|
|
|
#1
07-05-2007, 01:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
How can I work for justice in the Culture War?
Hello Folks.
I have recently responded to Karen Keen's analysis of Mel & Nancy Wilson's workshop on the Bible & Homosexuality at the Ex-Gay Survivor Conference. The critique is presented here http://pursuegod.wordpress.com/2007/...or-conference/ I found that Karen's analysis was biased, even though she did it in a very outwardly "polite" way. And so I made a comment on her blog. Now i see that the folks at "GCM Watch" have used her analysis to completely demonize Mel and make all kinds of unjust claims about GLBT Christians. It is such a misrepresentation that I would venture to call it "fundamentalist pornography". Being from Canada, I've heard a lot about the American Culture War... and I've kind of been this outside observer... because the political culture here in Canada is just so different. But since the Ex-Gay Survivor's Conference, I feel this call to participate in justice-making south of the border. And I know that's because my own religious roots are conservative Christian, so I feel this bond with so many of you all. Do you think it is wise to engage in blogging with conservative groups? Or are they just trying to bait us and make us angry? And that's another question... don't you get angry at these groups? I mean.. I am furious because I have never before experienced such blatant misrepresenations of GLBT people. I'd love to hear about your thoughts on this, along with any suggestions you might have for me. Last edited by KennethJ; 07-06-2007 at 12:22 AM. 
|
|
#2
07-05-2007, 01:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
There is only one solution to the Culture War. We need to drive a wedge between people of genuine faith and the culture war organizations (American Family Association, Focus on the Family...). Evangelicals need to return to authentic faith and to see the lies and manipulations of these organizations, how they are disgracing the name of Jesus Christ they bear. Evangelicals need to turn their backs on the disgrace of the culture war machine. When these organizations are starved of constituents and money, then and only then will the culture war end.
|
|
#3
07-05-2007, 01:35 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Dear Ken: I read your post and it was right on target. Yes, it is easy to get angry at the way people continually misinterpret. That's why Soulforce is so important to me. We live in a culture of violence and my first response is usually one of violence of the tongue, unfortunately. But after years or studying and practicing nonviolence, I'm a little less apt to respond that way (but unfortunately not always).
 One of the things I try to remember when dealing with people like Karen, who hear what they want to hear, is to remind myself that when I hear an arguement that I can't support or agree with, I also have a tendency not to remember what was said and remember only the parts tha resonate with me. It was great to meet you at the conference and have you join us in our forums. kara
|
|
#4
07-05-2007, 01:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ken,
Good luck in your pursuit. I have often said on this forum and others, that Canada has a lot on the US simply because of their willingness to embrace gays and lesbians. The US could learn a whole lot about the freedom they supposedly grant each citizen and then their neighbor to the north puts it into practice. I find it odd that we make our school children say the pledge of allegiance everyday to the American flag and we say it as if it were true,"...with liberty and justice for all." Meanwhile the Religious Right pours money into the Congress and they pass laws that restrict us from equal marriage, non-discrimination in jobs, protection against hate crimes, etc. If it were equal and we took the First Amendment seriously, the Religious Right would have no influence over the laws of this country because of the Establishment Clause. Nonetheless, if you want to be involved, Soulforce is good place to start. Thanks for all you do.
__________________
If everyone cared and nobody cried, if everyone loved and nobody lied, if everyone shared and swallowed their pride, we'd see the day when nobody died. IF EVERYONE CARED/Nickelback
|
|
#5
07-05-2007, 03:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ken, I noticed your comment on my blog and did respond to it. I have to say I was surprised at how negative you responded. Other Survivor Conference/ ex-ex gay folks did not find my post as negative as you did, and in fact at least one person thought it was a "gracious" assessment. I feel like you read my post with your own preconceived biases.
