My Hope – By Jay Holloman (College Jay)
I like Wendy Gritter, and I like New Direction. She’s a sweet and Christ-focused woman and I think New Direction is one of the most Christ-centered ministries for people that deal with same-sex attraction. I was upset when I read her recent blog post about a colleague that has been claiming New Direction “doesn’t offer hope anymore.”
Now, I’m not going to refute that statement here. Ms. Gritter has already done extremely well with that in the linked post, and I highly suggest you read it. I will offer my own personal story, though. I’ve never been involved with New Direction (sadly, I’m not Canadian), and the only contact I’ve had with Ms. Gritter is through comments on her blog. However, I think out of all these types of ministries, New Direction’s philosopy most closely resembles my own, and even I have been accused, in a round-about way, of not having enough hope.
Usually when someone makes that kind of snarky remark about hope, what they mean to say is that I’m not falling over myself in an effort to be straight. I’m comfortable and happy as I am. I’m not comfortable with my sins or my temptations, mind you, but at the same time I’m not stressed about how I dress, or how I talk, or how I express my emotions, or whether or not a pretty young woman turns my head. The way some of the ex-gay ministries talk, you’d think that a “normal” heterosexual existence with a dog, yard, and three kids was a Biblical mandate.
Quite simply, it’s not. Ms. Gritter mentioned how her critics said they saw heterosexuality as part of God’s redemption plan. “Everyone is on a journey towards heterosexuality,” they said, “but some people only go a little way down that road.” That’s their excuse for the same-sex attracted men and women who don’t experience change in their attractions (which I would say is most likely the majority of SSA folks). Oh sure, according to them we’re not sinning by being content celibates, but we’re not whole either. We haven’t completed our “journey towards heterosexuality.”
I got a little mad when I first read that, but then it saddened me. It saddened me to know that there are people who would sell out Christ for something as fleeting as human sexuality. Sure, heterosexuality is a beautiful and God-given gift, but it won’t last forever. There will be no marriage in Heaven, and thus, no sex. We’ll be in such perfect union with God there will be no need for any other kind of union. So I feel saddened for people who think we are on a “journey towards heterosexuality” instead of a journey towards Christ. I feel even more saddened by those in these ministries who aren’t experiencing change, and thus are made to feel like they’ve only gone “a little way down that road.” Sure, they’re denying themselves and taking up their crosses and following Christ, often leaving behind years of a lifestyle that they no longer think is right yet still having to deal with the emotions it left behind, but of course they aren’t whole. They’ve only gone “a little way down that road.” Give me a break.
Our hope is not in anything on this Earth. Nothing. Not our family, not our friends, not a spouse, not children, not jobs, money, cars, trips, pets, not anything. Our only hope is Christ crucified. Crucified for our sins, receiving wrath so we don’t have to. Our hope is the cross. So I have to give an “Amen!” to Ms. Gritter when she says, “How can you say we’re not offering hope – when we’re offering people Jesus?” That’s right. How can you?
Look, it’s not easy living without sex, but it’s not the hardest thing in the world. No one’s asking me to renounce my faith or be imprisoned, or even killed. I’m not being asked to go through the painful process of giving up drugs or alcohol. All I’m asked to do is keep it in my pants and make sure my appreciation of Pete Wentz stays strictly that – appreciation (and yes, I think Pete Wentz is cute, and I even like Fall Out Boy’s music. Pick on me all you want).
Maybe some day I will meet a woman who will rock my world, both spiritually and physically. But she won’t be some trophy wife to show how much I’ve “changed.” I know I’ve changed. Sure, you might not ever be able to see some flashy example of it. What can I say? Obedience and belief aren’t that impressive-looking. Nor are they what people really want when they try out Christianity. But if they really want Christianity, it’s what they’ll get, because that’s what real change is. I was once dead but now am alive, because of my faith in Christ. I once wouldn’t have even considered all this crazy “dying to self” stuff, but now, even though it’s difficult and even somewhat frightening, I do it with joy. If that isn’t “change,” I don’t know what is. If that isn’t hope, then I don’t know what is. And I’m willing to offer that hope to people, and I think Ms. Gritter is as well.
It’s a journey of sanctification, not towards heterosexuality. True, I’m only a little way down that road, but the good part about that is that every other living believer is as well, and I can take that journey with them without feeling like less of a Christian, and we can look towards our only hope together.
—
Reprinted from original with permission.
College Jay considers himself a “Side B” Christian, as defined by the folks at GCN. In short, those who view their same-sex attractions as a temptation, and strive to live celibate lives. Side Bs are not in competition for which view is right, but are simply living their lives as they see fit, recognizing other’s freedom to do the same. This is offered as background, not a point of debate.
