During the past few election cycles there has been much discussion about the lives of gay individuals and couples. And sadly some of this has come from those who are voices in the ex-gay movement. In efforts to advance partisan political goals, some ministry leaders have made claims about “change” and about “the homosexual lifestyle” that I believe are neither true nor Christian.
It is difficult to know why these ex-gay representatives have sacrificed their intergrity in this manner. Perhaps they fell victim to the notion that objective truth is less important than political spin, or perhaps they convinced themselves that what they said was true – or close enough. I suspect that they simply believe that they are right and therefore whatever they say or do is justified without any need for objective verification. Who cares if you lie about sinners?
As a result, I believe that the ex-gay movement has severed whatever connection that they had to same-sex attracted persons. Having set themselves up as condemners of gay people, they are not approachable by those whom they demonize. Exodus, Love Won Out, and other ministries have placed political advancement ahead of providing care for those who struggle with a sexual orientation that is inconsistent with their faith. And that is sad.
But the election results last night have given some reasons to reconsider these priorities. It appears that using the threat of gay marriage or the fear of gay people may not be the political motivator that it was just two years ago.
Of the eight states that voted on whether to exclude gay persons from equal treatment by the state, only two – South Carolina with 78% and Tennessee with 81% – had the overwhelming crush for gay couples that was the hall mark of prior elections. Five other states passed anti-gay amendments with support ranging from 52% to 63%. And one, Arizona, has not yet been called but at this time it appears that it will fail.
More importantly, the objective of getting out conservative Republican voters does not appear to have been successful.
Without certainty of partisan gains, it’s time for ex-gay leaders to ask themselves if its worth it. Is the constant demonization of gay persons and the further separation and rejection of those whom you claim to be your target for ministry worth it if you have no political gain to justify your efforts?
Matthew 16:26 asks the question “What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?” I would ask what good it is to sacrifice the soul of your ministry… for no gain at all?
I would recommend to Exodus – and if they don’t listen, then to any ex-gay ministers who will – that this might be a good time to return to your original mission. Let go of the politics. Stop lobbying and campaigning and then you won’t feel pressure to lie, spin, and redefine words. Show compassion to those whom you see as your flock. Demonstrate love – not “tough love”, or “love the sinner, ruin his life”, or “love, except…”, but love the way Christ intended.
This may cost you something. You may find financial support is not so readily available when you aren’t willing to advance someone’s political career or power play. Access to the White House or Senate offices may not be given when your message does not include fanciful tales about “lifestyles” or “secular progressives”. But in exchange you may regain something – your integrity.
Tim, would you provide an example of a recent quote or comment that gives light to your statement, “As a result, I believe that the ex-gay movement has severed whatever connection that they had to same-sex attracted persons. Having set themselves up as condemners of gay people, they are not approachable by those whom they demonize.”
Again this is a sincere question, not one in which I’m trying to corner you, but rather learn how we cross the line between ministry work and cultural wars.
Tim, would you provide an example of a recent quote or comment that gives light to your statement, “As a result, I believe that the ex-gay movement has severed whatever connection that they had to same-sex attracted persons. Having set themselves up as condemners of gay people, they are not approachable by those whom they demonize.”
Again this is a sincere question, not one in which I’m trying to corner you, but rather learn how we cross the line between ministry work and cultural wars.
Jason, the answer is two-fold:
1 – that Exodus, FOTF, etc. has become increasingly engaged in culture war, and
2 – that gays view the ex-gay movement with increasing fear, disgust, and as a hostile enemy
The proof of the first hardly needs to be provided. The most visible ex-gay leaders seem to spend more time on political activism than they do on ministry. Run a google search. Or read our site.
But, as one example, Alan Chambers’ appearance at the Liberty Sunday to rally “value voters” is clearly not ministry work. Standing on a platform in unity with another minister who calls gay people “sodomites” or “sissys” or “faggots” is hardly a way to reach gays.
The proof of the second is more observational and harder to “prove”. But here goes.
Discussion of ex-gay ministers and efforts were basically non-existent in gay press until recently. When ministries focused on holy living or overcoming temptation or even on efforts towards reorientation, the gay press had little to say.
But with the increasing politicization of the movement, gays have noticed that they are being attacked (and please believe that when you sue in court to take away health insurance, that is an attack). And they have noticed that Exodus is publically participating in the attacks on their lives.
While the mainstream press may give favorable coverage to Love Won Out conferences, gay people notice that ex-gay conferences all seem to have a political component. And they are starting to report on this.
I am not a social scientist. But I can make some observations about the attitudes of gay Christians towards ex-gay ministries and the ways in which they have changed.
As little as five or so years ago, the gay Christian community did not perceive ex-gay ministries as hostile. They often thought that they were unneccessary, but not that they were harmful to gay Christians in particular.
Now they are perceived as a threat. Not because of religious beliefs but because of political activism.
Most folk aren’t too offended or annoyed by “you need to repent”. They can deal with that, regardless of what they believe. Gays can disagree with you about moral living, a relationship with God, the meaning and interpretation of scripture, and other points of theology and still call you “brother”.
But when you say “you need to not have any rights, you need to have Lawrence overturned, you need to not be able to adopt, you need to not have any employment or housing protections, you need to not be able to serve your country, and you need to not be employed in certain jobs” then you find that people don’t have much use for you. There is none of Christ’s love demonstrated in this. None. And it’s very hard to see that person as your brother.
Gays have not made the church their enemy. That was done unilaterally by the church. And all the language about “loving the homosexual” that ex-gay conference attendees tell each other means nothing to any of the homosexuals that are being targeting by that “love”.
Frankly, Jason, those claims of love seem little more than words to justify anti-gay behavior. It makes the person saying it feel good while they are lobbying legislators about some fictionalized “homosexual lifestyle”.
And we resent it.
I hope that clarifies what I meant when I said that it’s time to stop with the anti-gay activism if the ex-gay movement truly wants to reach gays. We can’t hear the words you’re saying over the bombs you’re lobbing.
Thanks Tim,
It grieves me to hear how some in Exodus create more of a division through certain comments they make or speaking after a “sodomite, sissy, faggot talk” without correcting the attitude.
I know many within my network, and they have very good hearts, yet I see how crossing ministry lines into cultural issues can began to hurt and confuse others. A question I continue to seek answers for… Is it ok to share our story of hope and freedom at Liberty Sunday type events? Or is it too political and will be misunderstood and create more division than ministry opportunity? When I have been invited to political functions, I make it VERY clear that I will only share my story of freedom from homosexuality and invite others on that journey if they desire it. I will NOT comment on other issues… There are plenty of groups that do that… The gay community can confront those groups, but there should be no reason to confront an Exodus group.
The reason I ask for specifics from you, is that MANY times I have the same impression you do about my network, yet I don’t always have specifics, but rather just vague impressions. So if I share those “impressions” with my network they don’t seem very concrete, measurable or changeable.
I love the ministry I do. My life has been completely changed by it and so has many others (for the better). I don’t want actions and attitudes within my network disrupting that work and if it does, I want to see correction. I’m open to it; I hope others are as well.
Jason,
I agree completely with Timothy. For individuals who are struggling with their gay feelings, I just feel sorry for them and hope they can find some peace and happiness.
But for the likes of Chambers, Fryear and all the rest of the professional ex-gays, I have nothing but contempt. How dare they attack me and all gay people. How dare them try to relegate me to second class status in this country. They don’t seem to be helping anyone struggling with their sexuality. They only seem to be helping themselves and the political Religious Right.
I would go one step further than Timothy, in that more and more Christian Evangelicals are starting to question their relationship with the political machines that run this country. There is good reason for separation of church and state. It protects both church and state from corrupting each other.
