The Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the largest Protestant denomination in Northern Ireland, voted last week in favour of a new policy endorsing ex-gay therapy.
The aim of the document was to make the church a more welcoming and understanding place for homosexuals, and Ex-Gay Watch commends some of the more constructive aspects of the policy. For example:
‘Are our children safe?’ ‘It might be infectious’ ‘They will lead our other young people astray!’ ‘They are the cause of AIDS/HIV!’ ‘It’s all about sex, sex, sex!’
There is a great need to dispel such myths about same sex attractions. Children are no more at risk and possibly less so from a person with same sex attractions than from one with heterosexual attractions. Homosexuality is NOT paedophilia! Nor is a person with same sex attractions anymore a sexual predator than someone with heterosexual desires. In fact we often show our double standards by looking on ‘chasing the girls’ as a natural thing even when it is downright lustful. Whereas a girl who does the same is looked on as ‘cheap’ and a person with same sex attractions as perverted!
Such myths are very hurtful, humiliating, degrading and condemning to those with same sex attractions. They are also characteristic of the lack of understanding that fuels homophobic attitudes.
7. The need for temperate language and balance in pulpit ministry
7.1 Unhelpful words/statements – e.g. ‘Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve’; ‘Love the sinner, hate the sin’, sodomy, unnatural, abnormal or any of the more derogatory colloquialisms. All of these lock the door to effective pastoral care before it is even open.
8.2 What they do not need to hear at that moment [of coming out].
That they are imagining it
That they are sick
That they are a disgrace or a pervert
That they are demon possessed
At this point they do not even need to hear what the Bible says about homosexuality8.3 What they do need to hear at that moment.
That they are still loved no matter what
That God’s love has not changed
That they have displayed great courage in telling you
That you appreciate the trust placed in you
That you will seek to listen and to understand what they have been going through
This attempt is all welcomed and appreciated. However, one particular paragraph gives cause for concern:
9.2 It is sufficiently documented that there are those who have moved from the position of having same sex attractions to being heterosexual. For some this has come about through careful, professional counselling. For others it has come about by regeneration through faith in Jesus Christ. For still others a combination of both!
Where is change of orientation “sufficiently documented”? By “careful, professional counselling” and “regeneration through faith in Jesus Christ”, no less? Here the document steps worryingly over the line from being a pastorally informed call for sensitivity and wisdom to making a scientific and/or scholarly (what else does “sufficiently documented” imply?) claim about the possibility of change. No reputable study or research supports this faith in therapy and religious conversion to actually change orientation. The most widely cited study in favour of ex-gay success (Spitzer, 2003) is at best severely limited and at worst fatally flawed.
We at Ex-Gay Watch respect that many people experience an irresolvable conflict between their faith and their sexuality. They may well choose not to engage physically in homosexual activity, and that choice is to be respected. However, it is vital that the trusted leaders to whom they turn for support do not abuse that trust with empty promises and false hopes of change.
However, it is vital that the trusted leaders to whom they turn for support do not abuse that trust with empty promises and false hopes of change.
These leaders have already abused their gay followers by telling them that homosexuality is immoral.
Do you know what guys, some people do change. When we spend long enough in this debate we meet people for whom that’s true to a greater or lesser extent.
Question – Do we think that this is the first mainstream denomination to have an explicit recognition of ex-gays in their literature?
Was that rhetorical? I’m not sure of the answer.
No, Peter O
When we spend long enough we find people who claim to have changed their sexual attractions. Literally, well, dozens of them!
That isn’t even close to sufficient documentation.
Alas, most people would be willing to claim most anything if you bribed or threatened them enough. That’s what’s really missing in this discussion from exgays.
Gay men and women have been pretending to be straight throughout anti-gay history.
Barely newsworthy, but guess why they did that? Oh, already told you.
OK Dale, can you use the same criteria to prove anybody actually has same-sex attractions? I mean, there’s loads od people who claim to have same-sex attraction, but I’m not sure of the documentation. After-all, we’ve already discounted self-reporting haven’t we?
Sorry Peter O — Dale’s popped out for the paper. Will I do?
We’re not trying to prove ourselves. You are.
But — sure, on that question, ask away at random with everyone you meet if you wish.
Oh, oh. But hang on. You mean you, don’t you! /snort. Clever.
Yes. You’re quite right. There are people who claim to have (once had) homosexual attractions.
But here’s the point GD, you don’t apply the same criteria to those who claim to have have same-sex attraction and those who claim to have used to have had. The fact you didn’t answer the question indicates that you understand the epistemological problem you have.
Peter-
There is no logical reason why someone would claim to have same-sex attraction if they didn’t. Being same-sex attracted makes you a second class citizen at best, a murder target at worst. All societal pressure is in the direction of being opposite-sex attracted.
However, your idea has interesting implications. Why don’t you write to all the anti-gay organizations and tell them they can cease their anti-gay political activities immediately, since there is no documentation that there are any people with same-sex attractions?
Boo, you miss the point and I’m still waiting for someone to be honest enough to admit it – if we reject self-reporting of ex-gays, why are we not also rejecting self-reporting of “gay”?
Come on – let’s be honest about this.
