People and groups that promote and provide ex-gay treatments are almost always religious. While they may draw on debunked Freudian theories (Re-Fried Freud) and co-opt AA recovery methods, many ex-gay practitioners adhere to pastoral or Biblical counseling. Often it has been the Bible, interpreted by anti-LGBTQ clergy, that lured many of us into ex-gay treatment.
The oppression of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people has been organized and funded by groups and individuals that use the Bible as a weapon wielded to not only deny us our equal rights, but our very humanity. In addressing these on-going attacks, a necessary step has been to take on the clobber passages, seven Bible excerpts that some have interpreted to condemn same gender love, sex, partnership, and desire.
As an Ex-Gay Survivor from a religious background, I have found it essential to unpack these texts that held me hostage for many years. Defensive Theology has helped me to take the teeth out out this handful of Bible excerpts, and to expand the way I view them. Below are examples of how I deconstruct two of the most often quoted clobber passages.
Genesis 19 The Sin of Sodom. Is it really man-on-man action?
Romans 1 The Bible, Lesbians, & worshipers gone wild.
I have several comments.
1. Not all ‘ex-gays’ endorse reparative therapy or other ‘gay’ cures. They seldom work and often do more harm than good.
2. Our ‘humanity’ is defined by the word of God, the Bible. If your perceived humanity is contradicted by it, the problem is not with the Bible.
3. The question of ‘rights’ is a very subjective issue. We all think we have rights that we may not have. In this case a moral element comes into play that makes civil and non-discriminatory factors involved difficult to determine. Hence the opposition to the gay perspective.
4. The ‘clobber passages’ are not the primary or even the most convincing biblical arguments against your position. They must be interpreted within the broad biblical-theological context of the scriptures as a whole. Without this background we can make them say anything we want. The bible is not made up of a series of texts unrelated to a unifying ethical standard that bears on the interpretation of each individual passage.
5. Your explanation of the so-called ‘clobber passages’ is pretty much the same stuff that’s been peddled by the ‘gay christian movement’ for years. Every one of them has been effectively countered and shown to be seriously wanting in exegetical accuracy.
6. Finally, no sensitive Christian wants to use the Bible as a ‘weapon’ against anyone. Any hateful or disrespectful words or actions are to be deplored. As a former gay man, I experienced it far too much. But at the same time, a Christian is at the most basic level a person who believes that the Bible determines how he/she thinks and behaves. And that means there will be opposition to perspectives that contradict the teaching of scripture.
@X-Gay Apologist
I have a few comments to make on your comments.
(1) I find it a very curious proposition that our humanity should be defined by a disparate collection of ancient documents, most of which are of either uncertain or unknown provenance.
(2) How did you arrive at your “unifying ethical standard”? There is no unified sexual ethic to be found in the Bible, although I am sure that you can cobble one together and read it into the Bible.
(3) Why should we be for ever bound by the beliefs and suppositions of ancient authors on this matter? As the late biblical scholar Professor Robert Carroll wrote:
– ROBERT P. CARROLL, Wolf in the Sheepfold, 1997
@ex-gay apologist. You wrote: “The ‘clobber passages’ are not the primary or even the most convincing biblical arguments against your position. They must be interpreted within the broad biblical-theological context of the scriptures as a whole. Without this background we can make them say anything we want.”
Thank you for writing what is perhaps the most convincing argument I have yet read against any biblical authority on what might be, in a vague, general sort of a way, possibly be about homosexuality, at least as it might have been understood 2000-3000 years ago, by a people who are as far removed from us as we are from them, culturally, linguistically, and historically.
And not merely of homosexuality, but of just about anything else.
Hermaneutics– the exquisitely fine art of getting your holy book to say whatever you need
it to say to support your current view of god’s unchanging word.
X-gay Apologist, you wrote “no sensitive Christian wants to use the Bible as a ‘weapon’ against anyone”
And yet, that is exactly what you are doing with your entire comment, using the Bible to try to harm people. Just go away.
Dear X-Gay:
1. I agree with you on this point. However, what else do you, within your belief system, offer to a Christian believer that identifies as Same Sex Attracted (SSA)? I personally only offer miracles of change – and a miracle, by definition, is very rare. If there is no miracle, I ask the person to wrestle through the grace of God: that is, the concepts of law (right vs wrong), then mercy, then individual conscience, and then God’s Sovereignty. By this counsel, some SSA will become celibate, but others will become married to their same-sex partner; some SSA may have a miracle and be quite bi-sexual and/or heterosexual; other SSA will marry the opposite sex and live well within the incongruence. There are scriptures to support this type of counsel (but I will not list them here, for we have quite a mixed audience at Ex-gay Watch). My I ask what your counsel is then, in a nutshell?
