Noe Gutierrez: What I Learned From Ex-Gay Ministry
Ex-gay ministries depend on certain adversarial elements to inspire the commitment of their members. Although the majority will agree their members did not have a choice in their homosexual feelings, ex-gay ministries emphasize choice as the key factor in the re-orientation of these feelings. Biblical emphasis on purity, chastity, and self-sacrifice give the ex-gay person a sense of process. By making consistently “biblical” choices in the expression of their sexuality, the ex-gay person can experience a level of “freedom from homosexuality” albeit paid for in their own blood, sweat and tears.
My opinions are not founded on scholarly research; rather they come from my own personal foray into (and out of) the ex-gay movement. I have lived on both sides of the controversy. Not so long ago, I could not imagine making statements such as these. Perhaps the most controversial statement I can make regarding my change of heart is that it was borne out of an earnest exploration and thoughtful examination into the seeds of my own Christian faith. I started out with a very rigid picture of God. I knew the fear but not the love of God. My experiences in ex-gay ministry served only to affirm this narrow view of faith.
Set against a biblical contrast of right versus wrong, ex-gay ministries often draw a direct link between the quality of a person’s faith and their commitment to make a choice in the “straight” direction. This value system often results in the ex-gay person being caught by a cycle of perpetual self-evaluation. Compelled to dissect every thought, every word, and every deed into these black or white categories, the life of an ex-gay can become all about choosing sides. With homosexuality as the target, the goal then becomes to eradicate all thoughts and behaviors associated with “wrong” sexual attraction. This becomes the “calling” of the ex-gay person who finds their purpose in the process of self re-orientation. I believe this mode of thinking establishes a clear and distinct association between the effectiveness of God in a person’s life and that person’s ability to commit to ex-gay change.
As if it weren’t enough to instill such burdensome expectations, the constant emphasis on thought and behavior modification will in most cases develop into a deep-seated internal conflict. If feelings of sexual attraction are not a choice but acting on them is, the split between feelings and actions can leave a person feeling segmented, even disconnected from their true self. Ex-gay groups affirm this disconnect in their members, perhaps unwittingly convincing them heterosexuality is within their reach. If groomed properly, this disconnect can become so pronounced that in some cases the “reformed” homosexual will in fact be so far removed from their sexual attractions that to say they are “no longer gay” seems perfectly within reason.
In my opinion this may be one of the greatest flaws in ex-gay doctrine; that is, the idea that heterosexuality can be arrived at through the process of distancing one’s self from what are natural, intrinsic feelings of attraction. This is just not the norm in the process of development in human sexuality. In fact it is quite the opposite, as most people would agree a person’s sexuality is at the center of their identity and of the human experience. Self-dissociation from this core element would therefore lead to a loss of identity rather than the discovery of true self. I believe it is for this reason that those who subscribe to ex-gay thinking must remain connected somehow to ex-gay ministries in order to remain “ex-gay”. Without a strong internalized sense of self-identity, a person becomes dependent on external cues to help define their experience. The idea of the heterosexual goal must constantly be repeated, reminded, and reaffirmed. Group accountability sessions, prayer meetings, national conferences and the never-ending list of books, CDs, DVDs are resources proving vital to the survival of ex-gay ideology. I am personally acquainted with the prominence of ex-gay media (see I Do Exist) and can attest to the importance of their role in helping to promote the ex-gay movement.
Isn’t it time for ex-gay groups to stop using adversarial tactics when the real goal is the building up of our communities of faith? These tactics can only serve to divide and destroy the faith of the weak and alienate the most vulnerable. Why not try a revolutionary approach like loving your fellow man, or sharing as sisters and brothers in Christ? Let God take care of what you cannot give. Take up the cause of those who have been excluded by their churches, families, and friends. Make room at your table; invite someone to fellowship with you in your own home. Take the opportunity to get to know us and you will soon learn we are not so different.
As I have delved deeper and deeper into the mysteries of faith, I have found some sense of relief and a renewed sense of excitement at what the Bible has to say specifically to LGBT people. There is a message in the gospel of Jesus Christ that is best understood by those of us who have been oppressed by puritanical thinking. To my own surprise, this message is diametrically opposed to the messages of ex-gay ministry. Freedom is not found in striving, but in stillness. Joy is not found in hiding but in being open and true to our selves. Love is not borne in sacrifice but in mercy. Most importantly, healing does not come from our own efforts to mend what is broken; healing comes from knowing the one who gave his life for us.
I believe in prayer. I would ask us to pray for change in ex-gay ministries. I believe this change is already happening and there is an amazing window of opportunity here for us to heal the wounds that have driven so many in the LGBT Christians far from the faith. There is room at God’s table for all of us, but no one is going to show up without a genuine, caring and loving invitation. Take note that a good dinner invitation should not require anything from the guest. I believe this is what the gospel of Jesus Christ is all about. Besides, why wouldn’t you want us there…? Everyone knows LGBT people throw the best parties.
Filed under: Change, Exodus, Former Exgays, Gay / Exgay / 'Identity'
It is good to hear your story, Noe. Welcome to XGW.
Noe, you have an amazing way of expressing yourself. Thank you very much for sharing your insights.
[…] video, “I Do Exist.” Today on Ex-Gay Watch, Noé shares some more about what he learned from ex-gay ministries: Isn’t it time for ex-gay groups to stop using adversarial tactics when the real goal is the […]
Thank you for sharing! Your honesty opens up the reality of the hardship in those aspiring to become ex-gay.
