Back in December I discussed the transition I'd made in my faith from Stage Three to Stage Four (speaking in terms of James Fowler's Stages of Faith). But Stage Four isn't the end of the journey. Many who grow to this point will settle here without moving on to Stage Five (just as many never move past Stage Three), and there's nothing bad about that, per se. But there is more growth to be had.
In Stage Five individuals take an apparent step back as they reintroduce a sense of awe and wonderment into their beliefs. This time, however, that humble stance is the result of a greater understanding of just how large and complex the universe (and the God who created it) really is. Black and white still exist, but they can't be reduced to the simple, two-dimensional propositions that those in earlier stages embrace so readily. Instead, truth must be viewed from two or more different angles at the same time in order to come to a more complete understanding.
As a caveat, let me reiterate that these are developmental stages, and as such not necessarily indicative of the quality of an individual's relationship with God. They apply generally to adherents of any belief system (religious or otherwise) and refer to how individuals perceive and interact with the world around them.
In some ways I can already identify with Stage Five, though I think I'm still thoroughly Stage Four in other ways. I recognize the complex and often paradoxical nature of truth, and as such have little patience for the reductionistic either/or propositions that most Christians seem content to settle for.
By reducing God to something that they can fully define and understand, their faith becomes a lifeless husk. The teachings of the Bible become the last word in the conversation rather than the first, the end of our journey instead of our starting point, a shell that smothers and constricts rather than a skeleton that facilitates movement and growth.
Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly — mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? (I Cor. 3:1-3)
Few people in our churches show any signs of moving beyond spiritual infancy. I can understand why - it's difficult and more than a little scary to truly wrestle with one's faith and learn how to think for oneself, especially when we can settle for being spoonfed a list of dos and don'ts every Sunday. But how much are we missing out on because we refuse to grow up?
Like the Daleks from Dr. Who, so many people - Christian or otherwise - devote their lives to taking orders and trying to exterminate that which is different from them that they never learn how much more there is to this life, and to what God is waiting to show them just as soon as they grow beyond simple conformity. And to even attempt to explain such a notion to them is to become a target for their extermination (i.e. "conversion" or "repentance") efforts.
It's not easy to leave that comfort zone. But what adult would seriously want to go back to being wrapped up in diapers and confined to a crib and fed from a bottle, however appealing it may sound in difficult moments? Growing up may not be easy, but the rewards are far greater than any to be found in the nursery.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Integration
JJ has commented on more than one occasion that something I wrote accurately expressed her own feelings on a topic, but this time I get to return the compliment.
In this post and this one she drives home the point that our sexuality, far from being mere feelings of lust and physical gratification, permeates our entire being in ways that we can only begin to unravel, and affects nearly everything that we do. As a result, we cannot suppress and deny that facet of our identity without also shutting down large segments of our personality and talents and becoming a mere shadow of what we could be.
Perhaps my primary impetus for seeking more help when I began attending the local Exodus-affiliated ministry two years ago was the realization that I was slowly dying inside as I continued to shut off more and larger chunks of myself in an attempt to kill my same-sex attractions. Of course, my journey since then has taken me in directions I never could have imagined, but the point is that it wasn't until I began to acknowledge and accept that part of myself - and in the process came to the realization that God loves me exactly the way I am - that I was able to find healing and reconnect with the rest of the world.
Granted, the healing and growth that accompany the whole "coming out" process don't, by themselves, automatically imply that God would approve of my having a sexual relationship with another man, but they do directly contradict the ex-gay notion that I need to adopt the facade of a "heterosexual identity" while actively working to eradicate my same-sex attractions.
I wonder how much of the sexual addiction that so many individuals in ex-gay circles struggle with is the result of being led to believe (however indirectly) that we're unacceptable to God as we currently are. For my part, I (like JJ) have found that I'm significantly less obsessed with sex than I was before I began coming to terms with who and what I am. Life is still far from perfect, of course, and I still need to be just as careful about what situations I put myself in, but I'm nonetheless far freer than I used to be.
Even the appeal of pornography has gradually diminished, as I increasingly find myself thinking of the people involved as living, feeling three-dimensional human beings, which in turn sabotages my efforts to use them as tools for self-gratification.
Perhaps someday the evangelical church will start viewing gay people as living, feeling three-dimensional human beings, and in the process rediscover the depth and breadth of its own humanity.