The question is a little unfair, if we’re expected to produce off-hand some sort of scientific evidence of homosexual orientation.
It’s a little like someone coming along and asking, “Why is red red?” and insisting, “It’s green”. We wouldn’t necessarily know where to look for the science (although I’m sure it’s there), but it would be obvious to most people that the burden of proof would be on the person claiming red was green.
Dave R – I don’t think it’s in the slightest bit unfair. All I’m asking is for us to sue the same criteria for acceptance / rejection of self-reporting whether we’re talking about ex-gay or gay experience. That’s surely just a basic epistemological decency isn’t it?
Look, there are plenty of people on this forum who simply don’t believe that the ex-gay experience truly occurs. When someone self-reports being ex-gay and then provides some experiential data as well they reject that also. But would they apply exactly the same criteria to someone who said “I’m gay – look, I’m in a relationship with someone of the same sex!!”.
I’m not arguing here that people don’t really experience same-sex attraction, all I’m asking for is some intellectual honesty.
No, I’m not sure it is. One guy claims he had an intelligent conversation with a man called Ned; another guy claims he had an intelligent conversation with an alien called Zod; we are inclined to believe the former (even if we don’t know Ned), and disbelieve the latter. Is it really “basic epistemological decency” to accept both? Even though one is a zillion miles outside the realm of most people’s experiences?
Furthermore, a major reason most of us here reject ex-gay claims is not simply because it is outside our personal experience. It is because most self-identified ex-gays don’t (or won’t) even speak convincingly of their own experience when it’s held up to scrutiny. Getting a straight (pardon the ubiquitous pun) answer to the question “Are you still homosexually orientated/SSA?” is generally like getting blood from a stone.
Peter –
What about all the people who claimed they had been “cured” of homosexuality, some who even went as far as to get married, who lived as ex-gay for years, and then realize later they were living a lie? I’m speaking, of course, of Ex-Ex gay people. If anything should give us pause when talking about the so-called Ex-gay experience, it is these people. Their stories are interesting and very important to this whole discussion.
J
What does “change” mean? – I get all sorts of definitions anytime I talk to someone who is ex-gay-identified. The official word seems to be that CHANGED can mean simply being celibate.
As a Christian I’ve never understood this obsession with some ex-gay-identified people over developing opposite-sex attractions? Shouldn’t the obsession be on becoming holy (as some would understand this term) and not heterosexual – those things aren’t synonymous! When the focus is put on changing desire and not on holiness, one has to wonder about the motivation behind some in the ex-gay movement.
I guess it might make more sense to question the validity of those who claim to be same sex attracted if they’d developed a religious, psychological, and political machine with the sole aim of changing opposite sex attracted folks into ssa folks, and even called them an abomination if they didn’t, and supported laws which limited the rights of those who were still, unrelentingly opposite sex attracted.
Peter Ould-
As I’m sure you know, there are physiological tests that indicate whether someone responds sexually to his/her own gender or the other. Psychologists show the subjects images of both men and women, and measure involuntary physical responses. These can involve the eye, skin, or genital responses.
Such tests may not be foolproof for determining the sexual orientation of any one individual, but overall they do provide objective–not just self reported–evidence that some people are indeed attracted primarily to their own gender.
I don’t know of any ex-gay organization or individual that has attempted any sort of similar testing, based on objective measurement of involuntary physical responses, to demonstrate a change in sexual orientation.
As someone who made a very successful adaptation to a heterosexual life for nearly 30 years, I don’t dispute that a homosexual (by orientation) can adopt a heterosexual identity and feel fairly satisfied. But that’s very different from changing actual sexual attraction.
My skepticism on most claims of ex-gay change is not just that they are self-reported, but that they fudge on whether the individuals have experienced a fundamental change in orientation and attraction.
Nick C,
I don’t know of any ex-gay organization or individual that has attempted any sort of similar testing, based on objective measurement of involuntary physical responses, to demonstrate a change in sexual orientation.
I believe Dr. Throckmorton and Dr. Bailey are seeking to do such a test involving brain imaging of some sort. Perhaps this will help resolve the question as to whether one’s involuntary responses to the sexes can be changed.
We all agree that behavior can be modified – at least to some extent (you still have to have cooperation of the body parts). And, indeed, such a “change” may be sufficient to many people for a variety of reasons (primarily religious). But such a test may help in the discussion of whether reorientation itself is possible.
I do think it interesting that Peter O wants to redifine “sufficiently documented” to be the same as “because I said so”. By Peter’s standard, there is irrefutable proof that Nessie exists.
[DR removed quotes]
ooops. that wasn’t supposed to be in quotes.
Peter,
Are you gay? Have you ever been attracted to the same sex? Do you consider yourself “ex-gay” and wish to be taken seriously? Can you relate to being gay, or do you just wish to understand? Is it important for you to establish that there is such a thing as ex-gay, and if so, why?
So gays aren’t sick or perverted. But they can be cured through therapy? Well, that is as clear as mud.
Of course people change but does sexual orientation change or just behaviour? We have many documented cases of people who claimed to be exgay who were later proven, or admitted, that they never were. We run in unclear definitions all the time. I’ve read testimonies of “cured” gays where the man was straight throughout adolescence, got in trouble, went to jail, had gay sex, felt guilty, came out of prison, got converted and claimed he was healed of his gayness.