I don’t think I like seeing all of sexual and romantic intimacy with one’s partner downplayed to the phrase “keeping it in your pants,” but still, thanks for sharing your story Jay. Best of luck for the path you’ve decided to take.
I have to agree with this. It’s only a distant observation but I’ve noticed from other comments and posts at his own blog (where this post originated) that Jay doesn’t seem to have (for lack of a better term) an appreciation for sexual relationships in general. That doesn’t exactly isolate him, there are many people who feel the same way, even to the point of being asexual. But in Jay’s case (and he can feel free to respond) I get the impression that his attitude comes from his belief that he must not participate in such relationships.
Making sexual relationships a thing one must resist at all cost would almost certainly put them in a negative light. And one would be less than human if at some point that didn’t also cause some animosity towards those not similarly restricted. Jay has mentioned that he might have put that a different way if he had it to write again, but the phrase he chose does seem telling in some ways.
Again, I’m not sure anyone could avoid at least some of this attitude in a similar situation.
David:
I agree. It’s like having the bitter unmarried sister (or brother) at the wedding telling everyone that marriage is just a piece of paper, making predictions how long the marriage will last, making faces when the vows are exchanged, etc.
In many ways I feel sorry for Jay because he is convinced he is required by God to give up having the chance to share his life with someone that (given the freedom of his own restraining convictions) he would be able to love and be loved.
For those of us who have broken free from the chains that had us hold back from being who we truly are, it hard to see someone still chained up, and moreso, adding their own chains to the ones already imposed on them. For those of us who are religious and gay and have no problem combinding them both, it is hard to see someone still caught in the Purgatory of Religion vs Being Gay.
P wrote:
in regards to my comment:
I think the only difference between the ex-gay ministry and a gay religious person making that statement is: I would do and say those things because I am concerned about that person as a fellow human being. The ex-gayer, in my opinion, would be concerned about trying to justify his or her own decision to “go straight” by trying to get more like him or her to make the same decision.
There’s an elephant in the room here that nobody has directly confronted. Why is Jay here at all? If he were a 100% happy celibate christian non-homosexual or whatever he is, why is he having to blog about his choices and beliefs? Clearly he has a massive conflict brewing within him. “Look, it’s not easy living without sex.” If you were really “exalted in the spirit” (I think is the jargon they use) it would be easy for you. Sorry. Even though the bible might say it will be hard to follow god’s word, they didn’t mean hard in a “writing long posts to various blogs” kind of way. I’m just being honest. You call yourself stoic on your blog, and yet you’re not truly being stoic! Decide what you want and go for it, Jay. If you really wanted the life you describe, you wouldn’t be here would you? And I think you know that.
Cantabrigian, with all due respect, your comment seems dismissive and illustrates a misunderstanding of what we do here.
Why is he here? Why wouldn’t he be here? This is a place to discuss ex-gay issues and Jay has every right to join in that discussion. If anything, I’ve found Jay to be an example of the reality that Exodus tries to ignore, that even for those who feel God does not want them to have intimate same-sex relationships (basically sex), there doesn’t have to be this surreal mantra of “change” as though that were a real possibility for most people.
Jay acknowledges that he is homosexual, but as his understanding of his faith does not allow him to have such relationships, he takes the honest road — celebacy. That is most certainly his choice to make, and I for one find it refreshingly honest when compared to the neurotic idea of “reparative theory.”
I don’t fully follow your meaning here, but suffice to say that any situation where one is denying strong feelings or desires is not an easy one — hopefully we can all agree and probably even identify with that. I don’t think I’ve ever heard Jay describe his choices as easy — far from it. The point is that these are his choices to make, and while doing so he is not denigrating mine (or yours), he is not making unrealistic claims that he is now heterosexual or even on his way to it. And he is not lobbying to have my rights curtailed to fit his own world view about sexuality.
In short, he is honest and I’ve seen that more and more lately among young people who not so long ago might have ended up in an Exodus program so their life could be ruled by an obsession with this stuff, with a great many finally having their faith ripped from them.
While we certainly would welcome anyone who is questioning their descision to be ex-gay, we also welcome the civil and sincere participation of those who feel secure in that direction. One need not be “in doubt” of their choices to share their point of view here.
I’m sure Jay can speak for himself if anything else requires a response.
Once again, David, I agree. But I’d like to add that I don’t understand why so many people are threatened by people who choose celibacy. It just smacks of insecurity with their own sexuality. It works both ways, you know.
We homos get made fun of by heteros because we’re different and we know who we are sexually, which threatens those heteros who are not willing to see that side of humanity and might even be somewhat gay themselves.
