Late last week, Democratic hopeful Barack Obama was under fire for inviting ex-gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin to perform on this weekend’s South Carolina tour. Now McClurkin himself is facing accusations that he is still practicing the homosexuality he condemns.
In an attempt to woo black evangelical voters, Obama announced last week that McClurkin would be among several gospel artists joining him on the tour, which starts in Charleston this weekend. McClurkin’s inclusion drew immediate criticism, with dissenters angry about the singer’s history of anti-gay remarks. He denies being on a “crusade” against homosexuality, and maintains he only offers help to “those who come to me and ask for change.” However, he hasn’t always been so temperate, as his comments about the “homosexual agenda” from 2003 demonstrate:
The gloves are off … And if there’s going to be a war, there’s going to be a war. But it will be a war with a purpose. … I’m not in the mood to play with those who are trying to kill our children.
Obama has resisted removing the singer from the campaign, but now says he will balance the program by inviting local gay minister Reverend Andy Sidden to deliver an invocation.
But the furore is far from over. Now allegations are rife that McClurkin is still involved in the gay “lifestyle” he has virulently rallied against. In an interview with New York journalist Clay Cane, an unidentified man claimed to have been Donnie McClurkin’s lover during the peak of his vocal opposition to gays. It was during this era that the singer wrote that the “abnormal use of my sexuality continued until I came to realize that I was broken and that homosexuality was not God’s intention,” and claimed, “I’ve … experienced God’s power to change my lifestyle. I am delivered and I know God can deliver others, too.
Nevertheless, McClurkin’s accuser, named only as “Rob,” yesterday disclosed extraordinary details about the alleged sexual encounters, which he says took place mostly in hotels, between 2001 and 2004.
Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out has already publicly invited McClurkin to put things right, saying:
If the allegations are true, McClurkin should cancel his appearance at the Obama rally and learn to be true to himself. … We offer a helping hand to assist him in the coming out process. Truth Wins Out understands that the notion of ‘ex-gay’ is a myth and McClurkin will be conflicted until he lives honestly and openly.
Alan Chambers of Exodus International responded here to calls for Barack Obama to remove McClurkin from his tour, saying that “No individual should be excluded from participating in a political process that belongs to all Americans.” Exodus has yet to comment on the most recent allegations about McClurkin’s conduct.
I’ve been following this story. It’s probably helpful to remember that in some segments of the conservative Christian world, there is no homosexual orientation. Everyone is heterosexual. But, sometimes they get tempted to do “evil” things that involve same sex attraction and behavior. It’s why Larry Craig could stand there and say, “I’m not gay.”
I don’t know if McClurkin holds this position or not. Perhaps he recognizes that people can be gay, but that, for him, it’s a wrong choice. Either way, at this point, until the accuser (or any other of Donnie’s hook-ups) is willing to come out of anonymity, this story is gonna stay confined to the blogosphere.
I left that world a long time ago, so I don’t know him personally.
Nobody can go from being gay to straight. One could be bisexual like both and choose but if you are completely gay or completely straight than nothing can change you. It’s not a jesus thing it’s just how some people are born. Who would choose to be hated and loathed by family and friends? I was lucky enough to choose between two loving mothers and a bad catholic mother and her drunk husband. I do happen to be gay as well. that influenced my choice by a landslide although i wasn’t truly out yet. I just started to realize those feelings and knew hate was wrong any way you cook it it never tastes as good as love.
The Exodus statement on McClurkin, as usual, presents only half-truths. The outcry against McClurkin’s presence at Obama campaign events did not arise because he’s personally ex-gay, but because in public statements–as cited above–he has declared himself at “war” with the gay community.
Barak Obama’s campaign has actively solicited the support of gay Democrats. Well, they can’t have it both ways. If they want political support from gay people, they can’t surround Obama with figures who proclaim that they’re at war with gay people.
How hard is that for anyone to understand?
Like Obama’s campaign staff, Alan Chambers and Randy Thomas keep trying to have it both ways. To those who are opely gay they say, “We’re not criticizing your choices, we’re just trying to follow our own. What’s wrong with that?” Then they turn around to their conservative Christian friends and actively work to maintain legal and social discrimination against us.
As long as Exodus acts as a political advocacy group against legal rights for gay people, don’t go crying about how intolerant gay people are toward you.
Nick,
Nobody here is crying, but the truth is that it doesn’t matter whether or not we involve ourselves in policy issues or not, there is a long history of intolerance against this ministry just for saying there is an option.
The 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s all brought protests, conference interruptions and infiltrations, an office break in, etc. and there was no hint of policy activism in those days.
How does that make what you do against us right?
Sounds like more crying to me!
‘Just for saying there’s an option.’
Alan, because there ARE deeply influential policy and quality of life issues contingent on whether or not a person is gay, there is definitely NOT, nor have there EVER been options.
It’s either be heterosexual or NOTHING…or at least not exist.
You call that an option?
The REAL challenge is to be openly and honestly gay, and have it not cost all that is dear and valuable to one’s life. Even life itself.
This is the real fight, NOT affecting being heterosexual.
That’s the easy road, not the HIGH one.
The heterosexuality training begins from birth. And it gets hedged with all manner of other coercive, not PERSUASIVE, methods and intimidation.
When I hear the Exodus buzzwords ‘struggling with homosexuality’, it sounds like the struggle is with something unnatural or incorrectly planted in the psyche.
I’m an observer, and the struggle is actually with heterosexual presumption and attack.
I know what it is like to struggle with self esteem, prejudice and outsiders who can’t or won’t appreciate what you are and would just a soon see you disappear.
What I’m seeing is that you finally decided it was better to disappear into the heterosexual void, rather than stuggle any more.
Well, for some of us, continuing to educate, integrate and compassionately speak for OURSELVES creates trust and expands knowlege.
People will be more compassionate towards those who they REALLY know.
And so far, you might agree, too many people are horrendously ignorant about homosexuality, homosexuals and the transgendered. Dangerously ignorant.