The exgay movement thrives on imprecise concepts. They don’t define gay and they don’t define cured. I’ve seen claims that cross dressers who only had straight sex were gay. I’ve seen them confuse gender identity with sexual orientation. I have a friend who was a male and is now female but sleeps with females. Is this person gay or straight in the world of the exgay logic?
A cure can be someone who has same sex desires and is celibate. They could be someone who has heterosexual intercourse but still wants gay sex. It might even be someone who occasionally “falls into sin” but repents. We start with an imprecise concept and end with an imprecise concept and everything in-between is muddled.
Would someone claim something that was false? Yes, they have as well. We have fundamentalists who claim they were top priests in satanic cults that never existed. We have all sorts of such people running around the fundamentalist fringes.
Boo, is typically imprecise when he asks that question. What is “to have same-sex attraction.” Is it something as typical as a couple of adolescent males masturbating together who later turn out exclusively heterosexual? Is it someone who fantasized about gay sex but never really did anything about it?
With a vague definition it is easy to find cures. The world is full of men who wanked with another male but who never, never thought of themselves as gay and who are overwhelmingly attracted to women. They seem to “cure” without any attempt at all. Individuals who have only been attracted to same sex partners and then become attracted to only opposite-sex partners is a very different matter and as rare as hen’s teeth.
In some ways being a “successful exgay” is like winning a race with no defined starter’s block and no precise finish line.
OK Peter O — here’s your intellectual honesty. (They’d sold out The Age, most annoying.)
Your problem is that you are not saying:
“I’m gay – look, I’m in a relationship with someone of the same sex!!” (Or straight, etc.)
Frankly, who should care less?
Instead, what you actually say is:
“I used to be gay – look, I’m in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex!! You could also do that. Therefore I not only regard you as inferior, but I also go out in public and tell other people to treat you as inferior. I’m the justification for you to be treated as inferior.”
It’s knowing that you are making terrible demands on others that causes people to pause and question both your claim and your motivation. Go back and read Pam’s words.
QED, these “self-reports” are not the same. Very different motivations, and consequences. It is a false comparison.
That is why we put it as: “We’re not trying to prove ourselves. You are.”
But, hey, if you want to argue that there’s no such thing as any sexual attraction in any person because it’s all just self-report… don’t let us stop you.
Tim K,
I don’t want to “redifine “sufficiently documented” to be the same as “because I said so””. I have no idea where you get that idea. What do you have to resort to such a petty argument? All I’m doing is saying let’s apply the same critique of self-reporting to every single variant of human sexual expression, not have different standards for different ones.
Some of the argumentation on this thread is on the lines of “Ex-gay can’t exist because it can’t exist. If you present to me somebody who claims to be ex-gay I’m simply going to find 100 reasons why that’s not so. I’m simply NOT going to accept their story”. Now that’s just not a serious way of debating this issue.
What I’m saying is quite simple – let’s apply exactly the same critique of self-reporting to gay, ex-gay, ex-ex-gay, ex-ex-ex-gay or whatever. Let’s be honest.
There we go. Right there. Now that’s a place to start.
The argument here isn’t that people can’t be ex-gay. My youngest spent a day (at the age of 3) identifying as Batman, refusing to respond to me unless I addressed him as such. Heck, I spent several years married to an ex-gay. He was pretty darn ex-gay in our bedroom during a significant portion of that time. Was he heterosexual? Not so much.
The whole thing, uless I’m misunderstanding it, is that it has not been sufficiently documented that people have gone from same sex attracted to heterosexual.
Pam,
Yes to all you write, but there ARE people who used to identify as gay and now don’t. There are people who used to be homosexual in attraction and now have little same-sex desire.
Yes, we need documentation, but sometimes when that is provided (i.e. the Spitzer report) there are loads of people who simply don’t want to accept it.
So all I’m asking for is honesty. Let’s be honest about sexual attractions in ourselves and others and let’s be honest in how we respond to those reported attractions.
Boo, you miss the point and I’m still waiting for someone to be honest enough to admit it – if we reject self-reporting of ex-gays, why are we not also rejecting self-reporting of “gay”?
No, you missed my point. There are reasons to lie about being ex-gay that don’t exist for being gay. You would have greater reason to be suspicious of my veracity if I told you that sending me money will bring you happiness than if I told you my hair is brown.
One thing that has been troubling me. According to many leaders within these ex-gay organizations, if a gay man/woman remains celibate but still has SSA they would be still considered ex-gay correct? Then do we call those heterosexuals that remain celibate ex-heterosexual?
If we apply the “ex” to gays that formerly were gay then the same should be applied to those that are straight and celibate.
Now, doesn’t that sound silly to you?
GD,
You said I say:
“I used to be gay – look, I’m in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex!! You could also do that. Therefore I not only regard you as inferior, but I also go out in public and tell other people to treat you as inferior. I’m the justification for you to be treated as inferior.”
Right, I want you to show where I have done the following:
i) Said that I regard those who identify as gay as inferior
ii) Gone in public and told others to treat those who identify as gay as inferior
iii) Used my personal story to justify either of the above.
