The sin of Gossip

(My apologies, I have to postpone the discussion of fascism for a bit, ironically)

Last night, I had the interesting experience of being banned from a website that welcomes and encourages Alan Chambers and Dr. Throckmorton to promote and defend their theories about the lives of GLBTQ people.

What was I doing posting to Exodus International's website? Nope, wasn't there. I wasn't on AFA's site, or Focus on the Family's site, or any thing like that. No, I was on a site that presents itself as being supportive of GLBTQ people, obstensibly by revealing the lies and frauds of professional oppressors like Mr. Chambers and Dr. Throckmorton, but concurrently, welcomes them to promote and advance their theories about us.

That seems like building a fox-friendly henhouse, to me.

The cause of the uproar - well, Pam Ferguson posted an essay "What I’ve Learned from Ex-Gay Therapy/Ministry: Part One" and I commented on its contents. Since dialogue between myself and Pam has been abruptly sundered over at XGW - I'm going to exercise a little free speech and analyse her account in depth here.

___________________________________________________

An analysis of "What I've Learned from Ex-Gay Therapy/Ministry: Part One"


Considering how much information, and misinformation floods the internet and society in general every day, it remains necessary to employ a reasonable amount of critical thought and examination to the information presented for us. Words have meanings, after all, and elements of written communication, like context, structure, word choice, communicate significantly to the ultimate message of any written text. And though the formal essay may be dying a largely unremarked upon demise, the core expectations of written communication still appear in mainstream media.

One of those core expectations of a expository work is that the initial paragraph will express the primary theme of the work itself. For example, my starting paragraph directly above, introduced the theme of the importance of analysis. So, what is the theme defining paragraph in Pam Ferguson's "What I've Learned - - -"?

After an introduction that explains the author's intentions - including "to share personal narratives", part one begins thusly:

Part One
If you’re reading this post, you’re on a computer. Your computer is loaded with an operating system. Most of the things that happen on your computer happen because of default settings. Default is the way computers are set up so that every amoeba and their pet parasite are able to browse the Internet.

This paragraph, which occurs where the theme of an essay normally occurs, sets up the metaphor of computer operating systems. Setting aside the inaccurate characterization of computer operating systems, it also introduces the concept of destructive code into a metaphor which is provided to be a basis for looking at intimate human relationships.

The author's next paragraph solidifies the comparison. It opens with the statement "In the world of ex-gay, heterosexuality is the default." When we unpack this, what do we find? Well, 'the world of ex-gay' is the world the author comes from. Though she later tries to distance herself from it, for whatever purpose, on her website she writes:

In fact, I support any individual's self-determination to pursue change in their same sex attractions. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; if it had been up to me, I'd still be married to a "struggler" right now.

Setting aside the inherent selfishness of this statement, this is 'the world of ex-gay' in a nutshell. The author's world view is the world of ex-gay, and any negative opinions about GLBTQ people, are presented in the context of being her personal narrative. And in the author's world, heterosexuality is the default. And that invites the reader to wonder - who are the "amoebas and pet parasites" supposed to be? The author doesn't tell us. But, "the world of ex-gay" is rife with attempts to define GLBTQ in terms of disease:

Cameron's "studies" falsely concluded that gay people were disproportionately responsible for child molestation, for the majority of serial killings, and for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Gay people, according to Cameron's research, were obsessed with consuming human excrement, allowing them to spread deadly diseases simply by shaking hands with unsuspecting strangers or using public restrooms. "Of all the vices," Cameron concluded in a pamphlet called Medical Aspects of Homosexuality, "only homosexuality constitutes a conspiracy against society."

There is a lot of ugliness packed into that opening sentence, and the rest of the paragraph isn't any better. Though the author tries to have it both ways, the heart of her world is ugly and arrogant:

Furthermore, if gayness is a variation and straight is a default, then it can, and very likely should be, changed back to the default setting. This, as I perceive it, is the heart of ex-gay ministry and the aim of ex-gay therapy. This is also where my personal thinking diverges quite a bit from the typical party-line of the ex-gay camp. However, this series of posts is an explanation of what I learned from being involved with ex-gay therapy/ministry. It’s not necessarily a series detailing my personal beliefs.

What really stands out here is a contrast. The author, in what is presented as a personal narrative, very clearly states the position of 'the ex-gay world' over the course of several sentences - but does not delineate for herself a separate position of her own, except to say her belief 'diverges quite a bit' and employ a convenient but empty 'not necessarily'. Now the word diverge connotes being on a common path, and moving from it to some degree. How much the author has moved, she doesn't say here, but on her blog she says
"I support any individual's self-determination to pursue change in their same sex attractions" which is just remarkably similar to "gayness is a variation and straight is a default, then it can, and very likely should be, changed back to the default setting". Frankly, I'm not seeing much divergence there at all. And "not necessarily" is just a way of saying 'maybe I agree, mayby I don't, I'm not saying' - it is an expression of deliberate ambiguity.

What we are left with when every concept is unpacked and examined, is the author wants us to know that in her world "homosexuality should be changed into heterosexuality". What follows is rather confusing. On one hand, according to the author, " the terms used among ex-gay folk are often used innocently" but at the same time, are "loaded and biased toward negative thinking" and used to "describe gays (with a) negative connotation". It would be nice to know how one can innocently use terms one knows are negative, loaded and biased. Maybe it is kinda like the argument "stealing isn't stealing if you really, really want something". The author then goes on to explain, at great length, how negatively the world she comes from views GLBTQ people:

“Gay lifestyle” in ex-gay speak is equal to: infidelity, promiscuous behavior, feminate men, butch women, parades, promiscuous behavior, Internet hook-ups, dance club/electronica music, promiscuous behavior, fashion, artistic expression, promiscuous behavior, etc…I could go on and on. Suffice it to say, gay lifestyle = promiscuous behavior.

Now, there are a couple of possibilities. The author could be repeating these allegations, in preparation for refuting or rejecting them. But that doesn't happen here. She closes part 1 without ever rejecting these pejorative declarations about the lives of millions of people. The author could be repeating these claims in preparation to substantiate them with facts and evidence. But that doesn't happen either. She simply drops the P bomb on our lives.

Personally, I think this gratuitous repetition of degrading assumptions about the lives of GLBTQ people is extraordinarily rude. The act is harsh, even if the words themselves are not. And presented as is, with neither refutation or substantiation, it is just nasty gossip, which the Bible says is sin.

The author then proceeds with the assumption 'gay lifestyle = promiscuous behavior' and explains, "that the “gay lifestyle” has not ONE thing on the “heterosexual lifestyle”. " It is an odd sentence construction, one that appears to mean that yes, gays are promiscuous but so are heterosexuals, but, unpacked, the word for word implication is a bit more judgemental than that - same-sex relationships have nothing that mixed-sex relationship are not better at. Coincidentally, GLBTQ relationships are better at at least one thing, ours are not plagued by cuckoldry:

According to a 2005 U.S. Census Bureau report, there are 27,940,000 fathers nationwide with a child under 18. That means over a million guys out there are
taking care of some other man’s kid.

With all the variety of mixed gender relationships, the divorce rate of just over 50% in the U.S., the incidence of spousal abuse, dead-beat dads, and wives lying to their husbands about who really is the father of their children, according to Pam Ferguson, GLBTQ relationship are still worse.

Now the really sad thing is that Pam states in closing:

I certainly would not want to be judged as a person (heterosexual) based on the activities of most other heterosexuals who are in my particular circumstance. The results would be devastating for me. I thank God every day (because I see the gay analog) that I am viewed as an individual and not in relation to the orientation of heterosexuality when it comes to being a divorced individual in our culture.

But as analysis of her prior paragraphs reveals, she has judged, and condemned, any GLBTQ person based on her world's, the ex-gay world's, assumptions about the activities of homosexuals. What she does not want done to her, she does to us.

Now, the theory that has been offered that in subsequent parts, the author will refute the ugly and vicious gossip she has just repeated. She wrote to me "It’s just Part 1. Geez." But her last paragraph doesn't promise or even hint at any challenge to all this ugly gossip she's spewed up onto our lives, as if we hadn't heard it all so many, many, many times before. Instead

My next article will detail some of the specific and bizarre happenings that took place within my own husband’s attempts to become completely free of same sex attractions.