In this post and this one she drives home the point that our sexuality, far from being mere feelings of lust and physical gratification, permeates our entire being in ways that we can only begin to unravel, and affects nearly everything that we do. As a result, we cannot suppress and deny that facet of our identity without also shutting down large segments of our personality and talents and becoming a mere shadow of what we could be.
Perhaps my primary impetus for seeking more help when I began attending the local Exodus-affiliated ministry two years ago was the realization that I was slowly dying inside as I continued to shut off more and larger chunks of myself in an attempt to kill my same-sex attractions. Of course, my journey since then has taken me in directions I never could have imagined, but the point is that it wasn't until I began to acknowledge and accept that part of myself - and in the process came to the realization that God loves me exactly the way I am - that I was able to find healing and reconnect with the rest of the world.
Granted, the healing and growth that accompany the whole "coming out" process don't, by themselves, automatically imply that God would approve of my having a sexual relationship with another man, but they do directly contradict the ex-gay notion that I need to adopt the facade of a "heterosexual identity" while actively working to eradicate my same-sex attractions.
I wonder how much of the sexual addiction that so many individuals in ex-gay circles struggle with is the result of being led to believe (however indirectly) that we're unacceptable to God as we currently are. For my part, I (like JJ) have found that I'm significantly less obsessed with sex than I was before I began coming to terms with who and what I am. Life is still far from perfect, of course, and I still need to be just as careful about what situations I put myself in, but I'm nonetheless far freer than I used to be.
Even the appeal of pornography has gradually diminished, as I increasingly find myself thinking of the people involved as living, feeling three-dimensional human beings, which in turn sabotages my efforts to use them as tools for self-gratification.
Perhaps someday the evangelical church will start viewing gay people as living, feeling three-dimensional human beings, and in the process rediscover the depth and breadth of its own humanity.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Cause
So how does a person become homosexual? As the existence of intersexed people demonstrates, God's original template for humanity may have been male and female, but since then he's allowed genetic variance to create exceptions to that norm. And sexual identity has proven to be an even more complex issue, as there's no simple "gay gene" to answer the question for us. Recent research does increasingly suggest that genetics plays some role in the development of sexual orientation, but nothing has been found that definitively settles the matter.
On the other end of the spectrum, conservative Christians (at least the ones educated enough to understand that it's not a matter of choice) still generally hold to the idea that same-sex attractions are entirely psychological, most commonly through Elizabeth Moberly's theory of the "defensive detachment."
For my part I can fit my early life experiences into Moberly's model (poor relationship with same-sex parent) well enough that I accepted it without question when I first read it. But even aside from the fact that there are millions of people who don't conform to that stereotype - both gay individuals who had good relationships with their same-sex parent as children and straight people who didn't - there are things that no psychological theory can adequately account for.
Of course, the stock response to such criticism is that it's all in the child's perceptions, and that therefore a boy who's beaten daily by his father can still turn out straight, while one who's deeply loved and affirmed by his dad can still turn out gay, all because of some subconscious misunderstanding on the child's part. Which, of course, can conveniently never be disproven since it's pure speculation and completely untestable.
This utter disregard for the scientific method is one of the reasons that the APA and its sister organizations pay little attention to Moberly's theory and its variants, Exodus and NARTH's cries of "politics" notwithstanding. ("Hello, kettle? This is the pot. You're black.")
It is plausible that same-sex attractions are purely psychological for some individuals. Reparative therapy does reportedly work for a subset of those that have sexual abuse in their backgrounds. For the rest of us? Not so much. And if Moberly's theory was true for everybody (or even the majority), one would expect her solution to work for more than a tiny number of people.
But that still leaves questions unanswered. If I'm gay because I patterned myself after my mother instead of my father, why didn't I develop more effeminate mannerisms? Why have I never had the slightest desire to dress like (much less to actually be) a woman, if I wanted to be just like mom? And could that patterning really be adequate to explain why I've been largely non-aggressive from birth?
Interestingly enough, NARTH has provided an answer to these questions, though not all of its members would endorse my application of their own evidence. In the article Gender Differences Are Real by Frank York, Dr. York refutes the notion promoted by some radical feminists that the differences between male and female are purely societal constructs by arguing first from genetics (the most obvious difference) and then from hormonal differences. He demonstrates how gender-specific behaviors are determined by hormones – testosterone and other androgens in males, estrogen in females – as illustrated by the following example:
Although the article pays only passing lip service to the ramifications of this point, the conclusion is clear: if gender-normal behavior is dictated by prenatal hormone levels, then gender-abnormal behavior (effeminacy and lack of aggression in males, tomboyish behavior in females) logically has its roots in the same source.