I want the moderators / administrators to sort this out right now. This is exactly the kind of ad hominem that does none of us any good. This is nothing short of abuse to ascribe to me these hateful attitudes.
Document or retract and apologise GD.
Boo,
Your point is entirely separate to the issue of epistemological equivalence in gay / ex-gay / ex-ex-gay testimony. That’s why you miss the point.
I’ve learned that daring grantdale to document something is a risky business. Hold on to something Peter 😉
pam wrote:
“The whole thing, uless I’m misunderstanding it, is that it has not been sufficiently documented that people have gone from same sex attracted to heterosexual”
____________________________________________
The term “ex-gay” is an affirmation of “gay.” The term applied to gays is never “ex-heterosexual.” Isn’t the idea behind “ex-gay” ministries/methods that gays are really just damaged heterosexuals? So, once one takes the cure why would they be “ex-gay” instead of heterosexual?
It would be difficult to “honestly” give equal weight to the “self reporting” Peter insists would be fair. This is why I asked Peter if he had ever considered himself gay (I’m new here). The main reason would be instinctively obvious to any gay person and seems silly to point out. Coming out as gay is like being the one black guy at a Ku Klux Klan rally when it’s time to dis-robe. If he had the option to appear white, he might be tempted to undergo the Michael Jackson regimen.
You cannot give equal weight to “self reporting” because all things are not equal.
Thanks for that explanation Paul. I hope you stick around! 🙂 Love that analogy….a risky one, but a good one.
Where did I get the idea that Peter Ould was redefining “sufficiently documented” to be the same as “because I said so”?
Grantdale’s comment:
Peter’s response:
Now where could I have gotten that odd idea that Peter thinks self reporting is adequate documentation? I dunno…
Thanks for the kind words and welcome Pam. I know, I should have qualified “kind of like…”, since gays wear their black skin on the inside, that’s our robe.
Your point is entirely separate to the issue of epistemological equivalence in gay / ex-gay / ex-ex-gay testimony. That’s why you miss the point.
Now comes the epistemological question of how much of what you said you actually believe. If there are reasons to doubt the testimony of ex-gays that don’t exist for gays, that goes straight to the heart of the question of epistemological equivalence. If you’re honestly not getting it, ask yourself why in a trial the testimony of an impartial eyewitness will likely be weighted more than the defendant’s claim to be innocent?
Boo,
Your point is entirely separate to the issue of epistemological equivalence in gay / ex-gay / ex-ex-gay testimony. That’s why you miss the point.
Peter, you can blather about epistemology and ponder the nature of knowlegde on your own time. That isn’t really up for debate here.
We are talking about what is observably true, not whether in theory all things are equally to be questioned.
Perhaps from some epistemological stoned out college student viewpoint the statement “I dropped a brick and it fell” is equivalent to “I dropped a brick and it floated around the room”. But not here.
“I am same-sex attracted” is a statement that doesn’t need justification because it is a readily observable phenomenon. So too is “I am opposite-sex attracted”.
However “I once was exclusively same-sex attracted and now am exclusively opposite-sex attracted” is not something that most of us have experienced. In fact, those of us who monitor the subject know of VERY FEW people who even make such a claim. We do, however, know of plenty who claim something else and call it ex-gay or who once made such a claim only to later refute it.
So no. Not all claims are equal. Because those of us who live in the real world are not ready to be influenced or disuaded from reality by your pondering the possibilities of epistemology.
Just out of curiosity… did you not publically oppose the nomination of Gene Robinson to Bishop as well as that of Jeffrey John?
Though I’m CERTAIN that you will say you did not oppose them because they were inferior. No, it’s because of their theology (or epistemology or, who knows, maybe their ontology).
Tim K,
Either answer my points properly or don’t. But being derogatory because of my use of vocabulary is beneath us surely?
It wasn’t your vocabulary that I objected to, Peter. It was your implying that there is some equivalence – based on epistemology – in questioning the existence of gay persons and of “those who have moved from the position of having same sex attractions to being heterosexual”.
Those sort of games are fun late at night after a few cocktails but are of no value when discussing whether the Irish Presbyterian church was referencing documentation that simply doesn’t exist. And trying to introduce this notion into the conversation in three separate comments surely gives rise to my right to criticize it.
What about bisexuals? 😉
Peter wrote:
I have to disagree, Peter. I realize from your perspective these accusations are baseless, but I think they’re a valid interpretation of things you have actually said. For example, you have written that you, as an Anglican priest, would deny me, as an “unrepentant homosexual”, the Eucharist. How shall I and other gay men and women – including many who, like myself, are both Christian and Anglican – resist concluding that you regard us as inferior?
Peter,
So many of the people who have claimed to have changed from completely same sex attracted to completely heterosexual have been proven to be complete liars that nobody who knows the history of this movement is going to believe that sort of claim.
Given the weight of testimony in church circles, I suspect that personal testimonies are a part of the ‘documentation’ from the church’s point of view. And while this works within the context of the church, where the speaker and listener share a certain amount of mutual trust, it does not work as well out in society where mutual trust is more difficult to achieve. If this is the case, the Irish church should drop the phrase ‘sufficiently documented’ in paragraph 9.2 and replace it with words that more accurately describe the situation. If this is not the case and this church thinks it has ‘sufficient documentation’ from a scientific/scholarly point of view then it should produce a list of sources that would be included in copies of its policy towards homosexuals.
