Exodus youth assistant Mike Ensley has responded on his personal blog to my protest of a comic strip that was published (in my opinion, sacrilegiously) within Bibles distributed by Tim Todd Ministries starting in 2005.
Ensley does not object, as I did, to the politically correct and sacrilegious alteration of holy Scripture. But he does seem to agree with me that the comic unnecessarily fuels partisan culture-war rhetoric and trivializes ex-gay struggle. Says Ensley:
I do take issue with this comic on a couple of things. First of all, the main characters’ conversation happens against a backdrop of amped-up extremism; we see hateful neo-nazis and militant gays exploding into a riot. While it’s true that Christians often feel torn between the polarized views on this issue, this portrayal is overblown.
Secondly, the story fails to note the distinction between struggling with temptation and falling into sin. The teen guy who confesses he thinks he “might be gay” is told he must repent and be forgiven of the sin of homosexuality, yet it’s never established that he’s actually done anything to act on his temptations. Nevertheless, the Christian in the comic tells him he must admit that he’s “guilty” in order to be forgiven. And I don’t like that she keeps referring to people as homosexuals and saying “the sin of homosexuality,” rather than specifying that the sin is in the chosen behavior.
Ensley touches on an issue some people I know who work with teens dealing with drgs or alcohol have with most therapy methods–they demand that teens identify as “addicts” at the beginning of their lives and carry that identity like so much baggage forever.
I really think if this comic convinces anyone of anything, it will be convincing LGBT teens that Christians really *are* against them. I think the rock and roll comic will make most shake their heads at the writer’s ignorance.
I’m glad Ensley’s listening and communicating, anyhow.
Great. So what are they going to do about it?
I will admit I always have a problem with Mike Ensley for his take on transgenders.
But I am happy that he is willing to be open.
My hope is he is willing to listen about transgenders too, instead of forming his own assumptions about it.
Baby steps.
At most gay parades there are Fundamentalist Biblists (or Bible worshippers) NOT Neo-Nazis. Neo-Nazis tend to picket churches offering sanctuary or anything to do with immigration. Again, as far as I am concerned, Exodus can do and say what it wills, the bottom line is they have lied and falsified so many times that their word is not worth the paper they wrote it on. They want to sound sympathetic and PC but they still refer to homosexuality as a “sin” and they refuse to admit homosexuals truely exist.
A very Roman Catholic view of homosexuality and bizzarre coming from Exodus. Is Exodus going RCC? Is RCC influencing Exodus?
In Orthodox Christian teaching, a sin (actual sin) is not counted as such unless the person committing the sin knows it is wrong, has the true freedom to do or not do the sin, and willingly chooses to commit the sin whether they actually complete the action or not. In other words, if you decide to commit the sin but at the last minute are distracted and do not commit the sin, you are still guilty of committing the sin because your intention was to carry out the sin.
But Fundamentalist Biblists are usually content with seeing temptation itself as a sin (although theologically it is rarely discussed as such). From my understanding about Biblists, if you are not “saved” and have temptations, the temptations are a reflection of your inner, evil self. From the dealings I’ve had with Biblists, the understanding is that once you are “saved” you will no longer have the temptations because you will be shielded in righteousness. That is why Exodus and other groups like them have the firm belief that if one just turns their life over to God (aka “be saved”) that the homosexuality will stop. (Although of course now after so many years of failure they are willing to downgrade their beliefs and say the temptations taper off).
It’s appalling how these Christians will so willingly treat Jesus like a Magic Bullet. Then when the bullet doesn’t work, they say “You didn’t try hard enough to let God into your heart.” And, as another here at XGW once said (I forget who it was, sorry) – The God I believe in is a God so powerful He doesn’t need second chances. I have more faith than that.
I don’t think it’s accurate to call the antigay jeerers Biblists or Bible worshipers — the truth is, people like Fred Phelps and Michael Marcavage cherry-pick what to believe and worship. They believe very little of the Bible — only what’s required to justify their own prejudices and lifestyles.
It is more accurate to call them what CNN’s Christiane Amanpour called people like them: warriors.
Much like Sadducees, they wage warfare of half-truth, character assassination, deception, fear, and egotism against people who struggle with faith and sexuality. The simple fact that they wage war rather than peace exposes the infidelity of their commitment to true Christianity.
Returning to the topic of this page:
Tom Farrell asked the right question: So what are they (Exodus) going to do about it?
For two years, Exodus has accepted this promotion, and that is unchanged. Ensley’s response was his own, not an official response by Exodus. At the official level, it is apparent that Exodus (in particular, its youth program) continues to accept the benefit of deceptive, politicized, and potentially sacrilegious marketing without repudiation.
While I appreciate Ensley’s personal reservations, in the official view of Exodus, it still seems that the ends justify the (sinful) means.