Presenting the appearance that the ugly assumptions about our lives will simply stand unexamined.

Now, there is a key element here - she hasn't told her story, her experiences, her actions. She has not said how anything has effected her, and in part two, she plans to tell someone else's story - her ex-husband's. With no 'this happen to me' or 'I felt thus and such' - we readers are left to conclude that what she has provided - ugly and nasty gossip - really is her story, despite the very obvious ambiguities of 'not necessarily' and 'diverged'.

Gossiping is rude, indirectly and gratuitously calling millions of people promiscuous, is hardly civil. But the arrogance of this last bit really goes too far:
Keep in mind, everything I say in these narratives is colored with a Christian world view. If you are not a Christian, you will likely want to take issue with a few things.

Let's unpack this. The author's position is represents the Christian world view. If you take issue, then you must not be a Christian, for only non-Christians will likely take issue with her narrative. She has just defined the 'ex-gay world' as synonymous with Christianity. That's offensive to me both as a Christian and as a gay man.

The reality here is that she has not talked about her story at all. At best, she spelled out some ugly beliefs that she has, but doesn't want to publically take credit for - beliefs about other people's lives. Now, in one of the agitated responses to my posts at XGW, a Frank wrote "FOJ: Get over it already. This is HER story, not YOURS." But the reality is, it is not her story. She hasn't shared a word about her feelings, sacrifices, experiences. She has shared ugly gossip about GLBTQ people - me, my partner, our friends, coworders, people we church with, and millions of other people. The fraud "homosexuality should be changed into heterosexuality" is not being used to deny the Pam Ferguson's of the world their civil rights, it is being used to deprive GLBTQ people, including me, of our rights.

When we apply just a reasonable amount of analysis to the text, it becomes quite clear, Pam is not talking about herself. It isn't a narrative of her experiences at all. There isn't a "I felt" or "I did" or "I experienced" in it. It really isn't her story; she's heterosexual, and all of the ugly ideas about homosexuality, the insistence that we should change - is not about her. It is about her husband who has left her.

_______________________________________________________

Yesterday, I wrote about the question "is it ethical, is it humane, is it Christian, to support someone in an attempt to mutilate themselves psychologically? " - I had posted it first in abreviated form on XGW, but it was deleted rather than answered.

David Roberts on XGW wrote of me:

The user “Friend of Jonathan” has been banned after posting twice to this thread
after being asked not to. One can only assume at this point that it was his or her goal to be. I apologize for the circus. If you understand what that was all about you are better than I.

"Only Assume" is such a limitting phrase. How odd that some people can "only assume" negatives.

I have to commend him for not even conceiving of the possibility of cross-posting. As we all know, no two people on the internet have ever posted to the same place at the same time, and so it just was not at all possible that I could have posted without first seeing his totalitarian demand that I just shut up about something that directly impact my life. His confidence in my (non-existant) omniscience is flattering though misguided. What is really remarkable though is that he took steps, aggressive steps, about a dialogue he admits he did not understand.

And I have to wonder about that. After all, this is a place where GLBTQ people are regularly treated to regurgitated versions of 'homosexuality is sin' within comments threads, and a place that professional oppressors are quite at home posting about their assumptions about our lives. I figure, it is probably a good thing not to be welcome at a place that welcomes those who oppress me and shields them from criticism.


If you feel that Pam has sinned against you, or someone you care about with her gossip, by all means, write to her on her blog and let her know that you don't appreciate being gossipped about.

Coming soon

Just a heads up about something I'm pondering at the moment.

An essay on Alternet about fascism details the steps for instituting fascim. What struck me were the many parallels to the steps taken by ex-gay ministries and reparative therapies.

"Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps"

Supporting Self-Destruction

"support any individual’s self-determination to pursue change in their same sex attractions"

I ran into the above declaration over at a blog about ex-gay ministries. The context itself was really interesting, but what really struck me was that the blog authors, who have presented themselves as in opposition to ex-gay ministries and reparative therapy, at least, enough to criticize such organizations regularly, actually endorsed the idea above.

The evidence for the destructiveness of ex-gay ministries and reparative therapy is lengthy and convincing. Which raises the question - is it ethical, is it humane, is it Christian, to support someone in an attempt to mutilate themselves psychologically?

On the one hand, conservative Christians claim that they are 'saving' GLBTQ people from self-destruction. The problem there, of course, is that homosexuality is not intrinsically harmful, and what harm is associated with being GLBTQ, is predominantly caused by the prejudice against homosexuality. Even the theological concern over damnable sin is unfounded, for Christ promised forgiveness for all sins:

John 3: 14-18
Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.[e] 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g]

In the case of ex-gay ministries, there is too much evidence of harm directly caused by those ministries. I've touched on some, a tiny fragment, in prior posts. No doubt, it will be needful to cover more in the future. Here is a single personal account for today. Some snippets to encourage you to read the whole account:

But after nine months at WGA, she still felt attracted to women and decided that the program wasn’t rigorous enough. She became close to one of the staff members, a compassionate thirtysomething ex-gay man named Scott Kingry, but she didn’t want to end up making the choices he had: Convinced homosexual behavior was a sin but unable to form a connection with a woman that would lead to marriage and sex, he had been celibate for nearly a decade.

- - -

Months later, however, a letter to a friend revealed a tangle of confused feelings: “I’m 30 now, and I really want to be straight, married, and possibly have kids, and I guess I feel like I’m running out of time. I mean, I really really really (!) want to be married to a woman, but again, that’s not what…God intended.” Soon after, Christine’s faith in her therapy was shaken by a piece of powerful news: Ex-gay poster-husband John Paulk had been seen and photographed at a Washington, D.C., gay bar. Paulk’s apparent “slip” created a national uproar. On the Internet, Christine was finding an increasing number of references to ex-ex-gays. “I’m so angry with God that he doesn’t change people who want to change!” she wrote to a pastor friend at the time. “I just feel ultimately misled and very betrayed by…those who would promise healing.”

- - -

Christine was ready to admit that ex-gay counseling hadn’t worked. That realization was triggered, in part, when she saw Peterson Toscano’s well-received one-man show, Doin’ Time in the Homo No Mo Halfway House: How I Survived the Ex-gay Movement. His hilarious observations about his experiences in the Love in Action program reinforced her feeling that it was safe to come out of the ex-gay closet. Browsing Christian websites, she found that there was a growing interest in a more traditional form of Christianity that accepted homosexuality. She also began attending a support group at Denver’s Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center in a nondescript downtown building. There she encountered several women she’d first met at Where Grace Abounds—they were ex-ex-gay now too. Bonding with other ex-exes, she finally seemed to have found the one group in which she truly belonged.

Jesus seems to take it for granted that even we who are mere imperfect humans, know at least little bit about right and wrong.

Matthew 7, 9-12 "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will our Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

As I pondered the support of pursuing reparative therapy/ex-gay ministry, it occured to me that good parallels exist, which we can examine and consider.

Within Christianity there are some congregations, some denominations, that practice certain expressions of faith that could be described as extreme. They handle poisonous snakes, and/or drink liquids that are at least represented as being poison, and have a scriptural basis to support these practices. That last part might look familiar. So will this:

"If a worshipper is bitten, poisoned, or burned during the services, it is believed to be because that individual lacked faith, has sin(s) unrepented for in their life, or that it was a message from God, either to teach them suffering or to demonstrate to those lacking faith in the ceremony that the poison is real.[citation needed] Few seek medical attention after being bitten.[citation needed] While children attend the services, the worshippers strongly deny that any of them have been bitten.[citation
needed]"

Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, citations are required to substantiate those statements, and Wikipedia is susceptible to error. So let's look around some more together.

Snake Handlers Hang On in Appalachian Churches

"Junior G. McCormick is a serpent-handling pastor from Georgia. He explains that, for him, handling snakes is simply following the gospel to the letter. "Other folks don't do this because their churches don't believe, or it's just something they're scared of," he said. "They come to that scripture but want to jump over that part because it's a deadly thing."

Now that really is similar to what anti-gay churches say about churches that accept GLBTQ people.

