Gay Rights Leader Quits Homosexuality

“Homosexuality is death, and I choose life.”

  PRAISE GOD!!!  Thank you Lord for giving Mr. Glatze faith, repentance, and salvation in Jesus!

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

And Mr. Glatze chose the Right Way, Accepted the Truth, and chose the Good Life!!

But as being gay isn’t a problem, why should he have sought to ‘change’- other than because of religious opinion?

I hope he has a nurturing, supportive Christian support group that is concerned primarily about his Christian walk, and doesn’t seek to use him as a poster child in the sexuality debate.

MM, clearly this is a homosexual experience that differs from yours.  Why should we privilege your view over his?  Any rationale grounds for defending your position as opposed to his?  Why should we trust you or him?

Inquiring minds…

Because if something is simply a human variant, there is no reason why it should be a problem, other than unless external influences such as religion, make it so.
Thankfully, as society does become more open and accepting, the numbers of people who feel the need to self-oppress via adoption od hostile religion will decilne. Membership of ex-gay groups here is tiny. I have a friend who was part of one for a while (now living with his partner) and I was sincerely surprised to hear that the total national membership wasn’t even in three figures. Happily, most realise the limitations of their religious stance, and come out of conservative Christianity.

Experentia docet, eh, MM?  But whose experience and on what grounds?  I still don’t know why I should privilege your stance over his, do I?

Wow.  I read the guy’s article and it is quite good.  Truth be told, it reminded me a little of reading Paul’s conversion story.

Thankfully, as society does become more open and accepting, the numbers of people who feel the need to self-oppress via adoption od hostile religion will decilne. Membership of ex-gay groups here is tiny. I have a friend who was part of one for a while (now living with his partner) and I was sincerely surprised to hear that the total national membership wasn’t even in three figures.

That’s interesting.  So obviously, the hundreds of people in the ex-gay UK organizations are still there because:
a)  they are self-repressing;
b)  they believe in obsolete religion;
c)  society represses them. 
d)  various combinations of a, b, and c. 

Even though, as you claim, homosexuality is not that big of a deal in the UK, and even though large segments of the “Church” say it’s okay? 

Well, maybe not… this doesn’t quite fit the data.  In that case, it would have to be that they’re self-repressing, right?  So, in the UK, there are hundreds of people who are members of ex-gay organizations (remember - they’re turning down something they found pleasureable, in favor of something that they had found detestable before), who do so because they are self-repressed. 

Hmm… doesn’t quite fit the data, either.  Maybe there is another force at work, that would better explain the data. 

You’re right, MM.  This skepticism thing can be very liberating!  Thank you for pointing that out to me, earlier. 

TU&D…I echo your praises!! The Lord is always there waiting for the return of a soul that was on a path of destruction and death!

I will always believe that homosexuality is a CHOICE!

I think that MM will always come up with some type of answer that sounds on the surfface intellectual correct in his mind that will continue to make him feel that his life-style is correct in order to justify his opinions and views to others! But it is so “see through!”

Merseymike, we are all hopelessly lost, redeemed only through Jesus Christ.  In the debates here and elsewhere, this simple proposition is often lost.  Our Lord operates a 24 hour 911 line, and he answers on the first ring.  I believe that God is working on you, and that your story will be no less remarkable.

I will always believe that homosexuality is a CHOICE!

Well, isn’t everything we do a choice?  We have a fallen nature, but we also have free will.

Exactly Paul B! Exactly! But, I’m not one going around stating that homosexuality is something that one cannot change & that they are born with it!

The facts do not support that assertion!

Obviously whether we have a relationship with someone or not is a choice - can’t see anyone denying that.

But if ‘choice’ means that I took a positive decision to find men rather than women attractive, then, no, it wasn’t like that at all.

Timothy: I agree that my story is certainly remarkable - how I realised that conservative Chrsitianity had nothing to say to me, and how I have found happiness with my partner of 15 years plus! Nothing your religion and , in my opinion, its delusions could ever offer me could even begin to be as good.

ODC: I don’t feel any need to ‘justify’ my sexual orientation or my relationship. Its only your religious belief system which demands that of me, but as I don’t follow those beliefs, why should I have to ‘justify’ myself on those terms?

But there aren’t ‘hundreds’ of people in UK ex-gay organisations, Moot. Indeed, their voice has been noticeably absent in terms of the recent debates and policy changes.

You need to come over here and realise just how different it is from comparatively, very religious America.

MM, I think you strongly fee the pull of conservative Christianity on your person and values.  That’s why you like coming to SF and dialoguing.  Evidencing your arguments validates your choices and decisions and strengthens the doubts in your heart of hearts that it must not be so.  Rather Pauline, or Sauline, I should say.  Beware the Damascus Road, though. 

Well, enough pop psychology, you’re really recruiting for your views.  Not with obvious success, but who knows, maybe someone someday somehow…....

MM,
I think that your statement above will bowl over real well with God on judgement day! NOT!!!! You don’t have to justfioy anythning to anyone but one day you will to God! And you can go around and think otherwise if you wish, but I pray for your soul!

No, I think its important that another voice is heard, and I feel strong enough to withstand all the pop-psychology and reasoning that I REALLY come on here because I secretly long to be a Conservative Christian.

Its because I once was a conservative Christian that I consider it important to engage in dialogue. Its something I feel able to do whereas I know that for others, they find it more difficult because of bad personal memories and so on.

I’d say that my stance has become more post-Christian than simply liberal Christian in recent years.

Forget all the cr#$ about being gay or not, we should celebrate that another prodigal has turned towards home.  Father, please come running once You get sight of him in the distance.

MM says:
But if ‘choice’ means that I took a positive decision to find men rather than women attractive, then, no, it wasn’t like that at all.

Okay, you find men attractive.  I find married women attractive.  I find cigarettes attractive.  I find clothing attractive.  I find not working very hard attractive ( I am naturally lazy).

It’s what I do with these attractions that is important.  I have to leave the married women alone.  I quit smoking because it would kill me.  I limit myself on the clothing I buy.  I make an extra effort to work hard every day (okay, most days.  I still need help there).

It’s possible to have an attraction that is morally wrong, that’s not good for you.  Do you agree that’s possible?

MM,

Correction…  I see you wrote earlier,

and I was sincerely surprised to hear that the total national membership wasn’t even in three figures.

My cursory reading skipped past the phrase, “wasn’t even in.”  So, less than one hundred, more than ten. 

I’d have to say that this is still significant. 