2. Well, Ex-Gay Watch is frequented by people-of-faith and people that are not of any particular faith. All have been welcomed here – even me. I understand that you are stating only your view that the Bible is paramount to you. The Bible is paramount to me, as well. However, there are many other source documents for helping people to define ‘humanity’. I think, if you wish further Biblical discussion, you may wish to offer the Biblical Book , chapter, and verse by which you prove your point, and provide your definition of humanity.
3. A ‘moral element’ – well, we are quite disagreed on this point. A moral element changes within a culture; whereas, if I say the Bible is paramount, then my standard is not a moral element, but my standard is the ‘more important’ concepts within the Bible: mercy, faithfulness, and social justice (Matthew 23:23). Churches that hold to the ‘moral element’ concept (just 50 years ago) were totally against divorce, and would even defrock a pastor for marrying a man to a divorced woman – this was participation in adultery [Luke 16:17-18]. But now those denominations appoint divorced and remarried men as elders and/or pastors, and may even officiate over a man marrying a divorced woman. The Bible did not change; the American culture of acceptance toward the divorced and remarried, and adultery-by-remarriage, changed. The same-sex married are only asking for Federal and State benefits to be applied with equal mercy, that is, with impartiality (per the ‘wisdom that comes from heaven’ James 3:17). To my knowledge, they have not asked for partiality via affirmative actions (such as being hired primarily on the basis of quotas, etc.). What is the mercy you are proposing be given to same-sex married couples, may I ask?
4. Hmmm… we may be agreed in the core message: the Bible is a series of Books and Letters that are related. However, they are not related to a unifying ethical standard, they are related to the concepts of love, law, mercy, individual conscience, and the sovereignty of God. These are not standards; these are concepts. For example, Deut 22 demands the death penalty for any non-virgin woman that marries without proof of having lost her virginity by natural events. It does not matter if she repents or has abandoned her lifestyle of promiscuity. She should be stoned to death. That is the standard. However, the Biblical concepts of mercy (per Jesus’ words in Matt 23:23) are to dominate the decision, even in the Old Testament concept.
5. Slow down here… Peter T. is a comedian. He is not trying to do a deep exegesis of the scriptures. You would do better to state a church policy with which you disagree, and then demonstrate your Biblical counter-arguments. Those that are concerned with Biblical exegesis may reply; but again, there is a broad audience here at Ex-gay Watch.
6. Again, we are disagreed. You appear to come from the conceptual side of Christianity that is concerned over ‘how he/she thinks and behaves’. I come from the other conceptual side of Christianity that is concerned over internal transformation of the person’s heart (deepest soul). My understanding is that Jesus taught the same emphasis of internal transformation over external conformity in Matthew Chapter 23. Please clarify your position on conformity versus transformity.
Much love in Christ always and unconditionally; Caryn
I think the Jewish Bible prohibits and condemns Male anal sodomy. I don’t think that you can make any case that a person with exclusive gay orientation can change that. If you want you can change behaviors and also adopt a celibate or straight lifestyle. Such a choice is usually not successful.
So what does G-d expect from you? I don’t know I expect that Love is the answer. Love of self
Love of Others, Love of G-d.
@Caryn LeMur
Caryn,
Thanks for your comments and questions. I appreciate dialogue that forces me to think through these difficult matters. Here are my brief responses:
1. My counsel in a nutshell? That’s not easy to answer because I approach each individual situation as it comes, and they come in many different ways! I avoid any psychological, therapeutic, or ‘Christian’ counseling methods that view SSA as a disorder that can be ‘cured’ by the application of proper techniques. I work from a biblical presuppositional framework that sees dispositional and behavioral issues as redeemable only by the grace of God. Our needs are ultimately spiritual in nature and therefore require the transforming work of God that comes through the gospel. So, in a nutshell, my ultimate goal is to bring people to see their need of God’s mercy and to find it by believing the gospel of Jesus Christ. How a person gets to that point will vary with each individual and can’t be artificially forced, as is often done by fundamentalist evangelicalism.