"Churches that practice serpent handling tend to be wary of publicity. This desire for privacy stems, in large part, from negative media attention that inevitably follows the practice after injuries or deaths due to snakebite occur.

"There are over 100 documented deaths from serpent bites," said Hood. "In every tradition, people are bitten and maimed by them. They risk their lives all the time by handling them. If you go to any serpent-handling church, you'll see people with atrophied hands, and missing fingers. All the serpent-handling families have suffered such things.

"It's a misconception that these people believe they won't get hurt," Hood explains. "The Bible says to take up serpents, not that they won't be bitten. If they're bit, that's up to God. The issue is obedience to God. There's no magic power type of stuff. They know the reality of it because so many families have had people hurt and killed."

No doubt, you've seen several other strong similarities between those who believe in serpent handling, and those who condemn homosexuality and support ex-gay ministries and reparative therapies.

Ex-gay ministries very much parallel serpent handling/poison drinking ministries.

There is one major difference though: society is not threaded through and through with punitive laws, prejudices, hate crimes designed to coerce people into becoming serpent handling Christians. But the pressure on GLBTQ people to be made into heterosexuals, is continuous and pervasive, invasive and all but inescapable.

As another source put it"snake handlers “are willing to die for their beliefs” - but with ex-gay ministries and reparative therapies, for the most part, those with the most at risk, benefit the least. The leaders make fortunes from books and speaking engagements, claim accolades and worship from desperate families and motivated politicians - leaving the suffering for others.

Who here would genuinely support a friend, a family member in the effort to please God by handling poisonous snakes, or drinking poison? Some people have survived such worship practices, others have not.

If your mother told you, "God told me He wants you to jump off that 12 story building over there" - would you? Some people have survived a fall from that height. Many others, have not.

Some people appear, for now at least, to live heterosexually as a result of ex-gay ministries, most do not, and too many have died as a result. So, I have to wonder, which of us, if our friend asked for comfort, peace, a fulfilled life and relationship, would we send him to a reparative therapist or ex-gay ministry instead?

When struggling GLBTQ people cry out for love and acceptance,

there are people who would give a rock, a serpent, a reparative therapist, instead.

Tactics that certainly look like Sin

Maybe if Jesus had explicitly said 'do not brainwash others if you do not want to be brainwashed yourself', things would be different today.

I noticed some striking parallels in this account "The Secrets of the Christian Right's Recruiting Tactics" and reports on ex-gay ministry events.

Some excerpts:

The emotional meltdown that leads to the conversion experience -- one often induced in crowds skillfully manipulated and broken down by demagogues -- is one of the most pernicious tools of the movement. Through conversion one surrenders to a higher authority. And the higher authority, rather than God, is the preacher who steps in to take over one's life. Being born again, and the process it entails, has far more in common with recruitment into a cult than it does with genuine belief.

I attended a five-day seminar in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where I was taught the techniques of conversion, often by D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries. The callousness of these techniques -- targeting the vulnerable, building false friendships with the lonely or troubled, promising to relieve people of the most fundamental dreads of human existence, from the fear of mortality to the numbing pain of grief -- gave to the process an awful cruelty and dishonesty.

Intense interest by a group of three or four evangelists in a potential convert, an essential part of the conversion process, the flattery and feigned affection, the rapt attention to those being recruited and the flurry of "sincere" compliments are a form of "love bombing."

It is the same technique employed by most cults, such as the Unification Church, or "Moonies," to attract prospects. It was a well-developed tactic of the Russian and Chinese communist parties, which share many of the communal and repressive characteristics of the Christian right.

"Love bombing is a coordinated effort, usually under the direction of leadership, that involves long-term members flooding recruits and newer members with flattery, verbal seduction, affectionate but usually nonsexual touching, and lots of attention to their every remark," the psychiatrist Margaret Thaler Singer wrote. "Love bombing -- or the offer of instant companionship -- is a deceptive ploy accounting for many successful recruitment drives."

What disturbs me most is that this process takes something genuine and turns into a means of manipulating people.

Seed to Tree

There are many ways that people chose to express their negative opinion about homosexuals and homosexuality, ranging from the superficially polite (homosexuality is inconsistent with Christianity) to the brutal (God hates fags). People who employ the more polite appearing language frequently defend their position while vigorously rejecting the more brutally phrased variations.

But all of it, from "inconsistent with Christianity" to "God Hates Fags" are derived from and express the same basic concept, one developed from the same assumptions and interpretations of the same handful of texts ripped from their context.

Fred Phelps, progenitor of the "God Hates Fags" meme, employs Romans 1 as key element of his theology of hatred for GLBTQ human beings. Any person, from any denomination, who believes that Romans 1 condemns homosexuality, has that key foundation in common with Rev. "God hates Fags".
Fred insists that the story of Sodom is about homosexuality, though it is not according to Jesus and Ezekiel, so anyone who believes Sodom is about homosexuality, shares that belief with these people.

Fred and his congregation use both of the Leviticus verses, though Fred at least has the honest to quote Leviticus 20:13 completely, while others conveniently ignore the second half: "they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Anyone who quotes Leviticus Leviticus 18:22-23 and Leviticus 20:13, together or separately, and interprets them as a condemnation of homosexuality, is teaching the same thing Fred Phelps teaches, basically.

If you use these passages, and Romans 1 24-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9, to construct a condemnation of homosexuality, you are in the same school of belief that Fred Phelps is.

Fred is just using the most dramatic and blunt language he can get away with.

At one end of the continuum of condemnation, "inconsistent with Christianity" or "is sin";

at the other end, "God hates fags". And no amount of sugar-coating or good intentions will change the fact that both are expressions of the same thought.

Not that Fred Phelps is the only person to arrive at horrendous ways of expressing the traditional interpretation derived from these same passages. The Catholic church declares that same-sex parents do violence to their children just by being same-sex couples.

The Catechism describes homosexual acts as "intrinsically disordered": "They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

Intrinsically disordered is really not that far from from Fred declares:

Fags live filthy, unhealty, dangerous, unhappy, and in many cases, violent lives.

Just slightly more clinical. And the charge 'do not proceed from a genuine affective complentarity' is just polysyllablic way of saying that our love for each other is not real.

Dr. Mohler, who writes,

"And that compassionate truth is this: Homosexual acts are expressly and unconditionally forbidden by God through His Word, and such acts are an abomination to the Lord by His own declaration. - - - Essential to understanding this reality in theological perspective is a recognition of homosexuality as an assault upon the integrity of creation and God's intention in creating human beings in two distinct and complementary genders. - - -The biblical witness is clear: Homosexuality is a grievous sin against God and is a direct rejection of God's intention and command in creation. All sin is a matter of eternal consequence, "

Is not saying anything that is essentially different from Fred Phelp's message, and Dr. Mohler's position is the standard Southern Baptist position on homosexuality. Dr. Mohler inflicts on humanity the same message as Fred's, couched in less brutal language but with the same brutal consequences.

Christian denominations, churches, clergy and laypeople who teach any expression of 'homosexual lovemaking is sin' are teaching the exact same concept that Fred Phelps is.

The consequences of that teaching are horrific for GLBTQ people. I've covered some examples in past posts here. But the very idea itself is intrinsically violent and horrific.

Much of Christianity, especially its conservative or literalist sects, teach that the 'wages of sin is death', that all sins are equal, that even one sin is sufficient for damnation. The prevalent understanding of damnation is, in essence, eternal torture and torment.

So, to declare, in one phrasing or another, that the lovemaking between two people of the same gender is 'sin' - is to declare it deserving of death, damnation, eternal torment. Eternal consequences, Mohler declares.

That is what it means to declare 'homosexuality is sin' : deserving of death, damnation and eternal torment.

There is no love in such a thought.

Think about what that really means, on a gut, personal level.

If you are heterosexual, really imagine what it would be like to be told that your most intimate, beautiful, loving act of intimacy, vulnerability, is, in the opinion of other people, something so horrible, so vile and disgusting, that you deserve to be put to death, and suffer eternal torture thereafter.

That is what some heterosexuals have been saying to GLBTQ people, for centuries. If you really take that in personally, apply it right to your life, it is uglier than any quote I've yet provided from Fred Phelps.