And Exodus exacerbates that ignorance…and fear.
And puts a wall up between honesty and intimacy.
‘Just for saying there’s an option’. It’s NEVER ‘just saying’ Alan.
There is a great deal of editorializing on gay lives. Opinons are forwarded as facts, and ignorant people can’t glean the difference.
The video proves the political agenda of Exodus. And what does ‘just saying there is another option’ have to do with wanting those who don’t take Exodus’s option, got to do with whether or not an indvidual is fit for their job?
Exodus’s reps in this video aren’t just saying there is another option.
They are saying that gay people deserve to be fired or not hired if there is a religious objection to their presence.
But that is where religious bigotry and selective religious objection on the workplace will be revealed.
For such objections to be consistent, employers will also have to know about the straight people who aren’t married, but are having sex. Married people using birth control, or those who had an affair or are divorced won’t be hired or can be fired too.
We all know this doesn’t happen, and therefore we also know that this is STRICTLY about discrimination against the LGBT. Period.
Steve,
My comment was related to the fact that it doesn’t matter what we do, there will always be some level of intolerance from some within the gay community.
As to your question….I don’t believe that opposing legislation–even legislation that impacts gay men and women–is wrong. It is easy for me to say, hard for you and others to understand, that I don’t oppose you, just some of the rights you seek. This particular debate is never ending and I absolutely understand why it is offensive and hurtful to you. My explanations won’t be sufficient for you or others, I know and I am sorry.
As Christians you and I differ on theology, but I think you know me well enough and the Bible well enough to know why I believe what I believe and how that motivates me.
You asking–essentially–why I want to hurt you is easily the most difficult part of my Christian walk and the reason why taking any part in policy activism has sent me to my knees these last 6 months. I know what I believe. I know why I believe it. I am resolute in my beliefs. I continue to pray about how to be engaged in this battle in a way that represents an equal balance of grace and truth.
Alan:
You just don’t get it. Your ministry should be critcized. You are basically saying our love is the result of disfunction or abuse. You say our love is ugly and sinful. You get on TV and flat out lie by saying gay life is lonely – especailly as we get old and bald. Your Pure Passion TV show calls us “sexually broken” and “perverse.” You don’t think gay people do or should exist. You lie about statistics and file false ethics complaints against therapists.
I’m not sure why you expect a warm reception with such an intolerant and decietful message.
Alan, please comment on the allegations on Clay Cane. If they are true, we have the next John Paulk – the result of what happens when gay people supress who they truly are. Its flat out not healthy.
Alan, this is not about you personally – but your ministry is ineffective and hurts a large number of people. You should expect opposition and not whine when you get it.
I agree hypocrisy should be pointed out, but this whole controversy has gotten out of hand. McClurkin is not a spokesperson for the Obama campaign. The story has been largely driven in the mainstream media by both HRC (Hillary Rodham Clinton and Human Rights Campaign). Obama invited a gospel singer to come and perform for some rallies around South Carolina. Gay rights was not something that was going to be discussed. Instead of bringing people together, the media has managed to take an issue that will likely drive more people apart. I am disappointed about the handling of this whole thing on behalf of the media. I think Obama has done the best he can because unequivocally has said he does not agree with what McClurkin says regarding the GLBT community. I think removing McClurkin from the tour would have been a show of intolerance on the left-wing as well. McClurkin never advocated violence against he anyone. He advocates a political and religious philosophy about gay rights that I happen to disagree with adamantly. I don’t think that disqualifies him from being able to perform Gospel music.
Alan Chambers:
You don’t oppose ME, just my desire to be considered something more than a second-class citizen.
You don’t oppose ME, you oppose my desire to have the SAME CIVIL RIGHTS that heterosexuals do and to be treated with EQUAL DIGNITY as heterosexuals.
You don’t oppose ME, you just oppose the right to legally secure my loving relationship with another human. HUMAN, Alan.
How is opposing giving me rights as a human being to exist lovingly and legally different from opposing ME? You oppose my love – the love that becomes part of me – and then you are opposing a part of me. You can’t oppose part of me and say you’re not opposing me.
How would you feel if you could not visit your wife in the hospital because it was not legal? Or provide pension to her? Or share with her any legal benefits that you have? Or simply, according to the government, NOT BE CONSIDERED TRUE FAMILY?
You just don’t get it and you never will. you will never ever EVER get how much you hurt us by acting to deny us rights.
Is that what Jesus would have done? Work to DENY something to someone? Or, according to your gospels, would he have GIVEN everything he could to someone – especially those who were outcasts of society – including his life? I don’t get how, as a self-professing full blown ‘Christ-guides-my-life’ CHRISTIAN you can call what you are doing to be called anything even CLOSE to Christ-like.
At the very least, why can’t you just LEAVE US ALONE??
You know, we as Jews profess to live by Leviticus 19:18. You should try doing the same – I mean, it IS in your bible, too.
To answer Alan-
I was part of a Homosexuals Anonymous group in Ann Arbor Michigan in 1990-1991. I remember how we would bemoan the hostility that greeted our attempts to distribute flyers or host events on the University of Michigan campus.
“Why do those gay activists hate us so much?” we would ask ourselves. “We’re just trying to help those who are unhappy about being gay. We’re not doing anything against those who want to be gay.”
Looking back now, I can answer those questions. No, at that time we were not involved in any political action against gay people. But we did sit in our meeting week after week and preach the same stereotypes of gay people being miserable, diseased, sex-obsessed, lonely, mentally illl, you name it, that Exodus repeats today. Because the only way we could motivate ourselves to continue our own denial and self-hatred was to believe that life would be much, much worse if we faced the truth and came out.
So yes, gay activists had justification for feeling that our group was spreading prejudice and bias against gays, even when we weren’t active politically. Prejucide and bias depend on stereotypes, and reinforcing harmful stereotypes was what our group was all about. The movement of Exodus and other groups into active political involvement against gay people simply confirms what those hostile activists could see all along.