This may be nitpicking, but I take some offense that “a person’s sexuality is at the center of their identity and of the human experience.” I think the center of the human experience, more exactly, is relationship. I am asexual, so if sexuality is central to identity, that means I have no central identity. Besides, most relationships of every person is non-sexual (family, friends, community of faith) but those relationships can be just as critical as a sexual relationship.
Your last few paragraphs mirror liberation theology, which is valuable indeed to all of us whom have been oppressed by religion. But the Gospel does not come to us despite oppression, it comes to us because of oppression. In Liberation Theology, to know Jesus, we must know Jesus’ suffering and that is why we are such an important group. Pain, difficultly, and rejection are the catalysts for God’s revelation and salvation only comes through death. Not merely Jesus’ death, but our death as well. I am justifying the ex-gay movement, but God is using even them for good.
So where I come at odds with the LGBT movement is the philosophy that God doesn’t want us to change who we are. Not according to the Gospel! The essence of the Gospel is Death and Resurrection. Jesus taught stripping off greed, envy, violence, lust, hatred, and gluttony and being born into charity, humility, justice, generosity, and compassion. Where ex-gays get it wrong (and gays too sometimes) is that Jesus doesn’t care about the dividing attributes - female, rich, slave, Jew, sick, male, Roman. I’m sure if Jesus preached today Jesus would rebuke our obsession over sexual orientation and gender identity too and to change into people who worry about the important things: feeding the hungry, healing the sick, comforting the lonely . . .
Noe,
Thank you for sharing your story with us. Your writing demonstrates a keen insight into the mindset that many who go through ex-gay ministries adopt. I, too, hope that we will continue to see more reconciliation between the church and its GLBT members.
That is so true, Noe. The journey of the Christian faith had always been getting to know Our Saviour. It should be “be still and know God”; that is truth. It is amazing how people had revised it to say, work hard to know God. Or worse, be heterosexual acting to know God.
This is great, Noe, your journey might have been difficult but it was definitely not for naught. We need people like you to speak out just as you’ve done here on XGW.
Noe,
I think the highest compliment I can give you is that I’m going to send a link to your story to my ex (tdub) because I believe it will be beneficial to him. And that’s what all this sharing is all about…..helping each other as we find out way in Christ.
Thank you for your transparency…..we are truly blessed by your presence here.
Well, I am happy the Noe is learning stuff from his experience, but I am shocked at how people are reacting. Remember, Noe is that person who said some things on I Do Exist that really hurt the community and individuals. His experience comes across as somewhat selfish to me–he helps the gay community with student and teacher outreach, participates in a pretty anti-gay video (in fact, didn’t most of us think his video portions were some of the most problematic?), and then reaches out and says he has come across the divide. It is about his “spirital journey.” While I appreciate his comments, doesn’t his “journey” seem almost planned? Maybe he is sincere, but the hugs around Noe aspect from everyone is disturbing. Did he not try to hurt people (gay and ex-gay)?
Fan4ad,
What do you find disturbing about the “hugs around Noe aspect?” What would you suggest, and why?
Many of us have “journeyed” similarly….and I for one have been grateful for the gracious way folks have allowed that to happen without holding things I’ve said in the past over my head all the time. While I’ve always tried my best to be gracious to others even when I didn”t agree with them…I’ve still said a few things that I go back and read now and I’m all “whoa…….i said that……..yikes….”
Fan4ad,
I have to be honest, that sounds a bit callous to me. Peterson was in exgay programs for 17 years, certainly he influenced a great many people. But I don’t believe his or Noe’s intent was to hurt anyone — they were doing their best to find their way at the time. Noe was only briefly in the spotlight and then pulled back. The “hugs” are because we can identify with how difficult that journey has been, and be happy that he is coming to a better, perhaps more genuine place in his life.
I’ve talked with Noe at length, and I believe he is very sincere. And I don’t believe I am betraying any confidence to say that during those conversations he expressed deep anguish over those he affected while working under an ex-gay ideology. Perhaps he will gain the strength to express that openly if we don’t chastise him for his past on his first attempt to share what he has learned.
In short, let’s not practice conditional love as so many of those ex-gay groups we discuss have.
I am sorry David about it sounding callous–it was meant to be skeptical. I cannot judge his heart, and he may be sincere (and probably is); however, I see it all as too quick. Remember that the makers of I Do Exist also were shocked by his quick change of view and the video quit being sold. Anyhow, just my opinion–I am a skeptic, so it is natural for me to question these things. I will not say anything more about Noe’s experience out of respect to him and the site. I do think it is legit to just mention these issues.
David Roberts said:
Point well taken. Because a lot of us were conditioned by our religious upbringing, it has always been a balancing act between our sexuality and our religious beliefs, and frankly, our religious upbringing usually helped us to hate ourselves and hate others who are like us and yet did not hate themselves as well. For me, I felt a false sense of superiority that I hated my homosexuality and that I was better than those who embraced theirs. It wasn’t until I came to the realization that Christianity is not about being superior but rather realizing that we are all loved by God equally that that false sense of superiority slowly disappeared.
Those in the ex-gay movement are given that false sense of superiority because if they didn’t, they would accept their sexuality with no complications. For those like Noe who have finally come to a new level in his religious journey, they should be celebrated and encouraged to move forward, not backwards.
