Eve Tushnet makes an interesting observation in her recent article in the National Review:
During the entire nine hours of the conference, none of the speakers I heard discussed how to live chastely while experiencing same-sex attractions. The focus was entirely on the goal of switching sexual orientations.
Mike Haley, the director of gender issues for Focus on the Family and probably the speaker at the conference with whom I disagreed least, told me afterward that one small-group session had discussed chastity. “We don’t want people to believe that change means you have to be married and have to have kids,” he said, and then added, “The opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality, the opposite of homosexuality is holiness. We’re not trying to create people from homosexual to heterosexual.” These statements don’t line up with what I heard at the conference; but it’s much easier to be nuanced in one-on-one conversations than in lectures to big audiences.
When I spoke to Martin Hallett of True Freedom Trust recently, he expressed exactly the same concern. He severed the organization’s ties to Exodus precisely because of the rhetoric, which he said was “setting people up for disillusionment”. Martin seems to distrust promises of a change of orientation, and tends to promote celibacy as the main option for gay Christians. Tushnet’s sentiments echo quite strikingly something Martin said, which was that most ex-gays he spoke to directly in the States shared his views about celibacy – but the views they privately expressed did not match up with the tone of Exodus’s rhetoric in public.
The same week I spoke to Martin, I also spoke to a charismatic pastor whose ex-gay ministry was based on the LIFE ministry of Ron and Joanne Highley, and promoted a 100-percent reversal of sexual orientation. I was taken aback by the boldness of his claims in our first telephone conversation. The following day, after he had read a draft of what I had written about him, he was, frankly, livid at the way I had represented him. The conversation went something like this:
“You make the church sound like a marriage machine!”
“Well, I’ve got to be honest – that was the impression you gave.”
“And when you quote me as saying homosexuality is a disorder…”
“Well, you did say it was a disorder.”
“Yeah, but what I meant was, it’s more like a disordering of desires. And when you quote me saying we’ll tolerate gays as long as they’re seeking counselling to change, well, that word, ‘tolerate’, it makes me sound bigoted…”
“It’s the word you used and yeah, I did think at the time, Hmm, that sounds kind of, um, intolerant.”
I went away from our first conversation with the impression there were gays turning straight and getting married left, right and centre. In our second conversation, there was a lot more uhmming and ahhing, and I think I came away with a more nuanced view of what was really happening. My feeling was that I had caught the pastor offguard on my first phone call. He brashly made a few claims (and when I say brashly, don’t picture some hotshot, slick, suited megachurch pastor here – in every other respect, we’re talking a very down-to-earth kind of guy) without really thinking about the impression he was putting across.
I’m not saying the guy was being deliberately deceptive – far from it. In my days as a charismatic I found it was quite common for people to exaggerate what God was “doing”. “I prayed before I went to bed, and when I woke up this morning, my headache felt quite a bit better,” could easily become “The Lord miraculously delivered me from a migraine,” when later related during testimony time. No deliberate deception involved, just a culture that too easily couches its stories in exaggerated and misleading terms.
It will be better for all of us when the ex-gay movement loses its culture of exaggerated claims and starts to match its public image with the private reality.
“Culture of exaggerated claims”???Perhaps we start the revolution here, and use plain English.”Culture of lying”
I just don’t think it’s as simple as straightforward lying.
bugger. pressed post, not preview.
Be very interested, you willing, Hallett willing, to see some more on this. It’s fascinating that the break occured with Exodus over this very issue.
I’ll post the full article I wrote sometime in the next few weeks. It records a bit more of the interview with Hallett, although I not a great deal on the break with Exodus. However, if he’s willing, I’ll speak to him again and see if I can find out anything more about things.
(Hey you’re online too)
You’ll need to elaborate Dave. For those us not within that culture 🙂
Someone who knowingly presents something not as it is… is lying. No? Why not?
Hmm, perhaps you should read the post again. I’m not describing those who consciously and deliberately lie – I’m describing those who exaggerate without even realizing they’re being dishonest. Those who speak before their brain is in gear.
Hmm. I get that much.
You had them I guess, but the two conversations with that pastor don’t strike me that way. Those were not the same claims.
It sounds more like lying to get a sale, and never expecting to have that customer ask those questions again. But, damnation, he went and quoted me verbatim and now I’ve got to start the weaseling.