And it goes without saying that I’d sure like to see that list.
Dave R,
That’s got nothing to do with me believing you to be inferior and everything with proper sacramental discipline, unless of course you would argue that me denying communion to any unrepentant sinner was treating them as inferior?
If you’re not going to correct GD for what he’s claimed about me then so be it. If you don’t want to engage with me as a unique human being but rather want to make assumptions about me then so be it.
didn’t jesus serve eucharist (the first one if i’m not mistaken 😉 to judas?
Pam – I believe that was before the betrayal 🙂
To get along with each other, somehow we have to deal with the concept that ideological disagreement does not indicate an assessment of inferior value.
Example, recently my church purchased a building that was owned by the Catholic church. We wanted to have a worship service in the building before the purchase was consumated but the owners would not allow it since their religion did not allow protestant services in their church prior to ownership. Did they think us inferior? I don’t believe so. It was their means of preserving the integrity of their beliefs. We are taking down the icons and the Crucifix. Do we think them inferior humans? Not at all.
Warren-I totally get that. Really. I wrote a post on my blog back in the fall about how I thought we should operate towards gay folks in the particular tradition I’m affilitated with and one of my friends (norm!) was pretty upset by it and I could understand why. But, I was really just giving my opinion of how they have SO FAR to go in loving even WITHIN the confines of their particular beliefs.
Right now, I’m having a hard time finding any place where I totally “fit”, if that makes sense. So, I just go with what I have and try and condut myself prayerfully in my personal affairs.
But still….as far as the last supper….Judas was in pretty darn deep at that point, no? I mean, he hadn’t delivered the kiss but to say he was unrepentent for the things he was already in the middle of wouldn’t be too far a stretch, would it? I don’t know. Just supposing.
Thanks for chiming in here!
Also….here’s the thing. I know that I’ve taken communion (we do it weekly in our fellowship) during times when there were things in my life for which I didn’t at that time feel a need to repent about. Furthermore, it seems like to me that someone refusing to serve gays (based on the belief that they are sinning) is very hypocritical when there are a host of other sins represented that get served with no question. Making homosexual acts (as they believe to be sinful) be singled out like that does make it appear that those particular folks are being treated as inferior.
Pam – In my tradition, one is supposed to refuse communion if there is known sin.
However, my tradition is not Peter’s. If the integrity of his means of following the Eucharist requires certain prerequisites, then he should follow them. If he doesn’t believe them, then he should get out of it.
Warren: Agreed.
My tradition is the same as yours in that respect. And frankly, I have issues with communion in general in ALL the mainstream Christian traditions. I think we just completely miss the boat on it. *sigh*
Peter O,
Would you deny Eucharist to those that have divorced and remarried? Wait! Hold On! You probably would since your church oks divorce and remarriage totally nullifying Jesus edict against remarriage – Adultery.
What I find offensive is how the RCC, Anglican, and all other churches that have the Eucharist in all their services use the Eucharist as a tool against those they consider “unrepentant sinners”. I want someone to show me where in the Bible Christ says that they need to hold back his body and blood from others? Simply, it doesn’t. Jesus never gave exceptions when it came to, “Do this in rememberance of me”. I find it offensive that any church can dictate whom is worthy and whom is not to receive communion. Jesus never made the distinction nor should any of his church. All those that believe in his saving grace should be able to receive the Eucharist.
I was going to stay out of this discussion; but, since the tangent went off into the “Eucharist” (from the Greek for “thanksgiving”) and turned in to a high church word, I just have to add to what Ken R and others wrote. He is right; there was no restrictions on who could take the Lord’s Supper, as it is called by most Evangelical Believers (who are neither Protestants nor catholics).
The 1st Century real early church, called The Way in the New Testament, did more than occasionally have bread and wine, or just the bread and wine, at the service on the evening of the 1st day of every week (which we now call “Sunday”); they had a full pot-luck meal. AND it was a worship service which was very much like the “Last Supper;” but, it was not a Seder type meal.
I have been in Evangelical church services were grape juice and bread was served and open communion was practiced. Anyone who knew the purpose of the ritual was invited to partake if they wanted to. I have met several people who decided to accept the salvation and other healing that the bread and the fruit of the vine represented. They did not have to say a “sinner’s prayer” nor give a public confession to know that they were saved and the Holy Spirit was living on the inside.
A person can take communion when he is alone and he can take it with other person present, even in his own home. It does not matter to the Lord. One needs to examine himself before he does it. I have gone to rather dull church services where the whole service was cut and dried, but the communion part made it worthwhile.
I understand the reason for this tangent, but let’s try to discuss it without going too deep into various church doctrines. Thanks.
Given the weight of testimony in church circles, I suspect that personal testimonies are a part of the ‘documentation’ from the church’s point of view.
That’s a very good point. Indeed the Irish Presbyterian Church could consider testimony adequate documentation.
Warren and Pam,
The gospel of Matthew states that Judas had already bargained for Jesus’ capture by the priests before the last supper
Then one of the Twelve—the one called Judas Iscariot—went to the chief priests and asked, “What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?” So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over.