It was explained to me once by a very spiritual priest that our spiritual maturity is likened to our physical maturity. When we are infants we know only our world and our needs and our wants. The universe centers on us. The big ME! As we mature we begin to see there are others around us yet we still tend to believe our ways are the correct ways and that others are not. As Lily Tomlin’s little child character Edith Ann once said, “I am not bossy; my ideas are just better.” Finally we arrive at a stage where we not only realize there are others, but that they all form a chain in the human existence. The “ME” becomes the “WE.” So too in our spiritual journey. I think Noe has finally found the “WE” or so it appears. Another priest used this scale to explain the same concept…on one end of the scale is Jerry Fallwell and the other end is Mother Theresa. The closer we get to the Mother Theresa side of the scale, the more we see God in everyone. Perhaps Noe is moving up in the scale. Bravo! if that is the case.
Yes, it is, but I think you might have been a little harsh. In some ways this is like any relationship — you have to be willing to get hurt to truly experience the joy. Even if he did change his mind, we did nothing wrong to trust him. I’m probably also less troubled because I have had a chance to speak with him and ask more questions than what was covered here so far. Perhaps we will figure out a way to bring some of that to another post.
I can very much relate to this quote.
I can’t tell you how deeply I appreciate the posts on the article. There is so much more to my story than meets the eye. “I Do Exist” was not my vision and I did in fact ask that it be removed from circulation just months after its release. You may have noticed that my name was strangely absent from all press and promotion of the DVD. There also are no quotes of my support. Those involved with the DVD knew exactly where I was on my journey and that I no longer felt the DVD spoke truth, at least in reference to my life.
For more than a year following its release, I was persuaded not to disturb the DVDs “effectiveness” in others’ lives. The messages I received from various ex-gay leaders said that to “come out” in disapproval of the DVD meant impeding the work of Christ in the lives of those committed to the change process. I was told (paraphrase), “Just because you can’t keep up with the call of Christ on your life, it doesn’t mean you should lead others astray.” I believed this message and took it upon myself to deal with my own change of heart, in silence and obscurity. It took some time for me to figure out this was not right (nor healthy). This was not what Christ had called me to and there was something very wrong with the messages I was being fed.
In late December 2006 I contacted the producers of “I Do Exist” and told them I was making a public statement about my change of heart. There was a panic in their voices and I was asked to delay my statement until they could prepare a statement of their own. Finally on January 7, 2007 I posted a personal statement on my website regarding my participation in the video.
I learned a valuable lesson from this experience. The ex-gay movement may say that people are their priority but it is often the case that the promotion of ex-gay ideology takes precedence. What I have written here and on my website are my attempts at setting things right. It should be noted, however, that I am also in process of being “set right”. This takes time and I can only trust God to keep true to his promise of completing the good work he has begun.
Thank you all for reading and for writing! N.
And who are they to judge what is truly calling you??
I think that visiting a place like XGW, and reading of others’ journeys, and just listening to what commentators say, will help you in that process. I would also recommend beyondexgay.com, where many ex-ex-gays go for support and to tell their own stories.
Noe said:
That remined me of a quote by Bishop Sheen which said, “I’d rather experience love than know its definition.” I think as Christians (and I am just as guilty as the rest) we tend to defend our beliefs when we should be aligning our actions to Christ’s. We put doctrine (or ideology) over people.
In what you say about how the the ex-gay movement tends to put their ideology over people, I always find it amazing when I speak to anti-gay or ex-gays, and I state that God is love, and God loves us all, how quick they are to react with anger. It is as if God being a loving God spoils their plan. In some ways I can relate to that. Being Orthodox Catholic, I can sometimes forget that God is about love, not doctrine. The doctrine is there for me (and others) to better understand God’s love, but it is not God. We tend to make doctrine a god just as other types of Christianity make the Bible out to be a god. The truth is, when we go to the pearly gates, we won’t be on a quiz show and be asked, “Name the twelve apostles,” or “Is the Virgin Mary’s conception called A. The Immaculate Conception, B. The Virgin Birth, or C. The Assumption?”
By the same token, when we reach those pearly gates, we will not be asked whether we are gay or straight but rather how we dealt with others. Did we feed the hungry, did we cloth the naked, did we visit those in prison, etc.
It’s a life-long process, and God will always keep his promises. It’s good to hear you are turing into one of God’s many vessels of love.
“God is love.” First Catholic Epistle of St. John 4:16
“God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God and God in them.”
Hi Ephilei,
No need to take offense at Noe saying that sexuality is at the core of one’s identity. That is essentially true. There of course is a process of mastering relationships to GET to that core.
Asexuality is part of the scale from one level of intimacy (emotional) to physical intimacy (which I thought asexuals are not interested in at all.)
External cues come early in life. In a way, I’m reminded also of the cues the ex gay movement gives on physical affection and demonstration. It’s long been noted how little casual affection is accepted among males. There is deep discomfort among ‘old school’ men so to speak, that connect affection only with sex.
But the assumption that GAY men are confused regarding affection and masculinity is another MISCUE from the ex gay movement that doesn’t respect individuals, but gives men the EX GAY cue by rote.
The ex gay movement seriously confuses not only individuals in their care, but the public at large.
What DOES qualify a person to be anything OTHER than what they know in their own hearts to be true about themselves, but the assumptions of others becomes their cue?
There is a difference between asexuality and celibacy, for example.
And when a person IS in a relationship, there is an assumption they are having sex, or plan to eventually.
What is put before the public requires a relationship as a cue to the community.
It’s relationships that sometimes advance the coming out process to that community.
Sometimes it’s having a certain history among one’s social network that requires informing them you are no longer on the market or interested in a romantic relationship.
But few people assume that a person doesn’t want to have sex for their own reasons.
Leading to my other point of how so many SINGLE ex gays present themselves before their religious community. They usually ARE celibate and either have never been or won’t be in a relationship. And the more commercial ex gays present themselves as having been formerly promiscuous and reckless in their sex lives.