2. I am fully aware that most people at Ex-Gay Watch do not agree with my perspective. I was only responding to Peter, because he brought the Bible into the discussion. And in response to what I said about the Bible defining our ‘humanity’, there are three basic elements of that definition that I have in mind: 1) We were created by God in His image, which gives us a unique identity that no other created being has. The relevance of this to the present discussion is that God made as male and female, the sexual implications of which are fairly obvious (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7,18-25). 2) God gave the first humans an original mandate that they violated, one result of which is that we are now innately opposed to God and what He requires of us (Gen. 3; Rom. 1-3, 8:5-8). 3) This innate opposition to God and the thinking and behavior that result from it can be changed only by the transforming grace of God as revealed to us in the gospel (Rom. 8:3-4). This all bears on the sexual aspect of our life as well as every other area.
3. I agree and disagree with you here. This would require an extensive discussion to hammer out, but we have to keep it short and to the point in this format. I agree that there are moral perspectives that differ with time and culture, and you gave a good example. But that doesn’t negate the fact that there are universal and unchanging moral requirements laid upon us by God. In the divorce example there was a flawed understanding of the biblical teaching on the subject that was subsequently corrected. Biblical morality didn’t change, but the understanding of it did, and practice was brought in line with the biblical ethic. In Rom. 2 the Apostle Paul teaches that everyone by nature knows there are basic moral requirements demanded of us by God. These are the same requirements that are summarized in the Decalogue (Ex. 20:1-17) and further encapsulated in the commandments to love God with all our being and our neighbor as ourselves (Matt. 22:35-40). Love is not some vague feeling of goodwill to others, but a desire for their good that is expressed by doing to them what the law of God requires (Rom. 13:8-10). There is therefore no contradiction between law and love, and things you mentioned like mercy and justice only make sense within this biblical framework. People like to point to the changing moral standards within the Bible as proof of inconsistency, but there is always a failure to distinguish between God’s unchanging moral law and its application to civil and ceremonial aspects of the life of Israel. For example, adultery is and always has been wrong and a violation of the marriage compact. But punishing adulterers with the death penalty was a civil requirement that applied only to Israel and was therefore of only temporary duration. My point in referencing a moral element to the homosexual debate was simply to point out that for many people this is a practice that violates God’s immutable requirements for regulating sexual expression. And if this is the case, then it is outside the arena of civil and non-discriminatory rights. Even as I write, there is a movement in progress that seeks to make homosexuality a civil offense punishable by law. I’m just stating the facts that have to be faced; I’m not saying that I necessarily agree with them.
4. I’ve already addressed this to some extent in #3 above. I’ll just add that one definition of a standard is ‘principles or values that govern a person’s behavior.’ In this sense I would argue that there is a unifying biblical standard known as the moral law that is summarized in the Ten Commandments. Jesus himself said that he had no intention of annulling this moral law by his teaching (Matt. 5:17ff). That he is referring to the Decalogue here is obvious in the subsequent context where he refers specifically to the 6th and 7th commandments (vv. 21-30). He does not abrogate them in his teaching, but corrects their misuse by Pharisaic externalism and shows that they apply not only to outward behavior, but also to what we think and feel and intend. For instance, adultery is not just the sexual act involved, but includes the very desire that leads to it! But if you want to call this Jesus’ concept of moral law, I have no real objection. We’re going to end up in the same place.
5. Yes, Peter is funny and he did make me laugh at times. But he is giving his interpretation of biblical passages, so he has stepped right into the arena of exegesis and hermeneutics. Anyone who does that needs to be prepared for the backlash that will be sure to come!
6. OK. I have no real disagreement, except to say that the transformation of a person’s heart will affect the way he or she thinks and behaves. In other words, God transforms us so that we will conform to his will in our thoughts and behavior (Rom. 12:1-2, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, 2 Cor. 7:1, etc.). I think we’re back at #1 again!
That’s enough for now. God’s love be with you.
@X-Gay Apologist
Please identify yourself. I suspect you are not “exgay”, regardless of your current or past behaviour. None of your type ever are, on closer examination.
Identify yourself.
Apologist’s argument falls apart at the start:
1. It’s not Biblical. It merely cherry-picks isolated verses.
2. The Bible is flat-out wrong about gender: We are not created male or female. Throughout history, many people have been born with the genes and organs of both sexes or neither sex. As our knowledge of gender grows, so too does our ability to survey and count the number of people with blended characteristics — people who are often unaware, or just vaguely aware, that they are different.
3. Apologist throws out the Gospels and declares that he/God wants a return to Old Testament moral law. Furthermore, Apologist is politically selective about which laws he/God wants restored.