It’s also called false advertising. Whether or not you later claim your brain was not in gear.
Would such behaviour be acceptable from a surgeon or an accountant, or a professional therapist?
The Highleys may have learned from experience that messages which make perfect sense inside their ministry are received differently outside it.
When their ministry was filmed for the 1993 documentary One Nation Under God, Joanne spoke explicitly about the body cavities from which she had cast demons out.
Was she unaware how that might be received? Believe that she’d only be heard by empathetic audiences? I don’t know.
I just don’t think it’s as simple as straightforward lying.
Okay. How about: “Bullshitting”? As in, “Man oh man you should have seen that fish I caught…it was at least 5 feet long.”
“Okay…4”
“Be fair…3”
“At least 2 feet.”
“No smaller then 1.”
“Well…to be honest 5 inches.”
“Okay…it was a shoe. But it was a really Big Shoe. Size 23 and a half, easily.”
Maybe it’s like that for some of them. Maybe for most of them. But then…so what? It’s still lying, just a kind of lying that can still feel a tad shamefaced when it’s looked at for what it is. And shame or not, real people are still being hurt by these lies. These are not fish stories they’re telling.
Before I start I want to give a disclaimer. While what is described here is technically not lying it is nevertheless incredibly cruel. That alone makes it wrong. I do think it is helpful to get inside this pastor’s head. Let me repeat. My explanation below is not an excuse.
Most evangelicals cannot avoid the fact the Bible appears to condemn homosexual behavior. We understand the strength of sexual attraction and for that matter so does the Bible. When the Apostle Paul taught that singleness was superior to marriage he acknowledged that for some people it was better to marry than to burn. This gives three options. The first is to allow for gay unions not as “the best” but as the best possible — this option is viewed by most evangelicals as Biblically out of bounds. The second is to encourage gays to be celibate as Paul encouraged the early believers — this is viewed as not hopeful and unfair. The last seems like the magic bullet. That is, try to convert the temptation to something that is Biblically allowable and give the homosexual the same “out” as the heterosexual.
From what I can best determine, it is this desire to provide hope that drives many ex gay ministries. When pushed hard they will instinctively fall back on option 2 because they know in their hearts (at least the ex gays themselves, straights may simply be ignorant and bought the propoganda) that option 3 is not at all realistic.
While I cannot relate completely to what you are going through, I do have a point of contact. My son is autistic. His brain simply works differently than so-called normal people. His social faux paus will eventually stop being “cute” and will be punished by society — not as severe as what it does to you but punishment nonetheless. This brings me to a recent NY Times Op Ed:
The bottom line is this: no matter how “loving” it seems to be giving false hope is cruel and realism is much to be preferred.
My experiences match that understanding. When noting that most people do not appear to alter their orientation, I ask what homosexuals should do. The reply is usually along the lines of “they should be celibate, but I cannot imagine ME doing that.” The thinking extends to many conservative Christian organizations, as an article from the American Family Association indicates (PDF).
I do not think their interpretation is accurate; for example the term translated “homosexual” refers to activity, as orientation does not appear in the Bible. However the discomfort generated by the idea of immutable orientation appears to be a major factor behind these groups embracing the ex-gay movement. Unlike Eve Tushnet, they find it difficult to accept that God would hold such people to these standards.
Well, I’m amazed that that Tushnet would think Haley made an improved and more nuanced private speech than public one. She criticizes the public speechs’ focus on the goal of switching orientation but Haley’s private comments are just as big a lie and a worse offense. Haley says privately “The opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality, the opposite of homosexuality is holiness.” He equates gays with evil not to mention twisting the meaning of words like that is a lie – obviously to most reasonable people homosexuality is the opposite of heterosexuality.
Haley’s comments couldn’t be more wrong, hateful, and inexcusable.
Rich, technically the charismatic pastor was lying. He promoted a 100 percent reversal of orientation. Technically speaking anything less than a 100% success means he’s lying and as you well know the success rate is extremely low, some estimate as low as I think it was .4 or .04 percent based on the Spitzer study!
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod1.htm
This isn’t just a case of exagerating a headache “feeling quite a bit better” into the “lord miraculously delivered me from a migraine”, there’s a night and day difference between the reality and the promises of orientation change. That is a lie technically and in spirit.
