Stephen Bennett seems to have different numbers than “mister not-so-straight mathematics” Alan Chambers. Perhaps Bennett’s numbers are from 2003 since that was the last time Chambers claimed ex-gays numbered in the “thousands.”
(+22:28) I am one of thousands of men and women who have made that choice and who have made that choice for Jesus Christ. Listen, let me be blunt, you don’t have to be a Christian to come out of homosexuality just as you don’t have to be a Christian to come out of drug addition, or alcoholism, or adultery. But the truth of the matter is, what the point of going from gay to straight and going to Hell? Jesus Christ is the answer. (11.25.05 Real Audio / Windows Media)
Whoa! What’s this little gem from Stephen? The only reason people should seek change is because God compels them? Funny how the very next day’s show is titled “The Medical Truths and Dangers of Homosexuality – Part 1” So yeah, there’s no reason to change other than faith Bennett says…
I was actually wondering how long it would take for him to say something like this. It’s probably one of the more honest things he has said (honest meaning true to his own beliefs). On the one side, I don’t understand entirely why someone who is not a Christian would be so concerned if a god they don’t believe in considers their sexual practice a sin. On the other side, I don’t understand why some Christians seem to be so focused on what, according to their interpretation, is only one of many sins, the cessation of which matters not if the person is not a believer.
The only answer to the latter that I can think of is that they have equated same-sex sex to a myriad of negatives, unhealthy or self destructive, for public consumption. Stephen seems to have slipped out from behind that facade momentarily.
David
David,
I was also struck by his comments implying that going from gay to straight, but without adopting his religious views, still means one is going to Hell. I guess that truly shows that at least some in the “ex-gay” movement are not really concerned with people being “ex-gay” as they are with people joining their little club.
Does this mean that if someone behaves in a certain way God gives salvation? Which would imply that the sacraments and grace are less effacacious than one’s works. Which I do not think is a standard Protestant position. Or at least it didn’t use to be. But silly me, I just can’t keep up with giddy pace of inovation among ‘traditional’ believers.
DaleA:
Re: Does this mean that if someone behaves in a certain way God gives salvation? Which would imply that the sacraments and grace are less effacacious than one’s works.
I’ve always been puzzled by this inherrent contradiction between fundamentalist theology vs pronouncements. Especially in the “once saved, always saved” formulation Not to be too glib about it, but I would take that to mean that if I had been a born again Christian, and then later came out as a “practicing homosexual”, then I’ve got all of my bases covered.
Perhaps I’m missing something.
I remember when my Chicasaw grandmother was teaching me about the tribe’s musical and oral traditions and also that of spiritual expression in beading and embroidery.
Her daughter, my aunt…went for painting.
I broke tradition and went for portraiture.
Portraits tend to be (acccording to tradition) a higher form of expression meant for artists who could handle the spirit reflected back from another’s face frozen in the picture.
There are religious beliefs that are ALL about physical or artistic disciplines that reflect what levels you’ve reached. They have nothing to do with how much you can restrain someone, but making your expression attractive enough for someone to join you…or not, on their own.
That what you create, leaves that person uplifted at the beauty you have made and share.
To share…the WORD of god…is very different than sharing god’s WORK. In the beauty in nature, in what you make with your hands.
Shaping another human being by force, or restricting those who themselves have their own beauty, and have not violated another person…is not the way to a path of spiritual strength or openness.
I am hurt too….by others who are made to hurt for difference, not violation of me or anyone else.
I remember seeing something at DL Foster’s site.
And he wouldn’t let me express it there, but in case he’s reading here, I’ll say this.
He mentioned that he’s only working to see that the BIOLOGICAL model of man and woman be the only one allowed to marry.
He hasn’t looked very far to see that such a definition doesn’t exist in nature.
Our physical selves as men and women, isn’t so binary. It never has been.
And either through surgery or naturally, those organs that are supposed to define gender, can be compromised at any time.
What makes me a woman?
My uterus? Don’t have that anymore.
Mammeries? They feed infants, but other than that..their purpose is pretty overrated.
And if you have no babies to feed…then what use are they really?
What about women whose own are too small to define at first glance?
What makes a man? Gonads, prostate? Those and testes can be lost too.
Then what? He’s no longer ‘a man’ or a ‘whole man’?
And human beings whose gender condition is physically fused or rearranged somewhere in the middle no longer qualifies until an extreme is defined?
That takes either a lot of money, or physical stamina to withstand certain hormonal levels, and some people just can’t.
I couldn’t tolerate estrogen ingestion, does that mean that I”m no longer a ‘real woman’?
Some women defined so strictly by their hidden reproductive organs, could be abandoned by their spouses and were for not bearing children.
Same for men whose sexual organs were compromised somehow.
A heterosexual isn’t just defined by the gender they have sex with or who they are attracted to.
Certainly not by having an opposite gender spouse and children.
If they are single and between relationships, they are still straight, right?
So for DL Foster to say he’s now ex gay because he’s soaked up enough Scripture and has a wife and children, he’s wrong.
And marriage as we know it, is defined by two consenting, non related adults, assumed to be romantically engaged.
Regardless of their spiritual background or intentions for children.
Gender…is a fluid thing. Emotionally, spiritually, physically and fecundity has nothing to do with it.
So defining marriage by the genders involved isn’t accurate. There is no such thing, unless you’re willing to legislate what a gender is supposed to do in a marriage.
And a gender isn’t who is marrying, but a PERSON.
And heterosexuals, are not qualified only by their orientation as being the BEST models for the institution, just simply the only ones who who have had enough and widespread time with it.
And evidently dont know how to appreciate it either, until gay people needed, not just wanted, inclusion.
I know it’s hard for a newbie heterosexual like DL to get this news. But I’ve been a heterosexual all along and longer than he has.
He doesn’t know what makes a heterosexual, NO ONE does.
Any more than what makes a homosexual. These orientations are not separate enough from each other to pretend otherwise.
That’s why a person can be convinced ‘change is possible’.
I don’t have prejudice against ex gays. They just are working too hard at convincing people of their acquired heterosexuality in ways no heterosexual would or has to.
Or even CARES about. Nobody really is so bothered to know who is straight, it’s generally ASSUMED, so why assert it?
Which goes back to the point about coercion and what makes a person choose anything?
If you freely choose to be ex gay, then why must that be known, unless you want the gay people not down with that to be forced to choose or change?
Choosing between a rock and a hard place is still a choice, right?
I don’t know how I became heterosexual. No one who is does.
So DL Foster and Chad Thompson can’t possibly know what it takes to get that way. There is either more or less to the whole business.
I didn’t buy it from a store, read a book to get it and don’t worry about others having it the way ex gays do.
It flags ex gays in ways that make them a serious turn off.
That’s all.
Stephen Bennett needs to be exposed for what he is, a snake oil salesman who is a zealous religious nut case. The ex-gay industry is making a lot of money off of the fear that individuals like Bennett spew out at the public.
Posted by: Regan DuCasse at November 29, 2005 04:20 PM
Really very beautiful thoughts Regan – thank you. I might add that it is taught that there will be no male or female distinctions in heaven either. If true, that should make for quite a shocking initiation for the FOTF gang (if any make it).
David