Away.

I'm putting the blog on hold for a little while. Please continue to pray for me. Everything is alright but I would appreciate your prayers.

How do you become a “Gay Christian”?

I keep reading many blogs by people who call themselves “ex-ex-gays” or “gay Christians” who all seem to have one thing in common. They claim to have grown up with varying degrees of pain and agony over their having a homosexual orientation; and that this was caused largely by their or others’ traditional interpretation of the Bible on the matter of homosexuality. Then they say that after they “read the Bible again” or “struggled for years and years” they come to a different conclusion: that the traditional position is wrong and that the Bible supports “loving, monogamous, same-sex relationships”.

My first question is:

What is the primary driver behind most individuals’ urges to re-examine what the Bible has to say about homosexuality?

In other words, why did the individual see the need to study further on the issue of homosexuality?

The reason this issue interests me is because I often wonder what influence this motivation can have upon the investigation itself. In other words:

Can a desire to be free to pursue a gay relationship (because of a homosexual orientation) unduly influence the outcome of any investigative Bible studies?

In other words if you are desperately seeking to belong and to feel accepted and frankly to be loved by another man or woman; can that cause you to conclude (from studying) something that you otherwise would not have?

How do you guard against studying to come to a conclusion that you always wanted to arrive at anyway?

How many people realistically say that when they set out to study the issue of homosexuality further, they decided to accept the outcome—regardless of whether or not it would be the outcome they wanted? How many traditionalists look at the Bible and say: “If this really says that gay relationships can be blessed by God then I must accept it.”? How many (now) liberals said: “I am going to follow God’s word even if I conclude after honest examination that gay relationships are forbidden.”?

Then I have a harder question that applies to any position on the matter:

What is the measure of “truth”?

When do we “know” that the truth has been found? When one “feels better”? Many Gay Christians say that they arrive at their conclusions with a sense of relief and now live “happy” and “fulfilling” lives free of fear. Is this the measure of truth?

When do you stop studying? Related to this:

Are tears and time often a substitute for objectivity and sincerity?

In other words, does saying “I spent years studying and praying and crying and wrestling with this issue” validate the conclusion one comes to?

What were you “wrestling” with? Yourself? Was it you/your feelings against the Bible? And who won? And how do you know?

Does more years and more tears equal more certainty?

A little about my take:

 

I guess this can go either way, but as a traditionalist I have always been suspicious of my own motives. Many times it feels safer to just go against your own nature; after all what is there to lose? In light of eternity would it really matter? Particularly if I did it the hard way (i.e. held the traditional position even though I was attracted to guys)because I wanted to please God; would I not receive some sort of blessing? Or would God shake His head in pity?

I guess that’s what I’d like someone to answer:

If you hold that homosexual relations are forbidden and it turns out that you are wrong, then in light of eternity, what is there to lose?

If you hold that homosexual relations are permitted and blessed by God, and it turns out that you are wrong, what is there to lose?

It’s more complicated than that but you get what I mean. Is this a legitimate approach?

The Bible and Homosexuality—Separating Fact from Fiction

That is the title of a talk given by Dr. Michael L. Brown about the Bible and homosexuality and is available on video here:

The Bible and Homosexuality—Separating Fact from Fiction (You might have to scroll down a tiny bit)

I will look into options to embed it here later.

If you have never heard about gay theology before, he gives an overview of some of it, including the idea that Ruth and Naomi were lesbian lovers (among other things—that is actually one of the more outlandish claims; not all gay theologians believe that). He also addresses the questions about whether or not the Bible is wrong about homosexuality today as it was wrong about slavery.

Watch the video and tell me what you think. Do you agree or disagree?

P.S. Edited the link as it wasn't working before.

Baby steps: Getting the message out to young gay Adventists.

Major props to commenter nik for bringing this to my attention.

Insight Magazine is a Seventh-Day Adventist youth magazine with an online forum of sorts. A while back this thread was started:

It was by a young guy who said this (in case you can’t read the fine print):

“I am 17 year old male and it's my first year in university. I have a girlfriend which I love very much but I have met a guy and, although I know it's against the will of GOD, think I like him a whole lot. What do you think I should do? Should I follow my feelings? Please be realistic about this.”