Here's another source of hate.

"God doesn't recognize these so called "gay" marriages. They are an abomination to Him and a putrid stench in His nostrils."

Yeah, it is from a couple of years ago - but watch and see how it syncs up with current events.

I'm kinda curious just how it is that Stephen Bennett decided that he speaks for God. The Bible says nothing about same-sex marriage, for or against. But that is not the most interesting part:

"America has arrogantly declared war against the God of all creation and I'm sure it will draw a quick and appropriate heavenly response. "

Stephen is writing on behalf of the American Family Association. He makes many, many false claims that bear refuting, lies for which he owes millions of people repentence. One more quote from Stephen Bennet on behalf of the AFA:

"Now as a prideful America thinks we are different in some way from the rest of these defunct civilizations, it just goes to show how true the biblical proverb is - "...a dog returns to his own vomit."

Considering then all of the above, please take a look at this video from Fred Phelp's congregation:

This declaration, from Fred Phelp's congregation, is derivable result from their belief that homosexuality is sin. It just isn't that big a step from condemning millions of people for making love, to condemning the entire creation.

In IT, it is called scope creep. Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Stephen Bennet all have manifested it. What starts out as hatred of one group of people, and a voiced desire for those people to be destroyed, grows and grows, including more and more people. For Fred, its the whole world that he wants to see punished.

This is important, because it indicates that the root cause is not some response to homosexuality, nor is it Scripture.

Another example:

"A religious group that staged a protest at Kutztown University today drew hundreds of angry students after members of the group told them they would burn in hell if they were gay, Jewish or Catholic."

Seek dominance by harming others for personal gain

Whether the target is GLBTQ people, or women, or people of color, Jews, etc - it is all the same phenomena. The fact that anti-gay groups will openly turn on other decidely anti-gay gay groups, like the Catholic church, demonstrates how little it really has to do with anyone's life or afterlife.

It is about domination.

The question then is, who wants to be part of a continuum of belief that leads to "God hates the World"?

Not Jesus Christ, for He said:

John 3

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."[h]

I think it would be great to see a couple hundred congregations and choirs and just groups of friends post their own videos to YouTube, videos of people singing "Jesus Loves Me" or "He's Got the Whole World In His Hands" or the one I guess Fred and Stephen and Albert et al never learned,

"They'll Know We are Christians by Our Love".

The sin of Greed: Harming others for personal gain

As a recent uproar revealed, there is a certain negative connotation to the term, and concept, of mercenary. Wikipedia comments that "When the term "mercenary" is used to refer to a soldier of a national, regular army, it usually considered to have pejorative connotations." Dictionaries go into further detail, including "too strongly influenced by desire for money".

Societies have tended to recognize the need for soldiers, whose job it is to hurt other people, but to disapprove of soldiers who are "acting merely for money or other reward".

Assassin in another career choice with a primarily negative connotation. It is bad enough to commit murder, but to do so for personal gain makes it even worse.

Even actions that are normally seen as pleasurable, or good, or beneficial, are tarnished by the appearance of being in it primarily for money. Even when the results are primarily beneficial, there remains a bias: Non-profit organizations are seen as preferable to for-profit organizations that provide the same services. Altruism is seen as a virtue, greed is not.

While I'm loathe to dismiss out of hand any beneficial service that is done for profit, when I encounter someone who is profitting from harming others, the profiteering compounds the heinousness of their destructive actions.

If you haven't met him before, allow me to introduce you to Joe Dallas. He makes a living harming other people, basically.

What brought him to my mind was a review of his new book. You can buy a copy of his book, which attacks the spirituality of GLBTQ people, for $13.99, on his website.

The first thing that struck me, reading the review, is that though it promises to "Dispels Myth that Homosexuality is Compatible with Scripture" - there is not a single argument from Scripture within the review, nor in the summation of the book on Joe's website. Apparently, you have to shell out $13.99 to get any information.

However, I did find an essay on the subject by Joe Dallas. It is interesting in so many, many ways.

"To the biblically ignorant, general pro-gay religious arguments can pass for truth."

Interesting opening salvo that essentially says 'anyone who doesn't agree with me is "biblically" ignorant.

Sadly, there is little substance for Joe's boast. There is precious little Scripture in this essay as well. An interestingly enough, Joe does not address the challenges from Scripture that GLBTQ Christians make. He settles for rather strained interpretations of the more personal portions of the testimonies of GLBTQ people, and his arguments resolve down to one premise "Saying "I'm Christian and gay" proves nothing." Ironically, even for heterosexual, saying "I'm Christian" proves nothing. Even for heterosexual ministers, saying "I'm Christian" proves nothing. Even for ex-gay, presumably heterosexual writers, saying "I'm Christian" proves nothing:

"The pro-gay theology is a strong delusion-a seductive accommodation tailor-made to suit the Christian who struggles against homosexual temptations and is considering a compromise. Some who call themselves gay Christians may be truly deceived into accepting it; others might be in simple rebellion. What compels them to believe a lie we cannot say. What we can say is that they are wrong . . . dead wrong."

(Joe Dallas, essay "Responding to the Pro-Gay Theology," )

How on earth or in Heaven Joe just knows better than I do the truth of my spiritual journey is unclear. I was under the impression that such omniscience was a trait attributed only to God.

Further into that last link, someone a little less polished that Joe paraphrases his pseudo-omniscient declaration in a more direct, and honest, fashion:
"Of course, I reply. Lucifer is another name for Satan, according to Christian belief, an archangel who wanted to be equal to God. Being that there can only be one God, Lucifer was cast out of heaven.
"Ever since, he's been trying to get back at God, and he'll do anything to do it," Hopper says, her eyes shining, a huge grin on her beaming face. "You've been duped by Satan to believe woman and woman is in order. You've been duped by Satan to get back at God."

Joe offers up summations of the challenges to the anti-gay theology, paraphrased to be as weak and dismissalbe as possible, and then answers them thusly:
"The fact is, in Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, homosexuality is mentioned in the context of sexual and immoral behavior!"

Shall we count all of the verses in which heterosexuality is mentioned in the context of sexual and immoral behavior?

Now Joe's word for it is hardly sufficient to a follower of Jesus Christ, after all, Joe is not Jesus. The various theologians who refute the traditional interpretation tend to provide large, even overwhelming quantities of evidence to support their position. But all Joe needs is a version of 'because I said so'.

I'm generally quick to acknowledge that there is a wealth of information relevant to a discussion of the two interpretations ("homosexuality is intrinsically sin" and "homosexuality is not intrinsically sin"), and that it is unfair to expect readers in every dialog to wade through it all. But I do make an effort to include at least a reasonable slice each time. So, we can examine in great detail the specific flaws of reason in Joe's essays at a later date, if there is sufficent interest. Unfortunately, there is precious little evidence presented in his essays available online.

The next point to jump out at me was Joe's libel of millions of GLBTQ people:
"The goal of the gay-rights movement is twofold: To convert the culture's thinking on homosexuality, then to marginalize or silence those who won't be converted."

Now this lie is told despite the fact that GLBTQ people, in statement after statement, document after document, paper after paper, have asserted and defended other people's right to believe anything they want about homosexuality, including condemning it. What GLBTQ people are seeking is simply the right to not be forced to share in and live within the prohibitions those negative convictions about our lives.

The irony is that many conservative Christians, like Joe Dallas, are actually working to marginalize and silence GLBTQ people who will not be converted to heterosexuality.

At the end of the review, we learn something very interesting about Mr. Dallas:
"Joe Dallas is a featured speaker for Love Won Out – a Focus on the Family conference that promotes the truth that change is possible for those who are unhappy with their same-sex attractions."

Focus on the Family has a long and ugly history of anti-homosexual activity. "Love Won Out" is an organization that claims to change homosexuals into heterosexuals with love, and yet, their history belies both claims.

Before we lose track of Joe Dallas, some more connections.
Exodus International, another of the for "non-profit" yet high profitable ex-gay ministries, has this to say about him:
"Joe Dallas is the Founder of Genesis Counseling in Orange, California, a Christian counseling service to men dealing with sexual addiction, homosexuality and other sexual/relational problems."