Another confusing aspect because heterosexuals can be that way as well, but are not expected to blame their orientation.
All of this truly wrecks honesty and transparency. It’s impossible to know who is who and what they are doing. There are more and more assumptions, and certainly the ex gay movement encourages not asking any invasive questions of the newly minted heterosexual.
But plenty of invasive questions are asked of gay people or assumptions are made that their sex lives are hotter than a pistol unless that gay person SAYS outright, ‘I’m celibate’ or whatever to appease whoever might ask.
I think the price is WAY to high and ultimately contradictory to knowing FOR SURE what a gay person would really do if given the same opportunities that heteros have without question FROM their respective social networks.
Gay kids are given miscues and the contradictory cues all the time, and the ex gay movement simply exploits that.
It’s way past time that the real test be done. What would REALLY happen if the assumption and expectation wasn’t for a gay person to pass or go without?
I don’t think anyone who sincerely wants to see what a gay person would do in Christ would be afraid to find out.
Noe, that was beautiful and very insightful. I especially liked the way you addressed the ex-gay notion that a person can disconnect themselves from their sexual nature and still be whole. You just can’t. Sex is a drive we share with all the other living creatures of this good earth, with the exception of maybe bacteria, and for obvious reasons it’s a very powerful drive. To talk about sex as a mere behavior grossly trivializes it. It’s part of the bedrock of life on earth.
The analogy I like to make is with art. Not all art is explicitly sexual by any means, but remove any hint of sex, any hint of desire, romance, fancy, that longing for intimacy, the joy and ache of love from all of it…from music, from dance, from sculpture and literature…and what is left? And so it is with the person.
This is why what the ex-gay movement does to what so many good hearted, decent people, angers me so. There needs to be more kindness and love in this poor angry world, not less. But if you take someone’s heart away from them, what is left? It seems though, that the human heart does not die so easily. That gives me hope. Thank you very much for sharing your story Noe.
Nice illustration, Bruce.
The interesting question to me is why people keep choosing a religion (and ex-gay therapy IS a religion because it operates in exactly the same way) that is destructive to their health and happiness when there are other clear choices that do not. for example, other religious choices that do not claim a lock on the mind of G, or ‘understanding’ of unclear or non-sensical prohibitions that simply that simply do not work. Why do people not choose the path that would make their lives better, but instead, choose the path that continually brings pain. Noe’s comments on this are illustrative of the problem: conflating the messenger ( so-called ex-gay minister) with the message (G’s love), the ideology (gay is bad) with the idolology (the bible is G’s word and not men’s words).
My husband’s brother, a sweet man, stays with his wife despite the fact that both are miserable in their marriage. We have advised him repeatedly to get some counseling, either with her or without her. But don’t leave the situation unchanged, even if the change will result in reduced financial circumstances (at worst) or a renewed marriage (at best). (It is not about religious beliefs about divorce).
Yet he won’t, and continues to suffer. I can only conclude two things. One is that he is afraid of the change. Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. questioning these so called ‘religious’ or ex-gay leaders is the equivalent.
My question then is, why choose a devil at all? This might also apply to gay people of a fundamentalist bent in dealing with their sexuality.
The other is, I think, a self esteem issue, and this I believe certainly applies to gay people in this situation. We are taught from an early age in obscure but pervasive ways that their is NOTHING worse than being queer– boys especially believe this because they equate being queer with being effeminate, and there is nothing worse than not being a full man, which one is not by definition if one is effeminate. Putting it another way, there is nothing worse than being a woman. Ask St. Paul and the whole army of misogynists masquerading as G’s representatives and intermediaries on earth. “Let us make man in OUR image. males and female created he them. Hah and double hah. I will suffer no woman to have authority over a man–indeed!!!
Being gay is SO bad that it makes some gay people crazy enough to believe that they have something to gain by betraying their basic natures, by betraying THEMSELVES. Another word for this is shame. Losing the war against oneself– or as the Throckster calls it, ex-gay therapy– doesn’t work, because it just confirms their opinions of themselves. They’re bad, evil, sick, inherently worthless. And if they just sell their souls for a cheap enough price, all will be well. but they are so worthless that of course it won’t work.(Transactional analysis does the best job of explaining this basic and apparent contradiction).
The truth is, gay people in this position WANT to be punished for being inherently and intrinsically morally evil (thanks to Benny the Rat for that bit of ‘moral’ analysis), and they can’t think of anything else besides fundamentalist religion that is bad enough to give them what they deserve. So they keep choosing it.
People do this sort of thing all of that time. It is what we call self-destructive behavior, and it is a common enough phenomenon well known to those in the psychiatric field. If that self destructive behavior, grounded as it is in culturally constructed poor self esteem, is not what is being addressed, then no therapy is going to work. Ex-gay ‘therapy’ is intended to do just one thing– confirm and support that poor opinion of themselves. Gotta keep the money, the political power, and the sense of superiority (glad you recgonize that, Noe) flowing. Hence the words sexually broken, sinful, lost masculinity, blah blah blah blah. Even the word therapy itself loses its meaning in this context.
I think this is one of the biggest challenges the pro-gay side has in understanding ex-gays and a good portion of the Christian world. I’ll use myself as an example, but I don’t think you will find mine a unique experience.
When I felt my homosexual feelings and actions where wrong, sin if you will, it was because I thought God thought that was so. It wasn’t my church or denomination that gave me that — though they certainly reinforced it — I did. I took what I saw in scripture and deduced that God didn’t like it. Was I influenced by those around me, society, history and just plain prejudice? Absolutely, though I didn’t realize it at the time. But I could have sat myself down in a gay-affirming church and I just would have disagreed with them - in fact I did this and that’s what happened.