@X-Gay Apologist
It’s ironic that so many evangelical fundamentalists contort scripture in order to make it fit, considering how gay Christians are blamed for doing same. It’s so much more consistent when you smooth out the inconsistencies, eh?
@David Roberts
1. I’m not an evangelical fundamentalist.
2. Your comment completely misses the point I was making.
3. There’s nothing inconsistent here. The moral requirement of marital faithfulness never changes. The civil sanctions can and do change. The civil laws of Israel ended when the new covenant was enacted by Christ. They no longer apply.
@X-Gay Apologist
That will be news to Israelis.
Actually the death penalty was rendered virtually unenforceable by the turn of the Millennium by the Jewish Sages themselves. One Talmudic scholar once declared they could not recall a precedent of it ever having been truly enforced for something like a son talking back to their father. That may be an exaggeration, but it does display the character of the scriptural interpretations of the day.
It’s so sad that so many Christians think Jewish thought, ethics, and law begin and end with the 5 books of Moses alone. Their ignorance fuels a flawed exegesis in its own right.
They can speak how they want about their own scriptures – but they can’t speak for Jewish people.
@David Roberts
That’s a whole ‘nother issue!
@grantdale
Not sure if you’re questioning the reality of my gay past or of the change following my conversion. If it’s the former, here is a summary account of my life before I was converted:
From my very first sexual awakening, I was always attracted to guys. I was never turned on by girls. When I was growing up in Florida, my junior high friends and I would go to the beach all the time. They would look at the girls, but I would look at the guys. I pretended to like girls and did all the ‘sex talk’ because I didn’t want to be ridiculed, but it was just an act.
Then when I was 14, my parents decided to move to Michigan. Here my life completely changed. It pretty much started in my freshman year in the locker room. Phys Ed was required back then in high school, and after gym class we all had to take showers together. I started noticing that a few other boys would be staring at me with obvious lust in their eyes. I would stare back at certain ones to let them know that I was ready and willing. This resulted in my first three sexual encounters. Then when I was 15, I joined the track team because I was a fast runner. Here I met two boys who were gay and was soon having sex with them.
It wasn’t long after this that I met Joe. We were in a literature class together and shared a mutual love of the poetry of T. S. Eliot. We also loved the music of Beethoven and were into chess and guitars. I was attracted to him from the moment I first saw him, and we struck up an instant friendship. One day when we were alone, Joe asked me if I’d ever had sex with a guy. I told him that I had. He told me that he’d always wanted to, but was afraid to take the first step. Then he asked me if I’d help him take it. And that began a relationship that lasted almost 3 years. We loved each other intensely. We couldn’t stand being apart and spent as much time as we could together. He didn’t like sports, but joined the track team just so he could be with me. In fact, we got involved in a lot of things just to find ways to keep from going home and to be together after school and on weekends. We even went to church with friends who invited us so we could be together! This went on all through high school.
And then my world came apart.
Joe’s parents had always been suspicious of our relationship. Whenever they would confront him, he always told them that nothing sexual was going on. Of course, that was a lie. Then at the beginning of his senior year, Joe decided it was time to be open about his homosexuality and to tell his parents everything about us. I told him that it wasn’t a good idea, because his dad was one of those macho jock types that could not tolerate what he called ‘femme boys’. But Joe went ahead and told them everything. His dad’s reaction was violent, and he beat Joe badly. Then he screamed at him and said that ‘no queer was going to live under his roof’ and threw Joe out of the house. I remember Joe calling me like it was yesterday. He had gone to the home of one of our friends. I drove over there and Joe and I just held onto each other and cried for a long, long time. I cleaned up his wounds and held onto him all night long.
The next day Joe’s mother called and said she had convinced his dad to let him come back home for the rest of that school year and summer until he left for college. Then his dad got a new position in another city, and they got ready to move away. Joe’s mother told us he did this to separate Joe and me. We couldn’t bear the thought of being apart for almost 4 months, but there was nothing we could do about it. During this time Joe’s dad made his life miserable and drove him into a deep depression.
Then in September we left for college. I went to Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti and Joe went to Wayne State in Detroit. He now had a car and drove to Ypsilanti to be with me on the weekends in which we didn’t go home. Occasionally I would take a bus to Detroit and stay with him on his campus. The last time we were together he woke me up in the middle of the night because he wanted to tell me how happy I made him. He was crying and hugged me tight for a long time. This was in December, and on his way back to Detroit he crashed into a tree and was killed. You don’t know what this news did to me. The investigation at the accident scene made it even worse when the evidence seemed to indicate that he had intentionally driven into the tree.