However the gospel of John hints that the act of accepting the sup from Christ was somehow a cause of his betrayal.. odd wording:
Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.
In either case, however, Jesus did not deny the bread and wine to Judas knowing fully that Judas’ heart was not with him.
I like the evangelical term “communion” because it reminds us that we are one in the body of Christ and that we join together in this. The notion of allowing or disallowing others seems to me contrary to the purpose.
I do think (just rambling here) that the notion of the Eucharist or organized Communion may be slightly missing the point. It seems to me that Christ was saying “when you get together with each other for food and companionship, remember me and the sacrifice that I’m about to make” rather than “when you get together for religious purposes serve a wafer and wine to remember me”.
But perhaps that’s why I’m an accountant not a preacher.
Peter Ould, you’re a real card.
Nearly had me going there with the idea that a very active member of Anglican Mainstream would actually be shocked, hurt and outraged at the notion that anyone had said something about their negative attitudes to homosexuality.
But then I thought — hey, Peter Ould just did it again!
Peter you again started arguing over something that hadn’t even been mentioned — hatred — and rephrased everything while you were about it. And then resorted to your old stand-by: any questioning of Peter’s viewpoints or behaviours is an ad hominem attack and that’s just not allowed.
Peter, we wrote about the inferior status that you assign.
We did not say you were hateful. That is you speaking. In using “inferior” we deliberately chose the most neutral term that still clearly indicated how you peg heterosexuality and homosexuality and therefore the people involved. If you dislike even that being mentioned about you one wonders how you would behave if someone actually did call you hateful.
Are you actually denying that’s what you do? eg: are you still “committed to the traditional biblical teaching on marriage, the family and human sexuality” and do you still see that as requiring a negative view of homosexuality and of “unrepentant homosexuals”?
I’m not interested in why you hold your negative attitudes. We are discussing the fact that you have them, and the fact that this means you assign an inferior status to one (and therefore a superior status to the other).
As you have said (and I’m glad I didn’t):
This teleological and eschatological rejection of homosexual activity and its blessing within an ecclesiastical framework are therefore ultimately an endorsement of the Gospel, for the enacting of a same-sex blessing is to symbolically deny the full power of the resurrection and in its place present an “almost-resurrect”. Surely this robs the empty tomb of its vacant body and instead leaves the bones of Jesus in some way still present on the stone slab?
We understood it, and that says it: you base your attitude on your religious viewpoint. But you also place one above and one below. Inferior and superior.
Hiding in scripture doesn’t alter the fact that you do indeed assign different values to homosexuality and heterosexuality. And I’m sorry if that fact also conflicts with the demand the you publicly proclaim your equal love for all your fellow man. It’s your faith mate, and it’s you that needs to reconcile all its competing demands. Thus far you’re not making a very good fist of it.
Peter, it being a basically meaningless gesture for you; we’re not going to ask you to apologise for your misleading outburst or bothering people the way you have. That sort of behaviour is abusive, rather than argumentative.
But you may wish to ponder, in light of that outburst, why exgays are not generally taken at face value.
Hope you had a pleasant weekend.
(For the rest, it’s to follow. I’m up early for work, not for you.)
Timothy said:
I agree with you Timothy. That was what it was supposed to be all along. But man-made doctrine was placed all around it making it now a “unless you do” or “you cannot receive communion because” nullifying the true meaning of communion.
If you were a preacher Timothy I’d go to your church to hear you preach. 😉
Peter O, you may have it now. Neither of us wish to spend a moments more thoughts with you today.
—————————————————-
“Don’t listen to them gays — we’re exgays!”
It’s 2001, British Colombia, and Dawn McDonald inserts herself and her claim to exgayness into the first groping attempts to discuss and resolve the place for gay men and lesbians within the church [1]
Moving forward to 2004, and the issue is now being discussed for all the church in Canada: Dawn McDonald again, now joined by the usual suspects from across Canada (note Mario Bergner: Peter Ould’s original and ongoing mentor). [2]
Peter Ould is furious (his words). Peter spells out the blinding logic of it all : if you want to talk to A Gay about their sexuality and about how they are treated within the church, it should be compulsory to include some exgay blow-in. [3]
And so we arrive at March 2007.
It’s Peter Ould, and a mate from People Can Change. Using the exact same ploy. https://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=1347
You’ll note from the comments in the header that Peter’s appearance is an entirely deliberate attempt to distort the ongoing dialog occuring between the church and gay church goers. These discussions have focussed on the inferior status of gay people within the church, the hurt that this causes gay people, and whether such an environment is either sound or to be justified.
There are many within the Anglican Church who do not want this dialog to occur in the first instance or, failing that, that such dialog be disrupted if it cannot be stopped. The dialog is also occuring in the context of a far wider war between vastly different viewpoints on such issues as church and scriptual authority and the role that the church should take in widely varying societies. As example, the ordination of women exposed the polarised viewpoints, as has more latterly the status of gay men and women within the church.
One can expect:
> If you want to talk to gay men and women about their lives — people like Peter Ould will want to butt into your conversation.
