Wayne Besen at an Ex-Gay Revival

Wayne Besen, author and gay rights activist, reports on his trip to see an "ex-gay" evangelist named Tim Wilkins at a revival meeting in North Carolina. He makes a couple of very important points about the entire ex-gay scam.

Equally surprising was that Wilkins unwittingly admitted that he was not cured, but merely suppressing his sexuality. He tried to spin this message by reducing the deep, intrinsic identity of "sexual orientation" to a nagging "temptation." However, it was striking how after 30 years of ex-gay ministry and marriage, Wilkins was no more than a wink from a twink away from falling off the hetero wagon.

To drive home this point, he reiterated that he would not watch Brokeback Mountain because he feared that his resistance might melt like butter near a fire. I pointed out that as a gay man I have watched hundreds of heterosexual dramas and not once was enticed to become straight. Watching Pretty Woman, for instance, did not make me want to sleep with Julia Roberts. He had no answer for this.

This is a very important point to make. Those in the ex-gay movement love to say that Jesus "cured" them of their homosexuality, thus making them heterosexual. But if all it takes is a little temptation to change your mind, you aren't "cured" and you aren't heterosexual, you're just suppressing who you are. I don't have to avoid movies like Brokeback Mountain out of fear that it will make me want to sleep with a man any more than I have to avoid Road Runner cartoons so I won't be tempted to strap an Acme rocket to my back and fly off a cliff. Those things simply aren't in my nature to do.

You can deny your nature all you want, and in some cases that's a good thing (as when a person with violent tendencies learns to control their rage through behavioral conditioning). But homosexuality is not a disease and it doesn't need to be "cured", nor, as this preacher's testimony shows, can it be "cured". You can try and change your behavior, but you can't change your nature. And for those who feel the need to change their behavior in this regard, have at it - and good luck. But don't use that as a club to beat up those who aren't unhappy being who they are when their behavior has no effect on you at all. And especially if you are going to use their failure to be "cured" as proof that they aren't worthy of God's grace:

Wilkins stressed that those who don't become straight or successfully celibate fail because they are not sufficiently obedient to God. From my experience this message is particularly dangerous. People who don't "change" after long and emotionally draining efforts often think they have been rejected by a God who doesn't hear their prayers while He helps others become heterosexual. This can often lead to low self-esteem, severe depression and even suicide.

Which is why it is far better to accept people for what they are as long as they aren't hurting others. Let them live in peace, for crying out loud, and stop trying to turn them into Stepford Straights.

Tags

More like this

Box Turtle Bulletin has been tracking the latest ex-gay study that purports to show a 30-50% efficacy in making homosexuals into heterosexuals through the Exodus ex-gay ministry. Initial problems with the study which went to a Christian publisher rather than peer review - the authors Stanton L.…
AmericaBlog has a post about a CNN story on therapists trying to convert gays to being ex-gay. I can't get the video to work, but the description is hilarious: 1. Where the gay guy in "therapy" says that the reason he turned gay is that he had "emotional incest" with his mom. Uh huh. 2. The wacky "…
Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, now thinks that high-tech, fetal research is OK — if it leads to a cure for homosexuality. If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation…
The Human Rights Campaign is concerned, and I would tend to agree, that Bush's recent nominee for Surgeon General has the earmarks of an homophobe. In a document titled "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality," Holsinger opined, in his capacity as a physician, that biology and anatomy precluded…

Weird. This post was up yesterday, and then it disappeared and now it's back.

"accept people for what they are as long as they aren't hurting others."
This has been my personal philosophy for years. I have never understood how someone can believe in a creator god that makes people a certain way (last time I checked homosexuality has been around, well, forever. and maybe ive known too many gay people to beleive that "its a choice" line. sh*t there are homosexual penguins! how does that fit in?)and then judges them evil for it. Not to mention the fact that they then call their god loving, benign and just. But I suppose thats just one in a large list of things I dont understand about the religous mind.

I should point out that a part of the ex-gay contingent never claims they are not gay - they just claim that God helps them "control" their especialy "sinful" nature. Although I believe that the main propagator of that segment has renounced the ex-gay movement and has a male partner again.

It was up yesterday only momentarily. I intended to schedule it to go up this morning but accidentally published it immediately. The first couple posts every day are generally written the night before and scheduled to go up. Gives the early birds something to look at while I get into the swing of things.

