Wendy Gritter of Exodus Member Ministry New Direction
Recently we became aware of Wendy Gritter’s keynote talk (mp3) at the Exodus leadership conference in January. Wendy is the executive director of an Exodus member ministry in Canada called New Direction. While it is what most here would describe as an ex-gay ministry, many things about it are unexpected. For one, you won’t find them using that term, “ex-gay” or many others associated with an Exodus ministry. Whether this is for show, or a sincere attempt to be different, you are free to explore here.
Many of her suggestions echo our own pleas to ex-gay ministries over the years; stop political lobbying, stop emphasizing “change,” genuine respect for those who are comfortable with their sexual orientation (even though this may come from a personal understanding of Scripture which diverges from their own), recognizing and removing the underlying tone which says that ex-ex-gays just didn’t try hard enough, and on and on.
We thought Wendy might just be a breath of fresh Canadian air and asked her to write a guest post to spur on discussion. What might Exodus, or any ex-gay ministry, be like if they were to take these suggestions to heart? What does it mean that an ex-gay ministry which may just “get it” more than any so far, grew out of a country largely unfriendly to the kind of fundamentalism that often surrounds their US counterparts? How close does New Direction come to your idea of what a fair ex-gay ministry should be, if it is to be at all?
Wendy will be available to respond off and on in comments, so don’t spare the hard questions. Her post follows:
–
Thank you for the invitation to write this piece. To be honest, my knees are knocking a bit.
I want to begin by saying I’m sorry. I’m sorry for the pain that some of those who follow this site have experienced from leaders like me and ministries like the one I lead. I’m sorry that some of you connected with this site who identify as Christian have had your faith questioned and judged. I’m sorry there is a felt need for a site like XGW. I’m sorry that it feels like legitimate concerns have not been listened to. I am sorry for the arrogance that can come across from leaders like me.
I suppose I’m not what some would assume to be your typical ex-gay leader. I’m not gay, not ex-gay, not ex-ex-gay. Not male. Not Southern Baptist. Not Republican. Not even American. I’m a Gen X postmodern whose perspectives are, depending on who you talk to, too liberal or too conservative, unorthodox or too orthodox, heretical or vibrantly Christ-centered.
The ministry I lead is over 20 years old. I’ve been at the helm for the last 6 years – although truth be told, the first 2 years I was just trying to get my head around what the heck God had called me to. It’s been the wildest learning curve of my life.
I deeply believe that God’s intention for sexual expression is the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman. God has also deeply convicted me of my own pride in assuming that I had a perfect pipeline to God and everyone who disagreed with me was simply deceived by the enemy or putting their own wants and desires ahead of commitment to God. I have had the opportunity that many conservatives have not had – and that is to come to know people who have deeply and honestly sought God through prayer and scripture and come to a different conclusion than I. Their faith was not trivial nor superficial, and though there were points of disagreement, I respect their deep commitment to God. And so, I’ve come to a place where I’m grateful that God has humbled me and given me the opportunity to listen, learn and engage with those who come to different perspectives.
I don’t think my job is to change the minds of all those who think differently than I do. As an eclectic Calvinist, I believe God is the one who convicts and reroutes us in our minds and hearts. My job is to walk in step with the Spirit and do my very best to do what he tells me to do. I find a lot of affinity in the words attributed to St. Francis, “Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words.” As I work and serve, I find more often than not that what the Spirit whispers for me to do is to simply focus on serving and loving those he brings across my path.
I do think there needs to be a safe place within the Christian community for those who experience same-gender attraction who have wrestled with scripture and come to believe a traditional biblical sexual ethic. I believe we have a long way to go to eradicate hateful and homophobic environments and responses in the Christian community. We have a long way to go to demolish the pervasive hierarchy of sin. And we have a long way to go to counter-act the perpetual sense of shame that many experience due to the reality of their same-gender attraction.
I work towards the day when a follower of Jesus who experiences same-gender attraction can be honest and open about that reality and receive support and encouragement in living a life that is pleasing to God. And I feel particularly called to do that within the conservative church.
I also feel called to speak to the conservative church about some of the ways I believe we have been distracted from the primary calling to support and encourage deeply devoted disciples of Jesus Christ.
- We have been distracted by the politics around homosexuality. I do think there is a place for Christians to engage in the public arena. God calls his followers to be a blessing to all nations and to represent him by being the presence of shalom on the earth. Unfortunately, in many of the Christian political efforts regarding homosexuality there is little evidence of shalom. The result is that many who need to hear a gospel of good news perceive God’s people to be hypocritical and unloving (“you say you love us – but you’re fighting to prevent/take our rights”). This has perpetuated a sense of alienation that I believe, grieves the heart of God.
- We have been distracted by a focus on orientation change. The heart of Christian ministry was summed up by Jesus when he said, “Go, make disciples, teaching them to obey everything I’ve commanded you”. The point of a ministry like the one I lead is to support and encourage disciples of Jesus in their journey to live out their sexuality in a manner that they believe is God-honoring. If in that process they experience a deeper ability to love their opposite gender spouse (if they were already married) or a greater capacity to engage an authentic romantic, sexual, marital relationship with someone of the opposite gender, that is a gift that can be gratefully received. But such gifts can’t be predicted, they can’t be guaranteed, they don’t follow a set of instructions, or come after just the right combination of root identification and eradication. There is a sense of mystery that necessitates an attitude of humility, discussion of realistic expectations, and serenity. So at the end of the day, “change is possible” is not really the main point. Life in Christ is.
- We have been distracted by the question of causation. While there is clearly a place for research on this topic, and those involved in ministry should have the integrity to stay abreast of current research, by and large the conclusions (or lack of conclusion) on this matter are peripheral to the call of Christian ministry. Because there is currently such inconclusiveness on this question, conservative Christians would do well to humbly acknowledge that rather than being perceived as ill-informed, blinder-wearing, or agenda-promoting.
In light of some of these distractions, New Direction Ministries, under our current leadership, have laid out some distinctives for ministry:
- We are pastorally-focused, not politically driven.
- We are relationally-focused, not program driven.
- We are discipleship-focused, not change driven.
- We are partnership-focused, not empire driven.
Our Core Values are to be relational, respectful, relevant and redemptive.
I acknowledge that there have been people who have connected with our ministry who have left feeling hurt, confused and uncertain about how to go on with their life having not experienced change. I wish I could pass the buck and say all of that happened before my time. Sexuality is incredibly complex. People are complex. Their stories, their experiences, and their journeys are unique. In this midst of this complex uniqueness, as ministers of the gospel we don’t always get it right, we don’t always discern appropriately. I hope, that as a ministry, we are learning and growing and improving. I hope that we have created an environment that is open and safe regardless of what happens with someone’s attractions. I know our staff are open to engage people where they’re at. If people disengage from the ministry, which could happen for a multitude of different reasons, we hope that they would always feel they could return for a hot cup of coffee and be received with warmth, caring and respect – regardless of where they might land on the ex-gay ~ ex-ex-gay continuum. When we can, we try to follow-up with those who have left while respecting their privacy and right to be left alone as well. We believe God loves unconditionally and, though regularly faced with our own limitations, we seek to imitate him.
I see a lot of triumphalistic “name it, claim it” kind of stuff in the church and it always makes me nervous. I don’t particularly see evidence that the Christian journey should be about getting all the things we want – or even about our individual happiness. We see in Jesus Christ someone who poured himself out for the world and he calls his followers to imitate him. Frankly, Christians aren’t very good at pouring ourselves out for others, especially for those who disagree with us. The world sees this – and it compromises our ability to share the love and life of God with our neighbors. At the risk of being misunderstood or called heretics, we want to engage, listen, and be the presence of Christ with those who hold differing perspectives. We want to hang out with all the folks that make church leaders nervous (and frankly want to be the kind of people who make church leaders nervous) – because we know that is who Jesus was and what Jesus did. We do this, in part, because there is more common ground than might be initially apparent. And I think there could be more understanding and respect.