Can you give a more complete, reasoned explaination for the behavior of these ex-gays, based on your worldview?

MM - “your religious belief system”. 

Is this more proof that the GLBT lobby, who has no particular religious beliefs at all (IMHO), have targeted TEC for what (to you and them) is merely a socio-political hijacking of a religious institution to further YOUR cause?  Guess what?  I’ll fully support legalizing civil unions if the lobby will exeunt the Church immediately.  All repentant followers of Christ are welcome no matter what their chosen behaviors.  The sincere desire to “repent and sin no more” is what Christ calls his followers to do.  Do your ends justify the means?

I’m in the UK, MWN. And to an extent, I agree with you - only I don’t think its reasonable to talk about one group ‘leaving’. An agreed and civil divide of worldwide Anglicanism into two groupings makes absolute sense.

I think its more the case that gay people with religious beliefs (mostly liberal Christian) and their supporters found the Episcopal church congenial and became part of it, because there was already a significant liberal presence within TEC. Of the denominations on offer, it appeared the least hostile.

Moot: they are in a position of cognitive dissonance by both recognising that they are gay by orientation, and holding a religious belief which neither affirms this in any positive sense (‘objectively disordered’ et al) nor allows them to engage in a loving relationship in consequence.
Thus, they seek support from others of the same belief system to enable them to retain their chosen religious path.
How one interprets that is dependent on one’s beliefs about being gay. From my perspective, all I previously said applies - after all, at most 100 people out of an entire population really isn’t a great number to be self-oppressing! Internalised homophobia is a powerful instrument.

I feel sure, though, that the numbers of people looking towards such organisations will decline in conjunction with the greater acceptance of being gay in the wider society, along with continued weakness of conservative Christianity. I do realise that things are different in the USA and that conservative religion has a greater appeal.

Perhaps one thing you could all do - have a think about your churches. Is there anyone there who is openly gay (assuming they would not be in a relationship because of your religious beliefs)?

Paul ; yes, I have already said that I accept that people can make choices on the grounds of their moral beliefs.But mine are not the same as those of conservative christians, hence I make different choices.

I don’t think , as I said, that ‘choice’ is used in the sense of making decisions as to whether to have a relationship or not - obviously, that is a choice.

I choose to have a relationship with my partner because I love him and because I believe that to be the best decision for me to make. You are entitled , from your religious perspective, to tell me I should think differently, but after having heard your views, do not agree with you.

MM says: “Thus, they seek support from others of the same belief system to enable them to retain their chosen religious path…”

Religious?  Please define.  The problem with this whole justification seems to be that ‘Christian’ has already been defined for 200 years and what our ‘liberal’ friends want to do is REdefine it (and Anglican and Episcopal).  Why not just start another ‘religion’?  Why tear apart an established institution?  And the very one that has provided so much to the acceptance of the fact that all sinners are valuable human beings and not to be written-off or persecuted.

Sounds more like a political power grab than ‘religion’.

and holding a religious belief which neither affirms this in any positive sense

Yes, but as you have noted (and I have granted as a ‘given’ ), large portions of the church in the UK are permissive towards homosexuality.  If it’s a matter of ‘striking the balance’ between an orientation and a contrary religious belief, wouldn’t it be easier for these poor schmucks to simply ditch conservative Christianity altogether? 

Again, they’re giving up something that feels good - something that gave them instant pleasure.  The belief they cling to, offers them (by its own admission) self-denial, with no immediate reward.  It would seem that society in the UK offers them a way to have their cake and eat it too, and they’re not buying it. 

What’s even more problematic is that their apparent dissonance is not the result of living static, sheltered lives.

MM wrote:

But as being gay isn’t a problem, why should he have sought to ‘change’- other than because of religious opinion?

But being gay is a problem, and not just spiritually…  Gay excludes part of what it means to be fully human.  Committed couples have male-female complementarity, but your partnership is with someone of the same sex. You can’t fulfill the part of your humanity that would create children.  You can’t really have a sexual relationship in the way that humans are designed to - since your sexualities and sex organs and are not complementary.  Not to mention the indirect issues such as homosexuality often being associated with much shorter committed relationships, higher levels of promiscuity and, therefore, sexually transmitted diseases etc.

Mr. Glatze says: 

“There is nothing that would give me more pleasure,” he wrote to Kupelian, “than to say the Truth about ‘homosexuality’ and atone for my sins in that regard.”

We cannot see the truth when we’re blinded by homosexuality.

I agree with Saint Dumb Ox that Mr. Glatze’s testimony is similar to Apostle Paul’s on the road to Damascus experience.

We all need to pray for continued strength, courage, wisdom, and love for Michael Glatze because he may have to endure the same joyful suffering as Apostle Paul.

MM says: “Thus, they seek support from others of the same belief system to enable them to retain their chosen religious path…”

What pray tell is the difference in what you are doing in seeking from others of your same belief system that enables you to retain your chosen path than what others choose?

<blockdquote>“I’d developed a growing relationship with God, thanks to a debilitating bout with intestinal cramps caused by the upset stomach-inducing behaviors I’d been engaged in.”</blockquote>

I would love to enlightened on just what this was and how it was relational to his gay lifestyle? .......Anybody know?????

ODC ; no, not the same thing. I don’t require membership of an organisation to remain gay! You are still viewing being gay as something problematic - not just a minority variant of sexuality. Start from that position and a lot of the ‘issues’ just aren’t there.

Zwingli: again, I don’t see being gay as a problem in the way you do. You have this rigid idea of a ‘created order’ which comes from your religious beliefs - again, part of the attempt of religious ancients to apply social control , this being just one of them. And my relationship doesn’t involve promiscuity and is fifteen years plus in duration - recognised with a civil partnership last year, giving it legal parity with civil marriage under UK law.

Moot: yes, self-oppression isn’t something which is easy - but the point is that there are plenty of EX-members of the ex-gay groups, including a number of their former leaders. I am not trying to say that those following that path aren’t sincere in their beliefs - but I think they are unable to reconcile their (in my view) delusionary religious beliefs, with the reality of their sexuality. I think they would be best advised to ditch their religion, and move towards more accepting Christian positions. But some choose not to, because they sincerely believe in conservative religion. I do sympathise with them, and hope they will eventually find happiness without the need to self-oppress.

This is a nice story ..God loves and leads us to intimacy with him and to lives that are more free…some thoughts;

1. These things happen frecuently….there can be much heartbreak and dysfunction in the gay lifestyle, particularly, as it seems here, where God has been absent….its only natural for someone respond to God’s love and grace leaving behind all related to a dysfuctional lifestyle…gay or straight.