I found the autism story to be a good analogy to the reality of the success rates in “reparitive therapy”. However no one in your bit was claiming a 100% success rate in treating autism. To say this is a similar case of exagerated claims by those promoting cures is way off base.
These people need to be confronted with the reality and seriousness of their lies, not encouraged to think they haven’t particularly done anything wrong.
Wow, I.E., that is one scary document from the AFA. A bizarrely perfect, example, though, of making reality subservient to dogma.
I find those stories of the murder of autistic children so horrible and sad.
But we have to be clear: autistic children are and do have pronounced forms of behavior IN PUBLIC that they cannot control and keeps them from functioning in a normal range of academics and professional life.
They are sometimes fully and always dependent on someone else for basics.
Even in adulthood.
And prayer prescriptions aren’t recommended.
This is what I mean when I say that anyone related to an addict or someone with a mental or emotional disorder, RECOGNIZES it, and these disorders are not a matter of keeping it private or not.
Regardless of where that person is or does, their problem will reveal itself involuntarily.
Gay folks want to reveal who they are, live openly and be able to have the freedom to do so without reprisal or threat.
The closet isn’t a matter of choice, and neither is the environment in which to reveal one’s orientation.
It’s the straight folks with the problem. The inability to understand or even WAIT for the full development of a young gay person.
They’d rather cut them off, punish them severely or use some kind of blackmail or restriction to get their way.
And as these scenarios with autistic children, those parents TRIED everything to no avail and it did’nt’ work, because these kids aren’t functional.
The parents of gay kids needn’t worry about the ability to function and be happy, unless and until they try to help their kid BE happy.
In this scenario, the straight parents want to be happy and untroubled by sending the kid off to a place like LIAR.
And evidently, their child’s happiness isn’t the goal.
You all can correct me if I’m wrong.
But I think Exodus is yapping at the moon.
They don’t know how to do a diagnosis.
Anyone who can’t even do that, hasn’t the knowledge to do anything.
Randi said:
I do. On an e-mail list of Christians I said:
I believe you miss my point. It is not to make a perfect analogy between reparative therapy and autism but rather to agree with you how damaging — and thus how evil — overselling the effectiveness of these therapies are. The issue you raised that the effectiveness is more exagerated than autism treatments makes my point even stronger a forteriori. Nevertheless, don’t think that religious quackery you suffer under doesn’t invade the autism space. See my blog entry here:
I didn’t mean to dismiss your condemnations of the overselling of “reparative therapies”. I’m sorry I failed to acknowledge the significance of that. I took issue with your disclaimer that what is described here is technically not lying. You did call it incredibly cruel however.
We appreciate the analogy Rich (and thanks for bringing it.)
We’ve both worked in disability services — mainly severe physical — one still and always has. Embedded in the links you gave are important warnings about not taking it all on. Seeking support, having other things to focus on. And being realistic, as you said.
It’s often very difficult to let go a little and find some space away from the disability, but it’s usually very important for everyone. Including the child if there’s a wish to introduce some resilience to life.
An analogy of the parents with the obsessive, consuming focus that many exgays appear to have with their sexuality is another parallel worth noticing. I’m not sure I’d even want to spend as much time on gay issues as they do!
And our best wishes for your self and your son too.
Have no idea how profound the disability is, but some of the finest researchers and media artists we’ve ever met have certainly displayed autistic tendencies — some very pronounced in childhood. The hard part was finding where it could be applied. But we guess you know all that already 🙂
Back to the question as to whether some of these ex-gay leaders are misrepresenting themselves or simply lying (or bullshitting)…
Is it lying if one is deceived and really believes the message, even with all its duplicity?
Contemporary Evangelical Conservative Christianity can be an incredibly complex belief system with inconsistencies that are massaged away through myriad linguistic and interpretive devices.
The duality that exists of being in the world but not of the world, of being wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove, of being children of the Light in the world of darkness, automatically creates a double-speak. A sneakiness that includes illusive meaning goes back even to the recorded words of Jesus in the Gospels.
When asked something in public, Jesus’ provides ambiguous answers with multiple meanings. Jesus presents his private message to his disciples in different words and nuance then he does for the masses.
Lots of ex-gay leaders believe that “change is possible” and live hidden from the ambiguity of what that means. They question homosexuality, but cannot question their own ex-gay ideology or else risk losing something they find precious.