It's a complicated line of study that scientists will no doubt need years to investigate fully, but it shows promise. Most perplexing, perhaps, is the fact that, while hormones have a direct impact on physical development as well as mental (as evidenced by the effects of Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome), most homosexuals are largely indistinguishable from their heterosexual counterparts in physical terms (with the possible exception of brain development).
Some ex-gay proponents have begun to acknowledge the likely role of hormones in the development of sexual orientation, though they would still argue that hormonal (and/or genetic) influences create, at most, an increased propensity toward homosexuality that is still fully dependent on a psychological element (and therefore curable). Whether or not they can come up with a testable theory that's worthy of mainstream consideration remains to be seen.
Ultimately, of course, the question of how people become homosexually oriented is a peripheral issue (albeit a very interesting one). Conservative Christians would continue to regard all gay relationships as unconditionally wrong even if a purely 'natural' (i.e. genetic) cause was found, just as you wouldn't see gay couples splitting up in droves to pursue celibate lifestyles if their attractions were proven to be purely psychological. And both sides would have a valid argument for maintaining their respective positions. In the end, the morality of acting on one's attractions is not dependent on how one came to have those attractions.
Despite that, the question of origin remains a muddy one. It's simple human nature to reach one's conclusions first and then work backwards to tailor the evidence to fit those conclusions, and people on both sides of the aisle are equally likely to do so. Christians, of course, are inclined to defend their bias by arguing that they're working backwards from God's conclusions, but in the end it's just the same old eisegesis in fancier packaging.
Someday, maybe, the picture will become clearer...
On the other end of the spectrum, conservative Christians (at least the ones educated enough to understand that it's not a matter of choice) still generally hold to the idea that same-sex attractions are entirely psychological, most commonly through Elizabeth Moberly's theory of the "defensive detachment."
For my part I can fit my early life experiences into Moberly's model (poor relationship with same-sex parent) well enough that I accepted it without question when I first read it. But even aside from the fact that there are millions of people who don't conform to that stereotype - both gay individuals who had good relationships with their same-sex parent as children and straight people who didn't - there are things that no psychological theory can adequately account for.
Of course, the stock response to such criticism is that it's all in the child's perceptions, and that therefore a boy who's beaten daily by his father can still turn out straight, while one who's deeply loved and affirmed by his dad can still turn out gay, all because of some subconscious misunderstanding on the child's part. Which, of course, can conveniently never be disproven since it's pure speculation and completely untestable.
This utter disregard for the scientific method is one of the reasons that the APA and its sister organizations pay little attention to Moberly's theory and its variants, Exodus and NARTH's cries of "politics" notwithstanding. ("Hello, kettle? This is the pot. You're black.")
It is plausible that same-sex attractions are purely psychological for some individuals. Reparative therapy does reportedly work for a subset of those that have sexual abuse in their backgrounds. For the rest of us? Not so much. And if Moberly's theory was true for everybody (or even the majority), one would expect her solution to work for more than a tiny number of people.
But that still leaves questions unanswered. If I'm gay because I patterned myself after my mother instead of my father, why didn't I develop more effeminate mannerisms? Why have I never had the slightest desire to dress like (much less to actually be) a woman, if I wanted to be just like mom? And could that patterning really be adequate to explain why I've been largely non-aggressive from birth?
Interestingly enough, NARTH has provided an answer to these questions, though not all of its members would endorse my application of their own evidence. In the article Gender Differences Are Real by Frank York, Dr. York refutes the notion promoted by some radical feminists that the differences between male and female are purely societal constructs by arguing first from genetics (the most obvious difference) and then from hormonal differences. He demonstrates how gender-specific behaviors are determined by hormones – testosterone and other androgens in males, estrogen in females – as illustrated by the following example:
At the University of Wisconsin, researchers injected testosterone into unborn female monkeys. Monkeys engage in very sex-stereotyped behavior, according to Stossel; the males are aggressive and fight, while the female monkeys typically groom and nurture the young. When the testosterone-injected females were born, they didn't groom or nurture their children. They fought and behaved like males.