“Is it ok to share our story of hope and freedom at Liberty Sunday type events? Or is it too political and will be misunderstood and create more division than ministry opportunity?”
Look at the purpose for Liberty Sunday events. They are political. And they are anti-gay. When a minister stands up right before an election when there are anti-gay propositions on the ballot and rails against “the homosexual” and how we have to “protect” this, that or the other, it is political. Period.
And if you are there supporting that in any way you lose all credibility with gay people.
It’s like going to a rally where racist language will be used. Even if you don’t say it, it reflects on you. You are perceived as supporting the racism. So too if you go to a rally that has a political speaker, you are perceived as sharing his political agenda even if you don’t say anything at all about politics.
Ex-gay ministries have to divorce themselves from anti-gay political rhetoric or they will never be able to reach gay people. It’s a choice: do you want to change laws or do you want to change hearts. Because you cannot do both.
I really appreciate that you are wanting to serve your ministry. I truly hope that your attitude takes more precedence in the organization.
Jason said “I will only share my story of freedom from homosexuality”.
Jason, with this statement you are leading most people to believe you no longer experience same sex attractions. If that is not the case then I and I think many others would appreciate it if you’d stop making this kind of statement – its wrong to lead people to believe you’ve changed in that way if you have not.
This was a very good piece. Thank you Timothy. I hope your message isn’t just heard by the members of the choir, so to speak, but also finds broader audience.
Tim, I appreciate the feedback… and for what it’s worth, I am communicating those thoughts to the Exodus Office and wrestling through this.
Randi, I once had a desperate desire to be emotionally and sexually intimate with a man. With deep convictions that conflicted with that, I was in a position of personal struggle about my unwanted homosexuality. I do not desire men sexually and emotionally today. I have found the “freedom” I was looking for (a freedom from my personal homosexual struggle). I understand you don’t agree or accept those terms or even believe that actually happened to me, but there is no better way to describe it. Do you have an alternative way for me to communicate the change in my life? I’m open to hearing it.
Jason, to me your saying “I do not desire men sexually” is the same as saying you are no longer same sex attracted. I do find that very hard to believe as I don’t know of any “exgays” who won’t admit when pressed that they still experience same sex attractions. The Shidlo and Schoeder studies and the Robert Spitzer study indicate this would be exceptionally unusual.
If you don’t mean that and you are in fact experiencing same sex attractions then I am at a loss as to what you are trying to say, I just know that it isn’t honest to say you are free from homosexuality.
Randi,
Let’s avoid saying “you’re lying”.
I understand the nuanced difference between being attracted on a visceral level and having a desire to be in either a sexual or emotional relationship.
You or I may place importance on whether there is any same-sex attraction resident because it plays into the whole political argument about mutability of orientation. It is precisely this argument that was at the heart of the NY Supreme Court case which denied marriage rights to gay persons. And so we care very much whether people perceive ex-gay persons as having no same-sex attractions (and especially when the ex-gay has encouraged that misunderstanding for political purpose).
But for an individual looking at their own life, the existance of attractions may be of lesser importance than the existance of desire to act on it.
Let’s take this out of the gay v. ex-gay arena.
Many men would love the idea of being able to have one night with Angelina Jolie – if it could be guaranteed that they would never be caught and there would be no negative consequences. But others would be attracted to Jolie and perhaps even find her desireable, yet not desire to have that night because their committment to their marriage or their faith is more important to them.
Jason,
If you would like an example of something that most gay people would find deeply offensive, check out the article on your own website by Suzanne Cook titled “Homosexual Parenting.”
Try reading that article from the perspective of a gay parent raising a child. Try reading that article from the perspective of a gay person who has seen how the actions of poorly behaved heterosexuals has affected their children. Try reading it from the perspective of anyone who is familiar with discredited Paul Cameron “studies” that are used to demonize gays.
I am not advocating censorship, and you can post whatever you want on your website. But if you are really interested in a less combative relationship with gay folks, you could sit down with a few gay folks and get their honest reactions to what is posted on your site.
Jason said:
Do you have an alternative way for me to communicate the change in my life? I’m open to hearing it.
To be honest, Jason, it’s not the way you are saying it but what you are saying, at least for me. We have dealt with a lot of people, some on a personal level, who made such claims and they simply weren’t true. It would be asking too much I think for you to expect us to fully take you at your word on such bold claims right off. I’m not calling you a liar, but I am using some healthy skepticism while interpreting your claims. Can you understand that?
Honest communication is good, as long as we don’t fool ourselves into overlooking the significant differences in our positions. Bridge building can be positive, as long as we know the differences between one side of the bridge and the other. Am I mixing metaphores or cliches here 🙁
Well Timothy, I can’t know what Jason’s inner state is but it does seem odd that he didn’t say “I’m not same sex attracted” when that was what I specifically asked about.
When he says he’s experienced “freedom from homosexuality” I suspect its something like you said, that he really means his religion is more important to him. If that’s the case I’d hope he’d put it some terms along those lines instead.
Excellent article. Very heartfelt and thoughtful.
Jason,
You’re words were wonderful and right on the mark. I do not know you. Why do I feel suspcian? I do believe that if people feel a strong desire to not be gay, they have every right to attempt to alter that state, so long as they understand the probability isn’t favorable. If you have accomplished this, excellent for you. But I still feel suspician. Can you put my mind at ease?
David, you are wise to be skeptical of me, I would be as well. I guess I can only say, I think we have a lot to learn about how we do ministry. If anyone says we have it all under control and we are doing everything right, they are arrogant and foolish.
John, I will go read that article soon. If, in my mind and heart it communicates a message beyond the scope of Suzanne’s personal experiences or unjustly claims things that do not line up with redemptive work, you will see that story removed tomorrow.
Randi, I do not desire to defend, debate, or argue my convictions or life choices. I’m here to learn what we do as an Exodus ministry that is detrimental to our own work (this can really only be determined by me, not you as I’m sure you believe most of what we do in and of itself, is detrimental.) There are many things that we will not see eye to eye on, and I know you will not change my position nor I yours. My interest is to sift through these posts and learn from this site. There are things Exgay Watch sees that I (and we) MUST take note on – and plenty other things that are simply a conflict in worldviews. The foundations of our beliefs will not one of those changes. I hope I stay true to keeping my posts to be for clarity only. This is your website and I want to very much respect it.
Jason, I didn’t ask you to defend, debate, or argue your convictions or life choices. I just asked for an honest answer as to whether or not you still have same sex attractions and if you do, to please not mislead people by saying you are free from homosexuality. Judging by the way you’ve danced around that question I believe I have the answer and the answer is that you are still same sex attracted. Assuming this is the case I don’t appreciate you leading people to believe otherwise – it encourages the public to look down on LGBTs and encourages self-loathing gays to believe they can achieve something they cannot.
Thanks Randi for your thoughts
Jason, I’ll take that to mean you’re not going to stop misleading people by saying you’re free from homosexuality. This is why I and many gays look down on what you’re doing.
hey folks, let’s remember that some language has specific meaning in certain cultures. “Freedom from homosexuality” probably has meaning similar to “freedom from sin” as discussed in Romans 8.
I don’t think Jason is being deceptive by using that term. It means what he’s saying. It’s just that outside of evangelical Christian settings it loses it’s context.
So, Jason, while that term may be the best in some settings, please be aware that to Randi it doesn’t mean what it means to you.
And Randi, please recognize that within Jason’s world this language makes sense. It doesn’t say that he has no attractions (or temptations I think Jason would say) but is redeemed, justified, and sactified through the grace of God and lives free from sin. Not that he doesn’t sin (for all have sinned) but that he has been made free.
All of which is conceptual and specific to Christianity and has no shared meaning outside of a religous context (and even differs between liberal or conservative Christian settings).
In other words, folks, let’s be aware of the language of each other.