Alan Chambers, Randy Thomas and Exodus promote discrimination against gays and lesbians. They currently support protecting the right of employers to fire workers who are gay. They also currently support treating hate crimes committed against gays and lesbians more leniently than the same crimes committed on the basis of race or religion. Alan Chambers has previously supported consenual sodomy laws essentially declaring all gay people criminals and sex offenders. And Alan Chambers can’t understand why gay and lesbian Americans are so hostile to him, his message and to Exodus.
Alan this isn’t a game. There are real people involved. You are working to restict their rights to fully participate in our society. Don’t expect people to be nice to you when you promote such a hateful agenda.
It’s time to realize that (Mr) Obama is just another politician (Senator). I’m very disappointed. I thought he could really be a change. I supported him financially and publicly. (Does anyone else see his bumper stickers?) I’m over him now.
I hope something can happen to benefit Senator Biden. A Hillary/Biden/Kucinech meeting of the minds would seem to be some kind of step forward now. Yes, I am gay, but this situation with the faith based rally to get more black votes is just as bad as Bush’s faith based rallying calls. Everyone, just please think and vote and hope for peace and helping all of us. Sadly, Mr. Obama is not part of that to me anymore.
The story is very problematic. Without proof, I don’t buy it at all.
It’s intolerant not to want vocal bigots associated with major campaigns?
Alan, the problem I mainly have with conservative Christianity is the belief that the Bible is all of God. Nothing else outside of the Bible is to be held as “truth” and anything revealed in science that is not supported by the Bible is a lie.
Did not Jesus say that he would send us a guide (Holy Spirit)? ( Acts 1 and Acts 2 )
Perhaps part of that struggle you may have is that the Holy Spirit maybe trying to reveal to you something different? That perhaps we are not the “evil” that many in your camp portray us to be. That perhaps the continuation of the “us” vs. “them” mentality and a “war” or “battle” you so claim against us is really nothing more than a fantasy? Jesus never called us to do battle or wage war on one another. He called us to love one another and in loving one another others may know that we are of God. Salvation comes through knowing and living a life according to his word. And the “Word” ( John 1 ) I am refering to is Christ himself portrayed in the Gospels.
Alan, I believe that God reveals much we do not know by all the sciences. This is what I call Mysteries. It is a mystery until God reveals it to man. All cures of diseases, vaccines, medications, etc… have all been guided by the Hand of God. Sure man is an active force in trying to find how old the Earth is or trying to find ways to cure the big ills such as cancer or Aids. But it is God that reveals these cures to man. Man can pat himself on the back when they find the end result but it is God that guided man to that end result.
As for Donnie, if the interview with Clay is true then Donnie is a hypocrite and needs to explain himself to both the gay community and the Christian community which he both deceived.
Alan,
I know this will fall on deaf ears. But I’ll say it anyway.
Jesus did not talk about abstract love. He demonstrated love in the way that he treated people. His love was physically observable.
Further, Jesus demanded the same from those who wanted to follow him. He went so far as to say that all of the Law and the Prophets hinged on one commandment – that we treat others the way we want to be treated.
The simple truth, Alan, is that your desire to deny rights to gay people – the rights you have and enjoy – is defiant to the commandment of Christ. And there simply is no justification whatsoever in Scripture for denying or seeking to overturn the rights of others under civil law.
Even if you think something is sinful or broken, Christ never directed you to make more difficult the life of the sinner. He didn’t do that for the Roman pagans. He didn’t do that for the Samaritan heretics. He didn’t do that for his political oppressors within Jewish religious communities.
When you seek to make others’ lives more difficult in ways that you would never want for yourself, you go against Jesus Christ.
I believe that the sexual allegations against McClurkin are dubious until the accuser identifies himself and stands publicly by his allegations.
However, I reject the suggestion by Exodus and PFOX that McClurkin somehow deserves the special right to perform just because he’s ex-gay. Yes, a Democratic political campaign should reflect the nation’s diversity. But McClurkin has falsely stated that homosexuals — as a rule, not exception — kill kids and that homosexuals are to blame for pedophilia. He is not just an ex-gay man minding his own business; he has declared war against fellow Christians and fellow Americans.
McClurkin’s unresolved hatreds make him unfit for civil society, much less a high-profile role in a mainstream political campaign.
Simple question, yes-or-no, Alan:
Do you believe that same-sex sodomy should be criminalized?
Alan: thank you for being willing to continue a dialog here, on Ex-Gay Watch.
Exodus International is perhaps the highest point on the ex-gay ‘map’, and therefore may receive the highest number of lightning strikes. I applaud you for staying here, and continuing the dialog, despite the storm you attract and endure. Also, you respond in a mature and honest manner.
I offer that you may wish to consider, and pray over, a balance of scriptures concerning your church organization and its doctrinal versus political life:
(1) It appears that Christ always affirmed the highest path as the highest path – hence His amazing dialog with the Samaritan woman in John 4 among many others. So then, I conclude you are free to affirm (for the gay person) the pursuit of celibacy, heterosexual behavior with possible temptation, heterosexual marriage with possible temptation, and even struggling/denying yourself for life as your understanding of the highest paths. You are also free to affirm that the highest path for a Christ-based organization is to engage in political actions against the rights of their enemies. (I may disagree with these being the ‘highest paths’; but I do agree with your right to dialog and to affirm your understandings.)
(2) It appears that Christ taught to give blessings and rights with impartiality – even to those we categorize as evil or as good. This impartiality was taught by Christ to be the mark of the ‘sons of God’ and the proof of ‘being as perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect’.
“But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? … Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” [Matthew 5:44-48]
Therefore, I do ask you to pray about your organization holding stronger to Christ’s teaching in Matthew 5. It would be much more like Christ to (1) continue to affirm the highest path as the highest path boldly, with dialog and reasoning; and to also (2) ensure that the impartiality of blessings (such as even marital rights) fall equally upon the ‘evil and the good’ as well as upon the ‘righteous and the unrighteous’.