Although the article pays only passing lip service to the ramifications of this point, the conclusion is clear: if gender-normal behavior is dictated by prenatal hormone levels, then gender-abnormal behavior (effeminacy and lack of aggression in males, tomboyish behavior in females) logically has its roots in the same source.
It's a complicated line of study that scientists will no doubt need years to investigate fully, but it shows promise. Most perplexing, perhaps, is the fact that, while hormones have a direct impact on physical development as well as mental (as evidenced by the effects of Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome), most homosexuals are largely indistinguishable from their heterosexual counterparts in physical terms (with the possible exception of brain development).
Some ex-gay proponents have begun to acknowledge the likely role of hormones in the development of sexual orientation, though they would still argue that hormonal (and/or genetic) influences create, at most, an increased propensity toward homosexuality that is still fully dependent on a psychological element (and therefore curable). Whether or not they can come up with a testable theory that's worthy of mainstream consideration remains to be seen.
Ultimately, of course, the question of how people become homosexually oriented is a peripheral issue (albeit a very interesting one). Conservative Christians would continue to regard all gay relationships as unconditionally wrong even if a purely 'natural' (i.e. genetic) cause was found, just as you wouldn't see gay couples splitting up in droves to pursue celibate lifestyles if their attractions were proven to be purely psychological. And both sides would have a valid argument for maintaining their respective positions. In the end, the morality of acting on one's attractions is not dependent on how one came to have those attractions.
Despite that, the question of origin remains a muddy one. It's simple human nature to reach one's conclusions first and then work backwards to tailor the evidence to fit those conclusions, and people on both sides of the aisle are equally likely to do so. Christians, of course, are inclined to defend their bias by arguing that they're working backwards from God's conclusions, but in the end it's just the same old eisegesis in fancier packaging.
Someday, maybe, the picture will become clearer...
Monday, April 03, 2006
Six Months
Hard to believe it's been half a year since I started this whole blogging thing. When I first started out, I figured I'd run out of things to say within a couple of months at best. Who knew I'd find so much to ramble on about?
Of course, in another sense it feels like this is something I've always done, and that it couldn't have only been six months since my very first post. Blogging has become such an integral part of my life that I could hardly imagine not doing it - though I still worry about running out of things to write about.
I also find it somewhat amazing that I have an actual audience. Not a huge one by any standards, but just the fact that anyone outside of my immediate family is interested enough in what I have to say to keep coming back here feels like an accomplishment of sorts.
So thanks for reading. With any luck, I'll still be typing away (and a few people will still care) when it comes time to celebrate my one-year anniversary in the fall. Given how far God has brought me since last October, I can only imagine what my life will look like six months from now...
Of course, in another sense it feels like this is something I've always done, and that it couldn't have only been six months since my very first post. Blogging has become such an integral part of my life that I could hardly imagine not doing it - though I still worry about running out of things to write about.
I also find it somewhat amazing that I have an actual audience. Not a huge one by any standards, but just the fact that anyone outside of my immediate family is interested enough in what I have to say to keep coming back here feels like an accomplishment of sorts.
So thanks for reading. With any luck, I'll still be typing away (and a few people will still care) when it comes time to celebrate my one-year anniversary in the fall. Given how far God has brought me since last October, I can only imagine what my life will look like six months from now...
Monday, March 27, 2006
Addenda
Following up on a couple of past items:
1. Jim Burroway, author of the Box Turtle Bulletin, has recently completed an in-depth, footnote-for-footnote analysis of Paul Cameron's main propaganda piece. It's not necessarily for the weak of stomach (Cameron paints a deliberately lurid and disgusting picture of gay life), but Jim's carefully and thoroughly researched rebuttal is a must-read for anyone who wants to be fully informed on this issue.
Read all about it here.
How telling is it that a man as thoroughly divorced from the truth as Paul Cameron continues to be quoted so frequently by those who claim to speak for the church?
2. For those interested in the topic of intersexed individuals, I found this helpful article at Answers.com. The issue goes far beyond hermaphrodites.
Of particular interest is the phenomenon known as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), which causes individuals possessing male (XY) chromosomes to develop as females. Although infertile, many of these individuals are externally indistinguishable from genetic (XX) females. According to popular rumor, actress Jamie Lee Curtis falls into this category (though to my knowledge this is unconfirmed).
Did God intend for these people to be male? If not, why not, when they have a Y chromosome? If so, how do we as the church treat these individuals? Assuming a person with AIS is attracted to men, can we call this heterosexuality when she herself is genetically male? These aren't just theoretical questions.