2. Converted for a year…huh?  He may, as many ex-gays find that the attraction remains and waxes and wanes even in the best of circumstances. Not sleeping with a guy does not straight makes you….just celibate , which may be okay for him at 30…..but may seem different and unbearable at 40.

3. Apples to apples….was this a Christian guy, living in a faithful monogamous relationship or someone caught in a world of casual encounters, parties, substance abuse??? Many heterosexuals live there too and are just as much in need of redemption. His experience of the homosexual lifestyle does not have to be every single gay person’s experience.

4. Same sex attraction is not just about lust, as other humans created in God’s image people with same sex attractions have the need to be loved, accepted, companionship etc ...it is not just about sex. 

5. Being fully human implies being who you were designed to be….not someone else’s idea of that .

blessings

seraph

To say there are plenty of EX-members of ex-gay groups, is the same as saying there are plenty EX-members of A. A..  We all fall and sin.  But God does not create us sinners, nor did He create you or me gay.  Feelings are fickle.  Sometimes I don’t feel forgiven.  Does that mean I’m not?  We are not animals and are supposed to be masters of our own behavior.  God calls us to moral behavior….sex within the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman….OR….abstinence.

Only you view being gay as a problem akin to alcoholism, whereas I regard it as a variant of sexuality akin to heterosexuality.

Its because I once was a conservative Christian that I consider it important to engage in dialogue.

MM, “Dialogue”, “the listening process”, etc. are catch words/phrases that really mean nothing when both sides are convinced in their own minds on the positions they take.

What we have here on SF and any other forum available is an avenue for our views to be heard.  There will be those who are “undecided” on what their positions are regarding homosexuality, e.g..  But, really now, when you are “undecided”, you have really decided to take a position, one that contends that the position one is “deciding” is not really important.

seraph,

Being fully human implies being who you were designed to be….not someone else’s idea of that .

Not trying to be a wise acre here, but I’ve often wondered why, if gays ARE designed to be inclined toward sexual relations with the same sex, they are also designed with fully functioning reproductive glands/cells?

They are given the equipment.  It works, apparently, but they are “designed” to not use it all?  Makes me wonder why.

Merseymike, God bless you!

This article is obviously working on you.  Thats a good thing.

As far as Mr. Glatze is concerned, I consider him off-limits.  As a new Christian he deserves privacy, nurturing and not to be used as a ping pong ball in the sexuality debate.

wow, that’s an awesome story!

MM wrote:

But as being gay isn’t a problem, why should he have sought to ‘change’- other than because of religious opinion?

How about because of biology?

Again, Randy - you are problematising and making assumptions that being gay is not simply a minority variant.

JESUS CHRIST BE PRAISED! WOW! May God bless this new Christian and guide his steps as he struggles to be faithful. This is true ministry to those who struggle with homosexuality, not that phony “gospel’ of affirmation that TEC offers.

Again, you assume that people ‘struggle’ with homosexuality’!

I have never actually heard of anyone deciding to become an ex-gay who was entirely happy with being gay and didn’t view it as problematic….if its not a ‘struggle’, then there’s no reason to take such a curious step.

They are given the equipment.  It works, apparently, but they are “designed” to not use it all?  Makes me wonder why.

Who said anything about “not using” the equipment? Why should it not be used? Its only a matter of how and who should decide.
blessings
seraph

MM, I have read many posts from you, both here and on T19 and I want to applaud your commitment to stating your point, and to enlightening others on what maintaining who you are entails.  I think in your position I would tire of having to explain myself again and again, but you seem to handle it quite well most of the time.  So kudos for your patience and diligence.

My concern as I wander through reasserter Blog-Land is this:  How good are we, as orthodox (I personally think sex between people of the same sex is sinful, but I’ll go no deeper than that) at separating human from behavior?  It is the coarsest of things, to define a person by their actions and refuse to separate them, despite Christ’s example to do exactly that.  To save sinners from their sin, that is why we are here.  But of course, one cannot FORCE salvation on anybody else, even during the Inquisition that didn’t really pan out.

So as reasserters, if we are to demonstrate Christian Charity, we need to get REALLY good at two things: loving beyond actions, and separating sinner from sin.  I would venture to say that if we were all as serious about that as we are at expressing our own opinions and judgements, MM might have a different opinion of the “ancient faith”. 

As Ghandi once pointed out, “If the British had come to India as Christians, and held to their Scriptures throughout the occupation, India would be a Christian country today.”

Actions speak louder than words.  I am in total disagreement with MM on most of these issues, but respect him completely as a fellow creature.  Having said that, I am faced with a familiar dilemma:  Is it an act of love to support a brother in sinful behavior?  Nope.

But MM, you know our opinions, and I value yours (and disagree).  Part of faith is my rememberence that ALL things serve God, not just me.  So I pray for you, and I wait to see what God will do next.

KTF!....mrb

Only if you view being gay as a problem akin to alcoholism, whereas I regard it as a variant of sexuality akin to heterosexuality.

Then what you believe is contrary to what Holy Scriptures says and teaches, and having lived the gay lifestyle for over 30 years, you are fooling yourself.  When we place our own ideas and thoughts above what God says and requires, then we are breaking the First Commandment And God’s peace will never be a part of our life.  Walking apart from God leads to death.  But there is life in Christ if we give up following after our own desires, and seek to follow Him.  “If you love me, keep my commandments.”

seraph,

OK, I’ll be more specific.  Why does a gay man have sperm if he is designed to have sex in a fashion that cannot utilize it ?

MM, we have 2 things in common.  #1 is that we’ve both been in a homosexual lifestyle (I was a lesbian for 15 years before the Lord changed my heart in 1994.)

#2 is that you posted that you enjoy coming to Stand Firm because you said “I think its important that another voice is heard, and I feel strong enough to withstand all the pop-psychology and reasoning that I REALLY come on here because I secretly long to be a Conservative Christian.”

I lived in Austin, Texas for 20 years, and still have many liberal friends and to go Austin frequently.  I have recently begun speaking out to them about my conservative Christian views—and been verbally lamblasted for it, I might add—because, as you said, it’s important that another voice is heard.  In their case, it’s a voice that corrects the prevalent cultural error of rampant liberalism, heresy, and blasphemy. 

I will agree with your reasoning, though…I don’t do it out of any secret “need” to fit in with liberals.