The ‘sun’ must fall upon us both. The ‘rain’ must fall upon us both. If you wish marital rights to fall upon you; then you must be willing to have them fall upon even your enemies. ‘Love your enemies’ is not an abstract concept in this passage, but is terribly concrete.
I think that the ‘balance’ above, taught and shown by Christ is difficult. It is, after all, the last of the distinctions between the first covenant, and the new covenant, as taught by our Lord in the ‘Sermon on the Mount’. ‘Impartiality of blessings’ is, in my opinion, a mark of a very mature Christian that is pressing on to make his/her faith ‘perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect’. Please do pray about this scripture – it is key. Sincerely; Caryn
I couldn’t have said it better, Caryn. Great job. I hope Alan takes note of what you wrote.
Gender attraction is fluid. Certainly one can move from same sex attractions to opposite sex attractions over time. Proven fact. It seems that some gays are the only ones who want to deny this type of change that some seek. What of tolerance? Why are some of you so afraid of Exodus International. They do tremendous work. Me thinks you doth protest too much.
Sadly, all of your responses to Alan are lost on him. No matter how articulate you make an argument, Alan will ALWAYS see himself as someone who (unlike you) found the truth.
Paul, assuming ALL gender attraction is fluid is problematic. Maybe in some individuals this is possible, but I would suspect this to be difficult or impossible in maybe even a majority of people. There have been studies that have suggested females have more fluidity than males, who are rather stationary in sexuality by a certain period in their lives. If your statements were true, we would see more movement from straight to gay, but that rarely happens except for some females.
As for me, I could not care less about Exodus except for their moves to hurt gay people in the political arena, which Alan said pretty clearly–that he opposes certain rights for us (which he clearly enjoys). I have no fluid sexuality–never have. I knew early in life (by age 7) that I was attracted to males only. People around me knew even earlier since my grandma and kindergarten teacher both thought I was gay and told my parents. I had to go through activities to degayify me. They did not work. I never knew a gay person; I was never molested; I knew nothing about sex; and I was pretty innocent–however, I imagined sex acts innately in my mind with males as early as 8 years old. I have never had a sexual attraction to a woman (though I have had straight sex to prove I was straight). I have never had a fantasy or dream about a woman. I do think women are beautiful, and the nudity doesn’t bother, but it does nothing for me (and trust me here–I have seen more nude women than almost any straight guy would ever know). I never questioned where babies came from and did not know until my younger sister told me when I was 12. I think that my sexuality is pretty well defined. My spouse is even more gay than me. So, can sexuality change? Maybe in some people, but the vast majority would say no. Perhaps you are one of the “special” ones who has an ability to change something, but who even says I should change what is natural to me?
Paul wrote:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that people can change their sexual orientation. So, Paul, it’s more like unsubstantiated claim, rather than proven fact.
I am not going to be around much the next 5 days but will respond when I return.
Caryn, I could not let any time pass, though, on your one comment about ‘enemies’. Trust me, I do not see the gay communit as my enemies.
People really should be more wary of making blanket statements like this. As generalisations they are simply false.
Some people’s gender attraction is fluid. Some people can move from same sex attractions to opposite sex attractions over time. This seems, so far as the evidence goes, to apply to some women and to a very few men.
Interestingly enough, the few really convincing cases of men whose orientation changed from homosexual to heterosexual (e.g. the jazz musician George Melly) are of men who didn’t undergo “reparative therapy” or follow an ex-gay programme, or make an effort to change their sexual orientation; it just changed.
To the vast majority of people this never happens, no matter how much they might wish that it would, and no matter how many reparative therapies and ex-gay programmes they pursue – just as the vast majority of people never win the National Lottery jackpot, even if they buy a ticket.
Re discrimination against gays in employment:
It is illegal to photocopy printed music, and on some of the music that my church choir sings there is a note from the publishers reminding us that doing this is depriving others of their living, “which for Christians is a serious matter.” Ought they to add, “unless, of course, those whom you are depriving of their living are homosexual, in which case it’s perfectly all right”?
I would expect exactly such an answer from someone who runs an organization about putting fathers at their “natural” place at the head of the family, and one who endorses Focus on the Family, at that. Think helping fathers find their “natural” place will prevent more kids from “choosing” homosexuality? Think again.
If we were “afraid,” we wouldn’t even be protesting as much as we do. We at XGW are living out our lives harmlessly and peacefully. Exodus is the one on the offensive.
And for someone who claims to believe gender attraction is so fluid, you’re unflinchingly rigid about gender roles in the “traditional” family. I suggest moving on from the 1950’s.
I don’t believe in UFOS. Logically and scientifically, I don’t think it is a possible phenomenon, so when I have someone like a student or online person tell me that UFOS are real and abductions happen, I will confront them. I will not convince them because they will generally believe full well that the phenomenon is true based on their experience. One person told me the other day he saw two UFOs at different times leaving his trailer park. I knew a guy who said that he was abducted on a weekly basis. They try to do good by making people aware of UFOs, but still the logic and evidence (which is scant to nonexistent) don’t match. So I confront them with contradictory information. I am sure they think I am afraid of the information, but I am not at all. In fact, I could not care if they actually believe the information–in fact, they will tell me that it is a “proven fact” that UFOs exist when it is not. Could they exist? Sure, but it is highly doubtful, and why should I spend my time trying to become a UFO believer–it would be a waste.
Many UFO believers later realize, when confronted with logic, that UFOs are not coming and that there is no proof of UFOs. However, some will continue to believe irregardless against all evidence and changing public opinion. Maybe it is easier to believe in fantasy and science fiction. I prefer reality.
Alan: I fully understand that you will be unavailable the next 5 days or so. May our Lord Jesus bless you, wherever your journeys take you.
Thank you for reminding us all of the semantic some people have to the term “enemies”, which was used by Jesus in Matthew chapter 5, last stanza (quoted in the earlier email). I am glad that we are not your “enemy” in the literal sense.