1. Jim Burroway, author of the Box Turtle Bulletin, has recently completed an in-depth, footnote-for-footnote analysis of Paul Cameron's main propaganda piece. It's not necessarily for the weak of stomach (Cameron paints a deliberately lurid and disgusting picture of gay life), but Jim's carefully and thoroughly researched rebuttal is a must-read for anyone who wants to be fully informed on this issue.
Read all about it here.
How telling is it that a man as thoroughly divorced from the truth as Paul Cameron continues to be quoted so frequently by those who claim to speak for the church?
2. For those interested in the topic of intersexed individuals, I found this helpful article at Answers.com. The issue goes far beyond hermaphrodites.
Of particular interest is the phenomenon known as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), which causes individuals possessing male (XY) chromosomes to develop as females. Although infertile, many of these individuals are externally indistinguishable from genetic (XX) females. According to popular rumor, actress Jamie Lee Curtis falls into this category (though to my knowledge this is unconfirmed).
Did God intend for these people to be male? If not, why not, when they have a Y chromosome? If so, how do we as the church treat these individuals? Assuming a person with AIS is attracted to men, can we call this heterosexuality when she herself is genetically male? These aren't just theoretical questions.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Personality Test
A friend of mine recently introduced me to this test. So far two friends have told me that my results were very accurate. According to this system I am a Considerate Idealist.
And yes, while my femininity score was twice as high as my masculinity score, my attention to style was almost nonexistent. Guess we can't all conform to expected stereotypes.
For baseline comparison, my Myers-Briggs type is INFJ.
But enough about me. To take the test yourself, click here. Feel free to share your results...
And yes, while my femininity score was twice as high as my masculinity score, my attention to style was almost nonexistent. Guess we can't all conform to expected stereotypes.
For baseline comparison, my Myers-Briggs type is INFJ.
But enough about me. To take the test yourself, click here. Feel free to share your results...
Monday, March 20, 2006
Tainted
A friend of mine recently pointed me toward a statement made by Tony Campolo that I think perfectly sums up the current state of the evangelical church:
"Politics has changed religion - it's like mixing ice cream with horse manure. It doesn't do anything to the manure but it ruins the ice cream. This has caused great harm to religion - we will live to regret the error."
As conservative Christians have allowed themselves to become increasingly identified with a particular political agenda, they have ceased to be the salt and light that they still see themselves as to the point that they have become little more than another political interest group.
As I was considering Campolo's statement I thought of another analogy which, while less precise, speaks to the situation in a similar way. In the universe of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, the world is undergirded and sustained by the True Source, which some individuals can tap into and wield in seemingly magical ways. During the last great battle against evil, however, the Dark One managed to introduce a taint into saidin (the male half of the True Source). Although the power of saidin was not diminished, any man who now accesses it will eventually be driven mad and destroyed by the taint.
That is where the analogy begins to break down (not to mention that Jordan's worldview is not specifically Christian), but the image it provides of people being driven mad from the use of tainted power (in our case the authority of the church intermixed with political force) is still useful.
If we've learned anything from history we should already understand that a militant church inevitably commits atrocities that would have otherwise horrified its members. And yet we see a large segment of the American church, alarmed by the loss of the privileged position it once held in Western society, once again taking up arms (at least figuratively) and seeking to impose "Christian values" on an unreceptive world at any cost and by whatever means necessary.
And so conservative Christians, who were once more likely to be defenders of individual rights, are now better known for their moral crusades than for their love. Instead, we now have almost daily stories along the following lines:
-Television preachers calling for the assassination of foreign leaders and the overthrow of sovereign governments.
-Ministry leaders becoming power brokers more interested in tinkering with legislation and political nominations than in the actual ministry work they were originally called to.
-Local activists willingly abandoning the right to form Christian after-school clubs that they once fought so hard to obtain, for the sole purpose of blocking gay students from forming their own clubs.
-Exodus (and some of its local affiliates) aiming an ever-increasing stream of invective at the group of people it ought to have the most compassion for.
If that's not madness, what is? It's difficult to imagine a more self-destructive path that the church could take. And destruction is the only real fruit of our drive for power as people walk away from the church by the thousands, looking elsewhere for the answers they seek.
One last thought to consider: If we, as Christians, feel justified in forcing others to conform to our standards through the force of majority opinion, what's to stop some future non-Christian majority from doing the same to us?