I feel sorry for that guy. There is a person that would guaranteed be happier and more well-adjusted with a change of religious convictions. I know a couple, deeply evangelical Christian couple, that had an abortion 30 years ago and still can't get over it. Maybe because they're called baby-killers at their church every other week, but then again that might not be it.

By Russell Claus (not verified) on 22 Sep 2006 #permalink

"they just claim that God helps them "control" their especialy "sinful" nature"

Yes, but thats the issue. If they are gay, and gay is evil, and god made you this way, why would a just, loving god do something like that? Thats what I dont get. It seems singularly cruel. Its as if god made an entire population of Jobs.

jba,

Your question is more general than just the issue of homosexuality. It should be [assuming that you acknowledge that the bible does condemn homosexuality--even as you perhaps find that condemnation repugnant] "why would God make people sinners and then judge them for it?" A fair question that has been asked and answered since antiquity. The root of the answer is in the fact that the question is malformed. The proper question is: "why are people born sinners and then judged for it?"

You are correct (in my opinion) to point out that people are born gay. That then sets aside the special handling of homosexuality that arises from the error (actually a heresy known as Pelagianism), made by many Christians, that people choose to be gay. Once it is acknowledged that homosexuality, just like any other propensity to sin, (again, not to get into a debate whether or not it is a sin, but just agree for the sake of making a point that the bible regards as sinful) is part of a person's nature and not learned, then homosexuality need no longer be viewed by Christians as some sort of "special case sin." We all are born sinners, some with a propensity for sin A, some for sin B.

What then follows is the obvious foolishness of special topic "cures" for sinful behavior. If so, why not, for example, an "I'm an ex-coveter" ministry. The Christian should know that answer to sinfulness is found in Christ, not in human developed behavior modification training.

As someone who has been involved behind the scenes with the protests against Love in Action / Free Z movement, I have dealt with these groups too often in the last 2-3 years.

LIA in Memphis has a resdential place where until recently they were accepting teenagers against their will (not merely adults). The state recently shut them down for childhood admissions in cases of mental illness.

LIA has never (or at least not since my involvement) claimed to cure people of homosexuality. Instead, they have claimed to help people to "supress" sexual activity outside of marrige.

For more info, here is the blog of QAC which is the lead group in opposing these idiots. http://fightinghomophobia.blogspot.com/

"why are people born sinners and then judged for it?"

Quick answer they aren't and they aren't. No evidence this has ever been the case or ever will be so. In fact such a doctrine should be repulsive to anyone with a normal sense of justice.

A baby has done nothing.

JBA - to put it simply, most Christians believe that God created man with a sinfull nature. Many of them will preface statements about this issue with; "while I don't really believe that gays are born that way, so what if they are? We all have an inherently sinful nature and have to try to rise above it - gays, born to be or not, must do the same."

To be clear, I don't buy this BS.

DH
How well do you think "ex-liar" would go over?

By King Spirula (not verified) on 22 Sep 2006 #permalink

GH,

Is it really rewarding to argue, in effect: I assert all Christianity is nonsense, given that it is based on a stupid idea (original sin). Where is the intellectual satisfaction in simply begging the question? Obviously, the fact that Catholics and many Protestants baptize babies means that, in the eyes of those beleievers, they need cleansing (what do you think the water represents?) Does it really make you feel accomplished to say: "It's trivial. They're wrong. Move on. Next question." Just curious, because I find that approach senseless.

King Spirula,

I'm not sure if your question is real or some sort of shot at me, but I'll answer in good faith. An "ex-liar" revival shows just as much ignorance of basic Christian theology as an "ex-gay" revival.

David Heddle,
A very good point and you are right, its not just homosexuality but the whole concept 'original sin' and similar beliefs that really gets me. But unfortunatly it doesnt answer my question. And frankly I dont think there is an answer, or rather there are as many answers as there are people and no one will know for sure until they are dead. Its been years since the last time i read the Bible, is there a specific passage in there where it says that everyone is born with sin? I dont recall it from sunday school, but I was also raised Mormon so its not exactly standard christianity.

Heddle: Why should we "just agree for the sake of making a point that the bible regards [homosexuality] as sinful?" What "point" is so worth making that we have to "agree" to such vile assumptions, even for purposes of abstract conversation? Why is that more acceptable than saying we should "just agree for the sake of making a point that the bible regards [racial integration] as sinful?"