By the way, just to prove that ignorance is bliss if you cannot make out the first reply to him here it is:

- Re: HELP!!!from babywicked, 4/21/2008
“i think thats wrong be straigh. like gurls. gurls are way better than guys well for a guy it should b like that i like guys u need help frm michelle shes my friend im shure she can help u well thanx for putting this on here ima be careful now lol pray i think that will help im barly practicing how to pray well i just talk to god like if he wuz right in front of me u can do the same”

Why indeed! He should “be straight”! Why didn’t I think of that?

Anyways that touched off what was probably the longest thread ever on Insight. You should head over to look at the advice given. Click on the picture.

This prompted a video response from the editors at Insight, specifically one Dwain Esmond (who is from Guyana originally). He made a video reply. Props to him as well. Click on the picture to get to the video:

Here is the video description.

Video Blog 004: I Think I'm Gay

From: Chip Dizard
Description: A discussion board post about having feelings for a friend of the same sex led to this discussion between Dwain Esmond, Eddie Hypolite and Matthew Gamble. They share some ideas about how to process these feelings that may be helpful for yourself or for someone you know.

What do you think? I think it’s better than nothing.

But seriously…In fact I like that they approached this very informally. I applaud Dwain for his good sense to address this issue like this. Now the rest of the church needs to follow suit.

Thanks again, nik!

Time to post another song.

I hope you like it. Very “island-y”.

And you should be happy!

When it comes to homosexuality, the Seventh-Day Adventist Church must…

…know what homosexuality is.

The official position of the church refrains (perhaps wisely) from commenting on particular causes of homosexuality:

“Seventh-day Adventists endeavor to follow the instruction and example of Jesus. He affirmed the dignity of all human beings and reached out compassionately to persons and families suffering the consequences of sin. He offered caring ministry and words of solace to struggling people, while differentiating His love for sinners from His clear teaching about sinful practices.”

Read the rest of the statement here.

However, I think that with a blank slate like this there is too much room for wild misdirection. For example, the Christian terminology surrounding the “ex-gay” movement is a royal mess. With “change” meaning frankly anything you want it to mean and “gay” meaning something totally different to the dictionary and common usage.

I shudder to think what would happen if this kind of confused material were let loose in the Caribbean. In fact I know what would happen. The word “cure” would resurface with a vengeance and everyone would understand it to mean that the “cured” man no longer likes men but now likes only women instead. None of this “struggling” nonsense. The Caribbean is less nuanced than the United States. Any man in Trinidad or Tobago who is “struggling” with same-sex attractions is effectively “gay” or a “bullerman on probation” and to be treated as such—with rank suspicion.

So in light of the vacuum in the official statement, many pastors feel free to insert their own theories about homosexuality into the mix. Like Pastor Ryan Simpson of whom I have a recording here (but no ill feelings):

A Jamaican Adventist pastor talks about homosexuality.

This is a great opportunity to fill a void of ignorance with sound knowledge about what homosexuality is; because as Dr.  Albert Mohler found out, when everyone has become comfortable with misinformation or half of the information they don’t take too kindly to correction.

What the church can do:

Compile a balanced and thorough overview of what we know about homosexuality scientifically as well as what we don’t know for pastors to study at seminaries (like the University of the Southern Caribbean or Andrews University) as well as part of their ongoing training. All pastors should be required to study this thoroughly. There should be a special emphasis on the science of homosexuality not only on origins but on topics like: What percentage of the population is gay?

If it exists there should be a fair overview of what “reparative therapy” is and the theories surrounding that. As well as what we can and cannot ascertain about this from science. Whatever happens, it is imperative that the SDA church does not fall into the “ex-gay” rut for reasons that I will explain later. For now I will say that ex-gay theories are too seductive for those who are not trained to think critically and can flood the SDA church with baggage that can take a long time to clean out later—and which, more importantly, would stymie any real outreach efforts to members with same-sex attractions who live in the Caribbean or elsewhere and do not follow the “Western gay model” (hereafter also known as the Western gay formula”) for which it (the “ex-gay” program) was poorly designed by the way.