I’ve been very encouraged by some of the conversations I’ve had over the years that were respectful, charitable and gracious. For all the caricatures Christians may have of gay people, I have encountered a whole array of responses – some not so nice – but many kind and thoughtful. I’m very grateful to those who, though personally holding a gay affirmative perspective, have acknowledged a place and even a need for a ministry like New Direction. And in those conversations, you’ve earned the right to keep us sharp and on our toes. You’ve been an interesting accountability partner at times – and my hope is that I will continue to be open to hear any appropriate critique that is offered. Likewise, I hope that in my engagement and offering of input, I will also earn the right to speak – particularly with those who name the name of Jesus Christ. The perception of polarization and enmity between Christians of differing minds on sexual ethics is so damaging to a unified Christian witness to an increasingly post-Christian, skeptical generation. I want to be part of doing something about that.
So, we seek to be a nuanced, moderate voice in this area of ministry. The attempt at introducing this level of nuance has, in part, been impacted by listening to the critique of people like those represented at XGW. The listening process has, at times, been difficult and frustrating. It can be discouraging to feel “lumped in” with others, despite real attempts to chart our own distinct course. It can be painful to reach an impasse and feel there is no way through. It is disappointing to be accused of being disingenuous in attempts at bridge-building.
But I’m grateful for this journey none-the-less. Because in the process, we have felt compelled to put “first things first” and recognize when second place things were encroaching on an essential focus on Jesus Christ. One of the contributors to XGW at one point, somewhere, said something like, “The mission of ex-gay ministries should be to support those, who for religious reasons, seek to not be mastered by their experience of same-gender attraction.” I think that is pretty darn close to what I would suggest too.
I am deeply passionate about contributing to a climate where anyone questioning, struggling or embracing an alternative sexual identity can encounter the presence of Jesus Christ. My focus in this area of engagement is unapologetically Christ-centered. Some might say that by the very nature of holding a traditional sexual ethic, I contribute to the inaccessibility of the gospel for gay and lesbian people. I believe the power of the gospel is not thwarted by a call to radical discipleship. And my prayer is that as we, at New Direction, commit ourselves to loving, serving and building bridges with same-gender attracted people, Jesus will be seen in and through us.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my heart for Christian ministry from a conservative perspective. I look forward to further conversation.
–
Wendy Gritter is the executive director of New Direction Ministries of Canada. For more information on New Direction: www.newdirection.ca
Timothy Kincaid,
I think that Wendy supports 1-7 that you listed because she wrote this:
“I deeply believe that God’s intention for sexual expression is the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman.”
Therefore, she believes that anyone who falls outside of this intention is going against God’s will. (And we only need read the Bible to see what Wendy’s god does to people who disobey him.)
For Wendy to convince me that she did not want to harm gays, then she must repudiate that belief. She could write something like, “It doesn’t matter whom you have sex with provided that it’s consensual and you’re not violating anyone’s trust. We don’t attribute sins to sexual mores, and gay people are worth just as much as straight people, and gays do not have to repent.” Do you read Wendy writing that anywhere? Perhaps if you believe that Wendy wants to do good for gay people, then you should provide some evidence of your own.
Remember, even a little bit of harm is still harm. And yes, I’m angry and filled with distrust. Think back to the late 1970s. It was the Christians who to have bumper stickers that read, “Kill a Queer for Christ”
Tell me why I should forgive them fully and completely when they do not fully and completely repent of their sin toward us. Yes, it’s positive that Wendy writes tame things like “Christians have been distracted by homosexuality.”
I would much rather see an admission like, “Christians have abused gay people horribly. It was completely unfair and unwarranted. The misery of gays has come mostly from the hands of evil and malicious Christians.”
Is that not the truth?
J.James: I’m certainly not Wendy. I’m a male-to-female person with Gender Identity Disorder (GID). I’m often called a ‘transsexual’ (and it doesn’t bother me). I am still married to Bon, and therefore often called SSA (which doesn’t bother me either).
Yet, my belief system concerning the “intention” of God at creation is a three part framework that includes: (1) stability of sexual attraction, (2) stability of gender identity, and (3) stability of marriage. This is the same as Wendy’s belief system, best as I can tell. [I derive this from scriptures; Wendy seems to derive it from Christian concepts - different reasoning processes, same conclusion.]
At any rate, Wendy has stated that she holds to a concept of ‘intention, fall, and redemption’. This is a classical Protestant position consisting of three parts. The devil is in the definitions and the implementation of the processes.
You (J.James) keep focusing on ‘intention’ and reaching a full conclusion based on just ‘intention’. You are missing the emphasis on the other two parts of the concept. You are also not noticing Wendy’s on-going definitions.
Wendy keeps focusing on ‘intention, fall, and redemption’. She has continued to stress that ‘intention and fall’ include herself; and that ‘redemption’ is available to all. She has articulated her ‘discipleship’ and ‘relational’ concepts as part of a ‘redemptive process’. She has even stated that the relationship should remain, even if the SSA person decides to pursue a gay-affirming church or gay-relationship. Thus, she has not advocated a one-size-fits-all redemptive definition.
I offer, J.James, that if you continue to focus on only the ‘intention’ concept, you’ll miss a great opportunity here to see just how radical Wendy’s opinion is – she is focused on ‘redemptive processes’ that include a non-condemning long-lasting relationship.
I think Wendy has imitated the position of Jesus Christ, quite well.
J James,
Clearly we are not going to agree.
Caryn LeMur,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I understand what you’re saying from your own perspective. From my perspective, what I would really like Wendy to say is something like this: “Gays do not have to repent of their homosexuality, and they can be openly gay and still go to heaven.”
*That* would be truly radical. It would also be the ultimate act of benevolence and kindness toward gay people.
Perhaps, but it would also be tyrannical to demand that Wendy say such a thing if she doesn’t believe it to be true. I can and do hope that she continues to take these small steps in faith so that one day she understands the matter as I do. But what you ask is total submission of her mind and will to yours. That’s the same as any other bully., and again it is not helpful here at all.
Also, as far as I can tell she does not contest the second half of your statement anyway, though I will let her clarify.
Besen has released an excellent op/ed today on his website, which is worth reading by everyone interested.
David Roberts,
There are people in the world living under *real* tyranny, where they and their loved ones can be tortured and killed at whim, and otherwise starve to death unless they make a risky chance to escape their living hell. I’m describing places like North Korea, Burma, and parts of Columbia.
For me to like to demand that a conservative Christian back down from the belief that “Gays must repent of their homosexuality or else be abused by Christians and tortured forever in the fires of hell!” is equivalent to tyranny? I’m pulling a Pol Pot on Wendy by asking her to repudiate the long-held Christian belief that gays deserve hell on earth and in the hereafter?
I hope you can back down on the hyperbole, because what you’re likening me to is just plain crazy. If anything, it has been conservative Christians who have subjected gays to tyranny (“Kill a Queer for Christ”).
Furthermore, was it not you who excoriated me for my “hateful” words, but now claim that it’s “tyrannical” of me when I ask someone else to do the same?
I had to smile… I agree with both J.James and David.