Let’s avoid intentionally deceptive language like “former homosexual” and try to find a way to communicate openly and honestly – without the worst about each other.
Jason, I would love the opportunity to speak to you personally. For 30 years, I have been hoping and praying to meet someone who no longer has homosexual desires, attractions or fantasies. You said:
“I was in a position of personal struggle about my unwanted homosexuality. I do not desire men sexually and emotionally today.”
If it is true that you no longer experience homosexual attractions (or hat Joe Dallas of EXODUS calls “homosexual tendencies”) you would be the very first person I have encountered who has ever made that claim. I am sincere about this. I am not calling you a liar. Please clarify what “I do not desire men sexually and emotionally today” means.
Randy Thomas also claimed being free of romantic or erotic atractions to men in an interview on the Adam Carolla Show.
His quivering voice made me think he wouldn’t pass the polygraph test.
https://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/46534.mp3
Michael, We are speaking two different languages, like Kincaid suggests. You wouldn’t be satisfied with the changes that have happened in my life, and dissect the temptations that still exist. I’d rather not get into any of that. I have absolutely nothing to prove. I really don’t care if anyone (from the gay community) thinks I’m a major homosexual in total denial or partly changed with suppressed desires. I’d be happy to meet with you, but I’m afraid you would be disappointed with my honest assessment of my inner (and outer) life.
By the way, if this is the Bussee from years past, I’m sorry to hear of the loss of your late partner. I think of your story from time to time. We desire to reach men and women who are living with HIV/AIDS (and yes, even if one is openly gay).
Timothy, thank you for reminding me that we are working from different terms and phrases. I will keep that in mind when posting, so that the conversation doesn’t go in circles.
Jason said: “You wouldn’t be satisfied with the changes that have happened in my life, and dissect the temptations that still exist.”
I would have no problem with the changes that have happened in your life. If you are happier, I am truly happy for you. I have NO problem with people trying to live in accordance with their values. I also wouldn’t dissect the “temptations that still exist”. Admitting that they still exist answered my question. I am trying to find someone who once had only gay attractions, lost them and now has only straight attractions.
You are right. We do speak different languages. You call them temptations because you view sex between men as sin. I don’t.
Thanks for your kind words about Gary’s death. I appreciate it.
Let’s look at these two statements by Jason:
#1. “I do not desire men sexually and emotionally today.”
#2. “…the temptations that still exist.”
Jason is either contradicting himself or, more likely, he is trying to draw a distinction between “desiring” something and being “tempted” by it.
Webster’s defines “desire” as a “wishing or longing” for something, a craving, especially to want sexually”. Temptation is defined as a test or trial, a strong attraction.
So he still has homosexual attractions, tests and trials — and feels (according to Webster) an “enticement” to act on his attractions. He does not wish, long for or crave sexual or romantic encounters with men like he used to, but it’s still part of the reality of what he is attracted to — whether he wishes this were true or not.
I think I understand where he is coming from, but this may be a “distinction without a difference”. I may not desire chocolate cake anymore but I am still tempted by it. This is a change in intensity of attraction and how I feel about being attracted, but I still want the chocolate.
Joe Dallas says exgays are Christians who still have homosexual tendencies but would rather not have them. Tendencies are desires, inclinations or preferences. So do exgays still have desires, temptations, inclinations, longings, attractions for the same sex? The answer seems to be a resounding “yes”.
I don’t know if we are speaking different languages or if Jason and others in the exgay movement are splitting semantic hairs.
“I may not desire chocolate cake anymore but I am still tempted by it. This is a change in intensity of attraction and how I feel about being attracted, but I still want the chocolate.”
That’s a good analogy.
I spent years not eating chocolate cake (or french fries or ice cream or…) because the rewards of having a flat stomach were greater than the pleasure of eating cake. I got down to about 3% body fat and had the type of body that gets you lots of compliments. And people will do about anything to have the respect and approval of your peers.
And after a while you get so used to not eating fattening stuff that you aren’t much tempted as much. Eating low fat becomes a lifestyle. You don’t desire bad stuff. And when you do, you just remind yourself of what you have in exchange. I had “overcome” junkfood.
For me eventually the efforts of avoiding the bad stuff (mostly french fries and chips) ran into a snag. Time constraints and social settings made it more difficult to eat healthy, passing years made the effort to maintain body fat more difficult (darn metabolism), and changes in lifestyle made the rewards of an appealing body less immediate. Just one order of fries led to another until my flat tummy was, well, less flat.
So too I think it may be with ex-gays. As long as the rewards for avoiding temptations are sufficient, a person can “overcome” homosexuality. And when tempted, they can look at their nuclear family, their social position, their sense of compliance with their faith, and find them adequately rewarding.
The problem comes when these rewards begin to seem less sufficient or when (as with Ted Haggard) they think they can yield to temptation and also have the reward. When spouses squabble, when sex gets boring, when stress hits, when churches disappoint, then the rewards may seem less adequate. That’s when a glance at the internet or a drink at a bar out of town become really appealing. Just one order of guys leads to another.
I have no problem with ex-gays saying that they have temptations but no desire to act on them. It makes sense. And as long as one is clear or is talking to an audience that understands what one is saying, it’s fine.
But I do have a problem with these same ex-gays going to newspapers, legislators, straight fellow Christians, or others and not being clear with them. It is not OK to let these people think one no longer has attractions. The ex-gay minister that proclaims “I’ve overcome homosexuality” and leaves the audience thinking that includes attractions is participating in lying and deceipt.
It’s really all I have been asking EXODUS to do since I left it. Define your terms. Be honest. Don’t decieve the public with terms like ex-gay and former homosexual which any person on the street would (rightly) interpret as “I used to be homosexual in orientation but now I am heterosexual.” Ex-gay should mean “no longer gay” but it clearly doesn’t mean that. I think that’s why Alan Chambers wants to get rid of it.
If you help people resist temptation, say so. I you help people limit their sexual expression to one person, say so. If you help people become celibate, say that. Perhaps you help them live more positive, constructive lives, or overcome sexual addictions. Say so.
And if you actually believe that you reduce gay attractions (or help develop some new straight ones) say that. Say that you help people become bisexual in orientation, but monogamously heteroseuxal in behavior.
But stop the manipulation of the English language to give the impression that you actually change folks from gay to straight. That’s false witness and that’s a sin.
You’ve got great comments. Plenty to think about.
I’m not fond of Christians using words to mean something different than what they do to most people. For example when they say they love murderers, they don’t mean love as in enjoying that person’s company and looking forward to being with them, they mean control, not love. When they say they love gays they really mean they wish to force gays to live according to their desires, not the gay person’s.
By the same token its highly problematic to speak of freedom from hommosexuality in any other context than no longer being same sex attracted. I think it behooves Christians to use language in the context most people do, not to redefine words until they bear little or no resemblence to their generally understood meanings. Surely that’s not too much to ask. I don’t see any genuine need for Christians to speak out of context like this.
This goes out to Jason: A good minister LISTENS. He cannot begin to speak God’s truth to someone until he really HEARS where the person is coming from.
Many gay people are frustrated and angry with the ex-gay movement because they feel you guys don’t LISTEN.
Please listen. Expecially in two areas. The first is poltical. We are frightened and dismayed by the exgay movement’s increasingly OVERT political activism. The Gospel is getting lost in the political rhetoric. Jesus doesn’t sound CENTRAL anymore. We’re not hearing the Word, we’re hearing politcal agenda.
We don’t want to feel that we have to join the extreme right-wing of the Republican party in order to be OK with God. That’s why the earliest founders of EXODUS tried really HARD to stay OUT of politics, even if we strongly agreed with the politician. We were a MINISTRY not a political action committee.