For Allan, for Randy, for the sake of those that are following this discussion on the command of Jesus to His followers (concerning the impartiality of God’s rain and sun; and therefore also concerning the commanded impartiality of Christian blessings upon ‘enemies’), I offer the following thoughts (hang with me… this almost sounds like a thesis that only Church insiders would care about….):
(1) Jesus essentially states that the principle of impartiality of blessings/rights is greater than the principle of categorizing what is evil vs. what is good. The supra-principle is ‘Impartiality of blessings must dominate categorization.’ Neither sub-principle (impartiality or categorization) is wrong; but Jesus is establishing a priority order of which principle dominates the other.
(2) This scriptural supra-principle has helped many Christians to decouple their private views from their political view. Such a decoupling is often essential for a Christian’s conscience, so that a Christian believer does not feel that by defending ‘marriage rights for all’ that he/she is also automatically defending ‘homosexuality is good’. Such Christians may state “While we believe homosexuality is categorized as ‘evil’, we also believe that we are commanded by Jesus to object to any attempt to reduce the rights of same-sex couples and support every attempt to grant same-sex couples the same rights that we heterosexual couples enjoy.”
(3) Jesus was most likely using “continuum logic” with rhetorical endings in the last stanza of Matthew 5. This form of logic can be written as follows:
a. Given the command to provide X to object 1;
b. Given that object 2 is more worthy than object 1;
c. How much more should you supply X to object 2?
[Line c can also be written as a non-rhetorical conclusion: “Then X must be supplied to object 2.”]
So, if we write “friends” on the left side of a sheet of paper, and write “enemies” on the right side of a sheet, and draw a line between them, we have diagramed a “continuum”. This continuum, in theory, covers all types of friend-to-enemy relationships, such as: friends, co-workers, distant acquaintances, neutrals, casual opponents, vocal opponents, violent opponents, and sworn enemies.
Thus, given the command of Jesus to provide perfect impartiality of blessings/rights to “enemies”;
Given that all other relationships are more worthy than “enemies”;
How much more should impartiality of blessings be supplied to the non-enemies on the continuum? Answer: Much more.
[In the Bible, to find examples of continuum logic, it is easiest to search on “how much more” in the King James Version or New Int’ Version. Here are a few: Matthew 7:11, Matthew 10:25, Luke 12:24, Luke 12:28, and Romans 11:24.]
(4) Why is Caryn making all this fuss over one scriptural passage (Matthew 5, last stanza)? Answer: (a) because the supra-principle of “Impartiality dominates categorization” is a difficult concept for Christians to grasp even though it is a command of Jesus; (b) because this scriptural passage allows private views of ‘sin’ (held by the person, church, or organization) to be decoupled from their political views/actions with a clear conscience; (c) because Jesus is explicitly telling His followers how to implement the Law and The Prophets (the books of the first covenant, also called the Old Testament) which are often used to categorize ‘evil versus good’; and (d) because Jesus will conclude the “Sermon on the Mount” with , “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.” [Matthew 7:24]
And (e), because I am praying for Allen and Randy that they will pray and re-think the house they are building, and return as wiser builders and build all their house on the rock — not part of their house, but all. Most sincerely; Caryn
I for one think that the story about McClurkin is true. It sounds like the behaviour of a conflicted homosexual gospel singer. As for Obama, I really don’t have an opinion (being from Canada).
As a recovering Evangelical and a happy gay man, the thing that really bothers me about “queer apologetics” is when it argues “well, Jesus didn’t say anything about…”. Jesus didn’t say anything that we know of, much less what it attributed to him in the Gospel. They are products of the late first and early second century Christian communities. They were written long after Jesus was executed. I don’t want to use the words “whole fabrications”, but it would fit; they were knitted together from diverse sources, most of which were not historical in the least. Come on, walking on water, “raising” the dead, curing the lepers – what time period do you live in? If you believe all that stuff, certainly not in the present. From the discussions found on Ex-Gay Watch and other websites, I wonder if anyone here has actually attended an honest-to-goodness Seminary, where *real* Biblical scholars (i.e., R.Bultmann, J.D.Crossan, B.Mack, J.T.Robinson, M.Borg, etc…), are read. What ever happened to the educated lay man? The Gospels are not “historical” nor are they “biographies” – stop treating them as if they were. By agreeing about the importance of the Bible with people like Alan, you concede the most effective weapon in any sane homosexual’s arsenal – the Bible does not “speak” to the present day, so it can be safely discarded as a product of pre-Modern fantasy. That includes its view on the origin of the Universe, its agreement with slavery, its treatment of women, AND its view on homoeroticism. End of story. This Pietist (read “Evangelical”) heresy must be treated the same way with people who believe the earth is flat – education.
Interesting to note–Michael Glatze did an interview with Narth (JN specifically), and the interview is long and rather bizarre. It seems focused on labels used. Also, 100% straight Glatze says he still has some same-sex attraction. Check it out:https://narth.com/docs/glatze.pdf
Peter B, I agree with your second paragraph completely. Views, such as yours, need to be represented here more frequently, in my opinion. Thank you.
What does the Glatze interview have to do with McClurkin?
David, we are discussing labels (and I think that some of Alan’s comments are similiar to what is happening in that interview). The interview was a lot about the discussion here. Since the interview has not been mentioned elsewhere on the website, this seemed like the best place. If you think it is inappropriate for this discussion, that is fine (and it can be removed), but the discussion since Alan commented has not really dealt fully with McClurkin, and my note was an extension of the dialogue happening.
Heavens I wouldn’t remove it, lol. I was just asking if there was a connection about which I wasn’t familiar. That interview, btw, was from July — NARTH posted it recently without a date. One can only speculate as to why.
Going back to McClurkin… I wonder if McClurkin will go to the same rehab camp as Haggard did? He doesn’t seem to have responded yet – please correct me if I am wrong.