I did see the Gay Christian Watch post you referred to, and I regret that they used my post in that way. I posted a comment on that thread to that effect. I have no desire to fuel negative attitudes toward other people. I went to the Survivor Conference to experience it for myself, precisely because I don't like relying on sensationalistic reports about events, and I think actually talking to people, in-person, distills our tendency to demonize each other. Perhaps it did not come across very clearly in my post--but my statements about Mel were not meant to be a negative reflection on him. I completely understand why he doesn't want to engage in the biblical discussion. He has been mistreated by fundamentalists. And, having grown up in fundamentalism, I know what it is like talking to arrogant Bible thumpers who don't care what you have to say. So I can understand where he is coming from. I too avoid discussing the Bible with certain people because there is no use. Additionally, I felt my description on the eunuch was accurate. I took careful notes. We are all different people with different interpretations of events. Perhaps you learned different things at the workshop, and I would be interested in what those things are. I really am not sure still what exactly you found erroneous about my description. Naturally, I didn't cover every single point, but it seems to be that in a nutshell Mel talked about not spending the energy engaging in debate with those who don't want to sincerely dialogue. And, Nancy talked about eunuchs. Was there something else that you learned from the workshop that you would like to share? Oddly enough, I find myself, at your hands, experiencing the same misrepresentation by you, that you accuse me of . . .
|
|
#6
07-05-2007, 04:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Karen,
Welcome to the Soulforce forum. I am not a moderator (thank goodness!) but as an active member here let me ask you to please make sure that you have read the guidelines about posting on these forums. This is not just a place to argue opinions. these forums are a refuge for glbt people to connect. as such posts that villify gay people, characterize SSA as immoral, or promote the ex-gay agenda are not permitted. Our moderators are very strict on these points. Seeing that you are active in the "ex-gay" endeavor I just want you to be clear about what is acceptible here. Dave
|
|
#7
07-05-2007, 04:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Maybe it's just me. I didn't find Karen's blog offensive, though I can obviously see that we don't hold identical beliefs, and the differing perspective naturally means differing "take homes" from a presentation like the one you reference. And I'll add my welcome Karen. I guess I am an "ex-ex-gay" myself, though I never liked to use the term "ex-gay" ... it was not descriptive of my experience. Let me encourage you to continue your love and concern for gay people, and your apparent willingness to dialogue, and I am confident that God will lead us all where He needs us to be.
I will be quite honest, it was that same concern for the lives of gay people I knew and loved, and that same heartache you describe, that ultimately made me rethink my place in the ex-gay movement, and my own understanding of Scripture. I knew full well that my position, rejecting my own sexuality and that of others, meant I would never have a voice among the people I most cared about ... I could force myself to be alone for life (I still am, for now) but I could not conscience being a part of the larger voice that has been (intentionally or unintentionally, but indisputably) a loud "go away" to my GLBT brothers and sisters.
__________________
Better to light one candle than to curse the darkness. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
|
|
#8
07-05-2007, 07:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Karen,
It seems we frequent the same message boards. I have tried to explain that it is not that I find your recollection of the workshop technically inaccurate... it is that I find it selective and out of context. And there were a couple of quotes in particular that I just knew others in the ex-gay movement would distort and latch onto. And sure enough this happened almost immediately by people in the ex-gay camp that aren't as englightened as you. I will be honest that, now that I know more about you as a person, I wish i had responded in a different manner. I feel very badly if you took it as a personal attack. And now that I think of it, I realize that the reason I acted so forcefully is because I really didn't think an ex-gay leader would care or give any creedance to what I was saying otherwise. You have shown me otherwise, and for this, I apologize. I'm not sure if you have received it, but I sent you a personal email. Feel free to respond if you wish to dialogue further, outside of the public realm. Last edited by KennethJ; 07-05-2007 at 08:03 PM.
|
|
#9
07-06-2007, 10:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks Ken. I appreciate what you said. Its so easy to misunderstand each other on an issue that touches us on such a deep and personal level. I find it very difficult to know how to talk about it without offending someone. How do we treat each other with respect and yet allow room for disagreement and different worldviews? On some level I am hopeful about the civilized conversations I've had with ex-ex gays that seemingly bridge the divide. On the other hand, I think that the views we hold are so precious to each side that it creates an inevitable tension. Soulforce exists to fight for the civil rights of GLBT people. And, I am unfortunately, in some way a hinderance to that by virtue of being ex-gay (though I personally am not politically involved on this issue). In the end, I wonder how much dialogue the sides can really have--because what we both want is to persuade the other to see things from our own worldview. A dialogue presumes that compromise of some sort is possible, and I don't know what kind of compromise either side can really make without laying aside our deepest values and integrity. This is the "break-up" that I described in my blog post that makes me sad--where we ultimately, at a certain point, have to part ways.