And, I want to thank you both for keeping the heat low in this particular kitchen, so to speak. This is a tough audience for Wendy, Alan Chambers, Stanton & Mark, and Warren T. And, I thank my Lord Jesus that the GLBT community is pressing on for dialog, understanding, and healing, even though the pain of our own wounds and the memories of betrayals linger on.
Sometimes, we all must vent. I have done the same. And I am glad when people listen to my venting.
But… I should step aside for the moment. I too, am most curious now how Wendy will respond to J.James’ thoughts. And, I need to keep the focus on her.
Much love in Christ always and unconditionally; Caryn
James, you seem content only with revenge and your browbeating is getting in the way of genuine discussion. Insinuating that Wendy has anything to do with that vile slogan is a good example. I suggest you drop this thread and read more of XGW before commenting on a new one in the future.
Quoting Caryn:
“the “intention” of God at creation is a three part framework that includes: (1) stability of sexual attraction, (2) stability of gender identity, and (3) stability of marriage”
Very friendly said, I fail to see how a stable, long-term and exclusive same-sex union does not meet these requirements.
1) Stability of sexual attraction – my attractions are very stable. There is nothing in this that says that in order to be stable, an attraction has to be towards opposite sex. Globally, as well, the percentage of hetero/bi/homosexuals persons tends to stay the same, through all ages and time. The perception that there are more now is caused by the oppenness of a good number of LGBT about their situation.
2) Stability of gender identity – for myself, my gender identity is pretty much very stable, as it is for the majority of gay/lesbian and straight persons I know. I totally respect the fact that among humans, some persons feel they should belong to the other sex, and they must be able to change sex if they want to. It’s another very rare thing that happens sometimes in nature, that’s all. Info is missing for past history, but I suspect that this as always happened as well.
3) Stability of marriage: once two people have found each other, if the couple is to last, it’s going to last, with efforts and good will from each partner. This is no different wether opposite or same sex.
Wendy, thanks for the kind response.
David Roberts,
I did not intend to put that vile slogan into Wendy’s mouth. I only bring it up to remind you of who drew first blood in this fight and how badly the wounds hurt. The primary reason why gays have gone through so much pain and suffering is because conservative Christians were so malicious. But you’re right — while I haven’t forgiven the wrongs which were done, I shouldn’t bring it up that vile period in Christian history because it’s not fair. It would be like Wendy bringing up the sign that Harry Hay carried and asking me to account for it. I apologize.
I’ll try to nuance a few more layers of what I believe …..
I don’t think someone who experiences a homosexual orientation needs to repent for that experience. I would differentiate between attraction / orientation and behaviour. I am grieved when I hear stories of gay oriented people staggering under a sense of shame or condemnation simply for experiencing attraction to their own gender – something that they did not choose.
I also do not view sexual ethics as issues of justification…. in other words, I do not see it as a salvation issue. To me the whole area of sexual ethics falls under the area of sanctification…. in other words the journey of a Christ-follower of growth and maturity in being transformed into the image of Christ.
To expand this beyond homosexuality for a moment….. for those who are biblically literate, think of King David – a man after God’s own heart …. who clearly did not live within the guidelines of a traditional sexual ethic (ie. sexual intimacy reserved for the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman). Not only did he have multiple wives, we also know that he committed adultery. Does anyone question whether David will have a place in heaven?
There are most definitely areas of mystery that I do not fully comprehend. From my reading of scripture I know that God does not wink at sin….. He is holy……. but he is also full of mercy and it is his will that none should perish ……
While I do not doubt for a moment that I will rub shoulders with many of you in the new heaven and the new earth, there is much that I don’t know. What I do know is that I have not been put in the position of determining who will go to heaven and who will not…. so I will always seek to encourage people to know and love God more deeply …. and leave the rest in God’s hands.
The Westminster catechism suggests that the chief end of man is to “know God and enjoy him forever” ….. that is what I will encourage those I encounter to experience.
Sue: you quoted me correctly, and I see that I did use neutral language, when in actuality, I meant to use specific language. My error. My statement needs to be fixed to the following:
Here is my belief system concerning the “intention” of God at creation. It is a three part framework that includes: (1) stability of opposite-sex attraction, (2) stability of congruent gender identity, and (3) stability of life-time marriage.
There. I think I said it more correctly this time.
I’m bisexual, and so, the intent-at-creation for #(1) in my life is just not there. Really, some men are hot and some women are hot, and either can be in my dreams or fantasies. I’m Male to Female (MTF), certified with GID, and post-op. So, the intent-at-creation for #(2) in my life is not there for me either. I count myself lucky that Bon, my wife, is still with me after 32 years of marriage. But we have separated and reconciled twice before my GID went into on-set; and nearly called it quits after the GID went into on-set.
So, Caryn strikes out on 2 of 3 (or on 2.9 out of 3.0). Yet, Caryn shrugs. Why? Because I’m just simply another piece of evidence for the fall-of-mankind.
The dividing question among Protestants is normally not the intention of creation nor the fall of mankind…. Instead, there is enormous dispute over redemption:
- Some will greatly differentiate between the act of redemption, the process of transformation, the process of sanctification… others will put it all together as a single process (or, even as a single point-in-time).
- Some will greatly differentiate on the accountability process (to your own conscience? to the church? to society? to the legislative process? to your neighbor? to God?)… others will consider accountability not worth of discussion.
- Some will form conditional friendships for the sake of your conditional ‘redemption’; some will excommunicate you formally for the sake of your final ‘redemption’; some will send you letters in secret removing you from the congregation for the sake of the church’s ‘redemption’.
If a preacher states, “God created man & woman in the Garden and that was His creative intent.” A chorus of ‘Amens’ can be expected from most Protestants.
If a preacher states, “And then, Adam and Eve fell and mankind fell with them.” Again, the chorus of agreement will be loud and clear.
But… should that same preacher mention the concepts of redemption, transformation, sanctification, accountability, and friendships… then all chaos erupts… should he dare to define love as Jesus did in Luke chapter 10, he may be defrocked.
Try it. For fun. Read Luke chapter 10 in a protestant church from the pulpit. It’s called the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Cross out “Samaritan” and write in “Homosexual”. Cross out “priest” and write in “pastor”. Cross out “Levite” and write in “Elder”. Then give it a go. You’ll shock your audience to suggest that a Homosexual can fulfill the words of Christ better than a Pastor or Elder… but then, you’ll understand how greatly Jesus shocked the audience by using the term “Samaritan”.
Wendy,
I just wanted to jump in here quickly and thank you for spending so much time and energy posting here and carrying on in discussion. Two of my favorite words and traits come to mind again and again as I read your thoughts…..
humility and grace.
It may sound odd to thank you for such things….but…
thank you.
Wendy – Yours is the most enlightened statement of a Christian ex-gay ministry I have read. Although, as a clergy person in the Anglican Church of Canada who works with many gay clergy and laypersons, I do not agree with the basic premises of ex-gay ministries, I find your openness refreshing. As a servant of Christ, I could never exclude gay persons from my church fellowship, nor deny them any support or service – social or sacramental – that the Church offers people in the name of Christ.
The vilifying of gay people by “christian” leaders is odious and represents a failure to live out the Gospel. What’s gone on in the Anglican Church of Canada and the U.S. Episcopal church has, shamefully, resulted not only only in ludicrous rhetoric surrounding homosexuality, but in actual schism in the church. Unfortunately the lack of trust gay people have for the Church is very much warranted. Who would want to commit themselves to something which often denies their personhood generally (remembering that most gay people do not even define their personhood by their sexual orientation as many Christians define them) or ends up excluding them in subtle and not so subtle ways? Gay Christians are among the bravest people I know. In the congregation on whose pastoral team I serve, there are both male and female same sex couples who are either legally married or who are in long term loving relationships. They are a full part of our community as we minister one to another and build one another up in the discipling process as we seek to follow Christ.