It's time to stop kinda-sorta taking for granted that "the Bible" "regards" homosexuality as "sinful." We've let that horseshit pass unchallenged too many times, and have thus allowed the bigots to hijack discussion of Christian doctrine. "Look, even the mainstream churches don't attack our gay-bashing full-on, so that means God says it's perfectly okay!"

Neither Jesus himself nor the Ten Commandments even mention homosexuality. The only people Jesus is known to have kicked out of the Temple were money-changers, not gays. Ask a homophobe to provide a Biblical case against homosexuality, and all you get is a smattering of obscure bits of Romans, Leviticus, and maybe some other bits of books that aren't even noticed -- let alone considered central -- by most preachers.

(I once saw a photo of a guy with a sign that said "God hates fags!" followed by a Biblical citation. I looked up the chapter and verse cited, and found it wasn't even talking about anything remotely related to "fags." The guy had just made up a reference, and no one called him on it.)

The Biblical case against homosexuality is no stronger than that for slavery, flat-Earth-ism, or geocentrism. "Assuming" a falsehood "for the sake of argument" gives us pointless arguments at best.

DavidHeddle: I know where you're driving at with the Pelagiamism, but it's a bit off the mark. For our purposes, we can use the Wikipedia explanation: Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, since man is no longer in need of any of God's graces beyond the creation of his will [1] the Sacrament of Baptism is devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Christians.

Original Sin is not the same thing as being born gay, but I see your analogy. Perhaps Calvinism/Ariminianism is a better analogy?

I second your main thought, however: It is just as easy for me as a divorced heterosexual to sin sexually (or any other way) as it is for a homosexual to do so. I go further, however: Since the Bible had no knowledge of committed homosexual relationships, lots of its language against homosexual sex is not applicable.

Take Romans 1:25 et seq. Paul's argument is that homosexual sex is a symptom of sinfulness -- and, for me, he is right! Something odd would be going on. But for a committed gay couple, it is merely evidence of a close bond.

I don't believe in "explaining away" parts of the Bible which are difficult or which I disagree with. But part of our reading hermeneutic has to take into account the culture in which the Bible was written and how that might change things were God to re-write it for us today.

Sorry, Ed, that wandered way off-topic.

jba: Original Sin was developed by Augustine using a very poor latin translation of Romans. There is no one verse that establishes the doctrine, although the writings of Paul, taken as a whole, certainly seem to suggest it.

Is it really rewarding to argue, in effect: I assert all Christianity is nonsense, given that it is based on a stupid idea (original sin). Where is the intellectual satisfaction in simply begging the question?

This is an interesting response to say the least. I would ask if you gain any 'intellectual satisfaction' by spreading the 'arguments' for nonsense that you do. What I stated was not question begging in fact your statement more fits the definition of begging the question as you posit a proposition that you try and prove as it is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of your premises.

Obviously, the fact that Catholics and many Protestants baptize babies means that, in the eyes of those beleievers, they need cleansing (what do you think the water represents?) Does it really make you feel accomplished to say: "It's trivial. They're wrong. Move on. Next question." Just curious, because I find that approach senseless.

Apparently you have much more ego involved in this than I do. And why should the argument matter if one believes or not? The discussion is about a point of view and if said view has any real validity at all. You want people to swallow your premises just to have the discussion.

I often find your posts senseless and illogical. So I guess I could ask you the same. You asked a question, I posited an answer. You apparently think you evidence of some sort that babies are born sinful. It doesn't matter if catholics and protestants baptize babies, that just means they could all be wrong. So again, tell me what a baby has done with evidence or my answer is not only not trivial, it's correct.

Since the Bible had no knowledge of committed homosexual relationships, lots of its language against homosexual sex is not applicable.

Why wouldn't the bible have knowledge of this?

It is just as easy for me as a divorced heterosexual to sin sexually (or any other way) as it is for a homosexual to do so

Isn't this true if anyone has sex outside of marriage?

Raging Bee,

I tried, through careful wording, to avoid this debate--not because it is not interesting, but because it is a different question. I agree that you can debate whether or not the bible condemns homosexuality, or condemns it in perpetuity, or whether Jesus' silence on the matter is significant. Those are all interesting questions. But I was commenting on the silliness of an "ex-gay revival" even from the perspective of someone who accepts homosexuality as sinful.

I'm actually going to agree with Heddle in part here. I simply don't think one can make the bible not anti-gay. I don't think it's consistent/honest to pretend otherwise.

Now I simply think the bible is wrong here and trying to pretend the bible was/is the word of God is the irrational belief that should be discussed not whether it is pro/anti gay because quite honestly it is seemingly clear there.