Even in their own chuches when they confess that God delivered them from homosexuality, they may mean something very different from what the ever-straight brethen interpret them saying. It is in this way they can survive and even thrive in a Christian culture that violently opposes same-gender loving people.
The ex-gay leaders also desperately need to believe their message because it is more than a political platform, it is the basis of their lives and ministries.
(Dave, now that you mention the Highley’s and their ministry, it reminds me that I have not yet blogged about the five years I attended Life Ministries and received personal “ministry” from Joanne. So much to blog, so little time)
Now I would like to explore where my autism analogy breaks down. To be more complete the analogy it would be:
We can cure autism, which by the way is a choice and thus we can take away their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Despite the oversold therapies, a parent with autism such as myself and autistic people are the objects of far more compassion than GLBT people. Part of that is theological because homosexual behavior is considered sin, but that’s not a sufficient explanation. We all sin and struggle with sin and temptation. Something more must be in play.
Rather, it seems to me that the political wings of ex-gay groups have a corrupting influence on the rest of the ministry. Within Protestant theology being judgmental, aka being a Pharisee, can put your own salvation at risk. To use the local terminology it is to have “works righteousness”. This doctrine produces compassion for others who might be struggling with what may be considered sin.
So, why are GLBT people not treated that way? I contend the morphing from people to be loved into a political opponent sucked out any remaining compassion. Here I include small-p politics. This includes debates within churches over whether leadership can be practicing homosexuals. Now that this includes big-p politics the effect is even more pronounced.
Recently, there has been a more positive development. This is the emergence of the evangelical middle. What characterizes this group is the deliberate disavowal of politics. Students of evangelical history would not be surprised because evangelicals have had a love/hate relationship with politics. Famous figures included here are Rick Warren, and Rick Cizic of the NAE. The latter was instrumental in producing an evangelical response to reduce global warming. I know a number you were frustrated with Dr. Warren but given how bad the situation has gotten you need to judge his efforts on relative terms. It will take time to re-inflate the compassion sucked out of evangelicalism by politics.
Please note that the previous anonymous post was me.
Peterson said:
Interesting. Could you please expand on this? How would I as an ever-straight misinterpret what ex-gays are saying? Is it the assumption that they are no longer struggling? Thanks.
Rich, I can’t answer for Peterson (although I actually think you are probably correct about what he was saying).
However, I can certainly relate to his thoughts here, and those in particular.
During the time that I was ex-gay, I regularly told people that God was “bringing me out of homosexuality” or that God had healed the issues that led to my homosexuality.
I am sure that the vast majority of people (with the exception of the 2 or 3 people who were aware at how much I “struggled”) thought that I was “cured.” I base this on how much well-meaning church folks continued to try to fix me up with a guy. To them, I was cured and therefore I should get married.
Most people also did not understand the concept of distinguishing between homosexual orientation and behavior. So if they knew that I had moved away from the “homosexual lifestyle” and wasn’t with anyone, they assumed that meant I was cured. I wasn’t about to get up in church and confess anything otherwise. Too much lack of understanding (and some downright homophobia; expressed in relief that I had been saved from such a lifestyle) in all the churches I went to (although they hosted “change” programs, and were generally much more aware of the issues than other churches).
When I did start questioning the idea that my orientation had changed (for a short time I thought it had), I had to leave the church I was attending because I would have been seen as “going back to the lifestyle” even though during the whole time I was ex-gay and for several years after being ex-ex-gay I still had not been with another person sexually. Had nothing to do with my behavior. But you know, most people don’t want to know. They just want to hold you up as an example of God’s healing power and love to tell others “that girl used to be a homosexual until God got a hold of her!”
And you know, part of the reason I think that many folks in my position aren’t clearer with their churches is that 1. it’s really dang tiring having people all up in your business, especially about such intimate matters, and 2. it’s a heady experience to find acceptance and love and even importance in the church. I think that it is possible that some ex-gays (I speak from experience here) remain ex-gay not only because they can’t reconcile their orientation with their homosexuality, but they also like too much being sort of the center of attention, and they like giving their testimony of God’s saving grace (the gay to straight testimony makes one a mini-celebrity).
Whew, sorry this is so long. Sometimes I think I need to get my own blog. Oh, wait…
Thanks, Christine. That was very helpful.
By the way, the irony was that the “100-percent reversal” claim was the one thing the charismatic pastor in my story remained resolute about.