I’m sure everyone here is aware of the huge controversy over gay gospel singers that “Rob” touches on in the interview:
>https://blackvoices.aol.com/black_lifestyle/soul_spirit_headlines_features/canvas/feature_article/_a/god-gays-and-the-black-church-keeping/20050825151309990001 (for a little context)
It would appear that African-American churches like their choir members to be on the DL. People can practice their sodomy in the closet, and that is apparently okay. The moment that they identify as “gay” – then there is an issue. I love the look-the-other-way approach; it isn’t all that bad of a strategy, especially given the social pressures facing many African-American homosexuals. I think that it is funny that (apparently) everyone within the Gospel music genre know about each other; I guess all those award shows really function as hook up joints!!
As for my earlier comments – I have been wanting to say that for soooooo long. (I didn’t mean to be rude or hurtful, just honest.)
Btw, I read the Glatze interview. It seemed more like a JN monologue, the way that Glatze kept emphatically saying “Exactly” after everything the good doctor said. I was a little disturbed by the way that JN seemed to lead the discussion. It seemed as if Glatze was trying to beat JN to the approved/scripted answer. Very weird; almost robotic, or programed…
So, McClurken has now spoken from the stage of this gospel tour about how he was “delivered from homosexuality” and that “homosexuality is a choice.”
So, it’s time for his little sex buddy to come out of the closet and reveal his name. Or else his story means nothing and this supposed “exgay” will be able to go back into his closet and pretend to not be gay. After all, CD sales are at stake!
A tiny bit of a segue…
McClurkin grew up listening to Andrea Crouch who was, in the 70’s, the embodyment of gospel music (his Live at Carnegie Hall album was amazing). Those youngens of you who were raised in evangelical churches grew up singing Crouch’s music.
But I heard from a previous pastor that Crouch had at some point in the 80’s or 90’s come out. Per that story, he met with immediate resistance so he promptly trotted back into the closet and nailed the door closed. I don’t know whether that would make him ex-gay or just closeted.
Has anyone else heard this or know anything about it?
Yup, I grew up on Andre Crouch. Loved his music – it was so much better than the Gaithers. 😉 In the late 70s, he wrote an autobiography titled “Through It All.” The oddest part of the book was a description of a female ‘demon’ that tried to seduce him one night in his bed. He described the temptation as nearly irresistable. Since Andre was ever-single, I always wondered if the story wasn’t put in their to deflect suspicions of being gay. I had never heard about his coming out, Timothy, but would also be interested if anyone has any more info. I do know he got in alot of trouble for an incident of supposed drug use in the early 80s. Has he produced any new music at all since then?
Simpler question Mr. Chambers,
Are you afraid of hell?
When all is said and done it is only the grace and love of God; as we permitt and avail ourselves of Him that moves us beyond our own views, prejudices and pre-dispositions in any and everything.
This spiritual power at work in and by Agape/love is God himself expressing His essential being, God is love. We all can and do either resist or embrace this grace which is extended to us over the course of our earthly sojourn.
To embrace it is to grow in grace, grow in the Word of His grace. All true personhood and being is increased by dying daily to self-seeking and self serving. Such a dying for the sake of living again, being born again and growing in the life that is by the Spirit of life will always be opposed and resisted by those who have for whatever reason have not as yet laid hold themselve of and embraced this grace (even if they claim otherwise ‘ if the light within is darkness , then how great is the extent of that darkness).
Exodus wrestles not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers, spiritual wickedness in the spirit realm for the souls of men and women held captive by these evil forces of spiritual darkness. It is only to be expected that they will face opposition. Its really about spiritual warfare when all is said and done. This is the reality of spiritual warfare for the spiritual lives of men and women.
Everyone born of the Spirit of God is called to it for themselves and for all who the Lord is calling unto Himself. God is not elitist, but all knowing and demonstrates this in testifying that not all will embrace His grace and tragically for them this always has consequences for them.
Our battles are in the end with ourselve ultimately and not with God. we are either embracing our own soul’s entrance into and growth in grace or fighting against that saving grace. Whilst tragic, it is always ultimately our choices and the consequences that issue from them that shape upon which side of the conflict we fall.
My prayer and intercession therefore is for everyone who reads my contribution to this discussion to hear his words and find in Him the unlimited capacity for their spirit, souls and bodies to be alive unto God by the Spirit of God. May these words become for you an expression of the grace of God availed of and embraced.
I find in the contributions of Carlyn Lemur to this blog a most subtle gnosticism. The God who sends sunshine and rainfall upon the good and the evil also tells the good and the evil equally that their own responses to His gracious provision of all good things for them to enjoy will yield to each of them consequences that issue from and are a reflection of the choices they make.
Exodus is an organization which is and was created as a source of deliverance for persons making a choice to walk away from a lifestyle that they found ruinous to their own spiritual, psychological and physical well-being.
Those who oppose this whether inside or outside of that lifestyle are free to do so, you are free to and as this blog demonstrates, make full use of the opportunity to dissent with Exodus and the vision it serves. But such dissent will not silence and cannot be permitted to silence the voice of Exodus. Like the organizations that oppose them Exodus work will rise or fall on the merit of their spiritual power being aligned to God’s power or the power of darkness.
The conflict is real, neither imagined nor fantasy. Financial and political power will give some force and strength to the combatants on each side of the debate but the power that determines ultimate outcomes is spiritual.
We all for our own reasons determine on which side of the debate we fall, which organizations we support, the causes we identify with, organize and support, Exodus has a vsion and mandate they give their time and energy to upholding and supporting.
It will and has to mean withstanding an opposite, that opposite is firstly spiritual. And that spirit whereever embraced and given a voice has its advocates.
Consequences, that is what is paramount in this discusson. God’s loving compassion and grace calls us everyday to choose the path of life and avoid death and ruin spiritually, psychologically and physically.
The suggest that Christianity is about observing and keeping a set of ‘supra-principals’ is to reduce God and life in Him to what we deduce and grasp firstly by our own psychological academic attainments. Said another way, when we grasp the supra-principals, we can then put them into practice and be truly ‘christian’. Whilst there is some element of truth in this, it is only that, some element.