The Ex-Gay Fraud

"Like many other homophobic Bible abusers, Joe Dallas uses the tired old argument that Christian homosexuals have revised and distorted the Bible to teach acceptance and respect for homosexuals and homosexuality. The truth is the other way around. Only in recent years has the Bible been translated in clearly homophobic ways that do violence to the original context and meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words. Nowhere does the Bible say that Lesbians and Gays can or should change their sexual orientation. Nowhere does the Bible even discuss, much less condemn, romantic love between people of the same sex. "

One more crucial piece, from Joe's website:
"Genesis offers services at significantly lower rates than for-profit counseling organizations, and we frequently offer low cost/no cost services for those in financial distress. "

It is amazing how often anti-homosexual theology is followed by requests for money.

Joe Dallas's opinions, which online at least are not substantiated with Scripture, are presented in the context of making his living promoting ex-gay therapy.

This is an important distinction. Many fine, wonderful, loving people write books about theology, and social issues, and their religious experiences. Many dedicated scholars have written extensively researched papers on the subject of homosexuality, published them, and expected a reasonable compensation for their efforts.

But ex-gay therapy and reparative therapies don't work, and they harm people. That is a crucial difference. A few days back, I presented some information about ex-gay ministries and their history of failure. Let's look at some more, together.

What do medical professionals say about reparative therapy?
"In response to recent news coverage on Reparative Therapy, the American Psychiatric Association issued the following media advisory:
Questions and concerns regarding the effectiveness of "reparative" therapy -- a term used to describe treatment attempts to change a person from a homosexual or bisexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation -- are again being raised in the public arena.
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) Position Statement on Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation, adopted by the APA Board of Trustees in December 1998, states in part: ...the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as "reparative" or "conversion" therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder... "

"There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of "reparative therapy" as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation. It is not described in the scientific literature, nor is it mentioned in the APA's Task Force Report, Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders (1989)."

"Clinical experience suggests that attempts to change sexual orientation may occasionally result in behavioral changes for some motivated individuals for limited periods of time, but that such changes often are accompanied by depression, anxiety, and other symptoms.Homosexuals and bisexuals -- like others -- are raised in a homophobic society and often experience internalized homophobia. Some may seek conversion to heterosexuality on that account. Clinical experience suggests that relief of homophobia allows for better psychological functioning. Those who have integrated their sexual orientation into a positive sense of themselves function at a healthier psychological level than those who have not."

I'm looking and I'm looking, and I can't find any evidence that Joe Dallas has any training in psychology or psychiatry. Does he just know better?

More to consider:
"Some so called "ex-gays" claim they have gone straight. However, the research seems clear that trying to change a natural sexual orientation out of fear of God and guilt seldom works. Perhaps it works for the few that weren't really sure or were there orientation was influenced more by emotional issues than biology. It seems clear however, most gays were born that way and trying to change them is forcing them to live a lie.
Some may leave the "gay lifestyle" by altering behavior, but that does not make them heterosexual. They simply become non-practicing gays, that's all. Despite "testimonies" to the contrary, there is not one documented, authenticated case of a actual change in sexual orientation. There has only been change in behavior. Healthy skepticism needs to be exercised of those claiming a heterosexual conversion. "

"Another example is Kent Philpott's book, The Third Sex, in which he gives the testimonies of six homosexuals who supposedly became heterosexual. Within a year after the book was published, all six of the people written about sent notarized affidavits to the publisher, stating that the book was untrue and that they were all still homosexuals. Nevertheless, the book continued to be printed and sold to an unwary public for eight years afterwards. To this day, people are "praising God" for changes that never took place. The continued publication of that book, along with its promulgation for eight years after having received written denials from the subjects themselves, highlight the extent of deception fundamentalists are willing to go to foster belief in a goal based on illusion rather than reality. With fundamentalism it appears that honesty and truth are expendable items."

There is a lot more at that link. Take a look. Ken Philpott is tied to "Love In Action", the organization that provides much of the documentation of the "Day of Truth" campaign through which Christian teens are encouraged to agitate in favor of continued harassment and violence against GLBTQ youth in public schools.

There's a lot of destruction coming out of ex-gay ministries. Here you will find some first hand accounts:
"Faced with the pain of losing those friends (especially the one) that I’d become so dependent on as part of my ‘healing’ process, and with the fact that my attractions hadn’t changed at all (which no doubt had to be my fault), I chose to withdraw from the world rather than deal with the loss. I did go through another program during that time, this one geared more generally toward sexual addictions (since that’s what homosexuality was, according to many of the books I’d read), but again, it brought me no closer to my goal of becoming straight."
(From Eugene's account)

"The marriage lasted twenty years and produced two sons. But, even though I kept my resolutions and lived a perfectly straight and faithful married life, my experiment in self-transformation was not only a dismal failure but a disaster as well. At no time during my marriage did I feel heterosexual or even bisexual. Marital relations, always emotionally painful, became burdensome as well. I felt like a circus bear trained to perform an act alien to its nature such as roller skating or riding a bicycle. I began to resented being "put through my paces." Very gradually, and to the considerable distress of my wife, I lost all interest in sex. I felt that, rather than living my own life, I was living the life of a fictional "straight" character of my own creation. I feared that I would live out my entire life never having interacted honestly with another human being. I became severely depressed. "
(From Michael's account)

"After leaving my ministry at the Christian school I began attending a small church in Boston where I decided to be completely honest about my sexuality. I began meeting with the pastor weekly and also received weekly counseling from a Christian therapist who specialized in treating homosexuals. I spent over $3,000 on this therapy over the course of 2 years. At the age of 30 I attended my first Exodus affiliate ex-gay ministry program in Boston. I worked through the 40-week program 3 times, the 3rd time as a leader. I led worship for the program and attended 2 Exodus conferences. I had some of the biggest names in ex-gay ministry pray over me and even prophesy about my healing.
But my same-sex attraction never diminished. I never changed. - - -In 2000, at the age of 40 after spending about $25,000 for therapy, conferences and programs, and after 24 years of fighting, I became very depressed. I gave up ministry and trying to change my sexual orientation. I left my church and isolated myself from the Body of Christ for 6 years."
(From Tom's account)

There's one more piece, a list of summary teachings from ex-gay ministries, taken from the "Our Stories" link I provided the other day. Look at this carefully from an ethical and moral perspective - how many of these suggestions are ethically sound?

1. Get married. Ex-gays who don't marry are always suspect.
2. No long engagements, as you might change your mind.
3. Love does not make a lasting relationship, respect does. You can learn to love your wife, but it's more important that you have an agreed upon partnership to live as heterosexuals.
4. Ex-lesbians don't expect as much as straight women, so choose one of them, if possible.
5. It's not necessary to tell your wife about your previous "lifestyle." Some women would prefer not to know, so gauge whether you tell her based on what you think her reaction might be.
6. Don't show your wife too much affection, because she might expect sex for more than procreation.
7. Have your first child as quickly as possible, ideally within the first year. Children will help force you to stay in the "straight" lifestyle. If you can afford it, have as many children as you can. More kids = more likely to stay straight. Plus, kids make it appear that you have a "normal" sex life. Ex-gays without children are suspect.
8. Visualize men when you have sex with your wife, if that allows you to perform, but don't tell your wife.
9. Women are able to satisfy themselves better than men, so allow her to take care of her own needs. Focus your attention on your own performance.
10. Once all the children you desire are conceived, you have no more obligation to have sex with your wife, but you can continue if it provides any satisfaction.
11. Don't expect that your relationship will necessarily bring you joy. You will find joy in heaven because you lived the life you were supposed to. Find satisfaction in your children or your work.
12. Everyone slips. Don't tell your wife as that will only make things worse. Ask God for forgiveness and avoid situations that might tempt you.
13. Participate in sports, even if you don't like them. Hunting and fishing are good, too, but don't go camping or to other activities where you will spend too much time alone with other men. Take your wife and children, always.
14. Avoid interests like art and music which might bring you into too much contact with active gays.
15. If you are asked about your change, weigh the benefits of everything you say. Will admitting that you still have urges encourage or discourage a new member? It's okay to "sugarcoat" your answers if it means building the hope of someone."