Nowadays, we see you guys as politcal FIRST, not Jesus first. This isn’t OUR fault. It is YOURS. This is the failure of the exgay ministry to pay attention and LISTEN to the people you claim to serve. Stay OUT of politics like Alcoholics Anonymous does. They have helped hundreds of thousands in many ways BECAUSE they stay out of politics. Read the “10th Tradition” and REALLY pray and THINK about it. LISTEN to its wisdom. It was written by people of FAITH.
Second, we want to you be HONEST about what “change” and “ex-gay” and “formerly gay” and “formerly gay indentified” and “freedom from homosexuality” REALLY mean — on a PRACTICAL day-to-day basis. We know you’re not heterosexual — you are something else. Straight men are not oriented towards, do not fantasize about, feel “tempted by”, masturbate to or stuggle against sexual urges for other men. Any sensible person knows that what GAY guys do.
Say, “I don’t act on the urge”, but don’t claim to be FREE of it. Its simply not true. And you know it. We want you to admit OPENLY that exgays continue to struggle with gay feelings or attraction all their lives.
When you use different words, or put too positive a “spin” on the reality, we feel you are lying to us. And that lets us know you are not really LISTENING.
I find the idea that if you have any level of same-sex attraction at all then you must accept yourself as gay and go along with the gay agenda for society. I have been involved with acting out in the past and have now left it behind completely. Yes, I sometimes struggle with lustful thoughts, but I now realize what they are and that in no way will acting out with other men remove those feelings. What I have discovered is that by forming positive non-sexual relationships with other men I no longer feel a need to act out. I will never consider myself gay and I will continue to support any ministry that allows me the freedom to say “I am no longer gay” and reject any organization that tries to convince me and my family and friends that “if you have any level of same-sex attraction then you must admit you are “gay”, because it is simply not true.
That is not a lie Michael it is the truth. I agree it is Jesus first and he loves me and wants me to experience the fullness of life that has been give to me. I will no longer limit myself to a “gay self image”. I am enjoying life way too much today and that is such a contrast to what I ever found in the destructive lifestyle I got myself caught in by listening to the pro-gay propaganda that has been so prevelent for more than two decades now.
It is time that our voices are heard as well. For too long the polictical correct attitudes have caused nothing but pain for many. If you want acceptance it is time to show some acceptance of other who have choosen a different way. Having said this I want to add that I am in no way supporting the political right who want to control everything or condemning those who wish to live the gay life. For me I have discovered the importance of the balanced center. I refuse to accept that because I have some level of same-sex attraction I have to label myself as “gay” in order to find happiness, it is simply not true.
I will never consider myself gay and I will continue to support any ministry that allows me the freedom to say “I am no longer gay” and reject any organization that tries to convince me and my family and friends that “if you have any level of same-sex attraction then you must admit you are “gay”, because it is simply not true.
You don’t have to admit to anything, but you might find it easier if you could accept that most people are always going to think of a guy who likes guys as gay.
That depends on the reason why you find yourself attracted to guys. If it is out of an incomplete self-image it can be overcome.
I am no longer concerned with what others think. If they are unwilling to listen to my life story in an open and honest way then they cannot judge why or why not I may consider myself “gay” or “ex-gay”.
For your information, I have admitted my feelings to many and some can accept why I would not want to live the gay life, others do not, out of ignorance of what causes these feelings. My parents are not totally ready to accept what I have told them, but my wife is.
Why is it that you think because I have been attacted to other guys you assume that the only way I can be in relationship with them is to be sexual. For your information the sexual acting out only made it more difficult for me to feel accepted by other men. Letting go of the acting out behaviour made it easier to be in healthy relationship with them.
Let go of the need to put everyone into the “gay” pigeon-hole.
Dennis,
You seem to be the only person here who is putting “gay” people in a pigeonhole.
Being gay does not mean needing to “act out” or to support any agenda. It simply means that one is predominantly attracted to people of the same gender.
Why is it that you think because I have been attacted to other guys you assume that the only way I can be in relationship with them is to be sexual.
Why is it that you think because gay people are attracted to the same sex you assume that the only way we can be in a relationship with people of the same sex is to be sexual?
You see, Dennis, all gay people have friendships with members of their own sex which are not sexual. I have many female friends whose bones I have never attempted to jump, both gay, str8, and bi. I think many of them are quite attractive, and still I do not desire to jump their aforementioned bones. It would be nonsensical to say that I suddenly become not-gay when around them.
You see, Dennis, the ex-gay movement tends to recruit very damaged people, and then tells them that all gay people are at least as damaged as they are, and then encourages them to juxtapose their damage with their sexual orientation, which is easy to do if one is surrounded by an environment where everyone is as fracked up as onesself. This is a phenomenon known in social science research as “self-selection.” People who come in contact with the ex-gay movement but aren’t damaged in the way the ex-gay movement insists they are tend to quickly realize the movement has nothing to offer them and move on. This, in turn, helps ex-gay groups stay nice and insulated, reinforcing the all-gay-men-didn’t-bond-with-daddy meme or whatever other meme the group is propogating. Any human sub-population, gay, str8, black, white, women, men, left handed fishing enthusiasts, whatever, is going to contain a certain portion of damaged people, simply because there are damaged people in the world. But when ex-gays insist that all gay people must have this big hole in themselves just because they do, they are acting from a false set of presuppositions, and they are insulting us.
Dennis said: “I am enjoying life way too much today and that is such a contrast to what I ever found in the destructive lifestyle I got myself caught in by listening to the pro-gay propaganda.”
First, let me me say that I am happy to hear that you have made better choices and are living a more fulfilling life. No one has an arugument with that. Living in a self-destructive manner is a terrible thing, whether one is gay, straight or somewhere in between.
I do find it troubling that you blame “pro-gay propaganda” for the bad lifestyle choices you made in the past. You made the choices. You are entirely responsible. Just because one is attracted to the same sex does not mean one has to engage in a destructive lifestyle. All of us have the power and right to decide how we want to live with our attractions.
Calling yourself ex-gay doesn’t make you straight. It just means you may have cleaned up your act.
You also seem to assume that all gays made the same choice you made, that there is one gay “lifestyle” and that all of our same sex relationships are sexual in nature or based on a damaged self-image. Wrong on all three counts.
Dennis said:
I will never consider myself gay and I will continue to support any ministry that allows me the freedom to say “I am no longer gay” and reject any organization that tries to convince me and my family and friends that “if you have any level of same-sex attraction then you must admit you are “gay”, because it is simply not true.
No ministry gives you that freedom, you have that right and the Constitution guarantees it. You may call yourself whatever you like. The problem as I see it is what ex-gay ministries claim when they say “change is possible.” I’m fairly certain that when someone hears that phrase they expect more than simply the possibility to “not act out” and are expecting that they will no longer be intimately attracted to the same sex. If a ministry does not make this clear, it is a deception.
What you call “acting out” is simply acting on one’s feelings, but with a negative spin. A gay person who does not act on their feelings is generally considered celibate, not heterosexual. Good luck with your own life Dennis, but it sounds as though you are trying to convince yourself as much as others.
David,
To deny that there is the possiblity of any level of change is also a deception. I feel my orientation has changed more than I would have ever been able to believe had I continued to listen only to what the gay community is telling me. On the other hand if I had listened to what the far right was telling me, that all I have to do is pray and my same-sex attraction will go away I would likely have become very discouraged. I did neither and when I was honest with my feelings I was able to move out of the idea that I could not change.
I also want you to know that I had many people around me who were not so sure that I would be able to change and yet I have. How can you judge me as to where I am today, when you do not even know where I have come from. No I am not 100% heterosexual and you know what, I am grateful for that, because it gives me the ability to empathize somewhat with both men and women. Had I accepted that I was gay and there was nothing that can be done to change that I suspect I would have limited my world view to that presented to me by the gay community. I never have fully accepted the view of all ex-gay ministries, but I also refuse to pass judgement on them. In the same light I am trying very hard to not pass judgement on anyone who is gay who feels it is important to change societies view of them at any cost.
