Upside Down

Via Andrew Sullivan, I came across this essay by Richard Grant on the relationship of faith and science. As a recovering creationist myself (an old-earth creationist since college, but a creationist all the same), I thought these two points were especially pertinent:

I’m not saying that faith fails to be faith if there’s proof. I’m saying that if your ‘proof’ is shown to be false then you’re utterly screwed. So if you tie your faith to a ‘proof’ you actually end up trying to prove that your proof is true, rather than seeking out ‘truth’. Which is the cleft stick Creationists find themselves in.

and

What happens when those you trust are shown not just to be wrong, but deceitful? Those people who told you that the creation story in Genesis is literally true, that there really was a global flood that killed every living being, that the Revelation is a literal account of the end of the world — and who make those things necessary items of faith — what do you do when you realize they were lying to you (intentionally or otherwise)?

Interestingly, the ex-gay movement finds itself in a parallel dilemma. Rather than remaining open to the possibility that it might not already know it all, the evangelical church attached itself to a psychological theory that seemed to explain the phenomenon of homosexuality in a way that validated all of its dogma related to human sexuality.

Elizabeth Moberly's rehash of old Freudian ideas allowed the church to continue thinking itself compassionate as it reinforced the notion (based on a questionable interpretation of Gen. 1:27) that everyone is, at their core, heterosexual. Any deviations from that God-ordained norm were simply psychological issues that could be cleared up through proper counseling, and any evidence that this might not be accurate has been summarily dismissed and denounced as evil propaganda. No further reflection on the matter was (or would ever be) needed.

Thus the ex-gay movement was founded on the assumption that all homosexuals could develop heterosexual attractions, given the right tools. Since homosexuality was defined as an unnatural twisting of an individual's true nature, it followed that same-sex relationships could never be healthy or stable, and that gays could never be truly happy unless they renounced that 'false' identity in favor of naming and claiming their God-given heterosexuality.

As time has shown that the vast majority of homosexuals cannot change their attractions, and as the scientific evidence has increasingly pointed toward biological factors as the predominant determinants of one's sexual orientation, Exodus and its allies have found themselves trapped between a rock and a hard place. Having tied their theology so closely to a specific theory about the cause and mutability of homosexuality, many within the the ex-gay movement have come to conflate discarding those mistaken ideas with rejection of the Christian faith altogether.

Thus we now witness the spectacle of ex-gay spokespersons engaging in rhetorical acrobatics to deny that "change," "heterosexuality" and the rest of their catchphrases mean what they seem to mean, even as they stubbornly refuse to plainly state what they actually mean. To do otherwise would require admitting that they were wrong about some very significant things - and humility has never been an abundant commodity within American evangelicalism.

Nonetheless, there are ex-gay leaders who have publicly acknowledged their error without abandoning their faith. Some of them have even maintained a more traditional Christian stance on sexuality even as they have adapted their programs to better reflect the realities of what it means to be a gay Christian living under that belief system. That the leadership of Exodus is too proud to do the same suggests that they have invested far too much in being right to effectively help those they claim to be here to serve.

Patience

I can identify with this guy's complaint; I had a date last year that went in in a very similar direction to the one that he describes. The circumstances were different enough that I was able to end the evening cordially, but needless to say there was no second date.

If I'd had that kind of experience when I still had one foot in the ex-gay community, it probably would have reinforced the negative stereotypes that had been pounded into me for so many years. Fortunately there are guys out there who aren't just out for a quick fling; they can seem like a rare breed when one looks for them in gay venues, but the same could be said of trying to find decent heterosexual men in your average singles bar.

The promiscuous (gay, straight or otherwise) will always be among us; that's simply a fact of life. But as acceptance of gay individuals has increased in Western society in recent decades, it has become gradually easier for gay men who want a more permanent relationship to find one. It's a change that has taken place slowly enough that some outside critics deny that it's happened at all, but the gay community is maturing.

For my part, I think a guy who wants a relationship and not just a one-night stand is worth holding out for.