The news of Joe’s death nearly killed me. Joe was my life, and in a moment he was gone. I died inside. I became completely withdrawn and isolated and started smoking pot daily to try to dull my great heartache. My personality was altered from a gregarious, happy youth to a somber, introverted one. My whole outward appearance changed from a clean-cut young man to a longhaired ‘hippie’ look. Some friends were worried that I was getting suicidal and reported me to the campus mental health center. I was put under psychiatric care for 3 months. At the same time I became sexually promiscuous. This was from my irrational desire to get back at Joe for what he did and from my determination never to become close to anyone again. The hurt was just too much to bear. I became openly gay and was soon having one sexual encounter after another. This was in the Gay Lib and Gay Pride days, so there was no problem finding guys. Ypsilanti is very close to Ann Arbor, and it wasn’t long before I was deep in the gay culture there. I was introduced to some people who made gay porn and was soon doing video sex for them. I used the money to help pay for my college expenses. Then in my junior year I met some gay guys who were in theater. They had me try out for a play and I got a part! I had never looked at myself as an actor in any way. This also turned out to be the most promiscuous part of my life. Theater is full of gays, and I was soon having sex with a different guy almost every week.
When I was done with college, I went back home. The memories of Joe were everywhere, and I was soon back in my depression. At this time I decided to stop living such a promiscuous lifestyle and was much more selective about whom I had sex with. There were several reasons for this decision. First, my anger towards Joe that made me want to get back at him had subsided with time. This was the big reason for my original promiscuity. Second, I was afraid of getting AIDS. The HIV scare broke out about this time, and I did not want it. Amazingly, I never got any kind of an STD throughout these years. Third, the gay culture I had been involved in really started to weary me. It was all so phony. I was always repulsed by the ‘femme’ guys, and there were more and more of them. I always was myself, never acting out like a lot of gays would. Fourth, I got myself into some scary situations. One of the scariest happened just before I left college. I went home with a guy who wanted to tie me to his bed. I finally consented, and when I was all tied up he called somebody on his phone. The next thing I knew there were five other guys there who took turns raping me. I hurt for several days after that and did not want it to happen again. But though I was less promiscuous, I still continued to guard myself against getting attached to anyone. A part of me died when Joe died, and I couldn’t bear going through that again. During this time I tried to find some comfort in religion and attended a church for a while, but I couldn’t overcome my lust for guys and was soon back in my gay lifestyle. That’s how I was living until I turned 30. That’s when I met a Christian who had been converted from a gay life. And things began to change.
Jeez, what a STEREOTYPE. The only thing here that deviates from this pathetic testimony is the tragic love story in the center involving Joe. Everything else – the “diving into the gay lifestyle” malarky, the “multiple partners a night with no real connection” canard…
You need therapy. REAL therapy, not the kind that the “CHristian who had been converted from a gay life” no doubt told you to seek. If what you say is true, everything about Joe shattered your life and you need to rebuild from there. My professional opinion as a licensed armchair psychologist? If everything you said about “Joe” is real – you dove into “the gay lifestyle” so you could prevent yourself from growing close to anyone real, like Joe. Then you “stopped” being gay so that you never had to risk finding another “Joe” and then subsequently losing him again.
But that crock about the boys in the locker room staring at you lustfully? the forced sexual awakening as a tender vulnerable teen in gym class? Sorry charlie, but I’ve heard waaaaaay too many “ex-gay” testimonies to take THAT seriously.
And if this sounds harsh, it’s because it is.
Emily, that’s exactly what I was going to say. The only part of this that sounded real and human was the part about Joe. The rest of it was the standard ex-gay “llook how badly i lived my formerly gay lifestyle, but Jesus saved me.”
@Ben in Oakland
He made some really bad choices, but none of them have anything to do with being gay. It’s just a lazy narrative that misses the truth. I’m also more than a bit skeptical of this:
It’s not impossible, but for the 70s — heck even for now — this is just terribly unlikely for a high school setting. Kids do everything possible to avoid staring in the locker room and showers. I’m also concerned because this identity, “x-gay-apologist” appears to have come into existence only a couple of months ago but hit the ground running. This leads me to believe someone already accustomed to speaking on this issue, perhaps even on this blog, has seen fit to change their identity. All this adds up to a big credibility gap for me.