Mike,
The particular Jewish sect you mentioned, the Sadducees, were hardly people who
They weren’t nearly as liberal as Pharisees, and many were puppets of the Roman Government (especially in the priesthood), and were corrupt because of it. However, I hardly find it fair to brush them with the same broad stroke as some may do when describing conservative Christian sects. I can understand that the Christian Gospels may paint them that way, but this is not the truth. The fact that these stereotypes are pervasive even among the most well-meaning people distresses me.
Yes it that was OT, but I felt I needed to say it.
Fetal steps perhaps.
Today, when I was out, I saw a thirty-something man assault some teenager. He started asking them if they were saved. When they tried to move away from the odd questioning, he asked if they believed in evolution. He started tearing into the teenagers with all kinds of pseudoscience. I had something to do, but I planned on when I returned telling the guy off. It was very disturbing how he thrust himself in to preach to the teenagers. When one of the teenagers said he believed in evolution and so did his parents, the Christian guy told the kid that his parents were damned unless they believed in Christ. I saw this as abuse and undermining parental authority. I mean it was a very severe discussion. When I returned, the guy was gone. I was disappointed because I wanted to tell him that he was hurtful towards this kids. He was targeting young people. These comics kind of seem similiar.
Mike, I have to disagree. I think saying that people believe in a little part of the Bible is problematic–from what I have encountered, most people believe that they are the true and full believer and that others are only taking a little part. I would argue that no one truly accepts Bible totality. For example, I don’t think most believers believe in unicorns, but the Bible talks clearly in nine passages about unicorns existing.
I would argue that no one truly accepts Bible totality.
I totally agree with you on that, and as an Orthodox Christian I don’t see that as a conflict with my faith as Orthodox Christianity does not derive its faith from the Bible.
What “Biblists” like the guy you mentioned do is distort the purpose of the Bible. As an Orthodox Christian I take issue with those who say “The Bible says.” The Bible becomes their idol, their god.
At the University that is where I live now out here in California, there have been incidents where these Biblists attack students, actually grabbing them and refusing to let them go until they “confess” and “accept” Jesus as their personal savior. When people reported to campus police about these incidents, these Biblists sued the University for violating their freedom of speech.
Now let me clarify for my brothers and sisters who derive their faith from the Bible, that does not make you a Biblist. If you adore God and follow the teachings of Christ you are a Christian. If you adore the Bible you are a Biblist. I think the difference is obvious “by the fruits of their labor.” If one is helping a friend or feeding the poor or showing mercy and kindness, chances are if he claims to be a Christian he most likely is. If one is yelling at people in public, grabbing them, teliing them they are going to hell, drawing cartoons that preach hate and disguising them in a Bible, chances are they are a Biblist.
I am sorry for reading too much into the New Testament treatment of the Sadducees.
However, I’d like to point out that much of this discussion of the misuse and abuse of the Bible keeps drifting way off-topic.
For what specific reasons should Exodus oppose the insertion of comics in Bibles, and what specifically should Exodus do to reverse its involvement?
Is Exodus even involved in the bible comics? did they distribute them or something?
Check out Mike’s original post to which this is a response.
Since we also brought this up a couple of years ago, presumably Exodus has had time to express their disagreement if they have any. At any rate, they can certainly do so now if they wish. Not doing so is (at least) tacit agreement with what Tim Todd Ministries is doing.
Aaron, that is disgusting. It sickened me when I saw this kind of thing in Orlando, too, only when I saw it, whatever else I had to do would have to *wait*!
Mike, I’m thinking that Exodus is going to have to say “thanks but no thanks” for the help, if Mike Ensley’s position is the entire organization’s position. Ensley specializes in youth issues, so I’m sure his opinion will be listened to if they think practically at *all*. They can certainly remove the link by next year, or else come up with something a bit more nuanced and less sensationalistic. (Perhaps a list of “helpful organizations” by “problem”, with URLs and 800 numbers?) And of course there’s the good ol’ fashioned press release.
Can’t believe I’m doing these organizations’ thinking for them, but someone’s gotta. *sigh*
Ensley does not object, as I did, to the politically correct and sacrilegious alteration of holy Scripture. But he does seem to agree with me that the comic unnecessarily fuels partisan culture-war rhetoric and trivializes ex-gay struggle.
Clearly stated in Leviticus. 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them.”
Please keep in mind, that scripture comes from the very same Bible which gives the reader the 10 Commandments, the rules about man on woman rape, Lot having sex with his two daughters, the description of David’s love for Jonathan surpassing his love for women, presents God’s “righteous” hatred and annihilation of specific races of people and many other cultural practices we have abandoned on the basis of “legality” or is questionable for a “modern” civilization.