Wendy, again, you are a breath of fresh air. Let’s dialogue openly. Let’s not pretend, through ‘prooftexting’, to have the fullness of the mind of God in Scripture. Let’s love, and stretch, and grow in Christ in the humility that Christ calls us to until it hurts. I believe this is what God wants of us – regardless of sexual orientation. Let’s all pull together and witness to a needy world.
Thanks Pam …. it has been an interesting ride
Let’s say Billy is being punched in the stomach every day in the school yard by several other boys just because he’s different. Certainly we can all agree they are bullies. Then one day, along comes Jeff and he tells Billy, “I’m not at all like those other boys and I want to give you a hug every day, and talk with you. And I’m only going punch you in the stomach once a week.” So, the question is: Is Jeff a bully? Or is he a “breath of fresh air?”
I suppose that many would find the following statement by Wendy, for example, to be fairly conciliatory: “I don’t think someone who experiences a homosexual orientation needs to repent for that experience. I would differentiate between attraction / orientation and behaviour.” I find it offensive. Why does she presume it is within the realm of her authority to make such pronouncements, one way or another? Does she have any expertise on the issue beyond religious superstition? Could she hold a job that didn’t involve being a busybody dissecting the personal lives of others?
I’ve been with my partner for 26 years, and I have no doubt that Wendy would think it best if we dissolved our relationship – to please her god, of course. After all of her love-bombing, at the end of the day she seeks to destroy our relationships.
Wendy,
Thank you for your response. While I find this discussion beneficial in that at least one person from an ex-gay ministry is willing to have an open dialogue with those of us on the opposite side of the fence, I feel the discussion is likened to that of a Catholic talking to a Protestant. But unlike such a discussion, both Catholics and Protestants can find a common thread in agreeing upon “doing God’s will” and so can cooperate in things such as feeding the poor, clothing the naked, having co-ministries in caring for the homeless etc.
But I really don’t see a common thread between your ministry and Gay Christians for one very big reason – we cannot agree on what is considered the “traditional sexual ethic.”
As an Orthodox Catholic (in an Episcopal Church), “traditional sexual ethic” is too broad a term and does not carry the same definition for me as it does for you. I am assuming (since you never responded to my inquirey on this very subject) that for you “traditional sexual ethic” means one man, one woman, male member with adequate sperm count, and female unit with adequate ovums, and that sexual contact between these two persons is exclusively for procreative purposes.
I do not see the term “traditional sexual ethic” in such a light. There are so many varities of traditional sex in the Bible alone ranging from one man, one woman to one man and multiple women, etc. Almost all cultures (past and present) on all continents, have some form of homosexuality within their framework of sexual ethics. So I find your terminology unsuited for what you are trying to convey. It is clear you are claiming that a one man, one woman senario is the “traditional sexual ethic,” but in fact it is only one of many “traditional” sexual ethics that exist.
Even in the realm of Christianity, prostitution was not only acceptable, but even taxed by the Church at one time. Until modern times, it was common in many countries for men of some wealth to have multiple wives in various cities and towns (such a case occurred in my family history).
The reason I point this out is because when an ex-gay ministry, or someone representing one, uses such terms as “traditional sexual ethic” it is automatically negating homosexuality. My sexual activity (having a sexual relationship with my partner) is as a traditional sexual ethic as a one man one woman sexual unity. Homosexuality is part of the human experience from the very beginning as many historical records will point out.
Richard said:
For the same reasons you feel free to consider her a bully? Honestly, who is the bully here; the one who is candid about their own beliefs while respecting those of others, or the one who requires the other to comply with their own?
The very existence of a contrary view seems to drive some people crazy, and I’m afraid that really does tend to validate charges of intolerance against us. Just as with J. James, I understand the pain and anger charging this issue, but we just can’t lump everyone into the same bunch.
If nothing else, this thread had helped me understand the danger of the oppressed becoming the oppressor.
David:
David, what is the goal of the ministry she works for? Is it to let people decide for themselves God’s plan for them or to convince them to abandon being gay and conform to what is referred to “the traditional sexual ethic?” Wendy may not “bully” those she encounters the same way Fundamentalists in the US do, but is not her ultimate goal to convince a homosexual that he or she is not fulfilling God’s plan of the one man one woman sex package?
Judge yourself on that one. Debates are a healthy part of a discussion because it causes both sides to rethink and validate their opinions and beliefs. Just because some of us are supposedly being driven crazy by an opposing opinion doesn’t necessarily mean we are intolerant. I think it makes us more cautious when confronted with any type of ex-gay ministry. Caution does not necessarily mean intolerance nor insanity.
Yes we can. Just as we can lump all Christians into one lump. Then within the lump we and separate into sub groups. So too with ex-gay ministries. We can lump them together under one roof: EX-GAY MINISTRIES. Then we can divide them up accordingly: OPPRESSIVE, SEMI-OPPRESSIVE, NON-OPRRESIVE, etc.
Keep in mind that Gay Christians are some of the most oppressed people in the Body of Christ. And if we appear oppressive it is because we have had plenty of role models to show us how to do it. But again, don’t mistake being oppressive with being cautious and realistic.
As I stated earlier, a Protestant and a Catholic can work together because they have a common thread. For example, at the homeless program at my church (which is Episcopalian) we have Catholic, Lutheran, and Methodists who contribute to the program. Since our aim is to provide showers, food, and clothing for the homeless, we can all work together with no problems.
Despite our different beliefs, our common thread is our works.
But that can’t happen between a Gay Christian and an ex-gay minister or worker. Could you, David, see yourself working side by side with Wendy counseling or witnessing to someone who is gay and needs help? Would not your goals be in conflict? She would eventually tell the gay person that he or she is not right … that the sex he or she is having is not part of the traditional sexual ethic. Would you stand there and smile and nod your head while she tell the gay person that?
I don’t think that is her goal.
If I’m seeing the whole thing correctly, Wendy’s ministry is as an ex-gay ministry should be (assuming they will always be there whether we like it or not): She’s not out trying to convince people to change; she’s working with people who are already convinced that homosexuality isn’t God’s plan for them, and have already decided for themselves to “abandon being gay”.
There is a world of difference.
Having just found this thread, I read through it and wanted to make a quick comment.
It is my belief that conservative (“anti-gay”) theology will always exist, at least during my lifetime, because it has been the norm for way too long — and even as I type this, there are young “same gender attracted” people growing up in conservative congregations who will (sadly) be imprinted with this belief system. This is, IMO, the tragedy of modern Christianity.
Therefore, there will always be “ministries” devoted to “helping” these imprinted persons in their desire to follow this theology.
Therefore, there will be those who will feel the need to terrorize families and churches with massive fear-based initiatives and programs — such as those espoused by Exodus, FOTF, Peter LaBarbera, etc. — and there will be those who do not.
I am glad that Wendy is at least trying to provide a counter-weight to the terror groups, even as she must inevitably crawl into bed with them in order to be heard by them.
I would only hope that by leading with Love, she will help convict the Randy Thomases and the Alan Chambers’ — as they continue to align themselves with the terror tactics of the Dobson-like groups — that they needn’t sacrifice their Christian credentials in order to do their “ministerial” work of providing support for people who have suffered the needless teaching that they must “change” from gay to whatever.
It is a tricky place to be for both Wendy and for those of us who believe that we can only ask for tolerance for our beliefs by giving tolerance to those who disagree.