Downfall, Part 3

Brought to my attention by my friend Mark (who hasn't updated his own blog in a while), this essay offers a thoughtful analysis of why the evangelical church now finds itself in decline, and the role that the religious right's quest for worldly power played in bringing it about. Key point:

But it was all destined to come to a crash. Just as political parties dry up when they run out of ideas, the evangelicals, as Mr. Spencer noted, found themselves becoming irrelevant or worse, a hostile force within families as the reality of our human existence made keeping to the faith a challenge. The world is not flat and it wasn't created in six days. Good little boys and girls who love Jesus and believe in him grow up to be gay, lesbian, bisexual,transgendered or simply not what the bible says they should be. Faith has to coexist with Truth, and not everyone wants to be told that God has a plan for you. And when the political party that rode with you to giddy heights of being within an arm's length of being a permanent majority is swept from power to the point that they can't decide who is really in charge, the last thing they're going to think about is you needy and insistent Jesus-shouters who can't seem to grasp the idea that the only reason they went along with you in the first place was because you paid for it. Republicans are, by nature, a cheap date.

And the religious right is not blind to the fact that it is losing its war to reshape America in its image. Viewed with that in mind, the recent anti-gay conference in Uganda is more than just an exposure of hidden bias and a public relations nightmare - it's an act of desperation. With the tide of the battle for control of the United States quickly shifting away from them, some religious conservatives see looking abroad for support as their best hope for continued relevance.

Never mind how barbaric and oppressive the governments of countries like Uganda might be in practice; as long as they have a large Christian population with the "right" views on certain moral issues, they are valuable and "godly" allies in the eyes of the religious right. That such an alliance might further tarnish the reputation of all evangelicals (and the Christian church in general) is of little consequence, since America is already "lost," and thus any negative reaction that the religious right's message elicits is purely due to the whisperings of Satan and in no way a reflection on the messengers.

By presenting such an ugly face to the world, the self-appointed champions of "God's standards" may well turn the anti-Christian persecution they scream so loudly about into a self-fulfilling prophecy. By legitimizing the use of political power via majority vote to suppress and restrict the rights of a disfavored minority, the religious right has set a strong precedent for future majorities who may be inclined to enact laws that punish the "immorality" of a future Christian minority.


Past commentary:
To Rule Them All

Relative

The Allure of Power

Links

1. While it's no surprise that a country like Uganda would hold an anti-gay symposium, or that some Americans who have made a career of bashing gay folks would take part in it, it's still a disappointment to see an individual with direct ties to Exodus giving tacit endorsement to Uganda's barbarous treatment of gays by participating.

As such, I find myself in general agreement with this open letter signed by David Roberts, Jim Burroway, Mike Airhart and Wayne Besen. Exodus had plenty of time to either stop its board member (Don Schmierer) from attending or to publicly disassociate itself from Schmierer and the conference, and it met all requests for such a stance with silence.

But at least it does lay to rest once and for all any question of whether Exodus really loves gay people (outside of the "repentant" ones inside its ministries) like it claims to. Full coverage of what went on in Uganda is available at Box Turtle Bulletin.

2. Peterson wrote a piece earlier this week on rising above victimhood as an ex-gay survivor. My take at Ex-Gay Watch can be found here.

3. On a slightly lighter note, Joe.My.God.'s Ironic Quote of the Day hits close to home. Back in my evangelical days the irony of Billy Graham's statement would have escaped me; now I struggle to imagine how anyone couldn't see it...

Home Economics

The good news: the divorce rate is going down. The not-so-good news: it's not because couples are any happier, or because of anything the church is doing better.

It also has nothing whatsoever to do with the millions of dollars the religious right poured into their perpetual crusade to push gay couples back into the closet last year...

Institution

I've had this quote from Jacques Ellul floating in my post queue for a while. Ellul's vision for the church is challenging, since it dares us to deinstitutionalize our faith to an extent that most would consider untenable. In any case, his thoughts are worth pondering regardless of the degree of reform one considers necessary for the church to continue to thrive.