But even among those who proclaim themselves “sexually liberated” – gay or straight or whatever – will mock and question people who choose a path of celibacy or abstinence. If someone is truly sexually liberated and aware, they will not feel the need to needle and prod at those who are different. They will not feel threatened by those very personal decisions that have nothing to do with them. Generally individuals I’ve known who are abstinent or celibate don’t “flaunt” it because 1) it’s nobody’s business, and 2) they’re often looked at like they’re some sort of alien when they disclose such information.
Celibacy is not the same as “repressed” or “asexual.” I enjoyed this question/answer article and helped me to better understand the choice of celibacy.
Because celibacy is inherently “unnatural” to many people’s view of human life, they look down upon it.
And because homosexuality is inherently “unnatural” to many people’s view of human life, they look down upon it.
But I don’t think either of them are “unnatural.” I think they just “are.”
Emily, good points. but I think you’re missing something here:
The article you link to describes a woman who is, in a very real way, asexual. She has no interest in sex, and that is the core of asexuality.
If there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality, and celibacy….what’s wrong with asexuality?
Asexuality is when someone has very little to no interest in sex.
Celibacy is not having sex.
To my understanding, celibacy is a choice not to do something you are interested in doing. Jay is an example of this. The woman in your link, however, has no interest in sex.
To put it another way. Someone who likes red may decide not to buy something red. This is celibacy.
However someone who has no interest in buying red will probably never buy something red. This is asexuality.
….and not to get too off topic, but have you guys gone on hiatus? Ray Boltz just came out and there’s been a storm of controversy about it…why hasn’t ex-gay watch picked up on this? especially when ex-gays like quinlan are attacking him?
Cantabrigian: I blog because I like to share my experiences, so that people who may be going through something similar can at least know they aren’t alone. I also like for people who don’t share my views to understand who I am and what I go through. It’s an educational thing, I guess. I don’t really know what you’re criticizing me about, but you aren’t going to make me feel guilty about blogging. It’s just what I do. Read David and Emily’s replies if you want to know the rest.
David and Emily: Thanks, guys. You’re awesome.
Jason: I think your “red” analogy is actually spot-on, although I’ll add another element to it that speaks to my personal decisions and reasoning. Let’s say I like the color red but the person I love most hates it, and we share a home. I see a beautiful red vase that I would love to buy, but my love for the other person is greater than my love for the vase, so I decide not to buy it.
That’s basically what is going on with me. I love God, and as a Christian Christ is within me. We “share a home,” so to speak, which is why the Bible is so tough on sexual sins (you know, “the body is a temple” and all that). Even though I desire a same-sex relationship I believe God would be displeased by that, and I would rather please Him than myself, despite the difficulty that can bring.
I understand that a lot of people take offense to that concept, but it’s a personal spiritual choice, and like David said, I’m not out to judge anyone. I just like to share my point of view in a fashion that is a bit more simple and intellectually honest than the majority of ex-gays.
Jason, all the writers have been wrapped up in regular life recently and I apologize for the dearth of posts. I’ve actually I have been working on a Ray Boltz related story. Summer in general became rather lax as the election coverage has zapped so much readership and back channel attention. But that should change soon along with some new blood. Stay tuned as they say
Jason: Good point. She might be asexual. I was amazed to hear the flack she took from friends and family for her choice, though. And no there’s nothing wrong with asexuality. How does it hurt anybody? How does homosexuality innately hurt anybody? They don’t. Here is a different article about a Buddhist woman’s journey for choosing celibacy. That it is her choice is definite here.
I would also like to add that maybe it is “lifestyle choices” that ultimately threaten people for some reason – this includes BDSM, “swinging,” or polyamory.
But the same could be said of any sexual practice. Not all gay men engage in a*** sex, and the sexual acts of gay men (specifically “sodomy”) seem to be what obsess anti-equality activists. Does that make them “less gay?” What a ridiculous concept. I think it’s just as ridiculous to consider a person “less than human” if they abstain from sexual acts.
Wow! I thought my response would be a kind of rhetorical coda that would sit there unnoticed.
I wasn’t going to try to sugar-coat my response. Maybe that is the best approach here because we don’t want anybody to feel bad about themselves or that we are being “judgmental” (the irony LOL) Especially about a young person who is at least being more realistic about his lot in life than Exodus would wish him to be. So I actually do respect Jay for his choices. I agree with David that this is definitely more honest than obsessing about change. But the question is, is it completely honest? Let’s think about something. You say Jay is acknowledging that he “is homosexual”. As we know, the bible condemns homosexual acts. It doesn’t exactly deal with the identity of homosexuality as a concept, although I think one could argue that the totality of the Biblical narrative on sexuality in fact, does. Take the story of Sodom – which it’s worth noting Jewish scholars don’t believe applied to homosexuality. Well, folks, this wasn’t a brothel town in Nevada you could visit in your Cadillac convertible. You didn’t “get around” to practice your sin in those days. “the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter.” It seems to make a pretty strong case that these people had an “identity” as homosexuals or sexual predators or whatever the “good book” is making them out to be. If they hadn’t approved of what went on in Sodom, they would have moved on. Or how about another passage: “Because of this [idolatry], God gave them over to shameful lusts”. Presumably shameful is pretty close to sinful. Now, I’m not a biblical scholar or a christianist, I know there are level of sin and lustful thoughts are not considered as serious as actually doing lustful things. Nevertheless, anyone being completely honest about the Bible’s viewpoint of sexuality would have to admit that the sinfulness of even a homosexual “identity” is an open and fair question. It’s a reasonable inference, to someone not being politically correct, that because recognizing a homosexual identity depends on recognizing ones same-sex attractions, these are in and of themselves at least shameful. And possibly sinful.