If a Christian gay person approached me privately and convinced me that they were completely and totally unhappy with their SGA and BEGGED me for a link to SOME kind of program that would “help” them, I would rather send them to someone who I know will love them “as is” and will not turn them into little anti-gay Soldiers of Jesus.
Wendy’s group seems to fit this model since it’s based on relational Emergent friendship which is all-inclusive rather than the “let’s sit in a circle and tell everyone who we masturbated over and dump guilt onto our backs and ostracize the failure and don’t wear designer jeans or do anything that looks too gay” type of homophobic therapy that is prevalent in too many “ex-gay” ministries today.
I cannot see Wendy showing gay porn in churches like LaBarbera does. I do not see Wendy or her people circling the graveyards of victims of violence holding hate signs. I do not see Wendy spending untold hours in her offices meeting with lobbyists trying to undo pro-gay legislation, and learning how to establish a political power base.
I can disagree with Wendy on theology, but I can also praise her attempts, assuming they’re genuine, to rid her group of the stain of the anti-gay agenda and culture war mentality which has poisoned, and is continuing to poison, American ministries.
It’s nice to know that it’s possible to step OUT of the culture war and it reminds me that I can also do the same.
Alan S. asked some terrific questions. Thank you, Alan, for your very sane questioning. But I think I do have an answer at least for one:
I think your analogy is off here. Better to ask if you could stand side by side with Wendy and serve food to the homeless. I believe I could.
I do not see Peter LaBarbera doing the same. He’d be there with his video camera in one of the bathroom stalls looking for a little homeless on homeless action.
Wendy,
Thank you for your explanation, and I think I have pegged you wrong. For that, I apologize. I can tell you are very sincere about your wanting to atone for what conservative Christians have done for gays. I hope you will understand that many conservative Christians have come before you in the name of “love” and actually not been loving at all. There has been far too much pain and lies and this has only resulted in anger and distrust, particularly in my case. My first instinct is to doubt and counter attack. You have incredible patience to put up with me and it’s a testament to your character. It is my sincere hope that you may help your fellow Christians cease their warrantless historical persecution of gay people.
Again, my apologies, and my sincere thanks for the good work you do.
Thank you Steve, Dave and J. James for listening with me…
In my original post, I said that I was a Gen X postmodern…. the idea of a story unfolding is a powerful image for me. I’m not a rigid, black and white thinker ….. and for some that already means I’m wishy-washy, a moral relativist and likely to burn in hell. (yes, I get it from both sides, so to speak).
At the risk of sounding a wee bit like a broken record…. but recognizing that it does take patience and perseverance to demonstrate a level of genuineness….
The goal of our ministry is: to create a safe place for same-gender attracted people to journey towards wholeness in Christ.
Key words there:
safe place – a safe place isn’t coercive, a safe place isn’t controlling, a safe place doesn’t determine for someone else what their journey should be
journey – this evokes the understanding that people need space to travel, space to hit the uphill climbs, the rugged terrain, the green meadows …..
wholeness in Christ – wholeness is an inclusive term to us – it may mean that a person becomes more whole in Christ because they really finally receive that God loves them, they may become more whole in Christ because they learn to let go of shame, or forgive themselves and others, let go of bitterness, grow in maturity, heal from trauma, are equipped to relate to others in healthier ways ….. there are numerous ways we move TOWARD wholeness in Christ …. recognizing that we all “limp” so to speak to heaven … we don’t arrive at perfect wholeness on this side. We don’t assume that wholeness does or must include changes in the direction of a person’s attractions – it could be that – or part of wholeness could be to not be mastered by attractions that the person believes are not God’s best for them.
So I don’t think it is fair to suggest that our goal is to break up the relationships of gay couple everywhere …..
We exist for those who seek us out …. and if after a season they feel they don’t fit anymore we seek to release them with grace. God is the hound of heaven who pursues people with perfect wisdom, timing etc. We don’t have to hound people ….. we do need to serve and love and be available….. but we’ll leave any hounding up to the Holy Spirit. Is there a time to speak a word of truth in season? Yes. But this word in season had better be preceeded by a clear demonstration of love and service and listening and prayer and it better be preceeded also by a willingness to be quiet and wait …..
Funny thing, my little daily calendar with verses from the Message yesterday read, “Charm can mislead and beauty soon fades. The woman to be admired and praised is the woman who lives in the Fear-of-God” Prov. 31:30
What is the goal of New Direction? To live in the Fear-of-God ….. not an afraid kind of fear, not in an anxious kind of fear, but in bold love kind of fear ….. to not just be charming and soft spoken and gracious (as important as those things may be) but to take risks for what we believe is consistent with the character of the God we love and reverence.
It’s a risk to comment this publicly on this blog. We’ve already received emails chastising me, suggesting that New Direction no longer offers hope….
I pray that consistently throughout all of my comments I have pointed to Jesus Christ – who I believe is the source of all hopefulness. Life with Jesus is costly, it can be difficult, it is often full of suffering…… but for those of us who know him and have his life within us…… we know he is our hope.
One other quick thing …..
We really don’t consider ourselves an ex-gay ministry at all. David asked me to use that term for simplicity’s sake …. but it isn’t a phrase I like.
I suppose I would say we’re a ministry of “presence” ….. we’re available for those seeking the encouragement and support they desire to live a life that is consistent with their beliefs and values ….. or seeking a safe place while they figure out their beliefs and values. We seek to offer input when it is requested …. and love and listen otherwise.
Wendy said:
Bingo, that’s the heart of the matter for me. The arrogance by which ex-gay ministries often plot the course of others is not anti-gay, it’s anti-God. In their defense, this is a malody from which an entire segment of the Church suffers. The past few decades have seen the rise of to the American Religion, which really has more in common with nationalism than Christianity.
And just to clarify, on the term “ex-gay,” I didn’t mean for Wendy to change her terminology, only that I was going to use the term in my description so we would have a common reference (just a misunderstanding there). A large segment of the thread concerning New Direction on Warren’s blog dealt with what to call ex-gays, and I was hoping to avoid that distraction on this particular post. However, I did note in my intro that New Direction does not use the term themselves.
WARNING: EXTREMELY LONG POST TO FOLLOW. David Roberts may want to cut me off.
I genuinely appreciate Wendy’s openness, her disavowal of dogmatism, and especially her willingness to engage in real dialogue here with those of us who hold different positions. But before we all jump aboard the loving-Wendy bandwagon, I want to restate my fundamental objection to what she is doing, which led me in my first comment to label her post as “pretty much the same old crap wrapped up in a [more] seductive package.”
Yes, there will always be gay people who, for whatever reason, seek to live without acting on their natural sexual orientation. That is their right. Having been happily married for many years, I particularly understand those who want to preserve an existing marriage, even if they’ve come to realize they are gay.
Because I affirm the right for each person to choose, I have no real problem with counselors and support groups helping people who choose to be ex-gay, post-gay, or whatever we want to call it. I’ve sometimes drawn the comparison to someone counseling a Catholic priest who’s struggling with his vow of celibacy. I disagree with the Catholic church’s position on clerical celibacy, but I can still respect a priest who wants to be faithful to his personal vow.
But here’s the problem I do see: In real life, support groups like New Directions do not serve only people who’ve made a fully conscious, mature decision about their sexuality. In my own experience of these groups, I found that most people involved were conflicted not because of deeply held religious convictions, but because of fear, stereotypes, and pressure from family, churches, and friends. This was especially true for young people.
Over and over again in small group sharing, I heard people struggling with the basic question: Why is this wrong? It feels so natural to me. Everyone has told me being gay is wrong and I’ll be unhappy, but that’s not how I really feel. What’s wrong with me?