And the purpose of butting in like that? As Peter Ould’s public speech makes perfectly clear:
> When gay men and woman attempt to speak about themselves and the way they are mistreated, there will be deliberate grand-standing by exgays.
> The exgay testimony will attempt to convince people that 1) not only could those gays change but 2) therefore, you may keep treating them as inferior.
Regardless of viewpoints about the compatibility of homosexuality and Christianity — what we have here are three clear, and linear examples of exgays touting thier exgay credentials in public and for the express purpose of having gay people continue to be treated as inferior.
Peter Ould you are clearly included in those exgays.
Not content with simply telling your own story, you have instead used it to attack others.
You are also well aware how other’s are using your public testimony.
Well I would come by it naturally. Preachers in my family included my grandfather, my father, my uncle and both of my brothers.
good greif, Tiimothy! you probably preach in your sleep!
While Rick Warren is famous for preaching in Hawaiian shirts, the Rev. Timothy Kinkaid of West Hollywood is famous for preaching in aussiebum.
Timothy Kincaid said:
I actually prefer to use “Jesus was saying” because there is no quote in the Gospels which has “Christ said” with it. When Jesus was talking at the last meal he had with the disciples in the Upper Room that evening, he talked about being a servant, literally a “slave,” and not a boss. The Christ was Jesus’ heavenly position title but, he preferred to refer to his disciples as his brothers.
The Evangelical idea of communion actually refers to fellowship of equals sharing unconditional love. 1st Century worship services were to be done with a decent type of order; but, they were to be structured so that those in attendance could freely participate as the Holy Spirit so desired. A service would be over when the Holy Spirit was ready and not some program director.
Being to son of a Pentecostal preacher does not make the son a preacher, too. One has to be called to preach; one does not inherit it from his parents. If it did my younger brother would be one. But, he doesn’t go to church. My father never heard me preach; but, I did tell him about my sermons during the week after I gave them. He liked that.
I noticed a lot on this thread about whether or not we can trust the self-reporting of ex-gays. If you decipher the “Christian-ese”, I think you can. They self-report that they are not heterosexual in the commonly understood sense of that word, but that they continue to struggle with same sex attractions — usually for a lifetime. They self-report that the change they are talking about is not “sudden, radical OR complete”. Some will admit that they were bisexual to some degree already.
Their “buzz words” may imply a change in orientation from gay to straight — but when you really press them on it, most exgays will finally admit (as Joe Dallas of EXODUS did) that they are still just “Christians with homosexual tendencies who would rather not have those tendencies” Needless to say, “rather not have” does not make one “ex” anything.
Michael said:
I complete agree with you. Logically, this makes total sense. However, Christians of the ex-gay industry believe that the moment you make the decision to leave behind the “gay lifestyle” and the “gay identity,” you are no longer gay. They believe that being gay is limited to “deviant” actions and thoughts, rather than fueled by love and emotion. They cite 1 Corinthians 6:11 to back them up. Paul talks about sinners: “such were some of you…” etc. But exiting the “lifestyle” and becoming celibate doesn’t un-gay you. The feelings, love, and emotions never go away. The use of “ex-” is just as much part of Christianese as the use of the phrase “the Body of Christ.” However, they will never see the illogic in this: No matter how much you believe you’re not linked to your husband, you only become an ex-wife AFTER the divorce is final.
Emily K says:
I said the exact same thing in this thread. By their definition ex-gay can mean a celibate homosexual. Which doesn’t make sense because if a heterosexual person decides to remain celibate that does not automatically make them ex-heterosexual. That heterosexual person still has opposite sex attractions.
I find there is such confusion with what they deem as ex-anything.
I am reminded while reading the comments here that in 2 Corinthians 5:17-19 it is mentioned:
“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.”
It is easy to conclude for the ex-gay community that the “new creation” is when they abandon the gay lifestyle or gay desires to live a heterosexual life. But when one is a new creation everything is new. This means if a person was gay it would totally exclude any further desires to be one with the same sex. It is impossible to gauge the impact of the “new creation” in Christ. But if one still harbours the need to be with one of the same sex, that means that could never be changed because it is part of the core creation by God Himself that does not need changes.
Which IMHO, is probably why it is written by His Spirit that Christ is in the ministry of reconciliation. As it is written that God reconciles the world to Christ, and not counting men’s sins againt them. Perhaps there is nothing to calculate when homosexuality is concerned, being part of God’s created attraction. Therefore, in whatever circumstances or excuses, there is no real need to EX homosexual feelings.
Ken R’s point can bring a certain clarification to the identity.
A person with ssa, but who is celibate is by definition then: ex sexually active.
An ex gay person who is married to a straight (or opposite sex spouse) is by definition AFFECTING heterosexuality, but the most profound documentation would take peeping through bedroom keyholes.
Pam is testiment that AFFECTATION is possible, but change is something else again.
Pam was kind and generous enough to have us be privy to the keyhole, but most ex gays don’t do that.
However publicly they make CLAIMS, proof is and has to be measured in a more invasive way.
On the opposite side of that, ex gays and anti gay ever straights speak of gay sex lives as if they are ALWAYS privy to gay bedroom keyholes.