"Money makes the world go around" .

People like Joe Dallas claim that they have good news, the Truth about homosexuality, the answer, the solution.

It can be all yours. For a price of course - they'll share their "good news" after you pay. There isn't anything wrong with getting paid for honest work of course, but where is the honesty in reparative therapy and ex-gay ministries that teach "Visualize men when you have sex with your wife, if that allows you to perform, but don't tell your wife." ?


Jesus didn't charge people to hear the good news. Jesus didn't set a price on the Truth. To do so would have raised questions at least. It might even have appeared to be mercenary, or spiritual prostitution.

What Jesus did, regarding money and spiritual truth, is quite different from the example Joe Dallas has set:
Matthew 21:
12Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,'[e] but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'[f]"

A den of robbers, a meeting house for mercenaries.

If you feel like you have been harmed for Joe Dallas's personal gain, please, feel free to write to him and ask him to repent. There is contact information on his personal website.

Asking questions sincerely is not sin : )

Jamie asked a couple of questions of me, in comments to my blog post "Consistency and Prejudice". After mulling 'em over, I realized that they really deserved a post of their own.

"I read in your post that you were raised in a conservative denomination. May I ask what the teachings of that denomination were on homosexuality?"

And
"So, for those of us that literally been taught all our lives that Scripture teaches homosexuality is sin, what do you suggest for an honest study? If you were raised in a denomination that taught that homosexuality=sin, what was your journey? "

I hope, Jamie, that you don't mind the use of direct quotes. I didn't want to lose anything by paraphrasing.

The denomination that I grew up in taught that the orientation itself, as well as the intimate acts of lovemaking, were among the most horrible of sins. It employed the standard list of gotcha verses, including Leviticus 20:13 with its mandatory death sentence. It wiggled around its own 'saved by grace through faith' by teaching Romans 1 as saying that people are homosexual because they first reject God, and that He then punishes them by 'giving them over' - rejecting them in this life, as a precursor for fully rejecting them after death. Ironically, though the denomination I grew up taught that we were liberated from the Law by Christ, it also demanded that GLBTQ people still be imprisoned by the mainstream interpretation of the laws in Leviticus.

It was extremely destructive and damaging, then, to pass into puberty and discover that I was not at all interested in the opposite sex. It meant that God had rejected me, 'given me over' and that as devout and dedicated as I had been (extremely so), it had not been enough, I was still accused and convicted and punished for a rejection I had no awareness of making.

You asked about my journey, Jamie. My first thought on this is that I'm pretty ordinary, that there is nothing remarkable or different about my journey at all, except, just slightly, that I survived it. So I'm going to ask you, and anyone else interested, to do a little work. I hope that's ok.

"Our Stories" is a collection of the journeys of a wide variety of GLBTQ people of faith. Many, perhaps most, identify as Christian, but some are not. There are a lot of stories there; it is not a brief document. And there is a lot of sadness and despair, as well as a lot of joy and faith; it is not a cuddly document. But it is well worth reading. An account of my journey is there, you'll recognize it. But I'm not going to tell you where it starts, because I know from experience that the total of that collection is far, far, far more meaningful than any of its parts.

The real value in my journey is not the events, feelings, transitions, at all, but rather, the way my experience has so much in common with so many other people's experiences.

Millions have walked this road, encountering much of the same scenery.

But, just to whet an appetite, here are a few selections:

"Long before I had ever been physically assaulted, verbally abused or suffered discrimination, I had learned to hate myself.I prayed desperately every night for God to “fix” me, because I believed that all things were possible with God. I knew if I just had enough faith, God would “fix” me. When I didn’t become straight, I assumed it was because even God hated me. When my father found out I was gay (he was a minister and I thought he could help me), he beat me into unconsciousness, screaming Bible verses at me. It was the first of regular beatings intended to beat “being gay” out of me. After that, he would only hit me where the bruises didn’t show as much, like my groin. When I was 15, he allowed his drunk friends to rape me so that I would know “how bad gay sex was.” "

(From RanchHand's story)

"I “tried” it with a woman friend of mine. A last ditch effort to see if there was anything that could persuade me to “go back” to being straight. I faked the orgasm..out of boredom!And I prayed. I tried to tell God who I was and who I should be. The answer I got back was “How dare you tell me who I created?” Later, out of the mouth of a friend of mine came: “You think too much. If you are ever going to be in love you have to act from the heart…and stop THINKING!”

(From Robinsgarret's Story)

"Then I wrote to my parents again, telling them where I was and that I was okay. Dad wrote back that he no longer had two daughters and that I had been written out of his will. Mom sent me a Bible with portions of Leviticus and Romans highlighted along with a note saying that I had shamed them horribly and was no longer part of the family but that they might consider taking me back if I gave up my abominable lifestyle.

Over the next 25 years or so, I’d send presents home for Mom and Dad’s birthdays and anniversaries and notes telling them they had grandchildren and what was going on in my life. They’d return everything unopened but with Bible verses attached saying I was an abomination."

(From BobbiCW's Story)

One more. I've been told that I exagerate the consequences of teaching 'homosexuality is sin', that it is really a loving thing to teach. Judge for yourself from just one life:

"Suicide Hotline(note-this story was edited to delete the specific church reference)

If anyone believes they are helping a homosexual person when they spew their bigoted, close-minded nonsense at them:A friend of mine works for a suicide helpline. After keeping a man on the phone yesterday for three hours, he shot himself in the head with her still on the phone.My friend wanted to share this man's story, in the hope that it would reach someone, and at least make them think about the horrible things they put people they profess to care about through, just because they can't see past their own, tiny little corner of reality.

This is the post she made on another message board. This is one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen anyone do, and I survived 767s flying into the buildings I worked in almost two years ago. *...shakes head...* I will never understand how some people can be this way...I would like for people to know why he did it.

He was raised [religious]. He was born gay. Yesterday he went to his pastor and wanted to know what to do. He loved a man very much, and couldn't understand how love could be wrong. He was told that homosexuality is "immoral", and he "just thinks he is gay". Society does that to men like him and that he could put those urges aside and live the right way. That if he didn't disciplinary action would have to be taken. The pastor spoke with him for over an hour. He went home loaded a gun and called and I said hello. He had gone for help and got judgement. He went about love and got told his love wasn't good enough or right. He wanted acceptance and got none.I am sorry but if you stand by and watch hate speak in action and don't say anything, you helped promote hate. I doubt that bishop wanted to see this man die, but his words helped him die.I think his story should be told --- nods-- he deserves at least that."

That collection of lifestories is a treasure. I see it as a kind of testament of its own, a spiritual account of God working in people's lives just as instructive as any letter by Paul.

So - what do I suggest for study?

That was actually the hardest question, Jamie. There are so many different answers, and a lot of them are in the personal stories linked to above. But to introduce some specific examples of Scripture, I offer the following.

When I was struggling with Romans 1, as a teen, I found myself repeatedly encountering Matthew 7, in parts, the whole, you name it. One piece really gnawed away at me.

There I'd be, 2 AM, face down in the carpet before the altar at church, begging and crying, and I'd suddenly remember this (Matthew 7: 7,8):

7"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. "

Well, I was asking. I was begging, I was pleading, I was weeping and grieving. What happened to the receiving, the finding, the opening of doors?

The many, many people I've encountered who believe 'Homosexuality is sin' tended to tell me, to my face, that I just wasn't sincere enough, as if they could know. Or that I hadn't asked long enough, asking me to suffer even longer than I had. Oh, the horrible thing such folks have said to me. Forgiving them was a challenge.

And one such night, I actually got up, pulled a Bible from a pew, and looked up Matthew 7: 7,8. I probably intended to lecture God about it, and call Him on his unfilled promise. I happened to read past verse 8:

9"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

Now, I was stubborn in my attachment to the interpretation that fallible humans had taught me. It took several more years. But eventually, I realized that our self-ness - our capacity for love, our curiousity and intelligence, our hungers and fears, strengths and weakness, the who of who we are, is a deliberate gift from God. Humans were saying my sexuality was an abomination but 'how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask Him". God gave me the gift of my sexuality, God gives good gifts, and if humans say differently about some gift, who was more believable?