Because these ministries were based on a religious view that homosexuality was not—ever—truly God’s will for an individual, they could not answer, “Maybe there is nothing wrong with you. Maybe for you, accepting that you are gay and seeking a healthy life and relationships will be the best choice.” All they could offer was another round of empty promises and religious platitudes. Everyone nodded piously, then half the members headed back to the parks and bathhouses. From what I could see—and I saw a lot—these ministries often perpetuated a life of anonymous, furtive sexual hook-ups followed by crushing guilt and shame.
I will never forget one guy, a long time participant in one group, sharing that he’d been in the park picking up someone for sex, as he frequently did on his lunch hour. He was on his way to his car or the bushes with someone when he realized “I don’t really want to have sex with this guy. I just want to talk with him and experience some intimiacy with another man.” But of course, he went ahead with the sex anyway.
Others were saying, “Wow, this is such a breakthrough for you!” “You’re really making progress!” All I could think was, “Yeah, but you’re still blowing the guy!” (Sorry for the crude language, but let’s get real here.) There wasn’t any evidence his new “insight” was going to change his sexual behavior. He’d just finally embraced some of the group’s jargon.
I’ve seen too many people trapped in those stunted half-lives to be able to offer any affirmation to someone like Wendy Gritter. I accept her good intentions, but I believe that in real life she creates harm to at least some people she seeks to serve.
Someone asked earlier on what we would say if the ex-gay minsitries asked our advice on how they could improve. Here’s my bottom line:
1) I affirm the right for each person to make his or her own decisions about sexuality, whatever the motivation. I don’t regard ex-gays as failures because they do not accept their homosexuality, as long as they are genuinely successful and happy by their own standards.
2) I think there is a place for counseling and support groups seeking to help those who’ve made a serious, mature decision not to embrace a gay identity despite their orientation
3) Nevertheless, I cannot personally affirm or respect any such counselor or support group unless they also encourage conflicted participants to consider that an openly gay life can be a possible healthy direction. I realize that such encouragement is impossible for many, due to their religious views. They have a right to run their practice or ministry according to those views. But I have a right to point out—loudly and clearly—that by doing so they ultimately harm many people.
I am genuinely moved by Wendy’s apology: “I want to begin by saying I’m sorry. I’m sorry for the pain that some of those who follow this site have experienced from leaders like me and ministries like the one I lead. I’m sorry that some of you connected with this site who identify as Christian have had your faith questioned and judged. I’m sorry there is a felt need for a site like XGW. I’m sorry that it feels like legitimate concerns have not been listened to. I am sorry for the arrogance that can come across from leaders like me.”
Last summer, in advance of the Ex-gay Survivor Conference, several of us (former EXODUS leaders) issued a similar apology — very similar in tone. We were also sorry for the pain we had caused, sorry that that we may have caused some folks to question their faith or the sincerity of their desire to “change”, sorry for not listening.
Last summer, the official response from EXODUS to our sincere apology was angry, dismissive and sarcastic. That piled hurt on hurt and gave the impression that EXODUS simply did not care. Now, in Wendy, I have renewed hope that someone is listening…
NickC, you seem to be arguing from the possibility that there is a perfect, utopic, third option. No one says you can’t disagree, strongly, with the premise behind ex-gay efforts – I do. But here is the point-blank question to clarify the issue of this thread:
Would Exodus ministries be more or less harmful overall if they were to follow the direction Wendy has charted? Even if framed as the lesser of two evils, I think the answer is clear.
The third option – no ex-gay ministries and no need for them – does not exist and may never in our lifetimes. Do we scoff at any positive change in the mean time?
Nick C. (do I have the right Nick this time
It is a risk to engage in pastoral ministry ….. spirituality, sexuality, emotional health, relational realities ….. these are deeply personal, deeply intimate and often vulnerable places in a person’s life. Taking the risk to engage means also taking the risk that you could bring harm inadvertently …. saying the wrong thing at the wrong time or for the wrong reason. I would be the first to say, ‘I’m a clay pot. I don’t always get it right.” I know I’ve certainly experienced harm in my life’s journey from well meaning people who meant to help and support. I’m not sure you could ever fully guarantee that no harm would ever be experienced – even though clearly you commit yourself to the highest standards possible to “do no harm”. So I suppose, all those who care for people and want to be a supportive, encouraging presence within the guidlines of our own perspectives and practises, could just pull out and say the risk is too high …. and be paralyzed in the fear of causing harm ….. but you know there are others out there who are so arrogent they don’t even see potential risk, they charge in and “help” with little humility, little teachability, little grace ….. and create havoc in their wake that they can just write-off by saying “they didn’t believe enough, pray enough …..” or whatever.
So, hopefully those with a little more humility, more grace, more patience, more tolerance for mystery and grey areas will stay engaged …. taking the risk to be a positive presence in people’s lives.
I can’t be double minded on this issue. I do hold a perspective I believe to be true about sexuality. But I don’t hide from anyone that there are alternative options out there. When someone comes and is very ambivalent, I want them to navigate through that ambivalence and really own where they land…. I don’t want them to just adopt what I believe …. because if they don’t really own if for themselves, when life gets hard (as it most usually does at some point) those convictions will not prove to be an anchor in the storm. But if they have looked at all the options, wrestled through what they really believe and own it – then these beliefs and values can be an anchor in life’s storms and challenges. So in a practical sense, I have no problem pointing someone who is ambivalent to GCN where they can get a sense of both Side A and Side B. I don’t have to convince people what to believe, I have to keep showing up with a servant heart, willing to listen, and be the presence of Christ.
Now to be honest, I pray like the dickens for people when they’re ambivalent….. because clearly I would hope they would come to the same conclusions as i do ….. but prayer is fair game wouldn’t you say?
Caryn,
Thanks to you too for your kind response.
I’m happy I’m not part of any organized confession and my spirituality is personal.
In my view, it’s much more simple.
-God created the majority of beings as heterosexuals (if not only for the reproduction). However he constantly has created some beings homosexuals. All this is part of his plan.
-He wants me to live in respect of who I truly am. He does not want me to live a kind of relationship (in my case, heterosexual relationship) I’m not supposed to have, because he knows that in this case I would be lying and making people unhappy, and I could not be true to myself.
For another person, the following is achieved by being heterosexual; for another, it’s by being bi, or by progressively understanding they should be of ther other sex.
My moral compass, for sexuality matters, is simple: what I do with another consenting adult is nobody’s business, as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody. And genuine, deep love is never a sin, and it’s always what God intends.
This has been a very interesting discussion. Peace to you all.
David Roberts:
My answer is: If Exodus ministries followed Wendy’s example, they would be less harmful to those of us who are NOT involved in them. They would not be pushing political agendas seeking to restrict our equality in society, and they wouldn’t be actively spreading lies and stereotypes about our lives. But I’m not sure they’d be that much less harmful to their own participants.
I am not arguing for the third option. I acknowledge that there will always be some people who seek to follow the “ex-gay” path, and I explicitly state that ministries for those people are valid. My concern is for those who come to these ministries still very conflicted about the direction they should take, and who are offered only one option as the right choice.
Hence the need to do a better job alerting people so they can make their own informed decisions – one of the main reasons for XGW in the first place. You seem to essentially agree on all points, so I’m not sure what you take issue with.
Not taking issue, just answering questions you raised. It was you who said: “NickC, you seem to be arguing from the possibility that there is a perfect, utopic, third option.” You then defined that third option as “no ex-gay ministries and no need for them.” As I pointed out, that’s not at all what I was saying.