And even if the gay person hasn’t had sex yet…a child or teen, they want to get ahold of that young person first before said identity or experience has actually been matured and fully realized.
However, first and foremost…and what’s most important in one’s full development as a human being, is to KNOW YOURSELF….and for others to know you fully to help and support you as you mature and find yourway through life.
Ministries and therapies that advance the heterosexual agenda, doesn’t recognize this self knowlege in the gay person.
They encourage the repression of it, and hedge this repression with the support of the public with misinformation and stereotype.
The gay person won’t know themselves, and the public won’t know the gay person either…and won’t want to.
The freedom of self knowlege, the delight in being able to respond to who and what you really are has to be THE highest epiphany and compliment to God there is in life.
And to have that validated, truly out of the love of people WHO REALLY KNOW YOU….is also a part of the fully realized human being.
We do this over and over again, as we age…change roles as parents or gain professional accolades and experience.
But ultimately….self knowlege CANNOT be dictated.
And Exodus works against this very thing that is in each and every person’s DNA.
And ultimately inferior status IS forced on gay people. The status of children and the low expectations of being worthless to everything else, or all else of merit not being acknowleged until the advancement of heterosexuality is evident in the gay person.
I was just reading something linked to Andrew Sullivan’s site on the ‘dangers of hope’.
I highly recommend it.
In the statement is the quality that a developing gay person would have that they know and will reach what their hope allows.
This too, comes from within and the terms are what Exodus claims….but a heart that knows itself well, would know that Exodus is false.
Exodus tries to make gay people mentally rearrange their self determination DNA.
Historically gay people aren’t the only group church controlled laws and societies have tried to do that to.
Gay folks are simply an easier target (and a minority, compared to women and people of color in the world) because of a more ignorant public in which to plant certain seeds of doubt.
These churches DARE not allow someone gay to be so self realized and hope for it so well.
I am very tired of the intellectual disconnect and the lack of courage with regard to knowing gay people full well, and enabling gay folks to know themselves full well.
Some churches just want to snatch that power from gay individuals, and take it for themselves.
Because as I always say….identity IS powerful.
And saying to anyone that their’s isn’t worthy of existing, is also a powerful insult, advice not solicited and a contempt for the work of God in that gay individual.
I don’t know if Peter Ould is still following this wide-ranging discussion, but I need to point out that he has never responded to my observation–about 30 comments back–that there are indeed objective (though not infallible) physiologial tests to indicate a person’s sexual attractions. There is also a growing body of evidence that sexual orientation is often linked to other physical traits, from left-handedness to ratio between ring and index finger length to (the latest) the direction of the hair on one’s head. (I’m cribbing these points from an interesting article in this week’s New York magazine.)
At any rate, we do have evidence beyond self-reporting to establish that some people have a homosexual orientation. But I don’t believe anyone has ever presented a shred of evidence, beyond self-reporting, to show that a person who pursues “change” experiences a true, objective change in attraction and orientation. The Spitzer study, certainly, relies only on self-reporting.
I don’t argue that self-reporting is completely invalid, Ould, however, claims that self-reporting is also the only standard that exists on the gay side. That claim is demonstrably false.
Let’s remember where this whole thread of comments started–with a Presbyterian Church of Ireland document that states: “It is sufficiently documented that there are those who have moved from the position of having same sex attractions to being heterosexual.”
This statement goes well beyond claiming that those who have same sex attractions can manage to live a celibate life or even to succed in a heterosexual marriage, despite their attractions. That is the most I ever personally observed in the years I spent in ex-gay ministries.
If Peter Ould and other ex-gays want to be believed when they claim to have “moved from the position of having same sex attractions to being heterosexual,” they need to provide some measure of objective evidence beyond their self reporting.
Dear Peter,
Please, oh please, oh please let me suggest you read today’s Los Angeles Times wherein our beloved Alan Chambers actually has the “integrity” to admit even he’s never met an ex-gay. While the article makes it clear that Exodus does not officially endorse that viewpoint [and they never will because it would negate their reason for existing] the article makes it clear that the emerging trend within conservative Christianity is slowly coming to the conclusion that most of us have lived for many years.
Wow – I’ve never seen a thread that was so all over the place in terms of the topics it discussed 😉
BTW, I realize I’m only contributing to the chaos, but the very early church never had a name like “THE WAY” – just so you know. It was mostly made up of small groups in a wide variety of locals trying to work out what the Church actually was – the legacy of which we see in today’s Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches 🙂
I’m also just curious to see if my posts are actually taking 😉 😉
If English version Bible translators would have used capital letters when they translated “Ho Hodos” in the Greek New Testament, you would see “The Way” a whole lot of times. Paul referred to the early church and its members more than once as “The Way.”
Joe,
Paul was only one of many apostles – I honestly don’t want to get stuck on this topic, but “The Way” as you put it was not an official name of the Church – there was no name for the Church at the time, it was simply the Church! Different apostles referred to it differently, but there was no official name. The Church itself wasn’t very cohesive in what it taught or practiced at times, and you can see that throughout the Bible the apostles are trying to standardize what is taught and begin the formulating of doctrine – but this process would take centuries. That’s all I’m saying.
I’ll agree though – one way to understand the Church would be through Paul’s use of the words “The Way”
J