I was in real emotional, spiritual and physical agony, trying to become what fallible humans said I should be. And when I prayed, when I asked, what I received was not heterosexuality, but acceptance, and when I could accept it, joy.

The conscious understanding, though, occured after spiritual understanding. I had a direct, personal encounter with God, and God basically told me that my sexual orientation was not sin, but like anything else, if I used it to harm myself or others, it could be used for sin. Just like heterosexuality.

Of course, the learning doesn't end in kindergarten. Over the subsequent decades, I've prayed, studied, researched and analysed. I've learned that Paul did not use either of the greek two words that actually conveyed the concept 'men who have sex with men' when he wrote his letter to the Corinthians.

The title of this thread comes from one of the lesson I learneds. Something that causes as much destruction as 'homosexuality is sin' causes, simply cannot be from God. Said teaching only bears evil fruit, so it cannot be from God. I plan on exploring this with real life examples over the coming life of this blog.

I learned that an examination of the traditional interpretation "homosexuality is sin" through the microscope, the analytical tool, of Christ's life, ministry and teachings, thoroughly disproves the traditional interpretation. I learned that analysis of the texts as texts - the concepts conveyed by the original Hebrew or Greek words, the textual context that each passage is nested in, and the historical context of these texts, clearly refutes the traditional interpretation.

But at the heart, the lives recounted in "Our Stories" disprove the traditional interpretation beyond even the hint of a possibility of a shadow of a doubt.

And in the end, my faith is placed in God, not in the interpretations of texts, any texts, made by other fallible humans, even Paul.

Consistency and Prejudice

Sunday afternoon, late, I discovered a blogswarm titled 'Blog against Theocracy'. First I'd ever heard of blogswarms, but then, there's a lot about blogging I'm learning by doing. My initial good feelings were quickly soured though, for while many of the blog posts were well-researched and thoughtfully written, many settled for promoting religious prejudice instead.

Over and over again "Christians this" and "Christians that" as if Christians were some vast collection of clones, the ultimate super-organism comprised of millions, billions in the long term, of people who believe, feel, do, think exactly the same thing about everything.

We are not. Having grown up in a conservative denomination of Christianity, my father a minister, I've seen first hand just how much diversity there is in thought, belief and deeds within even a single congregation with very explicit and precise statements of faith. When one then considers the huge range of disagreement over just about every possible detail, assumption, conclusion, interpretation among the various sects of Christianity - it becomes pretty darned safe to say:

When you really look at what individual Christians believe, there are as many understandings of what Christianity believes as there are Christians.

Blaming all Christians for supporting homophobia, the Iraq war, or anything else, is prejudice. Focus on the specifics, the harm, the ideas, processes and the profits.

I realize that it can be difficult to define terms, when rebuking something, with complete accuracy. One cannot add enough modifying terms to completely eliminate overly broad generalizations. But, there is a huge difference between "Christians believe homosexuality is sin" and "Conservative Christians believe - - -" and even more with "Some Conservative Christians believe - - -" or "Those Conservative Christians who believe - - -". There is a real challenge to find the appropriate level of specificity.

For those who do write about the abusive skeins of Christianity, there are options that are far more accurate than the blanket "Christians". You can use "Conservative Christians" and be more accurate, though there are exceptions at that level. You can use "Evangelical Conservative Christians" to increase specificity, though there will still be exceptions. Terms like "dominationist" and "dominionist" work well, for they focus on the specific mindset of seeking control over others. I'm rather partial to the term "theofascists". And the catch-all "Some" leaves plenty of room for all of the exceptions, while acknowledging that there are real examples that fit the accusation to follow.

But the blanket generalization about Christians that some atheists make are no different from the blanket generalizations made by some conservative Christians about homosexuals, or the blanket generalizations made by some light-skinned people about dark-skinned people, etc.

I would just ignore it, but there is a real problem involved here. When someone who is not religious engages in the same dominationist tactic as employed by some religious people, even to criticize them, he or she has actually affirmed their behavior.

And, trust me, from years and years of experience - the Pat Robertsons and Fred Phelps don't want or seek anyone else's approval - they seek affirmation and repetition of their behavior. If they can get you to revile and harass others, to employ prejudice and advocate discrimination, that's all the really matters, for it makes their own abusive acts acceptable.

The guess 'homosexuality is sin' is not really about "what the Bible says" and especially not about "what would Jesus do". It is about something far more primal than that.

Most living organism engage in some form of dominance behavior. Beetles fight for mates or food, coral polyps fight for space and sunlight, meerkats fight for social dominance within their group, and with other groups for territory. Presented as a formula, one way of expressing it is:

Seek dominance by harming others for personal gain

Harming others can be significant as violence, as intangible as insults and false accusations, as pervasive as laws and imprisonment. In very social organisms, like humans, it can be enough just to harm someone's reputation, to malign their appearance in the eyes of the rest of the community. The rewards of dominance can be as extreme as theocracy, and other forms of autocratic control over people's very lives, as intangible as feeling better than others, or feeling less a sinner. It can be material as well: let's not forget the many conservative christians who use their condemnation of homosexuality to make money. It can be an increased status within the social group, or simply the exclusion of competitors.

This is the core process beneath any prejudice - racial prejudice, anti-semitism, misogyny, homophobia. A group of people actively seeking to harm others for their own personal gain.

And sadly, that process is also at work in claims that revile all Christians, or that, as has happened to me, dismiss us as mentally ill, stupid, delusional, etc. Someone is seeking dominance over others by harming them with negative labels. It isn't honest, it isn't helpful, it actually encourages and supports every other flavor of prejudice.

And, by employing that particular process to attack Christians in total, just as homophobes use it to attack GLBTQ people in total, or racists use it to attack people of color,

those who make such 'Christians this' and 'Christians that' claims are supporting what actually does matter to theocrats - the use of power to achieve material goals at the expense of others.

I'm opposed to theofascism, but also opposed to atheofascism as well.

There is one other, huge problem with defining Christians by those Christians who violate the civil rights, humanity, physical bodies of others. Since they tend to claim that they have "the truth" about God, when someone says "look, that anti-gay legislation, that's Christianity" even in rebuke, he or she is confirming the very premise that dominationist Christians are trying to establish in order to achieve domination. They need to define Christianity in their terms, to pre-silence rebuke.

It is important to remember that dominationist Christians are no less capable of reason than anyone else. Sure, those who stand to gain the most materially may be all but unreachable, but, the people in the pews, if given accurate information, are capable of analysis, reason, and consideration. But it does have to presented within their context, and with at least a moderate about of tolerance for their faith, and some trust that they are reporting their own experiences accurately.

After all, we cannot expect them to trust GLBTQ people's accounts of their own lives, after rejecting out of hand the religious experiences (not interpretation, but experience) of religious people. I would like to see those of us who stand up against any prejudice, to be so much more specific and accurate, careful and precise, that the lies of those who condemn homosexuality, or mock Judaism, or defame women, or vilify people of color - stand out in stark and ugly contrast.

Lastly, I'm sure that despite my best efforts, I have in the past, and will most likely in the future, slip and post a phrase or sentence that is more generalized than is really necessary or appropriate. For that reason, I have not linked to any specific blog or comment or essay that played the 'Christians this and Christians that' card. The point here is focus, as much as possible, on the processes, the harm, the ideas, and when truly necessary, the specific individuals, and do one's best to avoid criticizing too broadly.

After all, who wants to be just like this guy?

Resurrection

Today, no talk of sin, no lengthy screeds about injustice. Today is Easter, a day to contemplate and anticipate resurrection.

Well, how about less talk of sin and injustice. It would be difficult to fully contemplate and anticipate resurrection without considering sin and injustice, for destruction is the context for resurrection.

One of the key expository histories in Christianity is the life, ministry, capture, torture, death, descent into hell, and subsequent resurrection of Jesus Christ. Though sectarian arguing over the details and meanings and what if's and maybe's have divided Christians for centuries, the story continues to resonate, to be told year after year.

Over those years, and from sect to sect, Christ's descent into hell has varied in significance and meaning, ranging from a hastely chanted phrase in a statement of faith, to a rich story of freeing the patriarchs from the outermost realms of hell.