|
|
#10
07-06-2007, 11:26 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
We can allow for disagreement and still maintain respect by avoiding the (easy to fall into) trap of assuming that other questioning people need to make the same decisions and choices that we have made. What works for us does not necessarily work for the guy or girl next door. For one, coming out means deepening a connection to self and God, while for another, it may mean, either temporarily or life-long, losing those connections. Those who choose not to live authentic to a gay orientation need to avoid proselytizing to those who DO, that they should change. If you (generic you, not Karen) choose to live a celibate life, or to marry someone of the opposite sex to whom you are not attracted, and you are able to maintain that commitment and retain your sense of self and authenticity, then that may be the right choice for you. It does NOT make a right choice for anyone else. Those of us in the LGBT-movement need to (and those I know well, already do) allow for an understanding that not everyone with a gay orientation is going to be psychologically able to come out, or want to. It is not our job to go to someone and demand that they come out, nor is it yours to demand some go back into a closet of forced "ex-gaydom." ESPECIALLY given its track record of failure along with severe psychological and even physical damage to SO MANY of those who have tried. You say you are a hindrance to LGBT civil rights and that this is unfortunate. I take it therefore that you support things like employment non-discrimination bills, hate crimes protections, marriage equality, and so on? Karen. You do not have to be a hindrance to gay peoples' civil rights just because your sexual orientation changed. (Quick question: did it change? Or are you celibate? Or some other situation?) Anyway, just because you may experience fluctuations in who you've been attracted to, or may have decided to wall off your interest in women for whatever reasons that are precious to you, does not make you a hindrance to anyone's civil rights unless you make a hindrance of yourself. If you make yourself into a public figure promoting "change" for others, and you lend your support to organizations that say "Hey, since homosexuals can change - look at Karen - they don't need civil rights," then you have done so. Just living your private life privately in a way that is authentic to you does NOT do so. That is how we can maintain a "compromise" position: we respect the deep reasons for your decision, and you respect ours - that means not persuading, guilting, scaring, or pressuring others to make the SAME decision.
__________________
*** Never linger too long with the ignorant, throw stones at their talk. Walk only with the lovers, the mirror of the soul gets rusty when dipped in muddy water. -Rumi
|
|
#11
07-06-2007, 12:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Karen, your message rings with a truth. When I first responded to your blog, I only knew that you were an ex-gay leader. And i had all these assocations connected with that, based on my own experiences. I think that, a lot of times, we ex-ex-gays feel like we need to shout if we want to be heard. And now I realize that you are this thoughtful, compassionate, good human being who is totally open to real dialogue.
What can I say? I am humbled, and honestly embarassed that i stereotyped you and didn't adhere to my own values in making initial contact with you.
|
|
#12
07-06-2007, 12:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Time Out !!!
Can I break in here to just say:
Way to play nice kids! Good work! Thanks. Now, Karen, since you're here and since you are playing nice with us... would you explain what being "ex-gay" means TO YOU? it would help me a lot to hear this from someone who feels like being ex-gay is a good things. STEVE! I AM AWARE THAT SHE IS NOT ALLOWED TO ADVOCATE FOR EX_GAYness BUT I don't think this really counts ... does it? If she is talking about her own experience? Do you mean that you no longer feel emotional and erotic attractions to women? Do women no longer catch your eye? and that you now are lusting after hunky young guys and flip right to the men's underwear section when the Penney's catalogue arrives or Do you mean that you no longer feel any attraction to anyone? or Do you mean that you feel all the old attractions but have decided that you CAN and WANT TO live celibately? what does "ex-gay" mean in the context of your life? Dave (u-dog)
|
|
#13
07-06-2007, 03:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi Dave,
Good questions about what it means for me to be ex-gay. I am willing to share--though I don't want to violate any of the discussion board policy. Since you asked, I'll give it a shot . . . I don't typically refer to myself as "ex-gay"-- its not a label I define myself by. I think I resort to it because its the common word that is used and I don't know what else to call "it". In the documentary, God and Gays, the best I could come up with was "same-sex attracted; non-practicing"-- but that is so cumbersome. And, really I don't like labels at all. Having said that, what it means for me (and it means different things for different people) is that I no longer choose to be in lesbian relationships. I am still attracted to women. So I would not say I have "changed" from gay to straight. The whole question of change and sexual complexity really requires more discussion. My next blog post will discuss that (I'm still trying to figure out how to word it!) and so that might clarify in more detail what I think about the issue of change etc. At any rate, when I talk about this issue, I don't talk about change. I talk about how I love God more than anything else in the Universe. I didn't stop getting involved in relationships because of peer or family pressure or religious legalism or because I felt like God would send me to hell. I stopped because I felt God's Spirit speaking to me to not be in relationships with women. And even though I may not understand all the whys of that, I trust God because I know he loves me passionately and has my best interest at heart. The most important thing in my life is to follow Jesus the best way I know how and with the most honesty I know how. And as much as I would like accept homosexuality for myself and others, I simply cannot go against my conscience and what I believe God is speaking to my heart on that issue.