Ministry Magazine—an example

This is the church’s publication that reaches its pastors and those of other denominations. In the mid-nineties it did an entire issue on homosexuality; a re-print of which is available online at Gladventist here. Go ahead and read the articles. The church needs to do something like this targeted at its pastors in a more official format and as part of an explicit campaign on the issue of homosexuality. It cannot delay.

In short the church needs to require that pastors understand what homosexuality is. More than “some people are homosexuals and we should pray for them”, they should know about fraternal birth order among other things.

Does anyone know of any book(s) that gives a balanced handling of the matter (i.e. “What is homosexuality? Why does it exist?”) and does not stray into advocacy either way?

This is effectively the beginning of the promised series about what specific measures I think the SDA church (particularly in the Caribbean) should do to reach out to members who are gay/homosexual/same-sex attracted.

More on St. Paul and homosexuality.

Today Naturgesetz takes on an argument that I have heard before on the meaning of “natural” in Romans 1:27. It goes something like this:

Homosexuality is “natural” for homosexuals and “unnatural” for heterosexuals; and so Paul is talking about heterosexuals who engage in homosexual behaviours.

What Does St. Paul Say — No. 2: Romans 1:27

Head on over to read it and comment.

He also takes on the question of what “that which is shameful” is referring to.

It is part of a series so remember to read the other installments if you have not as yet.

A close look at the Bible texts about homosexuality.

Many people place a special emphasis on the Biblical texts that are held to oppose same-sex activity; and there is a debate raging (mostly in more liberal countries than Trinidad and Tobago and the wider Caribbean to be honest) about whatever these texts really mean what they are held to mean.

You might remember I mentioned two websites that were doing a study on Romans 1 from which the following is taken:

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Well Peter Ould’s third installment is up and it is an in-depth study of the Greek and Hebrew words used in Romans (and Leviticus). He examines the popular argument that the Greek words refer only to homosexual prostitution in the temples and pederasty but not committed gay relationships as we understand them today. Specifically the Greek word “arsenokoites” seems to roll off of everyone’s tongue these days as its meaning is seen as central to the determination of whether or not the Bible condemns gay relationships.

Well head on over to read Peter Ould’s third in his series:

Sexuality and Slavery-Part Three

“I entered this third part of my study with a genuine openness to the possibility that arsenokoites might refer to a subset of homosexual activity rather than all. If such an argument could be supported then I would need to rest an argument against all homosexual behaviour in the correct translation of Romans 1.”

You will have to read to see what he found. Do you agree with him? Why or why not?

Also check out Naturgesetz’s series on Paul and Romans 1 as well.

How to contact me.

It has come to my attention that some people have been having difficulty contacting me. If you want to send me a message without having to log into your e-mail, click the button that looks like this at the top right hand corner of the page:

Or you can contact me at the following address:

t r i n i d a d s d a g a y (at) y a h o o (dot) c o m

I am always happy to hear from you and answer any questions you might have.

Six reasons why reparative therapy is so seductive to some Christians.

I posted a little while ago about my frustration at the domination of the Christian discussion on homosexuality by one particular theory of causation. This theory states in short that a homosexual orientation (in men) is caused by a distant or absent father usually coupled with a smothering or overbearing mother; and is often peddled to an unhealthy and unjustified extreme to the detriment of further inquiry on the part of traditional Christians.

This is rather frustrating to me, but I think there are several reasons why reparative therapy and its flagship narrative are held to so dearly by traditional Christians.

1. “Things are not quite what they used to be.”

One of the most common feelings in Christian circles is that society is “falling apart” and that traditional institutions like marriage and the family are under assault by larger societal forces. Over several decades there have been a number of changes in the structure of the traditional family, with divorces on the increase, family size decreasing, single parenthood more prevalent than before and marriage rates on the decrease. A shift in the role of men and women in the home, however, must be the most important change of all to the traditional family structure.

Traditional Christians deplore many of these changes very much and are very sensitive about the topic of family breakdown in general.