For christian living/christlikeness our minds need the wisdom from above to become incarnate in our own minds. Apart from this one can and remains conflicted and confused. Divine intervention is the key. Sincere seekers and propagators of divine life must recognize the decietfulness of the enemy.
The forces behind appeals to Exodus to stand by and do nothing whilst EDNA seeks to advance their own goals and objectives are simply panicking because they could not forsee such organized and capable resistance being mounted by ‘archaic and irrelevant’ christian thinking.
That is and will always be the failig of pressure groups and movements. When right thinking people are stirred in the midst of their adversaries assaults on decency to raise the banner for truth, the adversaries always want to talk truce.
Then only do they make appeals for ceasefires, laying down of spiritual your arms, removal of spiritual and legislative defenses and protections of time tested and proven values that preserve law and order.
In Alan Chambers, I see the Word of life, grace very much alive and at work. May he and Exodu recieve all the issues of God’s grace in strengthening thier defence of the family and family values.
wordhouse – what planet are you from?! Your post didn’t make any sense to me, especially on the internet (i.e., a luxury of Modernity and science. Read ‘The Demon Haunted World’ by Sagan!!). This post will be concerned with several points in wordhouse’s post that I personally found disturbing.
I heard this entire line about spiritual battles growing up. Unfortunately, if you and Exodus *really* believed that the “battle” was a spiritual one, you would not engage so vociferously in the political realm. You would trust that god’s will would be done in every situation, and wouldn’t have to do anything more than just ‘pray it into existence’. The argument that an evil power could possibly oppose or thwart the will of your omni-able god results in Manicheanism, which is a dualistic form of gnosticism (a struggle for the soul of the world and mankind between god and the devil is *not* what the bible teaches, plain and simple). ‘Dominion theology’, which you supposedly subscribe to, is actually a major deviation from what Christians have believed throughout the centuries. Given these two points, that would make it technically a heresy. For god to be god, his will would have to be supreme, and unstoppable (this is a form of pre-destination). I would challenge you to think whether political action is actually a sign of unbelief – that god can’t do it by himself and needs Evangelicals to compensate for his weakness. Think about that for a while…
As for Carlyn’s post re:sun and rain. Those verses teach about god’s impartiality. The deity does not withhold sun/rain, which are (supposed) obvious manifestations of his good will towards humans. The deity’s favour towards humans is unmerited. It will not be withheld or withdrawn – how many times has the sun not appeared in the morning?. It is also indiscriminate. Since it falls on both good and evil, there is no way to definitively tell which is which; only god would be able to judge in the end what is exactly evil and good. This sort of negates “earthly” standards for determining those as well. Put into a greater context – about loving your enemies, they are verses that (should) call the Evangelical to radically give up their sense of victimization and offense, and love just as their god loves – indiscriminately, freely, lavishly, and without the exceedingly selfish desire for the other to change their actions or behaviour to conform to some personal standard. I think that the logic works that if evil is such an offense to god, shouldn’t he take the greatest offense (the ideas of “enemies” are paralleled: love your enemies, just like god loves you [sinner=enemy of god]). If he doesn’t take offense or judge, as seen by the continued appearance of the sun and rain, then Evangelicals shouldn’t either. These verses are part of the Sermon on the Mount (or the Antithesis of the Law) in Matthew and Luke, and thought to be part of the synoptic source Q. The “Sermon on the Mount” is Jesus’ “new law”, superseding the Mosaic Law. (that is a whole lot to ponder in just a couple of verses…)
As for Exodus – homosexuality is not anything that people need to be “delivered” from. “Change” is nothing but a cultural and political tool designed to rebuff the LGBT community in our pursuit of equality. The public perception of Exodus is that it helps people change. Their self-admitted goal (at various times, and by Alan) is not to change homos to heteros. Does any one else see the discrepancy. In order for Exodus to be honest, they need to *publicly* state that people cannot “change”, saying that their work is designed to allow conservative religious people to live in congruence with their narrow view of the world. We know that it does not work in the long run – a house divided against itself… There is no “spiritual” component here – just a blatant grab for power and control, pure and simple. The self-serving and manipulative aspects should be apparent to everyone. Exodus lies to hurting and confused people, seducing them with the hope of “change”. Exodus knows that “change” is not possible, but uses the lie that it is for their own political gain. I thought that Jesus was executed for opposing “Empire”. Now FoF and Exodus want to become it. Really sad when an organization conveniently forgets their own founder’s principles.
wordhouse – I hope that my comments have not caused offense, and have been received in the spirit in which they were given: a passionate disagreement.
Why do people use PARTS of the Bible and PARTS of what Christ taught to support their views/lifestyles? Sure enough, there are many true quotes/Scriptures referred to here from the Bible in which Christ teaches the ultimate is to love, but you are leaving out so much more that He said. Mainly, when you stand before Him, and that’s all of us, HE, I repeat, He, will judge each and every person according to the life he/she lived. If you fornicated – He’ll judge you, stole, lied, cheated, murdered, etc. We will all be judged – but what baffles me is at what point do you leave out the parts IN THE BIBLE where it refers to certain acts as an abomination before God? IN THE BIBLE God repeatedly states what is acceptable IN HIS SIGHT as far as relations/relationships between the sexes…a man is NOT to be with a man, nor a woman with a woman. You cannot change the fact that GOD Himself said that by throwing out scriptures/examples of what Christ did. One does NOT eliminate the other. Christ said we are to love one another, (hence, love the SINNER, hate the SIN…..Christ told the woman at the well to leave behind her life of sin) but God also gave standards of living by which we ALL are to live. Many belief systems are in place BECAUSE of what GOD said – and those are the things we as Christians have been mandated by Christ to believe and to follow. You can try to justify your acts/action, debate, whatever, but you CANNOT! ever, change God’s WORD. God made woman for man..how can you change that? Sadly, for many, that truth will only be REALIZED when standing before Him. Yes, there is a need to be “delivered” from homosexuality. Simply put – it is NOT the will of God. The end.