David– we’re in agreement. I had the fleeting thought that the story itself was off– it sounded like a coming out novel for high school students. But it seemed mostly what I said and you said– making a lot of bad choices and blaming it on being gay ratrher than on making bad choices. Somehow, i managed to make GOOD choices in my life, and accepting myself decades ago was certainly one of them
@Ben in Oakland
I sincerely wish I had done the same — glad you did.
Me, too. I never really had an issue with myself, what I had was fear of “ruining” my life somehow. But it never did, and here I am at 62 with a great life. Sure wish exGA had the same.
Dear X-Gay:
Thank you for sharing your history. I think every history is valuable, and it is good to speak about it.
The other day I was recalling some of my own history. Nothing unusual, but this time, I noticed my mind re-framed an episode to the point I remembered all the good things about a previous bad event… some time later, I recalled the bad points. I use to recall only the bad points about that particular event…
I think we all ‘filter and re-frame’ our history. And, being honest, I was able to see my own re-framing just recently. Why? Well, at the moment of my recall, I was feeling lonely, and remembered all the good discussions, intimacy, laughter…. and then later, I realized/recalled all the disagreement, stumbling, and wounding…
So, I don’t look at your history without seeing your own filtering and re-framing. It is OK. In my opinion, we all do it. In my opinion, all stories are good to share… even my own.
I am glad that you had a miracle from Jesus, and that He healed you. Really, I am. Miracles still happen. Only God can provide a gift of faith that allows someone to call upon Jesus for forgiveness – and He makes that available to everyone, ‘for whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved’. And only God can convert a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation – but that is a miracle, and is simply not given to many at all.
I am concerned that you seem to move away from the grace of our Jesus when you speak of ‘converting from a gay lifestyle’. I am concerned about your focus on conformity. Please allow me to explain more:
I offer that the ‘external life-styles that are unacceptable to God’ are no longer are the dominant theme of Christianity. The dominant theme is the heart. This is why the ‘fruits of the Spirit’ in Galatians are all heart-styles: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, faithfulness, goodness, meekness, and temperance (self-control). The ‘fruit of the Spirit’ is not conformity to the Law of Moses, as argued in Galatians. God seeks those that worship Him in spirit, and in truth – so, even worship is now a heart-style, and not a life-style.
Yet, I agree in some ways with you, that the dominant theme is built around a core ethic of the 10 commandments. And the 10, are built around a core ethic of two: Love God; Love your Neighbor.
In light of my understanding of the scriptures; in light of my walk with Jesus; I am concerned that you are holding on to the core and the two. What you are doing is good, by all means. But the ‘better way’ is to also walk in the Spirit, and to focus on the fruits of the Spirit. The most excellent way, is the way of love in First Corinthians 13. Even the life-style of being a martyr for Christ is consider worthless, without love.
Nevertheless, our Jesus allows many different walks with Him. The Galatian believers that ‘fell from grace’ were still our brothers in Christ. They had not abandoned Jesus, but they had abandoned His grace. They embraced a more structured life-style, hoping that external holiness would translate into internal change… in their zeal they circumsized their adult penis… but Paul’s reply is still true: “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.”
Yet the same Paul in the same letter to the same Galatian audience cautions: “You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh ; rather, serve one another humbly in love.”
You are probably much more comfortable living within a strong framework of right vs wrong, and perhaps mercy to ‘get back into the fight of having a correct life-style’. You may also view a gay marriage as ‘indulging in the flesh’ – but a marriage vow before our Lord Jesus is anything but ‘indulging in the flesh’ – it is a committment to love for a lifetime.
Draw three concentric circles. Lable the center circle (innermost ring) as “2 Commandments”; then the next concentric circle as (10 commandments); and the last concentric circles as “walking in grace”.
Again, you have the right to live within the the first two rings; but our Lord Jesus has given, and still is giving, many people the right to live within all three circles. They have freedom in Christ to live out more than the core 2; and more than the core 10. They are blessed with a greater gift of faith. They are not ‘indulging in the flesh’ – they are committing to a life-long relationship of family, raising children, seeing an empty nest, living the last years with their closest friend, and then passing into God’s Kingdom.
I offer that you are weak in faith, per Romans 14. Not an insult; but an observation of your choice of wording, tone, and filtering. It is OK. It is not bad to be ‘weak in faith’, and ‘eat only vegetables’ or ‘keep one day more holy than others’. As Romans states ‘anything not of faith is sin’ – and so, you would be ‘destroyed’ if you tried to live in all three concentric circles. My advice therefore to you is to gently attempt some of the third circle; try a bit of this and that that is within your sense of conscience; and return to the two concentric inner circles that are important to you.