DH,
I was not taking a shot at you. If one can be ex-gay, then it stands to reason one can be an ex-liar. I wonder what their reaction would be if someone were to stand up and make this claim, as lying is probably the most frequently committed "sin".

By King Spirula (not verified) on 22 Sep 2006 #permalink

Take Romans 1:25 et seq. Paul's argument is that homosexual sex is a symptom of sinfulness...

As I understand it, the message of that passage was that when people turn away from God's guidance, they fall into derangement and God won't protect them from that consequence of their decisions. Men humping men was used as an example of such derangement, because most people at that time saw it as icky and "just wrong." The author(s) of that passage did not intend to say that gay sex was deranged; they used that commonly-believed link (gay sex=derangement) to make a rhetorical point. IF gay sex had not been seen as deranged at the time, the authors would have used a different example of derangement. (A modern example that would fit the bill might be heroin use or glory-hole sex.)

jba,

There are many that deal with the fact that man's natural (birth) state is one of sinfulness.

An explicit verse, at least in some translations is:

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (Ps.51:5, NIV)

(In other translations it reads: "in sin was I conceived"--which is more ambiguous.)

for a short list of verses that demonstrate man's fallen state, see:

helives.blogspot.com/2002/09/our-dismal-condition-before-rebirth.html

GH,

Whatever--I'll restrict my comments to those who actual understand how to argue. My bad for responding.

Men humping men was used as an example of such derangement, because most people at that time saw it as icky and "just wrong." The author(s) of that passage did not intend to say that gay sex was deranged

I think I'm going to have to agree with Heddle again. If one is using something as an example of derangement it's because you think it deranged. I don't think this would be any different today. In that culturally I don't think this is about rules/laws but human perception.

Thanks kehrsam, thats pretty much how I thought it was. But one way or another I just cant believe in it. I cant imagine how an infant is going to make a choice, let alone a sinful one. Dont you have to know about the differance between good and evil to even be able to sin? I thought that was the point of the Adam and Eve story.

My gosh Heddle I agree with you and your still upset.

And the notion that you know how to argue is absolutely humorous given your history at PT. You know how to argue but not to debate.

I have responded to your questions honestly and with straight forward replies. You want to have it your way, with your premises. Most of which are false. Then lecture others on 'how' to have a discussion.

You are an odd little man.

Kehrsam,

I appreciate the point. However, I think that it is a question of "unintentional" Pelagianism. What got Pelagius into a dispute with Augustine is that he found it incomprehensible that God could command us to do something that we are incapable of doing. (Augustine, you probably know, had a prayer whereby he asked God for the ability to do what God commanded--Pelagius found this highly objectionable.) Christians who argue that gays choose to be gay are, in effect, saying that you'd never be born gay because God would not allow you to be born in a state from which it is impossible to be obedient. This is, it seems to me, classic Pelagianism. It ignores the fact that we all are born in that state--hence the need for a savior. As a thought experiment, who would agree with many modern Christians that Gays are not born that way: it would be Pelagius, not Augustine.

There are many that deal with the fact that man's natural (birth) state is one of sinfulness.

Don't you mean belief that man's natural state is sinfulness?

If one is using something as an example of derangement it's because you think it deranged.

It could also be because you expect your audience to think it's deranged, and need an example that they'll find familiar -- whether or not you agree with it yourself. The author's own opinion need not be relevant, especially if he doesn't want to distract from one point by preaching about another. (Sort of like me discussing Bible interpretation without making a big deal of the fact that I'm not exclusively Christian.)

I do see your point Raging Bee and I agree in principle. I just don't think that is what is happening on this topic in the bible. But I could be wrong and remain open to the possibilty.

It ignores the fact that we all are born in that state--hence the need for a savior.

This is a fine and dandy idea. But why the 'need' for a saviour? Isn't this just ancient superstition carried through this theology? One need not have a sacrifice to forgive something?

I certainly don't think we should rest our laurels on the "it is impossible to cure" line, because for all we know, we could discover next week that homosexuality is caused by some hormonal factor or bit of brain that can be removed. And if people really do want to change, that's okay.

I think it's more important to focus on the simple fact that gay is okay. We can "cure" red-headedness too. Anyone that wants to can. But why should anyone want to? (The trickier question comes if the "cure" ends up in the hands of prospective parents: an issue that deaf culture is starting to struggle with).

The future will screw up all of our pretty plans.