Dennis said,
To deny that there is the possiblity of any level of change is also a deception.
This is a strawman argument, I never denied this possibility. I think the degree of change is very much tied to the starting point. A person who is bisexual appears to be much more able to mute their same sex attractions in favor of opposite sex ones. And you have mentioned listening to the “gay community” several times now and I need to point out that there is no single “gay community” to which you can listen.
The bottom line here is not whether you should have the freedom to live your life as you see fit, that is a given as far as I am concerned. The point is whether organizations should be allowed to lobby for restrictions on my life by deception and exploitation of others. Claiming that gay persons should not be allowed these rights because they can become straight “if they want to” is a deception on multiple levels.
There is also the social stigma which is perpetuated by inequality and, in many cases, may be the impetus behind the desire for change in the first place.
Michael, I agree with you on many of your points. My desire is to see Jesus proclaimed and lives changed and I see how cultural issues and other worldly attention can get ministry work side-tracked from the redemptive message.
I’m interested to know your passion for this. Do you really care about compromising a love relationship with Jesus Christ and his power of transforming lives, or are you just upset at Exodus for sticking their nose into gay issues? Whatever your motive, I have an agreement to your opposition.
We will not settle the issue of “change”. There is no way I can spell out the freedom I have experienced in my life without there being disagreement (or thinking I’m lying). Again, I don’t have a problem with you (or others) complaining or disagreeing about my choice of words about the change in my life –and this is a change that I have NO desire to defend. I’m simply grateful.
Please know, I am listening to you and even praying and learning how to carry out ministry that honors God and respects ALL people.
This is my first comment on ex-gay watch. I’ve been a fairly regular lurker.
Ironically the reason I have come forth is because Jason Thompson has arrived — a voice in ex-gay ministry who actually seems to stay around unlike Alan Chambers.
That aside — I would like to throw some personal experience in after 4 years of grueling answer finding and fact finding or trying to.
I figured (naively) that once a Christian was really surrendured to God on every level that one’s sexual orientation would change. I deemed myself as rebellious with some of my “habits” — porn book stores, years in the past of “identifying” with the gay community, nearly attending an MCC church, bar hopping in my youth.
I had been celibate nearly a decade and believed with every fiber of my being that I was to marry as in opposite sex marry. And yes, there was a willing individual. (Which there had always been — but this one was “right”.)
But I couldn’t bring myself to walk the aisle. So — since I was in this humbled state (i.e. “I don’t know it all” frame of mind) — I decided to contact ex-gay ministries as my feelings, attractions, visual responses to stimuli in everyday life were not changing. At all. If anything they were getting more intense. Par for the course, right? Most difficult fight before “freedom”.
My 4 years of talking with ex-gays and ministries seemed to revolve around this “reparative therapy” theory of Elizabeth Moberly’s which I had tasted back in the mid 80’s. You can slice it anyway you want, but it boils down to, “You need to be more of a man/woman in order to want a man/woman.”
As I journeyed through finding those who had “succeeded” it became clear to me over time (and it was a process) that gay men/women are wired differently. It explained why men/women could leave their opposite sex spouses and children because they could not stand it anymore. Christians. Committed Christians who were taught that homosexuality was damnable and a sin. And their choice.
If ANY group of people SHOULD be able to change across the board — consistently, stably, it SHOULD be Christians, BAR NONE.
It ain’t so.
The Ted Haggard tale is only one of *many* instances that happens to receive attention because of his media prominence. Is it really so difficult to understand that a man who has *everything* both in the eyes of the world and of Christians would risk it ALL if there was not something *intrinsic* in his nature? And before one goes paralleling this to addiction, remember he was not even a celibate man — he had a sexual outlet — his wife.
Jason, when I would ask ex-gay ministers if they were *straight* they would stutter and stammmer. Literally. Or the phone line would go silent.
And you have not used that word either — that you are STRAIGHT.
See, I think past all of the semantics — people *do* have a very gut sense of what is straight and gay. And what that implies.
It means that when I would masturbate to porn I would look at one body type *or* straight porn in *hopes* of making me “want it” — ie. straight sex without having to fantasize “gayly”.
It means that straight guys want sex with women and straight women with men. Simple. And all the “reparative” anything does not alter that simple desire. Even for the *majority* of ex-gay ministers.
Alan Chambers has admitted to 9 months to consummation of his marriage. This is not something that “straight” men have as life stories. At worst wedding night jitters. But straight people DON’T WANT TO WAIT THAT LONG. (Did I say that loudly enough?) As a matter of fact, many straight Christians don’t wait at all before the “I do’s”.
Exodus was only on the cusp of turning political when I made my exit of search and change. And it occured to me back then that *maybe* they were doing so — focusing on the political – because they *really didn’t *have* anything to offer regarding “lasting” change. Could I be “temporarily” bisexual. Sure. But for the long haul — no, my history did not bear that out.
And from what I could I gather, my 10 years of celibacy was *phenomenal* compared to the experience of most ex-gays I encountered. I paid a price for that celibacy in reclusiveness, not wanting to get too close to anyone.
As much anger I feel at the hypocrisy of Ted Haggard’s stance in the Religious Right — I know only too well on a personal, painful level what it is like to run from oneself only to run back into oneself again.
And, no, I did not consort with a male prostitute whilst declaring that straight marriage needed “protecting” running around on my own marriage but it could have been me. However, his is not an isolated tale And you know that (or should know that) Jason from having worked in ex-gay ministries.
Don’t hold out “hope” that doesn’t exist for the vast majority. And don’t lead the “world” to believe that there is a vast cadre of Christians who have had sexual orientation change, when they have not.
I believe that one over arcing reason for Ted Haggard’s exposure is for truth to be exposed. At any cost. And, yes, sovereign God allowed it.
Agreed Twilight, I don’t hold out “hope” for the vast majority. The vast majority does not agree with a process of changing ones sexual and/or emotional desires.
And I hope I will never communicate a false message of a “vast condre” of people who seek or find this change. It is few, it is difficult, and it is rewarding for those who find it.
And lastly, I’m – without hesitation – straight. And again, I have no desire to defend that.
Jason,
Did you really read my post and my life experience? I *did* agree with the process of changing of orientation that it was God’s will and I was willing to be changed.
So…we come to an impasse — was I insincere?
You addressed *none* of my experiences nor my observations/experiences with others.
I was really starting to like you — that you seemed willing to really listen. Silly me.
The difficulty that I see with the entire change/no change arguement is that there will always be an “escape clause”.
Were you (hypothetically speaking) to cheat on your wife, I can hear the line already, “I just wasn’t healed enough.” Over and out, right?
Ted Haggard may very well be an excellent test case — because of his visibility and standing in the Christian community.
And if you are truly straight (and of course only you would know) — why wouldn’t it be rewarding. I can be happy for you.
But the very sense of your response back to me –totally avoiding my insights — sounds like,
Well, you didn’t want it badly enough. Instead of addressing the brass tack issues such as *genuine* sexual desire and relationships.
I’m not sure what it is that you feel that you could do for ex-ex-gays with this response that you gave back to me — or that you genuinely want to do.
If the political aspect bothers you, then break away from Exodus. You wouldn’t be the only one; other ministries are in fact tired of a lot of the rhetoric.
Then you can go on and preach your “change” to whomever will listen free from the political encumbrances and tell them, too, that they didn’t want it badly enough when nothing happens.
I’m not sure how to respond – but I’ll try. You sought change, it didn’t happen. I did, and something did happen. I think one difference is that I was not going to “seek change” for a season. I was not going to give it a year… 3 years or 10 years… Rather, I was going to seek it for my entire life – regardless of what actually happens with my thoughts or desires.