Of course, I’M NOT trying to make Jay feel bad about himself at all. In the end if Jay is happy with his choices and believes that God is happy with his choices, that is all that really matters, isn’t it? I’m trying to argue that deep down, this halfway house of having a gay identity and a 100% “Bible believing” identity is never going to be a happy one. Or an enlightened one. I once found a website of a church that believed in a biblical passage that said women are not to speak in church. I know mainstream fundamentalists debunk that passage; they do so because it’s politically opportune to do so. Wouldn’t exactly go over well with 50% of their followers. But this church believed that all of the other fundamentalist congregants in the world were going to hell, because they weren’t really following the word of God! If Jay goes to congregation with such a rule…so be it. If he doesn’t, he should question: who really is controlling the way the biblical narrative is interpreted? Any chance that an easy to scapegoat group gets the short end of the stick? Any chance you’d prefer to buy into that, than question why God would have made you have feelings that you couldn’t act on, even though it wouldn’t hurt you or anybody else to do so? (provided it’s done responsibly, but, really that applies to riding motorcycles too, and you don’t see any biblical condemnations about that, although insurance companies probably wish there had been )
One more comment I tried to add – not sure if this “10 minutes to edit” thing is working.
* – its interesting that you characterized me as “criticizing you”. As I carefully re-read what I wrote, it seemed at the very worst like “constructive criticism.” I think you probably have a wonderful soul, which is exactly why you’ve been trapped in the way you have.
This seems to be expanding into tangents I don’t care to follow. I’ll let my last response be this; I disagree with pretty much all these propositions concerning biblical passages and their interpretation and the rest is irrelevant because you continue to speculate about the motives of a person who participates positively in discussions here. Going any further seems pointless.
I think you’ll find that a lot of gay Christians — some who are celibate like me, some who aren’t — disagree strongly with that statement, and I have no intention of debating that issue here. It’s a little too off-topic and time-consuming, though I encourage you to try to understand us more by engaging in positive dialog without questioning our motives or calling us “trapped.” Regards.
David. I think what you are doing here is great. I think it’s great that Jay is willing to participate. I at times use a kind of sarcastic “we” to refer to what parts of society generally assume to be true, whether or not its fair, or grounded in reality. My interpretations may be “wrong” but I was only using them to be illustrative, not to tell people how to live their lives in a legalistic sense, which after all, is what many people try to do! Really, who can stand on a soapbox and make a claim to thoroughly interpreting a text that is full of self-contradictions and absolutely swimming in questions about its textual origins and accuracy? That’s not even to mention the bigger issue of whether it really is the word of some supreme being.
You sound a little angry, if that’s the case, I sure am sorry. I in NO WAY came here to upset the apple cart, or the mission of the website.
Jay, I really do wish you the best.
I’m not mad, I just don’t care for this line of discussion so I bowed out.
Jay, I see nothing wrong with that. There are plenty of things I might want to have in the home that my partner has expressed strong disagreement with. These things are “nifty” to me, but not central to my happiness, so they’re not worth arguing over, so my partner wins. I’ve decided that since decorating our home makes him happy, and he’s never picked out anything I hate, it’s no big deal to let him have his way. He just has to understand that some objects I will have to “learn to love” along the way
My only issue, Jay, would be if you are trying to suggest that your philosophy is a workable solution for all or most gay folks, which I don’t think you’re suggesting. I think some gay people feel “threatened” by you, and folks like you, because it’s not often that someone presents your point of view WITHOUT also trying to convince others to follow your example, or to convince lawmakers that your choices are applicable to everyone and anyone. They’re used to that sucker punch, thus they’re suspicious of your motives. PFOX, for example, tries to hide behind “oh, we’re just a support group” when that’s not all they do. It’s hard, when you’re used to that sort of dishonesty to not think when someone says, “this is how I live my life” that the next words out of their mouth will be “and YOU should do the same.”
Yes, Jason D, very clearly put. I think that you’ve hit the nail on the head here. Well done!