|
|
#14
07-06-2007, 03:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It took me years to discover that people who denied to live in accordance with their sexuality could be having a spiritual connection with God by doing so, but I've finally recognized that for them, it can be quite real. What matters is the internal sense of connection between self and God. If someone has that, we ought not try to push something different on to them. Maybe some day we will find out why some of are getting such different-sounding answers from God. But that's not for now. For now, we are tasked with somehow getting along. Let's focus on that.
__________________
*** Never linger too long with the ignorant, throw stones at their talk. Walk only with the lovers, the mirror of the soul gets rusty when dipped in muddy water. -Rumi
|
|
#15
07-06-2007, 03:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Tolerate one another, just as I have tolerated you.- Jesus Christ?
|
|
#16
07-06-2007, 03:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
thanks. good answer.
Karen,
Thanks for your answer. It was a good, clear, and honest one. Listening to God and shaping your life around what you believe is paramount to an authentic life. It makes me sad to think of you living a life outside of a loving and intimate relationship but I won't try to convince you that you are wrong. As a Presbyterian and a self-avowed Calvinist I don't believe that God calls people to life long celibacy but only to seasons of celibacy... but what do I know! Blessings on your journey.
|
|
#17
07-06-2007, 05:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Keltic63,
You are right to call me on what you did! If I were you I would have been thinking the same thing. I want to respond to that, but I am not sure I will make much sense. Part of the issue is how our "meta-narratives" play out. In the land of my meta-narrative I hold to the belief that God tells us to do things for our own good, and that if I were to accept homosexuality for anyone, I would actually be cruel and inhumane to you. This probably sounds very odd to you, but by holding to the belief, not only for myself, but others as well, it is like me warning a person who is driving a car that the bridge is out up ahead. If I didn't say something, and the person drove off the bridge--what kind of person would I be? I would be like the callous priest who walked by the injured man instead of helping him. For me to say what I believe abut homosexuality is for me being the Good Samaritan. I know that all probably sounds pretty crazy and backward to you since you have a very different understanding of the issues--but its actually, honestly what I believe. The Scriptures talk about how the ways of God lead to joy, health, peace and life. And so for me, holding the belief I do is about promoting that joy, health, life and peace for other people. I know its a stretch, but if you try to look at it from the angle I am (just for a second), you might (from a cross-cultural standpoint) grasp why I feel so deeply as I do. Because I actually think that I am helping people (not in the sense of an ex-gay ministry and change, but helping in the sense of helping people know God more intimately and enjoy all He has for us).
|
|
#18
07-06-2007, 05:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I also know very well how frustrating it is to be in the position of having the gay-affirming "side" tell you you are being dishonest, fake, or "repressing" your real self. I didn't feel it was anyone else's place to decide that about me back then, and I cannot see it as my place to decide it about you, or anyone else, now. The possibility of change or life-long celibacy for someone else need not be a threat to the legitimacy (and rightness) of where I am now. I do hold to an objective view of the nature of truth, which means we probably can't both be right, but I also hold to a solid view of human fallibility, which means neither of us can be certain that it's the other one who's wrong. So we co-exist, and assume either one of us may be right on this one. It is, in a sense, simply giving the other (and yourself) the "right to be wrong." That's the only way (IMHO) we can continue talking, and not just go our separate ways (though that would be much easier). When I was working with OneByOne (an "ex-gay" support and educational ministry serving the Presbyterian Church USA), I wrote an article entitled "Please Let Me Be Who I Am." ... the gist was how angry it made me to be a "man without a country" ... the "fundies" wouldn't have me, because I had this "struggle," and the "gays" wouldn't have me because I was "in denial." Why couldn't I be a Christian, gay, and celibate? Why did I have to choose one? My views have changed on much since then, but not on the idea that we must allow people to have their own journey, and not view their existence, beliefs, and experiences to be a "threat" to our own. Sometimes, even when a position is correct, it's not helpful. For what it's worth (like you need my permission) ... I allow you to be who you are, Karen. (Wow, aren't you relieved?) I'm glad you're in the conversation (here and more broadly) --you're a delightful person. Will you stay and talk with us a while? Ramble over. For now.
