that is occurring in Uganda were also personally, and behalf of others, much appreciated. Very much appreciated.
Sorry dear Editor — the “Peter LaBraWearer” broke several rules. Name-calling. Making fun of names. Inaccuracy. Possibly even sexism.
I should have noticed when the spell-checker was suggesting ahead, and corrected. We do prefer those making a living out of a hideous anti-gay career to be accurately named.
Edit if need be, or leave be — if only to prove we are fallible.
Thank you grantdale.
Could I ask you to flesh out your comment about teaching straight people how to manipulate gay people? My sense of Andy Marin – though I really don’t know him personally – is that he seems sincere …. As a straight person myself, I want to try to listen as well as I can to gay people, realizing my limitations. So if there is something in what was said that you felt was manipulative – I would really benefit from having that clarified. I may be making some of the same errors inadvertently. I would be the first to say I’m sure I have blindspots I don’t see – and if you can explain more – that may help me and others who do want to be of help – not harm – in this whole bridging, connecting reality.
Your comments about integrity are critically important – and challenging to live out for those of us who do want to love and serve well while owning our convictions. Thank you for the reminder to be consistent – I agree this is significant.
No probs Wendy — but….
In this case we are waiting for That Book to be published. By a certain someone. We have no wish to interrupt that process. Nor help in the editing, if you get our drift….
When that book is published we’ll be happy to talk. Much.
Be patient, we’ll say our piece — and you can always ask for more.
We’re not about to join the New Direction fan club at right this moment… but when things strike us as wrong, we’ll always speak up, we hope.
—————————-
by cc to Dear Editor: you may release our Hotmail addy to Wendy should she ask.
And yes… we will read Marin’s book (with a fine tooth comb). He can send it for free, or we will convince a Bishop to exchange it for a photographic negative, or we’ll pretend to be Brenda d’HardPainEqualsJesus with the Salt-Shaker lunatics again… but in any case, we WILL read it, and not pay a red cent. Thank God for Christian charity 🙂
I’m sure both Wendy and Andrew will wait with baited breath for that coveted grantdale seal of approval. I’m rather interested in seeing it myself, as I’m not sure it’s ever been spotted.
If one ever feels one is becoming too subjective, grantdale are the remedy 😉
I’ll forward your email on — be gentle.
BTW, is “Dear Editor” anything like “Dear Leader”? Or should I ask Cohen about that 🙂
Seal of Approval???
Good god, you make us sound like the people who sanitise hotel bathrooms. Thank you very, effing much. Bastard. (Actually, come to think of it … nah, we’re not going there…)
And don’t ask us what you should ask Cohen. He’s your mentor, afterall.
OOOF!!!
(that was a punch in the guts, in case you didn’t feel it)
ps: you only need pass it on if Wendy asks for it. IF. ASKS. She had some questions, and we’ve deferred on them. Till later.
It was an offer, not a command to instant action; yadipstick 🙂
Wow, we are getting full-bore Aussiness today, lol. She did and so I did.
PS: I was serious about the subjective line, can always count on you guys for a nice big bite of a reality sandwich when needed!
Comment Moderated:
Please do not use new threads to rehash issues from months ago from threads that have been closed.
Concerning questions for Wendy Gritter (or anyone), she is not on the stand waiting for a prosecutor. If you have a couple of questions for her within the boundaries of the topic and can ask them civilly, do so. If you have more detailed issues with her, perhaps you should contact her directly.
Trip – you can contact me directly if you wish – through our website: http://www.newdirection.ca
I’ll do my best to engage your questions.
David – – – In a world where lies and greed are being called on the carpet in every area, mortgages, Wall Street, politics, marriage, banks, government etc, it is also doing so with religion, whether it chooses to acknowledge such or not. And while I understand that spreading lies about gays is not ok, I also see that the entire cultural debacle is dancing around the “elephant in the room”. The “mother of all lies” lay within the Bible itself about homosexuals and sex. If this is not addressed, all areas of the “struggle” will continue. And because nature is more reality based and powerful than speculation, gay people will prevail in this country with full rights. This is the silver lining. But why dally with the details when the cause could collapse them all?