It’s similar to Christianity. I would never encourage someone to “try” Christianity. You trust and walk with God or you don’t. It’s not about what I can get out of being a Christian, but rather – I will love and serve God regardless of what I get out of it.
I could have sought God and my life could have actually gotten worse. I could begin to have less (stuff), people and my life could begin to die, my “sinful desires” could get more intense, and I may feel like God doesn’t care or isn’t listening. Yet, regardless I will still choose God and what I believe is true.
If my homosexual desires only intensified while trying to walk in “healing”, I would continue on. Foolish? to many, yes it is.
I agreed with you from your post on several points, yet holding true to my convictions. I understand you will not feel heard… because we are on two different foundations – two different life experiences. I’m not judging you for your choices. They are what they are.
Lastly, I am very concerned with the political stuff. I am in plenty of conversations about this whole issue. It’s perfectly ok if you don’t believe me… I don’t need you to.
Jason,
Thanks for clarifying. There is a least one well-known ex-gay leader who *does* believe that sexual orientation is biological in origin. But this doesn’t get discussed because it would discombobulate the whole theory of change. Which you seriously adhere to.
It is incredibly difficult IMO for one Christian to say to another, “Well, you weren’t *serious* enough about your walk with God.”
You really do seem like a likeable person, Jason, but I sense an overreaching sense of your way is more spiritual or godly and mine is not.
You talk about continuing on if desires intensified or nothing really changed, but you don’t express what forms that continuance would take —
IOW you might have continued on in behaviour and desires — would that be “change”? See, this is the problem I have with what ex-gays call “change”. And I guess that comes down to perspective — act as if which as you can tell I do not subscribe to because I find it patently dishonest.
Let’s look at this practically…having anti-gay laws will not bring about this healing that you subscribe to. So…gay Christian couple gets married then they come to you for “change” — so if they are truly changed the gay marriage is a moot point — they will become heteros if they try hard enough. Ex-gays trump any law because “it works”.
So…why don’t you ask the powers that be *why* they are so bent on this political focus — you are in a much better position to get a straight (pardon the pun) answer than any of us?
And, I guess I see somewhat in your post the same attitude of Peter (one of my fav Bible characters) — “Oh, no, Lord *I* will never deny you regardless of what *others* do.” Be careful.
Oh how I’ve denied my God in so many ways. I have greived, like Peter many times. Yet, my denial of him will never cause me to stop seeking Him.
Jason, there is a lot of what you say, or certainly what you imply, with which I disagree. However, one recurring theme is, basically, that if one fails at becoming straight one did not try hard enough or with the right attitude. To give an example, your church web site says:
We firmly believe that sexual and relational redemption is available for all who seek it.
Yet you said above:
Agreed Twilight, I don’t hold out “hope” for the vast majority. The vast majority does not agree with a process of changing ones sexual and/or emotional desires.
and this:
I think one difference is that I was not going to “seek change” for a season. I was not going to give it a year… 3 years or 10 years… Rather, I was going to seek it for my entire life – regardless of what actually happens with my thoughts or desires.
This seems not only to heap unwarranted guilt on a lot of good people but it eases the difficulty in explaining a poor rate of change in ex-gay ministries. Do you understand how heavily Exodus, the network to which your church belongs and for whom you are a regional representative, promotes this ex-gay message? Do you honestly think people are hearing the message you are giving here when they are told “change is possible?”
Your explanations of your own experience seem to have a heavy emphasis on what you accomplished and little on what God did. Either way, I find it hard to believe someone so deeply entrenched with Exodus could remain so and not largely agree with their actions. Alan Chambers has made it clear that this is his direction for the organization, so why are you still part of it?
Jason,
I admire your courage. I do believe that things have changed for you, as I do for myself. I did not reach this point through involvement with Exodus or other ex-gay ministries. I found this freedom by examining the scientific evidence that is being presented and speaking with biologists and psychologists who do not necessarily agree with the idea that change is possible, but who also do not believe that the reasons for same-sex attraction are altogether biological. Much of the present research on the Human mind is beginning to show us that for many human behavior characteristics there is a biological and an environmental component. I refuse to ignore the potential for this environmental influence inorder to justify my choice to only look at myself as “gay”.
Having said this, most of my change has come about through my relationship with the God that I have come to understand as Love. I can only find my true human essence by being open to relationship with all people, not just those that see the world as I do. I cannot explain how this worked but it definitely did change my orientation, because I am now open to getting to know other men in a wholesome way. Every day is a new challenge and a new experience. I had to surrender my will to a power greater than myself inorder to find this and for me that power was God through Jesus Christ. I cannot depend solely on faith for this, I am too deeply trained in reason through my own scientific training, but on the other hand I have stopped ignoring what my faith tells me about life because science has not yet managed to prove it. I will give it time and leave my mind open to the findings of those who are able to open their own minds over their political agenda.
Keep going forward Jason, you are on a good path. Keep your eyes always looking forward and leave the decenting voices behind.
…because I am now open to getting to know other men in a wholesome way.
???
Let’s assume *solely* for the sake of argument that we who “tried” and failed were just that — quitters.
Yes, I could have married and cheated. I still can do that. That is still an option. As it has been for many others regardless of what they want to call themselves — ssa, gay, or whatever label suits them.
First, let’s say that a man needs to fantasize in order to have sex with his wife (and not about her) or a gay woman needs to think of another woman in order to be there with her husband.
Is that cheating? Or is that just “in process”? I personally don’t know of any straights who *need* to do this.
And to not have sex is to forsake the Biblical marital duty.
Again, put us in one category as the “failures” for sake of argument:
How in the world is gay marriage going to affect those of you who have changed by your own admissions? Any more than a monogamist wants to all of a sudden become polygamist when seeing those who practice that? (“ooh, that looks good!”)
Is homosexuality so *irresistable* to those who are now straight or to those who are “ever straights” (as Exodus coined that phrase) that the concept of gay marriage is too much to handle? This I just don’t understand.
It seems to me from this conversation that what I expected all along is true: it really has only to do with what one *calls* themselves not what actually one *is*.
If Ted Haggard refers to himself as “ssa” (instead of gay) and continues to cheat on his wife — he would be on some level “acceptable” to ex-gays. He may never pastor another church, but his bases are covered.
Why is it so offensive for people to admit that they are gay/homosexual — before Almighty God when He knows already?!
Jason, I am genuinely glad that you are questioning and wanting to pull back from the political rhetoric. For that I can be thankful.
This whole discussion of change though reminds me of the many sad stories of physical healing in which Christians are castigated for not being healed of cancer or whatever (and therefore lacking faith). I left that mind set a long time ago.
I see little difference between what you are presenting and this world view.
And if and when there is a biological basis determined for homosexuality as there already is for interssexualism — I don’t expect there will be any new ways of thinking — the cancer argument — not enough faith will fit just perfectly.
Jason,
You wouldn’t be satisfied with the changes that have happened in my life, and dissect the temptations that still exist.
…
And lastly, I’m – without hesitation – straight. And again, I have no desire to defend that.
This is difficult for me to understand. I do not believe that straight men have temptations over guys. They just don’t. This again seems either inconsistent or a deceptive use of a word.
Surely you don’t think that anyone here will trust you if they think you are not being forthright.
I’m willing to assume that I have misunderstood you. And I know you have no desire to be defensive about your claims. But this series of statement are disconcerting.
This weekend a friend lied to me about a dinner (he said “come join us – we haven’t been served yet”). When I arrived I found that he’d lied and I left. He asked me why… it was just a little white fib because he really wanted me to join them. I explained that I really didn’t want to dine with someone who had just tried to deceive me.
It’s something to consider.