I’ve heard people ask this question before, and it is very hard to answer, but my faith was not something I could put down while shopping for another. It was and is more important to me than life itself, so to avoid the parts I didn’t like to get around the issues was just unthinkable - I would be fooling myself. It was in fact that attempt more than anything else that almost sent me over the edge. It is not unlike being in the closet (only for me, much worse), trying to say I didn’t believe something about God that I did. That was real torture for me.
It was not until I faced the issue with God that I began to understand. In what can only be described as listening to His voice in a state of surrender, I began to see scripture much differently. I realized that going down the ex-gay route was literally killing me. I made a choice and I gave God the freedom to alter that decision if I was wrong. Doing so enabled me to get beyond my obsession with the whole thing, and live again. I could never have accomplished that by simply switching faiths — and I certainly tried!
There may have been some self-punishment in there, but that seems far to black and white, too simple an explanation. There is nothing simple about it from my vantage point. It certainly had nothing to do with feeling that gay is effeminate, because I’ve never thought that. That may well be the reason for some of the societal hatred of gays, but it really played no part in my own struggle.
I think we are actually in agreement here, David, but with a slightly different perspective.
Homosex used to be described as ‘the crime against nature, not to be named among Christian men’ (Get the emphasis there? Christian men.) You could talk about murder and slaughter (the OT is full of it), incest (lot and the children of Adam), human sacrifice (Abraham and Isaac, G behaving VERY badly (also the OT, especially the Flood), even DEICIDE (the brutal murderof G), but you could not even NAME homosex.
This is why I said: ‘We are taught from an early age in obscure but pervasive ways that their is NOTHING worse than being queer– boys especially believe this because they equate being queer with being effeminate, and there is nothing worse than not being a full man, which one is not by definition if one is effeminate.’ and i should have added for clarification– effeminate or queer.
This is where transactional analysis comes in, aka I’m OK, you’re OK. (Except in this case, it’s I’d be OK, if only I were not so not OK). It provides the best framework for understanding the phenomenon. There are two basic positions in life that one takes as an attitude towards oneself and others. I’m OK, or i’m not OK, you’re OK or you’re not OK, though no one is the TA equivalent of a Kinsey 1 or 6. One does whatever is necessary to confirm that position, because it is at the heart of identity. Which position one takes, vis a vis oneself or others, is not so important (except for the health and happiness of onself or others) as the fact that one will do whatever is necessary to confirm the position. this isn’t just TA theory. i think it is a concrete description of how human beings tick.
The concept of original sin– in adam’s fall, we sinned all– is just one religious expression of this idea, except that it takes the positon that no one is OK, or ever could be. Patent nonsense, but powerful nonsense noetheless. This is where some religions get their power and money– the meal ticket. you’re bad, but if you give us your allegiance and your money, we’re here to provide you with a way out of the dilemma, a dilemma which we have created out of whole cloth. Jesus certainly didn’t say so.
And here is in fact the basic problem with this kind religion. In no other field of human inquiry and experience is so much demanded in the way of belief on so little basis of history, inquiry, experience, and logic. Scriptural certainty exists only because people believe it does, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary that “certainty” is open to the self-interested interpretation of men– power, money, and the feeling of superiority that the ex-gay ‘movement’ provides to its adherents. In fact, the strength of faith exists in inverse logarithmic proportion to the amount of evidence there is to sustain it.
The lives and spirits of gay people, and their ability to choose what is best for their lives, are molded and stunted, hijacked by “faith” long before they even can understand the basis of that faith OR that they are gay and what that means in their lives.
I’m not saying here that all religion is inherently bad. i have no objectionto anything that gives meaning and order to people’s lives, as long as that meaning and order is not destructive to the individual or the society.
You could not see a way out of your dilemma because it was at the core of your being– both faith and sexuality. You were doing what TA says you have to do–confirm that basic position by any means necessary. You literally had no choice.
Except that as human beings, we always have choice. that is what makes us both human and moral. Your point of surrender– you would say to G, I would say to the human fact of choice– finally gave you a way out of the impasse.
So you are right, in that it simply wasn’t a matter of choosing another religion. It was reaching the point of choice– between your faith and your survival. Before that, you were only choosing that which confirmed your basic evil.
I cannot believe that any god, especially one sold as a god who loved the world so much etc etc etc, would offer that as a choice.
It is also the basic nature of despair, which is what I think evil frequently attempts to do, and certainly what the concept of original sin is intended for, because despair is at the heart of the doctrine– as always,(at least as I see it) Paul corrupting what Jesus had to say. Take away everything from a man, especially his knowledge of his own choice in life to be the best he can be. But then, give him back something that is broken. He can lose everything, but still have hope. The broken thing takes even that away.
How magnanimous of you, lol.
It’s not that I don’t understand what you are saying, I just don’t think such an analytical approach can ever adequately describe matters of faith — or any of the other mysteries of being human. And there is some extra jaded religion baggage in there as well, which makes it hard to fully explain what I mean to you. You have the explanation of basic decision making covered, and certainly the societal prejudice, but the rest not so much, at least not in my case. For instance:
That makes sense, but it doesn’t explain the why. It does accept that the decision is based on issues at the core of ones being. So as far as it goes, it is accurate.
For the record, I was a staunch atheist until my early 20s. I had no basis in faith on which to draw in my early days of dealing with my sexuality. If anything, I would have shunned any scriptural approach to the matter. The only negative and shameful feelings I felt up to that point were based on society in general, which is certainly affected by many faiths.