I accept Marin’s ideology (we had a good laugh about the deification comments) because he includes and supports all sides of gay reality, turning no one away via dogma, creating no division. This along with the fact that he would vote for legalizing gay marriage is a true new direction for a very fundamentalist polarized situation.
I really do appreciate what you are trying to do with this sight David, and not step on anyone’s toes in the process. It’s a tricky job and you are doing it as well as one can in your position. For that I do thank you.
Wendy – – – Opening up conversation within the church for a safe haven for homosexuals to speak, is admirable. However, your ultimate goal from what I can tell is not a new direction, as it still serves the basic lie, that gay people are sexually broken as a whole and need transformation out of homosexual behavior. I do not reject your stance out of obstinence, but because it more than not, does not stand the test of reason hurting humanity as a whole by keeping it confused. When one overthrows reason for opinionated ponderance, it weakens all aspects of the subject at hand to the “I’m not sure” stance. This is why your group lives in struggle and anxiety. For every one gay person you bring on board, there are several you have lost with chagrin.
You have intimated that you take bold risks in your trek and I surely give you that, however, the boldest risk would be to question the very root of a belief that as each day goes by, is proving false. Being “scared straight” from birth with the thought of possible losing every support system ever granted, is not a loving gesture, it is a judgemental command.
If you really want a true “new direction”, I challenge you to think about creating a place for full spectrum gays that include sex in their reality, to have counselling to reduce their fear of hell fire and brimstone i.e. religious persecution, thus making all gay people truly “right as rain” in God’s kingdom, and preach thereof. Then create a triple decker bridge between Side A, B and straights with no bias towards any and speak about it often to your audiences.
I see that would be the truest break from Exodus with a full 180 towards inclusion without judgement. From what I can tell from your speeches and your candour, you definitely have the guts.
Please do not take my text as trying to alienate you, I want bridges too, strong ones.
I’m looking forward to more honest days on every subject humanity is grappling with.
If I have stepped on anyone’s toes in the process of dialogue, I’m sorry and I ask your forgiveness.
I wish us all God speed in our daily trek out of mental emotional polarization.
Peace,
D
Very good. My messages were for you and Wendy directly so it’s all good. Wendy, thanks for your web address.
Devlin,
One of the challenges of bridge-building is the discomfort that comes from giving the one on the other side of the bridge the space and freedom to hold to a belief that you disagree with. What I hear you saying is that unless I give up my side B beliefs and move to side A and create a space of inclusion from a side A starting point, then I have “overthrown reason for opinionated ponderance” and still “serve a basic lie.” This seems then to be less about building bridges and more about demanding a monolithic response.
I know that there are those who disagree with me on this point, but I do believe that you can hold theological differences and still build bridges that are respectful, non-coercive, and mutually accepting and supportive.
A test of that, I suppose, comes down to issues of justice. In my interview with Tony Campolo he said, “You cannot say you truly love gay people until you can say, ‘I will for you the same rights and privileges I myself have'” …. on this point, I agree with Tony.
Wendy,
Thanks for your response.
Before going further with comment on other aspects of your post, I am interested in what you said about your interview with Tony. Does this mean you support legalizing gay marriage and would vote as such if your country were still in the throws of it?
Devlin,
I am personally supportive of equal civil unions for all couples at a governmental level. I see marriage as an issue of conviction and conscience at an individual and religious level.
Wendy,
That’s very progressive.
I would think that being ok with civil unions would bring up a sticking point for churches and ministers that you may teach as it would seemingly go against the scriptural “sin” area of gay sex.
Do you expound on both civil unions and gay marriage when lecturing at all venues? If so how do you rationalize both views to your audience? If not, is there a reason you do not share both views?
What I hear you saying is that you believe gay sex is sinful, but you are not going to try to stop others who do not believe that way, from being gay sexual, supporting their beliefs and rights in the process. If that is truly so, I can accept that view.
My problem has been where others with your views, take it a step further and toss the emotion in, becoming judgemental and causing others conflict and pain. It seems like a hard line to draw especially when some are celibate and still struggling. I think that is because the Bible throws such a harsh judgemental light on homosexuality it in the first place, so the starting gate is a bit lopsided. This is why I take the view that the Bible could be talking about pedophiles rather than loving gay couples. It makes more sense to me. God knows history is rife with pedophilia. Do you entertain that view at all?