I personally don’t have difficulty seeing that straights can be bisexual themselves at times.
To me, the dividing line, is after that experience — can a straight person go on to for instance marry and not have a constant struggle with wanting to be in gay relationships or having ongoing ambivalence toward one’s opposite sex spouse.
To me, this is what is so lacking in ex-gay ministries — this clearer cut consistency. The revolving door experience is more what is seen.
Timothy, my temptations do not dictate my identity (even if they are homosexually inclined). And you are assuming my “temptations” are purely homosexual in nature.
The temptations I battle are one of comparison and envy – Not of lust. So the fact that I would look at another guy and want to be more like him in physique can be a struggle. In no way is it a sexual desire or an emotional hunger that I long for.
When I say I have temptations, I’m setting myself apart from guys who have not struggled with this type of masculine insecurity. My guy friends may admire another guy, but when it hits a deeper place of envy, it is unhealthy (and I believe is a residue of my homosexual struggle.)
So yes, I have ongoing struggles… but not at ALL like 15 years ago. They are VERY different. It may feel like I’m lying or deceiving you through words, but I’m attempting to be fully honest through this dialogue. It’s not like I need you to see me as changed, because I gain absolutely nothing.
This may be my last post on this, not because I’m trying to avoid this, but because we really are going in circles. You have an understanding on the nature of homosexuality, temptation, Christianity, et and I’m simply not connecting with your worldview on this. I seriously doubt I’m going to hear someone say “Oh, I get it now. I understand that this man has truly changed, and has walked away from homosexual desires. It’s just not a struggle for him anymore. Well, good for him… but I like being gay so good for me too.”
Timothy, my temptations do not dictate my identity (even if they are homosexually inclined).
No one said they do.
The temptations I battle are one of comparison and envy – Not of lust. So the fact that I would look at another guy and want to be more like him in physique can be a struggle. In no way is it a sexual desire or an emotional hunger that I long for.
Simple question then: is this a problem that can be entirely solved with a gym membership? Because if it isn’t you might want to rethink that whole in no way is it a sexual desire thing.
So yes, I have ongoing struggles…
I understand that this man has truly changed, and has walked away from homosexual desires. It’s just not a struggle for him anymore.
Well, yes, when you say you have ongoing struggles it’s doubtful anyone reading that is going to conclude you don’t have struggles. You know, what with words having definitions and all. I suppose you may be trying to believe that your struggles aren’t of a homosexual nature, but the thing is, straight guys just don’t struggle this way. If a str8 guy envies another man’s having a ripped physique, it’s not actually the physique he’s envying, it’s the presumed ability to attract women.
Dennis said: “I sometimes struggle with lustful thoughts” towards other males…
May I point out what should be obvious? Straight guys don’t lust for other guys. That’s what gays, exgays and bisexuals do.
This is an interesting forum.
I have been as honest as possible about where I come from, I have shared some of my weaknesses with you all, I have admitted that Exodus needs to make changes, I have agreed on many points with you, and I have acknowledged that we are working from two different world views that will not make much sense to each other… yet almost every post is a strong or subtle confrontation.
I have yet heard any of you acknowledge that you struggle with anything… both personally or philosophically.
Do any of you have acquaintances or friends that you showed your vulnerabilities and then they just stepped on you or used them against you? (or in this case, copy and pasted them back at you). How was that for you? – Maybe that’s one thing I will learn through this, you DON’T become vulnerable to anyone that is not your friends. Of course this is how wars start and only finish after blood is spilled.
I’m certainly not interested in making friends through this forum, but I’m pretty amazed by the lack of give and take. It’s all take, take, and take some more.
I will still watch and learn from this site. And I may ask a question or two… but I won’t look, ask, or desire understanding from you.
Please excuse me for my own correction,
I do appreciate Kincaid’s willingness to go into areas of disagreement with me – with respect.
Also, thanks to the posting by Dennis and others that were trying to give me the benefit of the doubt.
Jason,
Perhaps much of our differences are in, as you call it, worldview. I suppose most conflict on the planet does come down to worldview, after all.
And I do appreciate that you have, to your way of thinking, opened yourself up and showed vulnerabilities. But I think your expectations about the response (and your interpretation of the response) again is based on a different worldview.
We are suspect of you – and reasonably so based on real attacks on our lives by Exodus. Yet your worldview does not perceive these activities, claims, and political activism as an attack.
You are suspect of us based on old hostilities between the two “camps”. But mostly (some exceptions) we’ve not been hostile to you here. When we are asking “what are you saying” it isn’t out of confrontation but to, well, figure out what you are saying.
Yes, we all have failings and struggles of various sorts. But most of our struggles are not relevant to the conversation. Does anyone really care that I struggle with procrastination? Is it relevant to anything?
I don’t struggle with my sexual orientation. I’ve researched, studied, prayed and reconciled my faith with my orientation and don’t have doubts and concerns and philosophical dilemmas about it. And if I’m wrong, which I may be (though I doubt it), I happen to believe God is adequately capable of making that quite clear to me. So I really have no problem in that area to bring to the forum.
We aren’t trying to use your vulnerabilities to hurt you. We are just trying to figure out what you mean. And unfortunately, Jason, you have not selected language that is easy to understand. Even with my evangelical Christian heritage I have some difficultly figuring you out. There’s no way that some who don’t have that background are going to understand what you mean.
In other words, if you want understanding, try to be understandable. 🙂
Your latest post gave me some insight into your way of thinking. I can see how you have redirected your response to your attractions. Though they remain present, you’ve redefined the response to those triggers. You see someone attractive and your internal meter goes “blip” but you’ve trained yourself to respond to that blip in a way that is not necessarily sexual.
I take your word for that. And it sounds like that works for you. And I’m happy for you.
I do wish you didn’t call yourself “straight” because straight guys don’t have the blip go off at all. But you might be one of the few for whom the term “ex-gay” actually is applicable.
In any case, I welcome your considering of leaving the arena of politics to the politicians. And I hope we can keep dialog open.
Thanks Timothy,
A question: Why are the labels so important? I don’t know anyone who goes around telling people they are heterosexual. (I understand why people need to say they are gay, – because it is a minority group), but I’m trying to understand what you think I should say about my sexuality.
I have a wife and a three-year old boy. I don’t desire sex with men (or an emotional relationship – like a man would have with a woman). I love my wife, love being a father and a husband to this women. So, when someone asks what is my sexuality? My immediate response is – of course straight.
What are you suggesting I tell people if I am asked on a standard questionnaire…
“Are you – gay, straight or bi?” If you say I should say I’m bisexual, that would be a lie. I don’t want to be with men, I only desire my wife. Doesn’t bisexuality imply that you could go either way? I could not go either way, both with desires and personal convictions.
When I share that I am not gay, not bi, but married to a woman, and happy with this life choice (both inwardly and outwardly)… I’m somehow being pushed to say or admit to something that is not true.
Timothy sincerely want to know from your perspective, (knowing what and who I am – aside from your skepticism), what else I should say about my sexuality?
“I have yet heard any of you acknowledge that you struggle with anything… both personally or philosophically.”
If I have not admitted it, I apologize. Of course, human beings struggle. I struggle daily with procrastination and resentments and selfishness and impure thoughts. I could go on… That is why the Lord’s Prayer expresses daily thanks and daily repentance.
Like others on this blog, I am glad you are sticking around, Jason. I respect that. I respect your faith and the choices you have made. I respect the hard work it must have taken (and still takes) to live in accordance with your values.
You wrote: “…yet almost every post is a strong or subtle confrontation.” You seem puzzled by this. Please understand that the underlying frustration and anger you are sensing has been earned, not by you, but by folks in the exgay movement who have over-promised, mis-represented, mis-led and sometimes downright lied about what “change” meant.