MerseyMike wrote: “you are problematising and making assumptions that being gay is not simply a minority variant.”

MM, it is of course a variant. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem. To call it a “variant” doesn’t solve the question of whether it is a good thing or a thing that will work out badly for most people over time (a sin).

There are many completely natural desires that people have which can be sinful (causing harm to oneself or others). I smoke. It’s an addiction. It’s a sin, for reasons which I believe almost anyone can explain. Gluttony (eating too much) is a sin. As for sexual variations, sado-masochism is a sin, even though the Bible doesn’t name it. Pedophilia seems to pop up throughout human history, so I suppose that too is variant. It’s still sinful. I am not going to tell you that you are a sinner because you are a homosexual. I am merely going to point out that your argument that homosexuality is not a sin is utterly weak.

From a religious and possibly pyschological standpoint, you have a much greater problem. That is that you say you are not “attracted” to Christianity. Surely the question is whether God exists, and whether Jesus was in fact the Messiah! That’s the question to be answered, rather than whether one is “attracted” to his teachings. Is it true or not? If it’s true, then one has to deal with it whether one likes that truth or not. It’s like going to the doctor, and he tells you are ill, and that you to go through some unpleasant surgery or something to avoid further problems. If it’s true, you have to deal with it. You don’t want to, but you have to, because reality has consequences.

I was once an agnostic, and I certainly wasn’t attracted to all the teachings of Christianity. But I wasn’t certain, and I started reading the Bible, especially the Gospels, rather seriously. I felt sure that much of what one heard in churches didn’t make sense. I made myself a list of the things that Jesus was actually reported to have said himself, and I decided to try to follow what he said to do, including what he said about praying, as an experiment. And I cannot explain how exactly, but one day I found myself on the other side of the divide. I have no doubt whatsoever that God, the great unknowable, exists. I believe that Jesus was who he said he was, and that he knew what he was talking about. I believe that because I tried doing what he said, and it worked. And it has continued to work. But the profoundest change it worked in me was somehow a very deep change in perspective, combined with the experience of prayer.

I remember, MM, being where you are. I remember when the question was “what do I want to believe?” rather than “what is true?” And I know absolutely that it was not I who changed that question. My life has not been an easy one and it will continue to be difficult, for reason that do not matter here. But my life is very happy, and relatively productive. I owe my life, and the lives of several others, to the actions of prayer and faith in very objective and demonstrable and tangible and scientific ways.

My best wish for you is that you can change your question to “is it true?” There is no need to worry about whether homosexuality is a sin at this point. You do need to worry about whether God is real, whether you know it or not. All the rest is just an evasion of that question. 

And now I will return to trying to quit smoking!

Seraph, you said: “Being fully human implies being who you were designed to be….not someone else’s idea of that.”

Here, you and I agree.  Let’s see how human beings were designed to function.  Where would we find that?  I don’t know - how about we check the “Designer’s notes” - Holy Scripture.  There we find that men and women were created in God’s image (Gen 1:26) and that woman and man are made for each other (Gen 2:24, echoed in several places in the New Testament).  No where in scripture do we find God (the Designer) blessing a homoerotic relationship. 

We are designed one way.  The fact that many people find their attractions outside of the design is simply evidence that we live in a fallen universe and are fallen persons within that fallen universe.

Just because you “naturally” believe you are sexaully attracted to people of the same sex, does not mean that you were designed to be that way.  I naturally have a desire to over eat, that does not mean that I am designed to over eat.  Our “natural” desires are just as fallen as we are.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Paul B: “It’s possible to have an attraction that is morally wrong, that’s not good for you.  Do you agree that’s possible?”
No. OCICBW, but so far…
No.
Midwestnorwegian: “Is this more proof that the GLBT lobby, who has no particular religious beliefs at all (IMHO), have targeted TEC for what (to you and them) is merely a socio-political hijacking of a religious institution to further YOUR cause?”
And I’ve been accused of rampant conspiracy promoting when I mention the IRD?
Seraph: “4. Same sex attraction is not just about lust, as other humans created in God’s image people with same sex attractions have the need to be loved, accepted, companionship etc ...it is not just about sex. “
Amen.

PadreWayne - do you really think that all of our attractions are morally good?  That I can be attracted to inflict pain and that is morally good?  I could be attracted to promiscuity and that is good?

I sure hope that you don’t think all our attractions are good and that none of our attractions could be morally wrong.  That would mean that there is nothing morally wrong.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

I never understood the claim that homosexuality is just another variant of hman sexuality.  For those who lack faith in God as creator of the universe, why would such a variant exist?  Absent extraordianry measures and techniques, it cannot reproduce itself.  Isn’t that the way evolution supposedly works - healthy and beneficial adaptations/mutations prosper at the expense of what was once the norm?  What healthy adaptation or beneficial mutations does homosexuality represent?  For those who believe, we can identify a God given purpose for heterosexuality - procreation.  What is the God given purpose served by expressions of intimate same sex relations?

Philip Snyder: Perhaps I jumped the gun here. If so, I apologize. I took the question to point directly to same-sex attraction, not just any attraction, and responded “No, I do not think this particular attraction is morally wrong.” But I realize my response was premature. Yes, indeed, I think it is possible that a particular attraction may be morally wrong.
I wonder, though: Perhaps the attraction is morally ambiguous—it is the response to the attraction that is morally wrong or morally good. Hmmm, this certainly bears some thinking. (I.e., an attraction, let’s say, toward wife-beating…it is repubnant, to be sure, but is there any morality involved if it is not acted upon?)

Uh-oh… Spellcheck: repugnant

MM - You protesteth too much.  If your true reasons were as stated, there are much better (and more profitable) venues for you to seek.  We believe you are here because God is tugging on your heart.

Therefore, let us all agree
1) to pray for MM daily that he is open to receiving the saving grace of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ into his life;
2) not to engage MM on any issues of homosexulity in the future.  This is his rock to push.  Let us be adults, step aside and allow him to push and/orpull it as far as he sees fit.
3) We need to understand and agree that MM does not like to approach any issue from a Scriptural viewpoint.  I for one will only engage him if in fact he agrees to do so.

Just because you “naturally” believe you are sexaully attracted to people of the same sex, does not mean that you were designed to be that way.  I naturally have a desire to over eat, that does not mean that I am designed to over eat.  Our “natural” desires are just as fallen as we are.