“The God who sends sunshine and rainfall upon the good and the evil also tells the good and the evil equally that their own responses to His gracious provision of all good things for them to enjoy will yield to each of them consequences that issue from and are a reflection of the choices they make.”
The post by wordhouse makes perfectly good sense – but only to those willing to embrace and believe the word of God. The Bible states that it will confound and confuse those who don’t follow Christ. Point proven.
I agree and much of conservative evangelical and fundamentalism does the same thing. Many that have such beliefs have found wiggle room to practice and affirm, wealth, divorce and remarriage, lying, and stealing. Please understand that I am not saying you do these things payton but there are those that call themselves Christians that have done these things. They claim gay people are abominations but practice a whole host of sins themselves and no one says a word until those sins are brought out into the open. I believe God brings those deceptions and lies into the open because he is displeased by those that try to profit by using his name.
I hate to break this to you but that is a copout. I have come across people on the net and in person that say the same thing but in reality its more like: “Hate the sinner, Love the sin”. Some Christians are so obsessed with what they believe to be the so-called “sin” of homosexuality that its the only thing they live for. American’s For *cough* Truth *cough* CWFA, and other groups like them can only write about the evil gays as if that is the only issue that’s causing the whole world to tailspin out of control. And those gays “attached to those afflictions” should be loved so we will stop them from having the same job protections we have. We love them so much we must stop them from visiting their partners in the hospital. We want to show them that God loves them by denying their right to marry the person they love. Does it sound a bit contradictory to you? It should. There is no love there. It’s all “Love the sin, Hate the sinner.
So stop with the Love the sinner and Hate the sin garbage. It’s tired. No one believes the lie anymore.
payton,
does that mean god will judge me for his failure to provide convincing evidence sufficient for me to believe that he in fact exists? that the bible is authoritative? that the christian message, or any religion, is true? If so, I’ll definitely burn. If there was such a thing as hell, or heaven, or judgement, or sin, or salvation…I could go on, but I think that you get the point.
While I represent a small minority in the world and within the LGBT community who do not believe in “spirituality”, I think that payton’s view of scripture does fit with the infantile and highly inaccurate world-view that produced the bible. As I said before, when you agree with people like payton that the bible is “God’s Word”, our community looses every time. I think that people in our modern world need to mature intellectually, and not allow a long dead father figure to threaten us from thousands of years ago. People like payton haven’t realized that when they go to church, they are actually going to a funeral; the only problem is that they are still in the denial stage, expecting him to walk through the door. Move past denial into acceptance! Maybe then Evangelicals won’t try to make everything ‘just as it was before he was…’ They are lost in their powerful emotions and cultural nostalgia. They try to put on a brave face, working so hard to deny the reality that there simply is no room for the christian god (or any god for that matter) in our world – where does god live? In the Oreo-cookie world of the bible, god is up, and sheol/hell is down and the world that we live in is the creamy centre. Land-masses were even in a disc shape! Even at the time when the bible was being written, there were more accurate (but not necessarily correct) views of the world (i.e., the greeks). There simply is no excuse for such an inaccurate view of the world (contra Calvin’s accommodation argument).
I harp on this point because of the way that the hymn of creation by the Priestly author/redactor in the book of Genesis (in the beginning…) creates so many problems down the line. (it should be noted that Genesis has two different creation myths – they shouldn’t be harmonized!) In those verses the Priestly author sets forth a very structured view of the world, broken down in successive days of the week, ending in the sabbath. This ordering goes in line with all of the laws of Leviticus (read Mary Douglas). There are oppositional categories built into the world and are not to be mixed – there is an order to Yahweh’s creation. So, I guess that payton is technically right, in so far as he is able to identify (and agree with?) a fundamentalist view of the world similar to the Taliban (as a theocracy, with the priests at the head of the state – that was Second Temple Judaism, which created the “bible” – read the book of Ezra for an example of what the Taliban want[ed] to do!!). Bravo!
Finally, IF you can’t even agree with the first verses of the bible (for those who believe in evolution, or some form of it), what makes you think that you have to believe in everything that comes after them? Thinking for ourselves is scary, but is part of growing up. Our world has advanced beyond the need for a god and all of his arbitrary laws – it is time for our culture and ethic to follow. In that future there will be no homophobia or any other form of discrimination because everyone will realize that their narrow slice of the world is not the final “word” – we must live together in a plurality (I personally like Cosmopolitan values). In the mean time we have to be long-suffering with those who don’t want to join the journey until they abandon their desire for power and control. It is the fear of losing those two things that drives the fundamentalist.
Wow, that was long winded! I have to run to my seminar now…
Maybe because the Bible contradicts itself so many times that it’s impossible to take all of the Bible to support their views? The Bible was designed for picking and choosing.
Skemono wrote:
FAQ number 8 of my site LeavingFundamentalism.org might be relevant here.
I do not credit the story about McClurkin’s sexual behavior until real evidence is in. The individual has to come out publicly and provide proof.
On the other hand McClurkin took it upon himself to make statements such as gays are coming after children and use the platform Obama gave him, I strongly suspect without Obama’s approval, to preach against gays.
This indicates two things: One he is out for self-promotion. He has gotten some good publicity out of this and can now “build his ministry” in a way that he could not before. And
Two: Religious characters of this type are unreliable allies to people like Obama. They put themselves first.
Who was using who?
Which is worse — a tolerant presidential candidate who exploits antigay prejudice, or one who allows himself to be exploited?
One who actively exploits anti-gay prejudice is worse. But Obama’s judgment must be questioned here. And as a young junior senator it is his judgment that has been questioned by Hillary Clinton all along. I am a registered independent so I can’t vote in a primary in my state but I liked Obama earlier and was hoping he would win. I even sent money. Now, I don’t support him. He is not ready for prime time.
Now, if he were running against Hucklebee or Romney in the general election all bets are off. Let’s be practical.