Or they have tried to lump all gays together as diseased, demon-possessed, immoral, broken, predatory, perverted, sinful members of one “gay lifestyle” who all had dysfunctional relationships with their parents, were all sexually abused, etc. These unfair generalizations are commonplace in the exgay movement. And that may be why some responses seem defensive or confrontive. It’s a criticism of the movement, not an attack on you.
Michael, I understand and truly saddened about the stupidity of many, including myself – (here’s the vulnerability again). I have in the past made some of those generalizations, and I’m personally sorry for that as well. My desire now is to share my experiences and invite people to make their own choices (this ministry being one of many choices). In fact almost EVERY intake appointment I have, I let people know about the ex-exgay world. I let them know that some “try” this, and then choose otherwise. I tell them that I will encourage them and fight with them as long as they want to. I know several people who were once participants at Portland Fellowship, but are now openly gay – some seem pretty content and some seem totally miserable. (just like heterosexuals).
Timothy said:
Even with my evangelical Christian heritage I have some difficultly figuring you out. There’s no way that some who don’t have that background are going to understand what you mean.
I have to second this. I share most of Timothy’s background in the Church and some of what you say sets you apart in a way that, if I may, seems almost designed to do so; aloof and at times, melodramatic. And you seem wounded that you are not given acolades just for showing up and talking.
I’m certainly not interested in making friends through this forum, but I’m pretty amazed by the lack of give and take. It’s all take, take, and take some more.
Comments like that come across to me as rather spoiled. Can you not see this? You are basically whining. It’s not our function here to make nice no matter what; we try to be honest but civil and I think that is how you have been treated. Yet you single out Timothy and Dennis, apparently because they agreed with you in places.
And as long as you have opened the door, it seems to me that falling back on “we just have different world views” is a cop out. Surely in your ministry you have had to bridge larger gaps than this. My goodness, Timothy and I are basically conservative Republicans who who have spent most of our lives in the Church. The only real difference in our “world view” would seem to be our understanding of homosexuality. I’m sorry Jason, you can’t blame the audience.
Perhaps when I see some action behind you protest over the politics in Exodus, perhaps by your leaving them, then I will trust you somewhat. Right now you are just someone who dropped by for a chat and doesn’t like being treated like everyone else.
Jason posed a question: “Why are the labels so important? I don’t know anyone who goes around telling people they are heterosexual.”
Of course you do, Jason. People “go around telling people they are heterosexual” everyday. In hundreds of subtle and not-so-sublte ways. They talk of their girlfriend, or who they are dating or what they did last Saturday. They show pictures of their families. They comment on people of the opposite sex that they find attractive. If I mention my boyfriend, I am “announcing” I am gay.
Straight people don’t have to announce their sexual orientation with a label. It’s openly communicated without fear of being rejected or killed because one is straight. It’s accepted and it’s assumed.
Labels are important tools in communication. If I say that I am a “fargwump” but I used to be a “nozzleburp” and now I have “attractions but not desires” for “quompots”, I had better define all those terms if I want to clearly communicate my experience to my fellow human beings.
As John Boswell pointed out, “Words are fundamental to Christianity” — they are the means by which we convey our faith. And left undefined, they can “conceal as much as they reveal”.
“I’m – without hesitation – straight.”
Posted by: Jason Thompson at November 12, 2006 06:46 PM
Jason, that directly contradicts your earlier post at November 10, 2006 02:07 AM where you refered to the “the temptations that still exist”. You try to dismiss that by saying “The temptations I battle are one of comparison and envy – Not of lust.” and that just doesn’t add up. People aren’t tempted by envy or comparision, they’re tempted by things they desire and if what you were desiring is to have a well-built body that’s not the kind of thing anyone refer to as a temptation to be battled. Battling temptation only makes sense in this context if you’re still being tempted by men. You still haven’t come out and said you are not same sex attracted and the convolution of your statements suggests deception You most certainly are not straight. Please stop lying.
Dennis said “… it definitely did change my orientation, because I am now open to getting to know other men in a wholesome way.”.
Dennis if by “wholesome” you mean non-sexual, most gay men know other men in a non-sexual way. That’s not a change in orientation. Your orientation has only changed if you’ve changed same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions and you have not claimed that in fact you have admitted you are still tempted by men.
Jason said:
What are you suggesting I tell people if I am asked on a standard questionnaire…
It has nothing to do with what you call yourself on a hypothetical questionnaire. When you tell people you are straight, you are making a statement, using it as a testimony. Do you not include the “I was gay and now I’m straight” in your statements to others? It’s quite a loaded statement, because to others straight doesn’t include those thoughts you say you have. And what about your past, were you gay? Bisexual? Sexual addict? And how old were you when you decided you needed to change?
These are not things that can be taken for granted, because our experience with people who say they have changed but who have not is vast, but sincere changes appear to be few to none. And of those few, where they started was not necessarily what the rest of us understand as gay. To be honest, most of them seemed to be a mess for reasons having little to do with their sexual orientation, but that is what is blamed for it.
Let me ask you a question, Jason. In your ministry, do you tell “intakes” that God does not want them to be gay? Do you tell them that homosexuality is not in His plan for them, and that he will change that?
A question: Why are the labels so important? I don’t know anyone who goes around telling people they are heterosexual. (I understand why people need to say they are gay, – because it is a minority group), but I’m trying to understand what you think I should say about my sexuality.
Jason,
I guess I should be more specific. I don’t care what box you tick on a survey or what you tell the census.
My issue is with the way you tell your personal testimony and with what your audience does with that. I am absolutely certain that you are aware that your testimony, along with many others, is used as political fuel for the Great Culture War that has been declared on the lives of gay citizens.
Because of this, it is essential that what you express to others is understood in its reality, not in its political expediency. To claim “I once was gay but now I’m straight” is not strictly true – or not, at least, as I think I understand what you have said.
Yet there are many people who went and voted last Tuesday who thought that they heard that there are people who were gay and now they are straight. Straight, as in not attracted to guys at all. Straight, as in no blip to be interpreted, sexually or as body-envy.
I think you would agree that if one’s testimony is being used by others to change or reinforce political policy, then the strictest of accuracy has to be used. If you set yourself up as a witness, you have an increased responsibility.
Don’t you agree?
“I’m – without hesitation – straight.”
Posted by: Jason Thompson at November 12, 2006 06:46 PM
Jason, that directly contradicts your earlier post at November 10, 2006 02:07 AM where you refered to the “the temptations that still exist”. You try to dismiss that by saying “The temptations I battle are one of comparison and envy – Not of lust.” and that just doesn’t add up. People aren’t tempted by envy or comparision, they’re tempted by things they desire and if what you were desiring is to have a well-built body that’s not the kind of thing anyone refers to as a temptation to be battled. Battling temptation only makes sense in this context if you’re still being tempted by men. You still haven’t come out and said you are no longer same sex attracted and the convolution of your statements suggests deception You most certainly are not straight. Please stop lying.
Dennis said “… it definitely did change my orientation, because I am now open to getting to know other men in a wholesome way.”.
Dennis if by “wholesome” you mean non-sexual, most gay men know other men in a non-sexual way. That’s not a change in orientation. Your orientation has only changed if you’ve changed same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions and you have not claimed that in fact you have admitted you are still tempted by men.
Thanks for all the comments and feedback. I still have much to learn.
Take care,
Jason
Back in 1991, EXODUS’s official definition of homosexuality was “the erotic and emotional attraction to persons of the same sex”. So by EXODUS’s own definition, people who are still emotionally/erotically attracted to the same sex would still be homosexual, right?
Interesting that their official definition of heterosexuality made NO mention of attraction at all. Heterosexuality was “the freedom to relate to the opposite sex without fear or distaste”. By that definition, most of the gay people I know are heterosexual.