Oh really? Well friend, there is a way for you to avoid gluttony gracefully and still eat. No such for people with same sex attraction according to you and many here. I

n the name of Christian charity they have all the equipment, get hungry but are not allowed to eat at all…never, not even once….not a single french fry for them.

People do not believe they are attracted to members of the same sex ...they really are! Neither they nor you, nor science, nor prayer , nor exorcism nor reparative therapy can do anything to change that….nor does God seem so inclined in most cases.

That surely can not be the work of God….just the prejudices of people enshrined in religion to marginalize and rejects others who feel and are a little different. History is full of similar examples.
blessings
seraph

<bockquote>We are designed one way.  The fact that many people find their attractions outside of the design is simply evidence that we live in a fallen universe and are fallen persons within that fallen universe.</blockquote>

That is your take on it which I do not share!

Evidence would suggest someone took liberties with the design and not all is as clear cut as you would have it.

As far as the fall and what that means….we see through a glass darkly… no room for such certainty as it refers to sexual orientation. The subject is not adressed as such in Scripture….

blessings
seraph

You must be right Seraph
God could never tempt anyone, especially not Jesus in the wilderness.  And no one has ever triumphed over temptation.

It was the devil who tempted Jesus…and after that; he did get to eat, the devil left for a while, he got to be surrounded by his friends and snuggle up to John. Before he was tempted jesus was assured in his baptism he was “beloved son”. He also chose his cross!
That friend is not the case for many people with same sex atraction at all…..the premise starts that they are “disordered” not beloved, there is no way for them to break that fast…..and expect to have a romantic companion in a grace filled context. Totally different context friend!
I figure for homosexuals temptation would be similar to heterosexuals, in theline of sexual purity , chastity, commitment. But to want to have a a person to love and share your life with is no temptation at all…it is part of our humanity.
blessings
seraph

Glatze said he thought opponents of homosexual activism were “mean and crazy, and they wanted to hurt me.”
“I thought they were out to get me,” he said. “They made me really, really mad – and scared, I think. I wanted them to go away.”
Glatze said he couldn’t allow himself to think they were sincere in their beliefs.
But he now has deep respect for a Christian aunt who disapproved of his lifestyle.
She “was never judgmental, but always firm,” he said.

Just like the reasserters on this blog:  Never judgmental, but always firm in upholding God’s Word that same-sex behavior is sinful for all times, all places, all cultures, and all people.  God’s Word is divinely inspired, authoritative, sufficient, objective, universal, and clear on this issue of homosexual sin.

Better said: God never allowed anyone to be tempted

seraph - So if a husband says he is uncontrollably attracted to other women, the wife should just sigh and say oh well.  Or better yet, if the wife finds that its just mean to make her resist, the husband should say oh well?  How about if one of them were no longer able to participate in sexual acts, the other should be free to pollinate the farm?  And what about the single who never find a mate?

Yes, in fact, there is a man in my church who is openly gay and trying to lead a chaste life.  He has been welcomed with open arms.  Next question?

Hi Jackie,

Well, believe as you wish - I think you would prefer it if I wasn’t here, so have to justify my presence somehow!

Being quite serious now - if I did honestly think you were right, then I would be an absolute fool to continue to reject your position, given the consequences. If I do change my mind, then you’ll be the first to know

The point is that I already have rejected your view once, and its because of that experience that I feel that I have a role in challenging conservative Christian anti-gay attitudes. Nothing has happened since to convince me that I should have continued to believe as you do, and plenty has happened to indicate that I made the right choice.

You just dont get it do you?

A husband already has a wife…a grace filled way to express intimacy in a sexual way. They have an mutually exclusive commitment before God. Heterosexual singles have the potential to find a mate and the same be true. 

Homosexuals according to your view….they can NEVER express themselves sexually without it being a sin.  It seems God made NO provision for them not to “be alone”. Or is it the prejudice of people who refuse to see?... I wonder

It is not an equal playing field if what you believe is true. You compare apples to oranges and why it makes no sense to me.
seraph

yes, self-oppression isn’t something which is easy - but the point is that there are plenty of EX-members of the ex-gay groups, including a number of their former leaders. I am not trying to say that those following that path aren’t sincere in their beliefs - but I think they are unable to reconcile their (in my view) delusionary religious beliefs, with the reality of their sexuality. I think they would be best advised to ditch their religion, and move towards more accepting Christian positions. But some choose not to, because they sincerely believe in conservative religion. I do sympathise with them, and hope they will eventually find happiness without the need to self-oppress.

...which patently misses the point.  In your worldview, there is no supreme-being handing out commandments against indulging what comes naturally.  Also in your worldview, there is no supreme-being who creates a dissonance between what an individual wants to do, and what they must not do. 

Without that kind of supreme-being doing those things, you can only point to a strong belief on the part of the individual.  Simply looking at the merits of your worldview, I don’t see how a religious belief (in and of itself), no matter how strongly held, can cause someone to abstain from engaging in homosexual behavior. 

If belief alone can’t account for the critical mass necessary for a homosexual to reject the lifestyle, then perhaps we can assert the cause to be from the individual’s personality.  Here again, we get into trouble;  for many ex-gay Christians will readily admit that their orientation is ingrained in their personality.  Mr. Episcopalianated, if you recall, asserted that he was not sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, even though he wants to have those desires. 

If belief and personality, seperately, cannot account for the critical-mass, then perhaps they operate in tandem.  Hmmm… well, I know that if I exercised more, and ate less, that I’d be in better physical shape.  Sometimes I do exercise more, and sometimes I do eat less;  but then again, sometimes I don’t.  My belief (that in your worldview, is objective compared to religious belief) and my desire to be in better physical shape, doesn’t always inspire me to walk the walk. 

Can we agree that an orgasm is more pleasurable than an extra helping of mashed potatoes and gravy?  Can we agree that a marriage-type of relationship is more desireable than ripped abs?  If so, then there is much more critical mass to overcome for the poor schmucks in Exodus et al, than for me to improve my diet and exercise habits. 

Sorry, but your worldview doesn’t account for the missing critical-mass.

Seraph:

Oh cry me a river. So it’s all about sexual gratification for you. Sorry the Scripture only have one prescription for that, in 1 Cor 7:2 else abstaining (a fate worse than death by your logic it seems).

Heterosexual singles have the potential to find a mate and the same be true.

Sure.  But consider Catholic priests and nuns who happen to be heterosexual and take a vow of celibacy.  One can choose to be chaste.

Homosexuals according to your view….they can NEVER express themselves sexually without it being a sin.