Recently, I read post to post all the way through a long, and at times tedious, argument about the factuality of Christ's resurrection, triggered by an essay about the value of the event as metaphor. Over and over again, people did their best to frame it as an either/or scenario. Either the resurrection is factual, or it is metaphorical.

As if something cannot be both at once.

In this life, despite what any theologian or layperson or clergy or scientist declares, we humans cannot actual prove beyond even a reasonable doubt, that the resurrection was or was not factual. That would require time-travel. The best we can do is opine based on what we know and believe.

Understandably, that will create a wide variety of opinions.

All sides really ends up relying on faith, and to me, that is as it should be.

But with factuality unprovable, unfalsifiable, untestable on this side of the grave, there is an aspect of the resurrection story that we can experience.

The metaphorical.

People can create hell in life for themselves. Ask anyone who has racked up $50,000 or more in credit card debt while trying to making ends meet on middle-class salary in a consumerist society. Ask anyone who made bad decision after bad decision after bad decision.

People can stumble into hell in life, much as Dante got lost in the dark woods. Ask anyone with an addiction.

The ebb and flow of life, good ol' entropy, blast it, can certainly create hell in life. Just ask anyone living with chronic diseases, cancer, AIDS, Lyme disease, and so on. Ask anyone who lost their home and employment to Katrina.

And people are extremely good at making hell in life for others. My last three posts have touched on the hell in life that some people have inflicted on other people, from instruments of torture, to kids being threatened at gunpoint by other kids at school.

Of the many kinds of hell in life, that is the most preventable, and thus, to me, the most horrible. We cannot control plate tectonics to prevent tsunami and earthquakes. We cannot pre-cure disease before they strike and destroy. But we can each of us chose whether or not we oppress and destroy others.

Sadly, no, horrifyingly, there are people today who are deliberately creating hell in life for others to endure. And there are people who are, like Christ is said to have done, passing through hell in life, or who have passed through hell in life, on their way to a resurrection in life.


I set out to find you examples of resurrections in this life, on this side of the undiscovered country. I've heard many over the years, but I didn't want to tell other people's stories for them. I found this first:

"On December 17, 1997, when our son Adam told us he was gay, our world was turned upside down. We were absolutely devastated. We desperately needed someone to comfort us, to assure us that our son, our family would be okay. But we were too embarrassed and scared to admit this secret to anyone, to reach out for comfort."

How much that sounds like the reaction of someone grieving a deceased loved one. I mean no criticism there, not in the slightest. In a very real sense, when a child comes out to his/her parents, one understanding of that child dies, and a new one, hopefully, is reborn.

Resurrected.

I strongly encourage you to read the entire account of Jeff and Patti's son, Adam. Yes, it may wring you from ego to id, but it has an Easter of its own. What follows are some particular passages that wrung me.

"His popularity pretty much ended by the fourth grade when sports became important in the social fabric of the school. Because Adam wanted no part of sports, he hadn't cultivated relationships with other boys, which come naturally by being part of a team. If he were invited to parties, he now started to show signs of being ill at ease and not being included with the other boys. He just didn't seem to fit in because they always gravitated toward sports related activities. Seeing our son being treated as a social misfit was a painful thing to watch. "

"At the local fall fair, Adam was to meet a girl who was interested in him. She was the daughter of the minister of a very large Baptist church. - - - Anyway, without much fanfare, the relationship was over with the Royal family's Princess. - - -Then came the unsettling part. For some unknown reason, she started telling her friends that Adam was gay. Here is a 12 year old girl, clueless about homosexuality, spreading a rumor. This was years before Adam came to grips with his own sexuality so she was just being malicious. She enlisted all those in her sphere of influence, especially those in her youth group at church, to help make Adam's life a living hell. She was very successful."

"Through all of this public pain and humiliation, Adam was constantly wounded and battered but he was never broken. I wonder how many of his classmates could go through that endurance test and come through it like Adam did.
Middle school was a living hell for all of us and we couldn't wait for it to be over. Our hope was that high school would provide a clean start with the students becoming more mature and less cruel. We must have been the most naive parents in the world."

"I started noticing a pulling away from us. He seemed to not be as open as he had in the past about the events of the day. In his eyes I could see a sadness that was bothersome to me. The eyes have always been a window to the soul for me. Especially, in my children. I kept asking him what was wrong. He would say everything was fine. I knew better. I wanted to believe that it was just normal teenage growing up, but I knew deep inside, there was more.
Then, on December 17, 1997, Adam told us he was gay. We don't want to relive those days ever again. They were the most desperate and darkest days I have yet to live. It was so hard to go on every day at work pretending to be okay when what I believed to be the truth about my son was now upside down."

It may sound overly-dramatic to anyone heterosexual, who hasn't been taken into the confidence of a GLBTQ person who they loved and who trusted them, but

realizing that you are not heterosexual, in this world that for all intents and purposes worships heterosexuality, is very much like dying. That's not just my experience, it is something that has been shared with me by gays and lesbians and transgendered people from every walk of life a person can meet in the U.S.

The life you were supposed to have, according to church and school and literature and movies and comics and cartoons and art and everything else - is dead.

In its place is a hell in life - no, not arguing Garland vs. Streisand. Something much, much worse.

A hell made of hate speech on tv, on the internet, in the pulpit, in the newspaper, in paperbacks and movies. A hell where the demons are your classmates, and Cerberus has the face of a certain preacher from Topeka Kansas. A hell where, if you survive to adulthood, and find someone to love an "abomination" like you, you still will not be able to protect your life with that person, you'll always be at best a second class citizen, the scapegoat of every disreputable politician with nothing meaningful to contribute to humanity but his or her own lust for authority over others.

And trust me, those of you readers who haven't walked this particular path - you know. Every remark, every condemnation, every insult - you know it is about you.

Hell in life.

We journey through, most of us. Not all of us get out of it alive, and few make the journey unscathed, unscarred. It helps to have a Virgil beside you, as Dante did. I had one, a friend who save my life in more ways that I could ever explain. Adam had one as well:

"We hoped Danielle could be the one to bring Adam out of what we thought was his sexual confusion. She was not. Instead of being the girl to bring him out of this confused state, she became the only person in whom he could confide.
Danielle was the only person he "came out" to for most of his high school years. She kept this secret for Adam and it gave him the freedom to have someone to talk to about his feelings. She also helped him understand our feelings. Her family knew too and that gave Adam a place of refuge to go to, when there was too much stress and awkwardness at home. Even though our love never wavered for Adam, we were struggling to understand him. That often made our home a place that was uncomfortable and unfamiliar to all of us. "

This next passage is something that should never, ever have needed to be said, not once, and yet, is true an uncountable number of times a day:

"But I also knew that I had to help Adam hold on to that love in his heart because he will not be reminded of God's love from most people."

I'm not cruel, I'm not going to hold back the Easter in this story, making you wait till I'm done meditating here to read it for yourself.

"Are you wondering, "Where is God's perfection in a child who is gay?" I believe that the perfection that God seeks is in the way people react to this child. "

And finally, having accepted that the tomb is indeed empty, that the death of a 'supposed to be' need have no sting:

"We were allowed to see that our love was purest when we released Adam to be who he was meant to be. Through our son, we were awakened to the fact that a change must take place in our hearts if we were to be made whole. For wholeness would come from our acceptance of Adam, not our judgment. "



There are resurrections possible for us in this life, metaphorical journeys through some kind of death to a resurection and a new life. There are accounts of very bigotted people who have been resurrected from the hell in life they made for themselves hating Jews, or people of color, or women, or gays and lesbians. There are accounts of people who have been resurrected from material oppression, and political oppression, and societal oppression. There are gay Christians.

Here is another account of a resurrection.

"Living without fear of losing the grace of God gives me great freedom to enter into debate on the profound moral issues of our time, recognizing that it’s the on-going conversation that’s most important. It even gives me the freedom to learn, to develop, and to change my mind as my faith grows."

The factuality of Christ's resurrection is untestable, it is a matter of faith. Seen as factual through the lens of faith, it is a powerful and healing promise. Seen as metaphor as well, it is a powerful and healing roadmap for our lives.

Happy Easter.