"Politics has changed religion - it's like mixing ice cream with horse manure. It doesn't do anything to the manure but it ruins the ice cream. This has caused great harm to religion - we will live to regret the error."
As conservative Christians have allowed themselves to become increasingly identified with a particular political agenda, they have ceased to be the salt and light that they still see themselves as to the point that they have become little more than another political interest group.
As I was considering Campolo's statement I thought of another analogy which, while less precise, speaks to the situation in a similar way. In the universe of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, the world is undergirded and sustained by the True Source, which some individuals can tap into and wield in seemingly magical ways. During the last great battle against evil, however, the Dark One managed to introduce a taint into saidin (the male half of the True Source). Although the power of saidin was not diminished, any man who now accesses it will eventually be driven mad and destroyed by the taint.
That is where the analogy begins to break down (not to mention that Jordan's worldview is not specifically Christian), but the image it provides of people being driven mad from the use of tainted power (in our case the authority of the church intermixed with political force) is still useful.
If we've learned anything from history we should already understand that a militant church inevitably commits atrocities that would have otherwise horrified its members. And yet we see a large segment of the American church, alarmed by the loss of the privileged position it once held in Western society, once again taking up arms (at least figuratively) and seeking to impose "Christian values" on an unreceptive world at any cost and by whatever means necessary.
And so conservative Christians, who were once more likely to be defenders of individual rights, are now better known for their moral crusades than for their love. Instead, we now have almost daily stories along the following lines:
-Television preachers calling for the assassination of foreign leaders and the overthrow of sovereign governments.
-Ministry leaders becoming power brokers more interested in tinkering with legislation and political nominations than in the actual ministry work they were originally called to.
-Local activists willingly abandoning the right to form Christian after-school clubs that they once fought so hard to obtain, for the sole purpose of blocking gay students from forming their own clubs.
-Exodus (and some of its local affiliates) aiming an ever-increasing stream of invective at the group of people it ought to have the most compassion for.
If that's not madness, what is? It's difficult to imagine a more self-destructive path that the church could take. And destruction is the only real fruit of our drive for power as people walk away from the church by the thousands, looking elsewhere for the answers they seek.
One last thought to consider: If we, as Christians, feel justified in forcing others to conform to our standards through the force of majority opinion, what's to stop some future non-Christian majority from doing the same to us?
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Contradictions
Paul Varnell recently wrote an article (available at the Independent Gay Forum) about the contradictory statements made about homosexuality by conservative Christians. At their root, these statements can be boiled down to this set of assertions quoted by Varnell:
"1. Homosexuality leads to misery and unhappiness, and homosexual sex is totally repulsive. (But)
2. Nonetheless, it's so appealing that if people find out about it, many will want to try it. ... (O)nce they get "hooked" they can't or won't stop."
As Varnell goes on to outline, a number of variations on that theme can be frequently heard in Christian circles, with no notice ever taken of the dissonance that becomes obvious when those two assertions are placed side by side. Of course, as Christians we are forced to wrestle with paradoxes in the course of our exploration of the nature of God, but it is possible to become too complacent in our willingness to accept contradictory claims.
That willingness permeates ex-gay philosophy as well, as Exodus spokespersons repeat many of the same claims made by other religious right groups. On the psychological end all aspects of same-sex attraction are defined in the worst possible light, even when doing so requires engaging in mental gymnastics. Whenever I'm attracted to another man I'm a narcissist, seeking to worship that which I already am. Yet by being drawn to a man who's not my identical twin, any differences between the two of us are signs of my 'cannibal compulsion,' i.e. my attraction to him is an effort to compensate for my own perceived deficiencies by 'consuming' his strengths. No allowance can be made for the possibility that I might simply appreciate him for who he is without either wanting to be him or mistaking him for a carbon copy of me.
Likewise, it's impossible according to ex-gay philosophy for two men (or two women) to have a long-term, loving, monogamous relationship; those that do are actually lying about their relationship and only give the appearance of caring about each other. Nothing that openly gay individuals say about themselves or their lives can be trusted; likewise, nothing that a conservative Christian says about gays can be questioned, no matter how it may appear to be at odds with reality.
This mindset has also worked its way into theology as it relates to homosexuality. Reparative therapists and ex-gay leaders begin with the assumption that homosexuality is nothing more than an artificial (and purely psychological) imposition on our natural heterosexuality, which anyone is capable of reclaiming. When confronted with the fact that most people who attempt to reclaim their "natural heterosexuality" never see any real shift in their sexual attractions, they dismiss the problem by insisting that those who failed just didn't try hard enough, or didn't really want to change.