__________________
Better to light one candle than to curse the darkness. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
|
|
#19
07-06-2007, 06:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Friends,
I don't have a problem at all with people who have a calling to celibacy. I believe that scripture and tradition suggests that celibacy is a calling that some have and some don't. (The Roman Catholic Church is finding that not very many people have the calling to celibacy, it seems from their priest shortage.) One should not prescribe life-long celibacy to those who do not have that calling from God (I think that was probably even Calvin's teaching.) This leads to my question for Karen. Why shouldn't she simply refer to her self as a "celibate lesbian," or even simply as "celibate," rather than as "ex-gay?" That would be more honest and open and less mis-leading than the term "ex-gay." One of the problems we have with the "Ex-gay" movement is that it seems deceptive and misleading. People are given the hope that they can establish happy, picture-perfect heterosexual marriages like Alan Chambers. Or that Jesus will keep them celibate when that is not their calling. People try to emulate "ex-gays" and find that they have neither the God-given gift of celibacy, nor the gift of a heterosexual orientation. God's gift to them may be a homosexual orientation and a same-gender spouse. Then, cruelest cut of all, many of these model "ex-gays" turn out to be completely phony. Then, there is a problem of what the truth is. It can be true that God calls some to heterosexuality, some to homosexuality and some to celibacy, or it can be true that God calls people only to heterosexual monogamy or celibacy, but not to homosexuality. Both cannot be true. Now, we can have differing views of the truth--but "X" and "not-X" can't be true at the same time and in the same way. Sometimes we can live at peace with different views of the truth--the Bible and tradition even suggests we should strive for that in many cases. But we have a problem when we have one segment of society insist that all the rest of society agree with their truth or suffer official discrimination by that society. The so-called "Ex-Gay movement" appears, too often, to be allied with those political movements who want to use the law to discriminate against LGBT people. Some Christian denominations (like my United Methodist denomination) seem to be moving towards throwing their gay and lesbian kids out of their church homes because they won't accept the so-called "truth" that "homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian teaching." It isn't any different, spiritually, from parents throwing their LGBT kids out of their homes. Some Christian parents even throw their kids out on the streets, because they think that's the way to follow their faith. Rarely are these church people satisfied with limiting discrimination to their church (where it is bad enough), they want to impose their teaching and discrimination on the rest of society as well. It is the churches that are our primary political adversaries in this society. Religious views of LGBT people are even regular material for Presidential politics for crying out loud! I'm not judging where Karen comes down on all these issues, until I hear more from her. I don't know to what extent she is allied with an organization (Exodus) that seems to be allied with anti-LGBT political movements. But I will not make peace with a "truth" that demands the exclusion of God's children from their families' homes or from their church homes or from equality in society. We, in Soulforce, are sticking to the truth that God (or "the soulforce at the center of the universe, if you will) wants all his/her children, gay and straight, treated with respect and dignity. If Karen is here saying that some LGBT people are called to celibacy, I have no problem--I think she could even work with us for LGBT equality on that basis. If she's telling us LGBT people are inferior in any way to heterosexual persons in God's creation--I've got a problem. If Karen is saying celibacy is essential to her spiritual path, I have no problem. If her theology is that the only spiritual path is celibacy or heterosexual monogamy, than I have a problem. Preaching to us that God universally commands only heterosexual monogamy or celibacy is not acceptable in this forum, as I understand the rules--is that right? Steven Webster
|
|
#20
07-06-2007, 06:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Can't speak for Karen on this, only for myself. The reason I did not use those terms was that I felt I was called to celibacy, not in and of itself, but rather because of my homosexuality. It was, in my mind, the only moral choice --you know that I now feel differently. I could not, at the time, have embraced my gay identity, or worked in good conscience to advocate for others ... if I could have approved of it then, my sense of call to celibacy would have disappeared (as it now has). This is precisely the ground of the disagreement ... if I can't change, can I rightly act on my identity or no ...
I know of some gay men who have answered a call to celibacy that is unrelated to their orientation, and who would certainly not call themselves "ex-gay" ... the identification with the ex-gay movement, at least for me, meant that my celibacy was specifically because of my orientation (and my view that it was unacceptable), and not for any other reason. They're "animals" of two entirely different stripes.
__________________
Better to light one candle than to curse the darkness. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