Actually, I had no real issues at all until I hit puberty, when guys became something quite different than they had been. In those days, it was what people might think of me that gave me pause, and later it was what God might want of me that stood in the way. I had lots of male friends and did all the stuff you might expect, but when I started becoming sexually and emotionally attracted to them, not understanding it, and having to keep it a secret, well that changed things as you can imagine.
There is no doubt in my mind that Exodus and related organizations facilitate, even (unwittingly) encourage the damage and destruction of the very faith they claim to hold so dear, in many, many people. If I have communicated anything, I hope you can understand how important that faith can be — as core to some as anything else in their lives. So you can imagine the anger and frustration caused when the supposed safe haven of an ex-gay ministry only accelerates it’s mutilation. Yet it is that very faith which draws the majority to them — a bitter irony that makes me sick.
I’m glad you wrote ‘lol’. I wasn’t trying to be magnanimous at all. unlike many of the ufndamentalists i have met, I don’t think I have all the answers that are necessary, especially to questions i don’t understand. My late partner had the basic philosphy that if every day you choose things that make your life better, then at the ned of your life, your life will have been better. I don’t see anything else going on in life except that–certainly not a better afterlife.
You wrote: ‘That makes sense, but it doesn’t explain the why. It does accept that the decision is based on issues at the core of ones being. So as far as it goes, it is accurate.’
I would say, there is no why to it, any more than there is a why to gravity. It is just the way people tick. Science, which to my mind never answers why, only how, is a good descriptor of reality for exactly that reason. Victor frankel (Man’s search for meaning) posited that that search is essential to being human. My cat, sparky, loves a good chin rub. the meaning of it stops at his nose. but then, sparky is quite essentially a cat.
You wrote: ‘ So you can imagine the anger and frustration caused when the supposed safe haven of an ex-gay ministry only accelerates it’s mutilation. Yet it is that very faith which draws the majority to them — a bitter irony that makes me sick.’
I wrote the same: ‘Take away everything from a man, especially his knowledge of his own choice in life to be the best he can be. But then, give him back something that is broken. He can lose everything, but still have hope. The broken thing takes even that away.’ The end product of this corruption– Mutilation, bitter irony, call it what you will–is despair.
It makes me sick as well, and is why I think corruption (in the very moral and very old sense of the word) lies at the very heart of the whole idea of ex-gay and exgay ministries. The very term ex-gay is a quiet admission that the basic premise is a lie, and known to be a lie, however sincere some or many of its proponents are or seem to be.
Alan chambers says change is possible, yet admits that he struggles every day, and we know where he gets his opinions because, as Mark Twain says, we know where he gets his cornpone. Despair is what keeps people in an ex-gay ministry, despite the palpable sense that it isn’t working.
For the sake of clarity, “I Do Exist” was released in July 2004. Although I had verbally made prior objections to the video, my own records indicate the first written objection to the producers was in September of 2005. I realize these datails (though small) are important and want to be sure I portray them accurately.
Ben,
Then as far as the how, there is logic to what you say. The end result is the same, a lot of damaged people, sometimes fatally. This is why I have been convinced over the years that we must allow everyone the freedom that I believe God gives all people. They must be allowed to work out the fine details for themselves. Who are we to take that away?
And while I think they fell short of the ideal themselves (and would probably readily admit as much), the founding fathers seem to have had the same thing in mind. It’s amazing how that has been corrupted by those who want to use them as another weapon against freedom of thought and faith. This whole thing is rife with bitter irony.
The key to understanding that reaction lies in a definition of ‘love’ is so tangled up with fear - fear of eternal damnation, fear of a big bad world that’s focused entirely on hating them for being Christians, fear of God sending hurricanes as punishment for immorality - that they don’t know how to deal with anyone whose faith isn’t similarly permeated by fear.
It’s a difficult mindset to escape, because that same fear rises up to beat you back down every time you try to question it.
Keep up the good work Noe, you are in my prayers and thoughts.
Peace be with you.
I can really relate to Noe’s statement about the unhealthiness of fixating on heterosexuality. After about five years of trying to change and being in ex-gay ministry and going to conferences, I reached a place of increasing depression because I did not see that change happening. Plus, it was taking all the focus of my life. One of the best things I ever did was to stop trying to change and simply go on with my life.
By going on with my life, I don’t mean that I decided to affirm homosexuality, I simply stopped trying to change. I focused my energy on more important things like work, friends, ministry endeavors, etc. I left behind the ex-gay world for 9 years. Leaving ex-gay ministry behind didn’t change my beliefs on the issue (I still believe its not God’s design), because my beliefs were not being dictated by external pressure. Rather I was influenced primarily by my own faith process and what I felt the Spirit was speaking to my inner person. So, despite leaving ex-gay ministry I still pursued (and am pursuing) chastity, but without fixating on it and without fixating on change.
There is a lot of fear among many ex-gays about being open in the church and with their families about their sexual orientation. This is so damaging. I eventually became very open and public about my same-gender attractions even while a student at a conservative seminary. This was one of the best thing I ever did. I have no secrets. I can be myself with others because I don’t have to hide my past or current same-gender attractions.
Ex-gay ministry was helpful to me in being open for the first time in my life. I benefited in that regard. But, I needed to move on. It would have been unhealthy to stay there as a participant for the long term (at least for me). I think ex-gay ministry could improve by focusing more on the spiritual disciplines and spiritual growth than change, and leave any change outcomes to God.