Even so, I agree that the standard I present for ex-gay ministries is utopian. Ministries based in traditional religious views will never be able to “encourage conflicted participants to consider that an openly gay life can be a possible healthy direction.” And that’s why I think that even the most well intentioned ministry does more harm than good.
I do understand the impulse to welcome Wendy as a moderating voice in the culture wars that surround these issues. I’m just explaining the reasons I cannot personally join that chorus.
And I think at this point I’m just repeating myself, so I promise that will be my last comment on this thread.
I think that there is inherent in this question a common misunderstanding about the nature of ex-gay ministries. There seems to be an assumption that ex-gay ministries are evangelical – in the sense that they go out and try to recruit gay people and convince them to change their ways.
I don’t think that many ex-gay ministries operate in this manner, and I specifically doubt that New Directions has such an outreach program.
In the two decades that I’ve lived in LA, I have seen, for a matter of a few months, one woman with a table in West Hollywood trying to “reach out” to gay people with a “message of hope”. Her tactic was a sign saying, “We apologize for the way the church has treated you” which was followed up by ex-gay propaganda.
But eventually she realized that the gay folks in West Hollywood were not looking for her “message of hope”, didn’t believe her nonsensical tales of the evils of homosexuality (a quick glace proved otherwise), and saw through her non-apology pretty quickly, so she went away.
But other than this single instance, I’ve not seen any proseletizing. Generally ex-gays go to find ex-gay ministries (or hear about them in church), not the other way around. Most of the advertising I’ve seen had more of a political goal than it did any true effort to change the minds of gay folks.
I doubt Wendy sees convincing a homosexual of anything as even a minor goal of her ministry, much less that he or she is not fulfilling God’s plan of the one man one woman sex package.
Ala “Change is Possible” billboards. I’m sure some think that a gay person driving down the freeway is going to see that sign and have a V-8 moment, but I suspect that is not the real intent.
Steve Schalchlin,
I would, without a blink of an eye, stand side by side Wendy or someone like her to feed, cloth, and provide showers for the homeless. In fact, I do every fourth Sunday at my church. But our focus is on feeding someone who has no food. So while there may be some who are also in the program who are against gay rights, etc. (be they other volunteers or the homeless who show up), the fact is the focus is not on our sexuality but on doing God’s will. By the same token, we have Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans who all join in, and we don’t wear badges to distinguish our denominations. Religion is not even discussed because our focus is on doing God’s will. In fact, I remember one priest saying (in a friendly, light-hearted manner), “If everyone just shut up and did God’s will, maybe Christians would work better together.”
What I am trying to say is that I could not stand side by side with Wendy or someone like her if we were both counseling a person who is struggling with his or her sexuality. Neither she nor I have a common thread in that regard. We would be at odds in that regard. And it would only confuse the person seeking help if we pretended that we weren’t.
I don’t think Wendy is an evil person, or someone out to get anyone, and I feel she is convinced of her intentions. And maybe she only helps those who seek her out.
But most gays at one point seek someone out because we have been so indoctrinated on how homosexuality is a “sin”, how it is “abnormal” and “against nature.” And how many of us here on the EXGW blog sought “help?” And how many of us were convinced that we wanted out?
Well, neither would I, Alan, so that goes without saying. Your point above was that you can put aside differences with others of differing theologies in order to do things not connected to those theological differences.
At least, you could have enjoyed my image of LaBarbera look for “homeless one homeless action.”
Steve Schalchlin:
I am grateful to Wendy for her openness and politeness, however, I’m skeptical of any organization whose words are at odds with some of its actions.
ND claims (sincerely, I believe) to try to avoid politics — yet it is an active member of Exodus. That membership serves to advance Exodus’ antigay and anti-Christian agendas. ND’s words seem inconsistent with its actions.
I have some questions that are intended to ascertain the degree to which New Directions supports Exodus’ political activities.
Does New Directions pay membership dues to Exodus?
Do New Directions or its leaders pay fees to attend Exodus events?
Does New Directions assist in marketing Exodus in Canada?
Does New Directions distribute Exodus publications or press releases or refer people to Exodus resources?
Does New Directions invite ex-gay leaders or ministers (if so, whom) to events, or participate in events and activities with other religious or political organizations (if so, which organizations)?
Timothy,
OK, that word “evangelical”. You know what is meant by that. (All too well!)
Now the other part, again from Exodus’ own policy statements:
outreach + promise of reward = proseletizing.
As for Gritter herself, can we suggest… go back through her 1 hour address at Exodus 2008 Leadership conference (as example) and count how many times she refers to “the missing” or variations thereof; such as “reach that other nation”, or “how would an unchurched gay person hear this?”.
Who on Earth do you imagine she’s talking about???
As we’ve read it, Gritter’s frustration with Exodus is not about their proseletizing — that she takes as part of their mission, even as she also appears genuinely dismayed over what she sees as a wrong-headed approach to what they are doing. The current approach is also seen as increasingly, obviously, wrong-headed by others in her estimation.
(eg: run to near the end of the address where Gritter refers to survey data showing “91% of 16-29 year olds think Christ followers are anti-homosexual”. Gritter follows this with “We know [Exodus is] not anti-gay — we know it! But there’s been a disconnect.” And this followed by the all important “we need to be for the missing”.)
I’m sorry but we are in agreement with NickC in this regard: having been battered for so long with out-right messages of rude condemnation and appaling behaviour, we also fear that any of us could be lulled by a less strident tone into ignoring what remains core to the message and purpose of Exodus and all the member ministries.
The cynic says this is a deliberate tactic. The citizen wishes more people behaved as Gritter does. The person hopes she, along with the rest, will ultimately be ignored and/or regarded as superfluous.
(And, yes, we can entertain all three viewpoints without contradiction: we live and die by Shell Oil’s scenario planning methodology!)
Honestly, I’m a little flabbergasted with your comment that “other than this single instance, I’ve not seen any proseletizing.” Flabbergasted because, Timothy, you’re not one to over-extend yourself in such a way.
By their own accounts, Exodus began with “Brother Frank’s” (Worthen) advertisement in 1973 that combined both evangelical outreach and the promise of a reward.
There’s much we’ve agreed with in your comments (and that of others) about the new direction for New Direction (and by extension, possibly of Exodus itself). But your views about what is ultimately motivating the revisionism is not one we agree with, and nor is your seemingly whole-hearted approval of Gritter and the new New Direction. The final message doesn’t appeared to have changed, to us, for us, even at the same time we can all (hopefully) appreciate the revisions made to the script, the new costumes and the addition of a some new actors.
Any group the promotes Mario Bergner and his awful viewpoints is not one we can completely trust with the lives of others. I would like to think Gritter is open to knowing why and taking the corrective step, but I fear her acknowledgement of the problems followed by a side-stepping of them by using a caveat suggests this will not occur. They’ve been there, done that… and already decided that even the unsuitable is adequate for their purpose; so it seems.
Hence we find ourselves, somewhat in dissappointment, back at square one…
grantdale,
Perhaps I’m being too subtle in my distinction about the way I was using the word “evangelical”.
Yes, they are part of evangelical Christianity. Yes, they want to spread the Good News of their faith. Yes, they would love to share their message with all gay people. But they aren’t knocking on my door on a Saturday morning with pamplets.
And those folks out there sceaming about hell and shaking bibles at the gay pride parade passing by are not ex-gay.
Perhaps Brother Frank was advertising his tapes in magazines 35 years ago. But as best I can tell there isn’t any advertising towards the gay community going on now. And if there is, I don’t think it is a message of “You’re a SINNER”.
But for some reason folks seem to think that recruiting people out of a “homosexual lifestyle” is a primary part of ex-gay ministries. Maybe it is in some – I certainly don’t claim to be all knowing. But if so, I’ve not really seen it.