Which is the only conclusion one can come to if one assumes that heterosexuality is God's will for all homosexuals, and that he would therefore provide it to anyone who sincerely sought it out. What advocates of this position (which is not unanimously held in ex-gay circles, but nonetheless remains common) fail to see is that they have adopted a variation of the "health and wealth" doctrine that most Christians rightfully reject.
"Health and wealth" proponents assert that God's will is material prosperity for all of his followers; all a believer has to do is "name it and claim it," and the good life will quickly follow. Anyone who fails to achieve wealth or to overcome any and all illness through this method just didn't have enough faith. Granted, most ex-gay programs prescribe a rigorous regimen of prayer, counseling, inner healing and sometimes masculinization/feminization exercises, but ultimately the base assumption is the same.
Although some conservative Christians have begun to back away from this dubious association, they nonetheless remain saddled with the burden of having to dismiss any evidence that might paint homosexuality as anything less than a completely negative state of being. And so, by surrendering its commitment to truth in favor of ideology, the conservative church gives up its ability to minister effectively to an entire group of people.
"1. Homosexuality leads to misery and unhappiness, and homosexual sex is totally repulsive. (But)
2. Nonetheless, it's so appealing that if people find out about it, many will want to try it. ... (O)nce they get "hooked" they can't or won't stop."
As Varnell goes on to outline, a number of variations on that theme can be frequently heard in Christian circles, with no notice ever taken of the dissonance that becomes obvious when those two assertions are placed side by side. Of course, as Christians we are forced to wrestle with paradoxes in the course of our exploration of the nature of God, but it is possible to become too complacent in our willingness to accept contradictory claims.
That willingness permeates ex-gay philosophy as well, as Exodus spokespersons repeat many of the same claims made by other religious right groups. On the psychological end all aspects of same-sex attraction are defined in the worst possible light, even when doing so requires engaging in mental gymnastics. Whenever I'm attracted to another man I'm a narcissist, seeking to worship that which I already am. Yet by being drawn to a man who's not my identical twin, any differences between the two of us are signs of my 'cannibal compulsion,' i.e. my attraction to him is an effort to compensate for my own perceived deficiencies by 'consuming' his strengths. No allowance can be made for the possibility that I might simply appreciate him for who he is without either wanting to be him or mistaking him for a carbon copy of me.
Likewise, it's impossible according to ex-gay philosophy for two men (or two women) to have a long-term, loving, monogamous relationship; those that do are actually lying about their relationship and only give the appearance of caring about each other. Nothing that openly gay individuals say about themselves or their lives can be trusted; likewise, nothing that a conservative Christian says about gays can be questioned, no matter how it may appear to be at odds with reality.
This mindset has also worked its way into theology as it relates to homosexuality. Reparative therapists and ex-gay leaders begin with the assumption that homosexuality is nothing more than an artificial (and purely psychological) imposition on our natural heterosexuality, which anyone is capable of reclaiming. When confronted with the fact that most people who attempt to reclaim their "natural heterosexuality" never see any real shift in their sexual attractions, they dismiss the problem by insisting that those who failed just didn't try hard enough, or didn't really want to change.
Which is the only conclusion one can come to if one assumes that heterosexuality is God's will for all homosexuals, and that he would therefore provide it to anyone who sincerely sought it out. What advocates of this position (which is not unanimously held in ex-gay circles, but nonetheless remains common) fail to see is that they have adopted a variation of the "health and wealth" doctrine that most Christians rightfully reject.
"Health and wealth" proponents assert that God's will is material prosperity for all of his followers; all a believer has to do is "name it and claim it," and the good life will quickly follow. Anyone who fails to achieve wealth or to overcome any and all illness through this method just didn't have enough faith. Granted, most ex-gay programs prescribe a rigorous regimen of prayer, counseling, inner healing and sometimes masculinization/feminization exercises, but ultimately the base assumption is the same.
Although some conservative Christians have begun to back away from this dubious association, they nonetheless remain saddled with the burden of having to dismiss any evidence that might paint homosexuality as anything less than a completely negative state of being. And so, by surrendering its commitment to truth in favor of ideology, the conservative church gives up its ability to minister effectively to an entire group of people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)