PS– I do have to say that some disillusionment with ex-gay ministry comes from our own hopes rather than what ex-gay ministry promises. The ex-gay ministry I was a part of never promised me heterosexuality. I wrote in my journal how it was about “holiness, not heterosexuality” and I acknowledged (intellectually) that I might not change. But, it was my own hope for change and my disappointment that it didn’t come that was part of the issue. We can blame ex-gay ministry, but a lot of times we simply have to take responsibility for our own expectations and our reactions when our expectations aren’t met. That being said, perhaps ex-gay ministry could somehow emphasize even more clearly that change may not occur, but when you are full of hope, one doesn’t always heed that even when its stated quite clearly.
It might be holiness, though I do not believe that holiness is the same as heterosexuality, or the opposite of homosexuality.
Personally, I think wholeness is a much better goal than holiness.
[…] in the movie, we meet Noe Gutierrez, who had supposedly gone from gay activist to “ex-gay ” spokesperson. For several […]
As a gay person who thankfully escaped getting suckered into any religion, let alone ex-gay therapy, I must say I am ambivalent toward these kinds of “ex-ex-gay” testimonials. Obviously I think it’s great people like Noe can finally wake up to some sense of reality and live a life without lies and repression (or at least, with fewer of them than before).
However, I’m with others who aren’t ready to forgive and forget the atmosphere of ignorance and bigotry he’s almost certainly contributed to, specifically as a spokesperson for the ex-gay movement in Throckmorton’s video. How many impressionable, lonely gay youths, unfortunate enough to be born into religious homes, saw that video? How much of their fear and self-hatred was reinforced by that video? How many now cling to that false hope of change and will now wander, lost for years while their lives pass them by? How many will become spokespeople themselves and recruit other innocent souls?
Noe does give some great insights into the psychology of the ex-gay ideology, I certainly can’t fault him for being a bad writer.
But no offense pal, while you were off being totally self-centered, obsessing over yourself and struggling to accept even the most basic truths about who you are (and all just to live up to some archaic mythology), those of us who have been honest and well-adjusted for most of our lives have had to constantly defend ourselves and our families from right wing attacks, and propping up the ex-gay poster children like Noe here is a key part of their anti-gay strategy.
I think this is a step in the right direction, but people like Noe are going to have to do a lot more than write an editorial or two to make up for the harm they helped cause, directly to a few, and indirectly to millions.
Perhaps if you had some of that “archaic mythology” you might be more willing to forgive. Just a thought
Ambivelent you say? That’s quite a little diatribe for one so ambivilent.
Eshto– I understand what you are saying, and the reasons for your feelings. I agree absolutely with your very last paragraph.
On the other hand, perhaps a bit more empathy for Noe is in order. I never had any problems with BEING gay, but i was afraid of the consequences for coming out, being a child of the ’50’s as I was. When the strain of not being truly alive became too great, I came out at 21.
but as many people have commented, coming out is a lifelong process. I told the last people that needed to know when I was 28, in response to the Briggs initiave in 1978. 99.9% of the time, I am as out as I can be. But i still have found myself not telling my clients i am gay when the appropriate question comes up, because I have been afraid that I will lose what little is left of my business. And I am ashamed of that .1%.
So, cut Noe a little slack. Encourage him to stand up for himself, to atone for the damage he did. That is a postive thing to do. He is young, after all, and perhaps coming to understand that actions, even self-absorbed ones, have consequences. The journeys we take as people are made one step at a time, and if the foot is lame or the leg is damaged, the movement is slower.
In response to Eshto comments David Roberts said:
This seems like another case of giving Christianity the credit for traits deemed positive, while the responsibility for traits deemed negative are deflected elsewhere.
Christians have a sorry history on issues such as slavery, black civil rights, interracial marriage, and women’s rights, but today I now see them taking credit for the results of these movements. In about fifty years I expect that they will be taking credit as the force for ending the persecution of homosexuals. In each case Christians were dragged kicking and screaming towards social change.
I know that this was/is not true for all Christians, but I also know that virtually 100% of our organized opposition is Christian based. They are motivated, loud, well funded, and persistent. And those we consider our Christian allies are, for the most part, unmotivated, quiet, and unorganized for any significant action on our behalf.
Et tu, Richard?
First, I didn’t mention Christian anything - it was faith in general that he appeared to disparage. Second, absent face to face communication, a wink is about as much as one can do to convey levity. But you are right, some people of faith, including Christians, are just as unforgiving.
Richard R said:
I believe we as Christians have to fess up to “the sins of the past” as well as “the sins of today.” The heart or core of the Christian faith is definitely a positive one, but the way it has been misused and abused certainly is an evil that the Christian community as a whole must address and strive to remedy. Gay Christians are pushing the Church towards a mirror for it to see itself, and for many, they still refuse to see the true image of how it deals with the gay community. But that is the history of the Church since its beginnings. It is taking the human condition, forcing it to look at itself in order to change for the good.
Christianity certainly does not corner the market on positive traits, but as much damage that many Christians have done throughout history there is that much or even more good. That could be said for any group of people whether they be a religion, a nation, or just a collection of people with similar philosophies (with few exceptions).
Someone once said, “Christianity would work as a religion if there were no Christians.” I’ve always understood that to mean that, if we just lived our lives according to what Christ demands of us without flaunting that we belong to some club, we would be too busy doing what is right rather than boasting our religious affliation.
What I do find is for those who are anti-gay and who tag the word “Christian” to their identity, they have to distort the Christian message so much so that it no longer resembles what Christ taught in order for them to be constant in their hatred toward the gay community. Like what Patsy said to Saffy on AbFab once, “You may dress like a Christian, but the similarity ends there.”