In this passage Ellul comes as close as he ever does (at least in The Subversion of Christianity) to touching upon the way that the church has traditionally responded to the issue of homosexuality. As always, he uses the term "morality" in the sense of a code of laws:

The church embraces all society. It baptizes it officially as a Christian society. It takes charge of political and social problems. It seeks to establish social order and to apply Christian principles in every sphere. Thus revelation becomes morality - the supreme betrayal of the prophets, of the gospel, and of the first Christian generation. For the more the Christian (and official) morality develops, the more hypocrisy and Pharisaism develop also. This was inevitable.

To understand the process, we may take priestly celibacy as an example. Certain people have a vocation to be celibate, to dedicate themselves to God in this way, which is one possible way of serving God, and to seek the priesthood. This is good. But when celibacy is made a law or obligation or rule for all priests, when (without any vocation) it is made a condition of the priesthood, then one of two things happens. Either those who have a true vocation to the priesthood but not to celibacy are set aside, or inevitably there is a cover-up of falsehood and hypocrisy. Here, as elsewhere, law is a bad thing. It is not I who say this, but St. Paul. (pgs. 88-89)

With the substitution of a few terms, Ellul's conclusion can be applied to the dilemma faced today by gay Christians. His point can be argued against to an extent, since some who aren't so gifted do successfully "suck it up" and adapt to a celibate existence, but such an argument ultimately accomplishes little beyond heaping shame and condemnation on those who aren't as strong. That argument also imposes a burden that no heterosexual evangelical would ever be commanded to bear, except with hope of eventual marriage.

One could then argue that heterosexual marriage is a legal option even for those with no heterosexual attractions, but that would again be arguing for something that those same individuals would never consent to if it were being imposed on them or any of their (straight) children - namely, marriage to a person one does not and never did (and in all likelihood never will) find sexually attractive.

Such double standards tend to be brushed off by those unaffected by them, but they are no less real for causing harm only to a minority. And double standards are a perpetual problem for any absolutist legal system, as churches that view the Bible as a rulebook tend to be. Outside of the theoretical realm, one size rarely fits all.

The radical freedom that Ellul proposes is not without its problems as well; there are always those who will abuse liberty. But perhaps the answer lies not in authoritarianism, but in a church that genuinely operates like a community. Many churches speak of being communities, but operate as institutions.

Living in such a community would be challenging; it would entail a level of intimacy that most people (myself included) would be uncomfortable with. But it's only within such a context, in which people genuinely know each other on a deep level, that the biblical passages cited as guidelines for church discipline make sense. What brings life to one person may crush the spirit of another, and institutions are ill-suited to distinguishing between the two.

The cookie-cutter approach may seem reasonable when one was close to being the correct shape to begin with, but it's ill-suited to the governance of a church filled with unique individuals.

Life Soundtrack 12

Shattered (Turn the Car Around) by O.A.R.

An apt anthem for the conflicted relationship that many people today (gay, straight and otherwise) have with the church. Much of the time it feels like would be easier to walk away entirely, but those of us who believe the church is more than just an institution find ourselves drawn back to it in spite of the legalists and the hypocrites who sometimes seem to be its primary inhabitants. And so we turn the car around one more time...

Linking To and Fro

A few pieces of interest from around the blogosphere...

-Eric from Two World Collision shares about a breakthrough he had regarding the apprehension he feels toward some Christians. I can relate.

-Misty Irons calls on evangelical leaders to publicly repent of the falsehoods they have spread about gays, rather than merely pretending they never said those things as they quietly soften their rhetoric.

-Along similar lines, Existential Punk shares a letter from an evangelical apologizing for the way so may Christians treat gay people.

-Via Average Gay Joe, Charles Winecoff warns of the threat that radical Islam poses to GLBT individuals around the world.

-On a different note, here's one more reason to keep a close eye on what charges are being made to your credit card...