Untrue. 
(1)  It’s not according to “our” view.  It’s according to the clear, objective, divinely inspired Word of God.
(2)  They can get married to the other gender and express themselves sexually.  Plenty of former homosexuals have done precisely that.

  It seems God made NO provision for them not to “be alone”.

Again, untrue.  Please see #2 above, and consider again the case of Michael Glatze. 
Also, a celibate heterosexual or celibate homosexual is not necessarily “alone”.  Jesus Christ is always with them.
Pax in Christ alone.

how typical….

seraph

I think belief alone can be powerful enough, at least on a temporary basis, Moot. And I do speak from personal experience. Just because I don’t share those beliefs now doesn’t mean that others cannot have them.
However, the ex-gay world is littered with ex-ex-gays, not to mention the many found skulking in gay bars!

Seraph—I could not agree more

.. and I have absolutely no problem with people like Catholic priests who choose celibacy - as one acquaintance of mine who once tried his vocation as a religious ‘it doesn’t really matter what your orientation is as we have all made a vow not to have sex with anyone’.Nothing wrong with celibacy in itself if that’s your vocation.

But the idea that all gay people have a vocation for celibacy, in the words of a RC priest friend of mine is ‘really insulting to those of us with a genuine vocation’

Its the fact that according to your religion, there are different rules for gays and straights. straights have the possibility of a life partner. Gays don’t, unless they self-repress and pretend to be straight. No religion which teaches that is worth a light.

Homosexuals according to your view….they can NEVER express themselves sexually without it being a sin.

Yeah, but all who have been bought with the Blood of the Lamb have the same problem.  Paul puts it this way:

“For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.”  Rom 7:19

The unbearable, unfair plight of the Christian homosexual is profoundly ordinary, within the framework of the Christian life.

Seraph, you said:
<blockquote?People do not believe they are attracted to members of the same sex ...they really are! Neither they nor you, nor science, nor prayer , nor exorcism nor reparative therapy can do anything to change that….nor does God seem so inclined in most cases.

That surely can not be the work of God.</blockquote>
I agree that homosexual tempation or orientation or attraction is not the work of God.  It is the work of the one who wishes to bring all things to nothingness - Satan.  Having said that, I need to be clear that people who experience homosexual attraction are not greater sinners than those who don’t.  All sinful attractions that we are “born” with or develop are the result of our fallen universe and our fallen nature.  We choose to do these things because we think they will make us happy or happier than God can make us.  That is a lie.  We do them because we want to do them and because they bring us a limited amout of fulfillment.  We rationalize them and try to devise ways of doing them without feeling as guilty.  “I’m under a lot of stress” or “It doesn’t really count if I ....” or “God wants me to be happy and this makes me happy.”  Sexual sin is one of the least sins.  Spiritual Sins are far more dangerous.  Unfortuantely, it seems that many carnal sins disguise a spiritual sin - particularly the sin that we know better than God or Scripture or the Church or than everyone who disagrees with us.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

It’s great when Facts, Faith, and Feelings all pull together in the same direction.

But what happens when it’s “Facts” versus “Feelings”?

Which will prevail?  The Facts (i.e., God’s Word) or Feelings?

Or will we rationalize and provide pseudo-reasoning to justify our behavior and decisions that stem primarily from our feelings?

straights have the possibility of a life partner. Gays don’t, unless they self-repress and pretend to be straight. No religion which teaches that is worth a light.

MM..they just don’t seem to get it! Or maybe some do not want to consider the implications of this very self evident truth.
blessings
seraph

implications of this very self evident truth

That you are advocating what the Scripture forbid ... granted there more to the story of sexual sins than this one area, but this is the area you are advocating. Maybe we get it more than you think

For starters I am advocating that you acknowledge that “the rules” do not treat gays and straights equally. If you do not get that…. well then…
seraph

straights have the possibility of a life partner. Gays don’t, unless they self-repress and pretend to be straight. No religion which teaches that is worth a light.

Merseymike and Seraph, you’re NOT LISTENING.  If you were, you’d agree with reasserters. 

First off, that sentence needs to be revised.  It should be “Gays do have the possibility of having a life partner, provided they repent and surrender themselves fully to God’s Spirit who may provide them with an opposite sex spouse.  No need to pretend, no need to self-oppress.  If one is struggling, be honest in the struggle and lift it up to the Lord. 

Christianity is a religion that gives us all the Light of the World.  Hopefully, you’ll consider the implications of this very Biblical Truth.

Indeed, seraph. For me, that is evidence enough that the entire conservative belief system is problematic

Oh no, they treat them very equally, you are the one with new “rules”  but then I understand that you just don’t get it ... well then ...

TU&D—Of course they’re not listening, that what this listen process is about ... 

Okay Hosea…repeat after me

1. Heterosexuals can choose to be celibate or choose to have a life partner…both choices are holy!
2. homosexuals can choose to be celibate or choose to be celibate or choose to be celibate….NEVER can choose to have a life partner ...
Now there ...did that sound like equal choices? Do you get it?

seraph

Not the case. Straights have the possibility of marriage, gays do not, unless they pretend to be something they are not ( and I think that’s reprehensible and very selfish - hardly fair on the opposite sex partner)

You can clearly justify this from your religious viewpoint but equal status for gay and straight orientation and relationships is not provided. Gays don’t need an opposite sex spouse, because they are gay, any more than straights need a same sex partner. And some really aren’t listening, or they would have heard that there is no struggle, because there is nothing to struggle about.

I think belief alone can be powerful enough, at least on a temporary basis, Moot.

“Belief alone,” isn’t even an inanimate object, let alone animate with a personality.  But I’m sure you were talking about the belief of an individual, not as something in a vacuum. 

...Dealt with that. 

Your rejection of Christianity, after being a Christian?  My problem with that assertion is that you constantly refer to Christianity as a set of beliefs.  In fact, Christianity asserts that it is more than about a set of beliefs.  And thus Christians, assert that it is more than just about a set of beliefs. 

You (in your own words) ‘quite reasonably’ rejected the beliefs, and equated that act with a rejection of Christianity itself.  All very well and good - but in doing so, you have rendered your claim to having once embraced Christianity, to one that is spurious at best. 

Why?  Well, again, it’s because Christianity asserts itself to be more than a set of beliefs. 

You disagree?  Marvelous - you are asserting yourself in the framework of your worldview…  which as it so happens, is a long way from being a spokesperson for Christianity. 

Boiled down, you’re not qualified to assert that you were once a Christian.