I can see how your view, if devoid of judgement, would bring more acceptance to the table in general if all were to accept both views as reasonable.
Devlin,
I don’t expound on civil unions or marriage. The focus of my speaking is how to foster a safe place where those who experience same-gender attraction can encounter and grow in Christ. New Direction has taken a deliberate position of not weighing in on such politicized matters as gay marriage – and my comment above was offered on a personal level – not on behalf of the organization I serve.
I do feel very strongly about the need for faith to be invitational and non-coercive. So in the matter of sexual ethics as informed by faith, I do not expect my neighbours, who hold a differing set of beliefs and values, to follow my code and creed so-to-speak.
Additionally, an aspect of my faith is to speak up for justice for all – not just for those who agree with me. When I hear stories of people being refused admittance to visit their dying partner my heart breaks. This ought not to be. My support of civil unions is in light of these kind of injustices. And while I know that there are Christians who strongly disagree with me on this – I do think there is plenty of Scriptural support for working for justice and for the common good.
The Bible is filled with paradox and mystery and truth and life. There are parts of Scripture that are very difficult. I am comforted by my understanding and belief that God’s revelation to humanity is most fully seen in Jesus Christ. So when I come to passages that seem to be inconsistent with a God of love and mercy, I return to Scripture’s description of Jesus as a way to help me wrestle through. In Christ, I see unbelievable love, unbelievable invitation, welcome, grace and mercy. To this I cling.
One of the things I do really wrestle with is cultural context. I don’t think the writers of Scripture had a sense of sexual orientation such as we now understand. I don’t think they had the example of loving, monogomous couples that we have today. I weigh these things in my study, thinking and prayers. While for me, these considerations have not ultimately changed my theological position (I think God is bigger than the limitations of the writers of Scripture) – they certainly factor in my sincere attempts to be open and welcoming to those who come to different conclusions than I do.
Unfortunately, your argument presupposes that the biblical writers were fallible, a view that is not likely to go over well with “Bible believing” evangelicals. You may get them to believe “gay is ok” but you will never get them to question the plenary and verbal inspiration of their scriptures, because they refuse to listen to critical scholarship. These churches are filled with parishoners who have never heard of the documentary hypothesis, for instance, because their pastors are either ignorant of it or have never told their congregation for fear of inducing unbelief.
Wendy,
I think you are right on with your assessment regarding sex education / orientation then and now. I get what you mean about partners not being able to see each other in the hospital and the heartbreak that moans from it’s unfairness. My heartbreak is a gay youth so confused so lost, that tears no longer give solace, and suicide looks alluringly likable. It just kills my love and I really have to process through it.
I think our conversation falls in either the category of belief and/or knowledge. Christ knew that his knowledge of love was unchallengeable, and did not require belief, though he lost his life over it’s importance through ignorant hands. I believe we as followers of Christ are called to realize we are not bodies and beliefs, but spiritual love, as he attested with his death resurrection and ascension. I’m not one to believe he died for anyone’s sins, but simply demonstrated reality (love) vs illusion (fear), that bodies and beliefs are not love, the only real permanent reality there is.
As a student of A Course in Miracles, fully Christ driven as my gut tells me it is Jesus speaking through the woman (I’m ecstatic it was a woman) who wrote it, as it spells it out without mystery and makes great sense once understood. Be that as it may, we have to live here with many false beliefs that do not serve the love we inherently are.
I think some sexual beliefs like biblical homosexuality and the resulting debacle blinds us of that truth that we are the love we seek, and can keep us confused. Every time I go to Christ, a mirror in me is lit up to feel my own love/Christ/aka “Kingdom within”. So I try to fetter out fearful beliefs that lead me away from our love’s innate presence. This is why I think it is so important to let go of sexual fears, allowing loving couples, Christian and otherwise, to get legally married regardless of their sexual orientation, expressing the reality that love does exist (in spades) as Jesus taught.
Nevertheless, would it be accurate for me to include you in saying, “we are all a work in progress”?
Thanks for your insights, they are useful in knowing you better.
I most certainly am “a work in progress” and expect to be so until my last breath 🙂
Haha. Ditto 🙂