May our Jesus give you insight and understanding. But also, may He give you a sense of His acceptance of you living within the two inner circles, and a realization and acceptance of those that live for Christ within all three circles.
Much love in Christ always and unconditionally; Caryn
When I first stumbled onto this site a few months ago, I thought at first that it was not meant to be taken seriously. To use one of your words, I thought it was a canard. But when responses started coming to things I was saying, I soon realized that you were very serious. But it made no sense to me. Finally I think I see the problem. It’s that we come from different experiences that make understanding very difficult, if not impossible. What I wrote about my past life was the way it was. If it was stereotypical, again to use one of your words, it was so in the sense that this was more or less the typical experience of everyone I associated with in the Ann Arbor gay scene of the late ‘60s and early ‘70s. The gay world I knew was one that was obsessed with sex. Monogamous relationships were laughed at as ‘hetero’ stuff. And the few gays I knew who claimed to be in such a relationship were far from showing any true fidelity. I know because some of my many sexual encounters were with guys in such ‘relationships’. Your world seems to be one focused more on ‘loving, same-sex relationships’ or just being satisfied with celibacy as long as your gay orientation is accepted (and its irreversibility is acknowledged). That is completely outside the realm of my experience. Frankly, I would not have wanted anything to do with it. The relationship I had with Joe was not something I was looking for. Neither was he. We initially just wanted to have sex with each other. But we ended up loving one another deeply. But when it ended with his death, I was back where I had started in the locker room. And by the way, I was no sweet, innocent young teenager then who was lured into sexual encounters by lustful looks. I was a horny 15-year old who was more than willing when the opportunity presented itself. I don’t know what kind of sanitized youth you are trying to portray. It’s not one I can begin relating to. And this was not something that I was doing in the ‘70s. It was in 1965! And yes, it really happened!
Before I say goodbye to you good people, let me finish my short bio. I left the gay life when I was about 30 years old because I became a Christian. Two years after my conversion, I married a woman who has been my wife for almost 30 years now. I have never had another homosexual relationship since I left the gay world, and my wife and I have been sexually faithful throughout our marriage. And we are still having good sex after all these years! We raised four daughters and are now enjoying being grandparents. My wife and our daughters know all about my past, because I wanted them to hear it from me rather than find out some other way. My recent appearance on the scene was for the purpose of being a rebuttal to the ‘gay christian’ movement. I thought this blog was in that category, but that’s obviously not its primary focus. So I will leave you to your world. And hope the best for you all.
Ciao!
Dear X-gay: I would ask that you not leave permanently. As the Book of First Corinthians presents, the Body of Christ needs every level of Christian and every level of understanding.
It is true that each person here must have ‘thick skin’. Your purpose (as you wrote) was to ‘be a rebuttal to the ‘gay Christian’ movement, and you did ok in that area. Not great; but ok. You also did ok in sharing your story, although you used some stereotypical language – but many of us do use stereotypical language as short-cuts to quickly communicate. You also selected to hide your identity (which cost you credibility), and then selected a nickname that cries out for argumentation… but those last two points are easy errors to correct.
Jesus is our example, that we should follow in His steps. Jesus did not rebut the Samaritan woman, rather, He shared His view of truth, and continued the dialog. Jesus shared His story, history, and life-purpose with Nicodemus. Jesus never hid but taught openly and with simple terms that others could understand. Jesus selected a nickname, “The Son of Man”, to emphasize His humanness, not His ability to end any argument with unbeatable wisdom.
Those that can ‘fathom all mysteries, but have not love, are nothing’. Therefore, the ability to be an apologist is minor; the ability to show in our writings gentleness, kindness, and not seeking our own way, is major. Those that can speak with battle-passion are not peace-loving; and the first is listed as ‘wisdom of this earth’ while the second is listed as ‘wisdom from heaven’. How does one present their history, life-purpose, viewpoints in a manner that is peace-loving? – this takes time, and the willingness to become like Jesus as an apologist.
You did ok within this blog. You came to fight; and you found fighters. But pause… as one believer to another, I ask ‘why not be like Jesus, and come to heal others instead of fight’?
How does one heal others? Too many believers wish to ‘heal others’ by using the lesser gifts of teaching, correcting, rebuking, and confronting. The highest gift is “prophecy”, which is defined in Romans to consist of ‘encouragement, edification, and comfort’. The higher gifts heal all the more….