Yawn.    ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

But what happens when it’s “Facts” versus “Feelings”?
Which will prevail?  The Facts (i.e., God’s Word) or Feelings?

Merseymike, Seraph, and GLBT theological revisionist choose Feelings.

Reasserters choose the clear teaching of God’s Word which are Facts.

C’est la vie.  Just the way it is.  Reasserters try to get revisionists to use more fact-based reasoning.  Revisionists try to get reasserters to get more in touch with their feelings.  We’re all somewhere in the Fact/Feeling spectrum, no one’s on the extreme ends. 

Maybe as Merseymike and Seraph love God more and more, they’ll want to keep his commandments, realizing that the yoke is light, and they’ll have less and less desire to ignore God’s commandments in the Bible.

Okay Seraph,

You live in a dreamland that all heterosexual are permitted to marry, there are a few restrictions, ones which also means celibacy.

How did I do?

Sorry, I unable to play any longer, I have a fund raiser downtown at the Rwandan Embassy, so long and thanks for all the fish

“Gays do have the possibility of having a life partner, provided they repent and surrender themselves fully to God’s Spirit who may provide them with an opposite sex spouse.  No need to pretend, no need to self-oppress.  If one is struggling, be honest in the struggle and lift it up to the Lord

Yeah right…this happens every day. No matter how many times you repent, turn fully to God and tell yourself you are Tarzan….she Jane, its John you are thinking of.
Unless one is bisexual and truly able to choose either ,people who are primarily homosexual in orientation should forgo making someone else miserable by involving them in a life of pretend. It seldom works.
You surely jest.
seraph

You surely jest.

No, I’m not.  God can and does do great and mighty things.  Look at what He’s done in Michael Glatze’s life.

Also, read Matt Kennedy’s first two articles on the Simpleton and the Fool.  It has applicability for those GLBT theological revisionists who do not subscribe to the Authority of Scripture.

Ah well, on those grounds, Moot, anyone who decides that they no longer agree with conservative Christianity was never one in the first place. Bit of a circular argument all told, yes?

1. Heterosexuals can choose to be celibate or choose to have a life partner…both choices are holy!
2. homosexuals can choose to be celibate or choose to be celibate or choose to be celibate….NEVER can choose to have a life partner ...

Re: #1.  Heterosexuals cannot fornicate, cannot lust after someone not their own spouse, cannot visit a prostitute while on a business trip (etc etc etc).  Homosexuals cannot lie with members of their own gender carnally, and cannot lust in the same fashion. 

Does the quantity of proscriptions seem equal to you?  Numerically, heterosexuals have more restrictions.  Does that seem fair?

Re: #2.  Homosexuals can ask God for healing.  They can also look at it as an opportunity to glorify the Lord. 

Now there ...did that sound like equal choices? Do you get it?

Sure do.  One of my pastors told us about a gay man who made a vow of celibacy in his office, proving to him that sex isn’t the end-all be-all of Life. 

Was that gay man wrong, seraph?  Is sex actually the end-all be-all of Life? 

Is the alcoholism the end-all, be-all?
Is armed robbery the end-all, be-all?
Is paying attention to my horoscope, the end-all, be-all?
Is sleeping in on Sunday morning, the end-all, be-all?
Is cheating my customers, the end-all, be-all?
..
...

Doesn’t actually deal with Seraph’s point, though, Moot, and largely irrelevant, given that none of your comparitors are the same. Again, you use a line of argument which only makes sense if you hold to your outlook.

In fact, by your statements, you offer support to Seraph’s point very effectively, in that you cannot actually deny what Seraph says so instead change the subject!

So, no “equal choices”, because only heterosexuals have the option of marriage and thus a life partner. No wonder gay people happy with their lives don’t opt for conservative Christianity!

Seraph,we get it just we don’t buy it.
I’m a single heterosexual man,I don’t have sex outside of heterosexual marriage.
I have in times past,I love women but as a committed Christian I don’t have the option of going outside of marriage(and I fervently mean only heterosexual marriage)to sate my sexual desire.
What you call repression is an interesting pair of words not well liked in western culture,self control.
You and Mike and a fair bit of our Western Culture may feel that we conservative Christians are whatever adjective you want to call us,no biggie to me,(but then I’m half Irish and at times prone not to give much of a flip anyway about being politically correct)I’ve been called most everything.
I find it interesting,at least in your case,as I know that Mike has disavowed ‘conservative Christian’ ideology and sexual ethic,that you still lay claim to a form of Christianity while at the same time trumpeting the claim of validity for a pattern of behavior directly in contradiction to the teaching of Scripture and the church over the last 2000 years.Ironic that..

I am wondering, have either MM or Seraph demonstrated that they actually read either of the two articles on Michael Glatze? There is a lot of information about his experience. I would be interested in reading comments that incorporated that information. Is that too much to ask?

For example, we see all this back and forth here about homosexual partners. Have either responded to what Glatze wrote:

What I discovered – what I learned – about homosexuality was amazing. How I’d first “discovered” homosexual desires back in high school was by noticing that I looked at other guys. How I healed, when it became decidedly clear that I should – or risk hurting more people – is that I paid attention to myself.

Every time I was tempted to lust, I noticed it, caught it, dealt with it. I called it what it was, and then just let it disappear on its own. A huge and vital difference exists between superficial admiration – of yourself, or others – and integral admiration. In loving ourselves fully, we no longer need anything from the “outside” world of lustful desire, recognition from others, or physical satisfaction. Our drives become intrinsic to our very essence, unbridled by neurotic distractions.

Homosexuality allows us to avoid digging deeper, through superficiality and lust-inspired attractions – at least, as long as it remains “accepted” by law. As a result, countless miss out on their truest self, their God-given Christ-self.

HUNTINGTON, Conn., June 19 /Christian Newswire/—Stephen Bennett, President of Stephen Bennett Ministries, a pro-family organization advocating for the traditional family, the protection of children and proclaiming the truth about homosexuality, condemned the irresponsible and disturbing remarks attributed to and made by Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International, an organization claiming to be “The largest information and referral ministry in the world on homosexual issues.”

Bennett, along with many others pro-family leaders, were shaken Monday by Chamber’s remarks and are eagerly awaiting Exodus International’s official response to their President’s misguided statements.

In Monday’s Los Angeles Times article, the writer alludes to a posed question to Chambers, possibly, “Are there really such people as ex-gays?”

The writer, then based upon a response from Chambers writes, “Truth is, he’s not sure he’s ever met one.”