I am pleased the author has found freedom from ex-gay movement and found his own peace of mind. But I just do not buy this about the goodness of religion. I’m afraid, I see it as the problem, not the answer. By what criteria do you more moderate christians separate the good verses of the bible from the evil or irrelevant ones?
If people were expected to give reasons for their beliefs, i.e based on evidence, observation and logic, rather than revelation and authority, this argument would not be necessary.
A lot of pressure groups base their claims about the sinfulness of homosexuality on a mythical event in a garden in mesopotamia, about 6,000 years ago. We know the universe is at least 2 million times older than this, and archaeology has shown no evidence whatsoever for the first five books of the Bible. And the historicity of the gospels is extremely lacking too.
For someone to argue that Christianity has been responsible for so much good, then it can also be claimed that Scientologists and the Nation of Islam do lots of work to get people off drugs, and Hamas and Hezbollah do charitable work too. It is also worth asking why it took nearly 1500 years after Christianity was first institutionalised, to abolish slavery - first called for by secularists like Thomas Paine, in the face of fierce Christian opposition.
Historically, religion has opposed just about every advance in human rights and science. The less impact religion has, the happier and more equal society, is - as the top five countries in the Economist peace index published this week show. The religious can no longer go for people of different race, witches, or Jews. Gays are the last of the ’scapegoats’ to cast the sins of society on to. It sounds morelike, we are good in spite of our beliefs.
I have to ask of the believers: Why would heaven wait millions of years and impassively watch the early humans suffer so much as they evolved, fought and died young, almost being wiped out by predators, famines and ice ages. After all this it decides to send an envoy, not to civilisations like China where people could think and write, but to illiterate peasants in …Palestine?
We will all be happier when we realise the universe was not made for us in mind, we have one life and we should live and love to the full, and defend everyone else’s right to do so as well (Epicurus).
Adrian, I will use your comment to reinforce one of our basic rules here - it’s been a while. Matters of faith are deeply involved in the ex-gay equation, so we do end up talking about them quite a bit as a byproduct. It is fine to discuss this interaction, how ministries might use or abuse people’s faith to force their own convictions on GLBTs, and how faith in general plays a part in the lives of those who feel the need to seek out elusive change. Just about any civil discussion in that area is fine.
However, this particular site is not about questioning the validity of anyone’s beliefs, or of any particular religion in general. You may certainly participate and acknowledge your point of view, but not in such a way as to denigrate anyone else, i.e. “the bible is mythology” or “Mormonism is a cult” or whatever. Those may be valid discussions on other sites, but we need to remain as neutral here as possible, accepting the link to faith described above.
I realize this is not written down for easy access, and you are welcome to continue commenting, just try to understand the particular boundaries. It’s not perfect, but it helps us reach more people and provide a safe environment for discussion. Thanks.
Hi Dave,
I mean to do you no wrong - sorry did not see this was specifically a faith based site.
Whatever your beliefs, I wish you and your website all the best and keep up the excellent work.
A x
No problem, Adrian. It’s not really faith based, we just have to be mindful of it because of the overwhelming involvement faith plays in ex-gay issues. You are welcome to participate with that understanding, you certainly don’t have to discuss that issue.
Can I ask a compound question?
Like Jews in the world, gay people are a minority under siege. Very often the directives from Judeo-Christian origin are of course about increasing and preserving Jewish cultural and tribal viability.
Because of the Holocaust and other decimations on Jews, that directive to increase the tribe and waste no Jewish flesh to non procreative activity is taken to extremes from Christian prostletyzing and hyper procreating.
Jews are STILL a minority, in part by attrition.
And are concerned with their survival as who they are.
Now, gays and lesbians, asexuals and bisexuals are a less common member of their orientations, but MORE heterosexuals is not necessary to increase THEIR numbers.
Isn’t it unfair to human education, information and diversified cooperation to keep looking at homosexuals to turn into straight people?
It seems offensive that Christians want to convert Jews without solicitation from Jews, and it’s just as offensive to assume that a world without homosexuality is preferred?
And so far only heterosexuals think so, and they WOULD.
Let’s imagine a world without thumbs (which are in the minority on the human hand. And lefties are rarer too) and see what the point of eliminating a minority is really for.
So what say you all?
Obviously our world was created with MUCH variance and diversity. So all of a sudden no one other than heterosexuals being created doesn’t make any sense at all.
[…] - essentially becoming “living proof” that ex-gays exist. Well, last week he renounced his testimony, meaning that as an ex-gay he doesn’t exist. History, once again, has repeated itself, with […]
Well, I’ve always wanted to tell you what I thought of you after seeing your testimonial on “I Do Exist”, Noe, and now it seems I have found the forum to do so.
As someone who has overcome homosexual attraction and left it behind, I found your story moving and inspiring. It’s not a popular belief or stance, and I thought you were so brave to come right out and say it. It does seem to me now that you aren’t exactly as adamant as you seemed then, but I still find what you said encouraging for those who are trying to change this lifestyle choice. As for your current article, I think those with whom you were working might have seemed convoluted in their methods and ideas, but the real gospel of Jesus Christ is crystal clear, and it’s true that Christ does heal us all, but we have to do our part and try.
But I do not agree that freedom is found in stillness. The gospel of Jesus Christ preaches reaching and striving, progress and improvement, always trying to be like Christ, be a better person. Striving to be better is what keeps me going. If I believed that freedom was found in stillness, I would believe Christ wants me to stagnate, and that cannot be true.
Anyway, thanks for your honesty in the past. Peace.