The creators of this comic strip’s version of the Bible has totally reinterpreted the Bible in order to make it appear PC except towards certain practices deemed godless ie. rock, satan worship and of course homosexuality- it is 100% disingenuous for Christians to claim they are believers of the Bible and then resort to cherry picking and reinventing it for their own generation.
Having said that, I think that Ensley by not speaking out against the intent behind this series of comics in this Bible, willingly participates along with Exodus in any harm it does. He is also refusing to acknowledge the reality of Tim Todd’s message I must reach the homosexual with the message of God’s love and deliverance from their perverted lifestyle. I can’t imagine Ensley agreeing that it is tolerant to refer to homosexuals(since he is one in name) as perverted.
I would agree, however I’m not sure reading scripture in context is the same as reinventing it, if that’s what you are saying.
I would agree, however I’m not sure reading scripture in context is the same as reinventing it, if that’s what you are saying.
If they were to keep the message true within the context of actual scriptures, homosexuals, idolaters, witches etc. are to be put to death.
Realistically, they can’t legally carry it out by today’s standards, so they say those behaviors are perverted turn to Christ and be saved and get help at Exodus.
As a comparison against such poor context and reinterpretations, many Christians have no difficulty with accepting divorce, remarriage or adultery; nor do they understand that cohabitation is legitimately the equivalent of a Bible marriage. Separating and marrying a different partner is adultery which carries a death sentence in the Bible- yet many Christians and prominent ministers are guilty of that “offense.” They are reinventing the Bible and by doing so they’re teaching an interpretation totally out of context, built on human doctrines, principles etc. NOT what the Bible actually says God said.
if I failed to convey that sorry, I should have better checked my post.
Ensley unwittingly adds something else to the scriptures (distorts the scriptures) by misquoting 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, in a link in his response where he claims the scriptures refer to believers redeemed of their involvement in homosexuality. Actually, he quotes a translation which is inaccurate. The translation refers to “practicers of homosexuality,” but the same word is translated as “sodomites” in the accurate New Revised Standard Version. The original word is arsenokoitai. This word is rare in ancient Greek literature; it turns out that it isn’t used by various writers when discussing ordinary homosexuality. A careful examination of the contexts in which it is used suggests that it really refers to situations where men aggressively take sexual advantage of other males (as in the original scriptural story of Sodom in Genesis). See the following source for a detailed discussion:
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com/biblical_evidence/no_fems_no_fairies.html
I don’t think 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 will EVER be correctly translated. applying the word “homosexual” is such a gross error – the word wasn’t invented or established until the 19th century. As for the translation being “homosexual offenders,” well, wouldn’t that term be redundant to the fundamentalists? If Roman and Greek culture at the time did not recognize such a thing as a “homosexual,” why should we apply it today? Why is it no Bible will translate αρσενοκοιται in the context that William speaks of, the context that the other writers of the day used it in?
What other writers of the day used that particular word?
Alan, let’s drop the “Biblist” terminology, ok? While it may be part of your own vocabulary, it’s so general as to be meaningless. It is especially distracting when you keep saying “I’m an Orthodox Christian, I’m right, “Biblists” are wrong). It would be like me saying “I’m a Protestant, I’m right, Catholics are wrong.” It’s fine to explain the basis for your view of a passage or whatever, but all sorts of people are welcome to debate here, including so called Biblists.
You are a person with a point of view, just like the rest of us. It’s not necessary to label yourself or others repeatedly. And I think you will find others more receptive of what you have to say without the constant contrasting of your beliefs against theirs.
Fine, we know what you believe I guess and so you can stop labeling yourself, along with “Biblists” and I trust we can stop mucking up the threads with this conversation.
One would think that an all powerful diety could clear up this debate about the morality of gay sex once and for all, but his silience is deafening.
Emily,
Did you have an answer for my question above? I was under the impression that Paul coined that word himself. While I imagine arsenokoitai was used after, do you know of any other “writers of the day” who used it?
David: My comment was made by responding to William’s post, in which he says “This word is rare in ancient Greek literature; it turns out that it isn’t used by various writers when discussing ordinary homosexuality.” he provides a link explaining it. Other writers who used the word were Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Aristides.
Ok, thanks! I believe those came after Paul first used it. I thought maybe you knew of usage before and apart from Paul – I’m always interested in that. Less time to dig into the books these days, argh!
To the best of anyone’s knowledge, Paul was the first person to coin the term arsenokoitai. Jeramy Townsley has compiled a page containing all known uses of the word; all of them occurred well after Paul’s time.
As an “Ex-gay” Christian, I completely disagree with Mike Ensley on a host of issues. but I do appreciate his response to these “comics”.
I do think this new interpretation of scripture borders on the sacrilegious though.