So to Christians with conservative social values, the idea that family breakdown has led to gender confusion in children, which then expresses itself primarily as homosexuality, makes perfect sense. To them it’s a clear result of the transformation of the family from what it ideally should be (headed by a strong fatherly influence) to what it is now (male headship diminished). That families appear to be breaking down rapidly at the same time that homosexuality has a higher profile is a perfect correlation in many people’s eyes.

This, I would guess is the major reason.

2. “It can’t be genetic because God didn’t make it so.”

I quoted Dr. Warren Throckmorton in the last post and I’ll do it again since he put it so succinctly:

“Some hold to the early childhood origins idea because they sincerely hope there are no innate or pre-natal causes for homosexuality.”

And the reason they don’t want it to be innate or prenatal is because they are afraid that that fact would affect the morality of homosexuality. In other words, they feel that it being genetic would “make it right”.

What compounds this fear is the memory of the experience of the Church with racism and Jim Crow. People remember how acceptance of the science of race and ethnicity eroded support for racial discrimination and caught much of the traditional arm of the Christian church in the United States with its pants down; and they fear a repeat of the same. This would add to the already long list of transgressions that critics of religion or Christianity have tallied.

(Mind you, this fear is not only held by modern American conservative Christians but by many other Christians around the world.)

And so this time it’s not genetic!

3. “How could you choose to pass up so many beautiful members of the fairer sex?”

There is a misunderstanding of the mechanics of sexual attraction in that many straight Christians think that their sexuality is rational. In other words, because attraction to the opposite sex feels so natural to them they see it as being a deliberate, rational impulse on their part.

This is coupled with the fact that for the purposes of setting up a family and creating offspring a heterosexual pairing is the most rational choice.

And so, to many Christians anyone who behaves otherwise is not thinking rationally (like they themselves are) and must either be deliberatively deviant or psychologically impaired in some way (or both).

This is a misunderstanding of their own sexuality simply because it is not likely that before choosing to be attracted to the opposite sex that any of them weighed the pros and cons of both sexes, sought counsel and then decided. Neither are most initial heterosexual pairings made for the purpose of having offspring. That is hardly the first reason anyone sets out to find a girlfriend or boyfriend.

This, however, plays directly into the next reason.

4. Everybody Loves Sigmund (Freud).

People love to play psychologist. (Pause to laugh at the irony).

The theory that a smothering mother would cause a young boy to over identify with the mother and become feminine in his mannerisms seems so elegant to many people. After all, why would a boy be so girlish unless his parents raised him so? Don’t children who are spoiled by their parents turn out to be rotten? Don’t abused children become aggressive?

And a distant or absent father provides amplification on the flip side. After all, if only his father had taken him to football games he might have been interested in sports!

5. Every problem must have an instant solution in an instant culture.

It’s not only Americans who have an “instant” culture. As standards of living around the world increase, everyone’s tolerance for intractable problems with no solutions is decreased. If the problem of homosexuality can be described as psychological, then that’s nothing a few sessions of counseling can’t fix.

“If it were a biological/physiological phenomenon, a cure might never be found! Like visual impaired-ness or paralysis, there might be no cures available! I might have to live with this!”

This is particularly attractive to people who themselves have same-sex attractions and are looking to get rid of them so that they can fit in to their church and social circles a lot better.

6. Herd mentality.

We could also call it “groupthink”.

There are many forces at play here that don’t encourage people to think outside the orthodox position on a certain matter. As regards homosexuality, one of the most common (and most absurd) is the fear of being branded a homosexual oneself for being seen to think and talk about the matter too much or too independently.

To have a different opinion on origins might belie a different moral opinion as well in many, many people’s minds. And so often you have even very “liberal” commentators on the issue who feel like they must make a standard disclaimer every time they talk about homosexuality: “I am not gay myself but…” or “This is not something I struggle with but…”.

I am not sure if you might have noticed any other reasons why “distant father, smother mother” is so popular in some Christian circles. Let me know if you have. I will post replies to at least a few of these “reasons” in the next part. (Thanks to Dr. Throckmorton for mentioning me on his blog!)