Please do not go. I think that you have potential to develop better gifts, and to speak more like Jesus. This takes time. Why not consider my thoughts and scriptures, and return in a few weeks – not to fight as an apologist, but to heal, like Jesus. You can do this.
Much love in Christ always and unconditionally; Caryn
X-Gay, there is no need for a “rebuttal” to the “Gay Christian Movement.” you have your beliefs and others have theirs. Why you need to “rebut” them to justify yourself I have no idea. If you’re so satisfied with your 30 year hetero marriage you can just leave the rest alone and quietly move into the sunset.
I often find that the loudest voices in opposition to things that have no effect on them do so because they secretly long for those very things. Too bad you never grew out of being “a horny teenager” to find a relationship with a man. They DO EXIST, y’know.
I’ll add something, Emily.
I remember seeing a bunch of stuff from EGA before, and it was the comment about being 30 years married that reminded me that I had.
So what’s the BFD? You’re another marginally homosexual man who is actually bisexual. Just like ted Haggard, among many others. you want some sort of reward for that?
You got your reward. you’ve achieved nominal heterosexuality. Again, BFD. You’re heterosexually married. Again, BFD. You’re fairly assured, at least in your own mind, that you now have a place in heaven. I can think of 19 muslims who are also assured of a place in heaven, according to their very real theology.
And yet, as emily notes, you really haven’t moved on at all. Thirty years later, and you think it is still necessary to justify your choices. My question:
To Whom?
I do not believe the Jesus “Miraculously changes men from gay to straight” I just simply don’t believe it. When I see Jesus miraculously change a man from black skinned to white skinned, something we can all witness, then I will reconsider. Until then I think all such testimonies of miracles are fake. There is no way to independently validate what is going on inside somebody’s mind. Or maybe I will change my mind when one day I see pigs flying. 100% gay -> 100% straight because “Jesus performed a Miracle on me?” When pigs fly.
Caryn, thank you for your graciousness; it is refreshing.
Or maybe the Bible is just an ancient relic of a primitive patriarchal society that thought that the limited experience of it’s elders was somehow the only legitimate experience. There is something that I suspect neither side of this argument above really wants to come to terms with: there is much in the Bible that is just plain barbaric. The book doesn’t just say that homosexual acts are wrong, it says that (in the case of men at least) that those committing such acts should be put to death. It also says that a woman who is engaged to be married and is discovered to not be a virgin, is to be stoned to death. This book condones slavery (in both Old and New Testaments) and says that men should be in charge of everything and gives little value to women. (there is no way to mis-interpret any of this, it is all clearly there and there is no denying this.) All of this is just horrific, and has no place in a modern, civilized and democratic society.
The periodic calls for justice in the Old Testament and the Golden Rule and notions of profound love and forgiveness in the New Testament in this book are noble sentiments that no doubt have done much good for the evolution of human society. But a good deal else is just hateful. If people cannot sift out the kernel of good from all the hatefulness in this book, then it is better that they should just give up the whole thing.
Whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not (and I don’t think it is in all but perhaps a very few cases) is almost besides the point. A person has the right to do as they wish as long as they are not harming anyone. This prurient interest in another persons private affairs is just sick and has no place in a modern, civilized, democratic society. As a gay man, I do acknowledge that this cuts both ways: if a person is happy being gay, lesbian, bisexual or one gender or another, then that is their business alone. Likewise if a person at some point decides that they prefer relations with the opposite sex rather than the same sex , then again I think that is their business and nobody elses. I strongly suspect that what often really bothers people is that human identity in general is allot more fluid than most people are comfortable with.
It is time for people in the good ole’ USA to get off of everyone elses back!
@berdachenyc
I think you make some very good points. It has long disturbed me that explanations from within the faith for the violence and barbarism in parts of what Christians call the Old Testament are rather weak, if not circular. Or if nothing else works, the rather amazing position “who are we to question God?” That last one goes against every bit of instinct and reason I have as a human being and a Christian. We must come to accept that much of this scripture contains raw, human input from people in, as you put it, a “primitive patriarchal society.”
Theological underpinnings aside, I agree entirely with your last paragraph. Thanks for your input.
I very much agree with you, berdache
Sonia: Thank you for the kind words. I think of Jesus as being gracious towards everyone, with the exception of those that actually hindered seekers from a relationship with god. He came to seek, save and not condemn.
Much love in christ always and unconditionally; Caryn