What I’ve seen is folks who already believe that homosexuality is evil and are looking for someone to “cure” them. I really don’t think an ex-gay ministry really appeals much to anyone else.
Timothy,
already believe that homosexuality is evil … don’t think an ex-gay ministry really appeals much to anyone else.
Well, we can certainly agree with that! (with the usual proviso around “evil” etc)
I suspect we wouldn’t be heading down a distracting path of what “evangelical” means if Exodus was a group based on conservative Islam. I’ll only note that “advertising” is only one form of “marketing”. Door-to-door is only one of the many outlets available.
And also happy to agree that much of Exodus’ direct efforts currently appear quite (deliberately) intended for people other than “the gay community”. In fact, directed at anyone but; and not for any high purpose. But we also acknowledge that Gritter’s is suggesting a new approach for Exodus — one that combines an initial approach via religious recruitment, to be later followed by the Gay-go-Away.
Yeah, real clever. Didn’t see that one coming!
Or we wouldn’t have if we weren’t familiar with Mario Bergner.
Perhaps it’s better if we gave you a few names and left it to you to pick out some (increasingly obvious) common threads with this new-found public face: Chad, Peter O, Alan.
And then work backwards
(for New Direction itself, we’ll also leave it at another observation: it was under Gritter’s leadership that ND adopted Richard Cohen as a “resource”. He was only dropped after… what?)
Apart from that… it’s a sunny 78degF here in Melbourne, and we have some bikes calling our names; not to mention the “compulsory” catch up with friends in the pleasant garden of the Bridge Hotel overlooking the river – cheers!
Have a great bikeride guys. I’m off to coffee, church, and brunch in that order (to be followed by laundry – ugh!!)
I would speculate that Wendy’s kinder and gentler approach is highly influenced by the fact that she is located in Canada, a country where religion has much less of a stranglehold over the culture than here in the United States.
I would also speculate that we will begin to see a kinder and gentler approach here, as I sense that fanatical Christianity has reached a cyclical peak in its influence due to a developing backlash in response to their compulsion to overreach. It’s telling that the backlash is coming not only from those evil secularists and liberals, but from some factions considered to be within their fold. One gay related example is the recent Barna research study on the attitudes of young people. Another is Peter Labarbera defending himself against Christian critics, and whining about Jim Wallis being invited to speak at Wheaton College.
As much as fanatical Christians may tend to withdraw from the prevailing culture, they still want to engage that culture, and in order to do that they require some level of credibility and respect. The persecution of Jews was a staple of Christianity for centuries until it became socially unacceptable after the Holocaust. Martin Luther, if he lived today, would be consigned to a position of irrelevance at the far fringes of our culture.
But it is still acceptable in our culture to seek out and listen to the voices of virulently anti-gay bigots such as Peter Labarbera getting a few seconds of air time in this news report on WGN-TV. I never see stories in the mainstream media concerning blacks or Jews that include comments from a KKK spokesman, but the KKK was once considered a legitimate voice. Fortunately for gays this is in the process of change, and the bigots will wake up one day and realize they are isolated in a corner and have become irrelevant.
It has been my intention to be transparent throughout these comments and so I’ll try to clarify some more aspects of New Direction’s connection with Exodus.
Mike asked:
Does New Directions pay membership dues to Exodus?
Membership dues are $200/year. These fees would not cover the administrative time of the staff who send referrals to us.
Do New Directions or its leaders pay fees to attend Exodus events?
Yes.
Does New Directions assist in marketing Exodus in Canada?
Because of some of the negative perceptions of Exodus, I have been very upfront with Exodus leadership that I will work under the name and brand of New Direction in Canada. We’ve sought be intentional over the last few years to articulate our distinctives in ministry – which I’ve shared in the original post.
Does New Directions distribute Exodus publications or press releases or refer people to Exodus resources?
Usually, people have found Exodus prior to finding us.
Does New Directions invite ex-gay leaders or ministers (if so, whom) to events, or participate in events and activities with other religious or political organizations (if so, which organizations)?
In 2005 we brought Mark Yarhouse to Toronto to offer a one day workshop. We particularly appreciated his weighted interactionist hypothesis in the area of causation and the sexual identity guidelines that were much more comprehensive and option offering than a typical reparative therapy framework.
This month we brought in an American author who published under a pseudonym his own story and journey …. someone who would say his attractions have not changed but he continues to live within the guidelines of a traditional sexual ethic. His seminars focused on, “A Heroic Journey” and “Healthy Male Friendships”.
Otherwise, we have essentially done our own teaching (at least in my tenure). We have not worked with other religious organizations (though we are often invited to teach at their events) and we’ve not worked with any political organizations (at least in my tenure).
I’d also like to bring some more clarity to New Direction’s vision related to having a missional focus.
We have increasingly focused on encouraging Christ-followers to befriend and be present in the lives of the gay people in their “circle of influence”. It is our desire that gay people would actually encounter the presence of Jesus as they engage and relate to Christ-followers (which clearly hasn’t often been the case in the past). Whether the gay person is a person of faith or not, our vision is that their encounter with Christ-followers would be an encounter with shalom. If anything, we remind Christ-followers to not engage in relationship with gay neighbours with an agenda …. but rather in seeking to be present we encourage discernment, listening, serving, and grace. As I said in a recent newsletter, “Quite frankly, it is more important to us that queer people meet Jesus and have every opportunity to develop a relationship with him, than the final outcome of the expression of their sexuality.”
So when I referred to “the missing” in my Exodus talk, I was referring to those who have not yet had the opportunity to encounter the love of Jesus Christ. As I have said previously, I don’t see anything about Jesus’ ministry that was coercive – he was always invitational. So my deepest concern is to be a catalyst in the Christian community to learn to engage in such a manner that Jesus will actually be seen by those in the queer community. The gay affirmative church is already doing this. But I hope that those who name the name of Jesus, who affirm a traditional sexual ethic, can also engage in a manner that is open, non-coercive, and focused on Jesus. At the end of the day, if a gay person develops a relationship with Jesus, they will need to determine God’s call on their life regarding their sexuality. No one else can determine that for them.
I believe that God wants his followers to be an expression of his shalom on earth. We fall short of that all the time. But if this is the aim, then it is a no-brainer that those who hold a traditional sexual ethic should be part of seeking to eradicate homophobia. We should be part of trying to encourage true friendship – even if that requires navigating through areas of disagreement. And we should be part of honouring our neighbours – not caracturizing them.
My colleagues and I all have friendships with gay people who hold a different perspective on sexual ethics than we do. We genuinely enjoy and appreciate our friends – and listen and learn and are blessed. We don’t have to try to change our friends – we have to show up and be a true friend and hopefully be the presence of Jesus. We hope to share that model with the conservative church – because we believe it reflects Jesus.
grantdale…. you made reference to Richard Cohen being adopted as a resource during my tenure ….
I don’t believe that is the case ….. but you have perhaps researched me better than i myself recall. In any case, it was in listening to critique that we made the decision to take distance from Cohen.
We can’t guarantee we won’t make errors along the way ….. what I hope we can model is teachability and a humility to acknowledge past mistakes. As I’ve said, I’m on the wildest learning curve of my life.
Upon further reflection, I do need to say that we have worked alongside the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada here. EFC could be considered a political organization because they do interface with government leaders and advocate in the courts. However, EFC has several departments – one of which is ministry partnerships. It has been with the ministry partnerships department that we have partnered and worked together. It didn’t even cross my mind in my earlier post – because we have not worked with them on political issues. My apologies for not including this in the earlier post.