What’s odd is that Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International, is a supposedly a former homosexual himself.

In the same article, one of the most troubling quotes by Chambers states, “By no means would we ever say change can be sudden or complete.” 

What? Then what exactly does Exodus International offer as “hope” to individuals struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction and to families of homosexual-identified individuals?

On CNN’s “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer”, the interviewer positioned Chambers as concurring there may be a “biological” basis for homosexuality.

There is ZERO biological, scientific “evidence” for homosexuality to this date. The biblical evidence for homosexuality is very clear: it’s sin.

For Bible believing Christians, homosexuality is, was and always will be a sinful lifestyle - condemned by God throughout the Old and New Testament - a sin that anyone involved in, must repent from.

Stephen Bennett, an ex-gay himself now for 15 years, happily married for 14 years to his wife Irene and the father of their two children, stated, “Frankly, I am shocked that the President of the largest information and referral ministry in the world on homosexual issues, would ever make such irresponsible and false public statements. If Mr. Chambers, a married man and father who once engaged in homosexuality himself, says he’s never met ‘a former ex-gay’ or one who has ‘changed completely’, he’s personally invited to our home in Connecticut to meet one. I’d also be happy to introduce him to numerous other individuals - all former homosexual men and women.”

Bennett once engaged in the homosexual lifestyle for 11 years with over 100 men - losing partners and friends to HIV/AIDS, until everything changed in 1990 - when he was confronted with the gospel of Jesus Christ. He dealt with his root issues and in 1992 completely changed. Stephen no longer struggles whatsoever with homosexual temptation.

“Homosexuality is an outward expression of an inward conflict. When I completely dealt with my inward conflict, my alcoholism, cocaine addiction, bulimia AND homosexual struggle were completely gone,” said Bennett.

Stephen continued, “What we see here is the public divide of the pro-family movement. One camp believes ‘dialoguing’ with homosexual advocates and activists will bring about a happy middle ground and compromise for all. That, I’m afraid, will NEVER happen. You see, ‘compromise’ is not in God’s dictionary—and of course homosexual activists are loathe to compromise on their core beliefs.  The other pro-family camp biblically believes homosexuality is, was and always be a sinful lifestyle that individuals were not born with, yet a lifestyle they CAN experience COMPLETE freedom from. I am in that camp. I don’t believe in encouraging a dysfunctional, dangerous and potentially deadly lifestyle, but COMPLETE liberation from it.”

Bennett ended, “Let the chips fall where they may. It’s time the world knows where those in the pro-family movement stand. It was Jesus Christ alone who set me free from the sin of homosexuality - not an ex-gay group, not reparative therapy and not any psychologist. I was made whole by the Word of God and the blood of Jesus Christ shed for me on Calvary, and I will proclaim and offer that same hope, freedom, grace, truth and reality to all who seek it until the day that I die. I pray my brother Alan Chambers will grasp that same message. 

“For I am NOT ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ [Romans 1:16], for it was Jesus Christ alone who saved me, delivered me and set me COMPLETELY free from my sinful homosexual past.”

from:  http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/944023451.html

Paddy…

* You have the option with God’s blessing to express your sexuality in a holy way. May he give you the fortitude to stay true to your convictions.

* gay men do not have the option you have…they are not attracted to women and can not ever marry another guy according to your belief system. You are not on the same boat!

* I am a Christian and wonder how appealing to the letter of the law some Christians can still excuse the exclusion of people based on outdated assumptions. Also how they can cherry pick from Scriptural and Church prohibitions without feeling hypocritical.

blessings
seraph

Love ya, Paddy!
I think what you’re referring to is the scripture about “holding to a form of Godliness, yet denying it’s power.”

I hate PC, too, and refuse to bow down to it.

Deja Vu; thats exactly the sort of Moberlyesque psychobabble I’d expect from a committed ex-gay!

Its the same old story - every single exgay story contains the same sort of tale of woe and unhappiness with regard to being gay. Its only when one is in that sort of self-loathing state that religious alternatives look in the least attractive.

Paddy. The point is that you may have the option of heterosexual marriage. I would never have that option unless i pretended to be something I am not.
As I say, you can justify that according to your religious beliefs, but for me, they indicate that your religious beliefs are inherently problematic.

You are right, though: I don’t really see how you can remain a conservative Christian and be gay, or pro-gay, without at least diluting your conservative stance.

I am wondering, have either MM or Seraph demonstrated that they actually read either of the two articles on Michael Glatze? There is a lot of information about his experience. I would be interested in reading comments that incorporated that information. Is that too much to ask?

For example, we see all this back and forth here about homosexual partners. Have either responded to what Glatze wrote

Thank You Deja Vu!  I was also thinking that the thread on Michael Glatze was being hi-jacked to discuss things that Merseymike and Seraph wanted to talk about instead of celebrating the wonderful, godly transformation of Mr. Glatze as a former homosexual.

Bit of a circular argument all told, yes?

Actually, there are far bigger leaps of reasoning in your cursory response.  You still haven’t quite dealt with my points.  Oh well. 

And besides, even if it was a circular argument, I wouldn’t be embarrassed by it;  there are many things about Christianity that can’t be reconciled within a framework of human logic. 

And Christians, receive Christian dogma as such.  And God perserveres them in their faith.

Truth..you are of course aware that tehre are plenty of ex-gay stories that do not end with such rosy colored tones. I am happy for this guy…but all is not that way AND his own story is far from over.

Many who fled homosexual promiscuity and the pain of that type lifestyle do acknowledge a persistence of same sex attractions, some have been unable to continue a life denying their feelings, others settled into a life of compromise, others have embraced the fact that they are Christian and gay.

It is the existence of people like that which bring your assumptions into question and bring a different perspective to what being “ex-gay” or christian and gay mean.  years ago I would have praised God and taken this man’s story at face value…years and several ex-gay friends later I think otherwise.

blessings
seraph

Merseymike and Seraph, hope you find encouragement and hope by reading the Stephen Bennett journey from my post at 05:11 PM. 

You enjoyed reading about Stephen Bennett, didn’t ya?

I read the whole article…more than once, and am happy for him. What will happen time will tell. It is definitely not the same for all who made such claims.
blessings
seraph

But you have told me that I cant ‘deal with your points’, Moot. I’m not “qualified to”.....because I stopped ‘receiving Christian dogma’  and decided that I believed different things. Oh, sorry, no, I didn’t, because I can’t have believed them in the first place. Or if I did, I wouldn;t know it, because I don’t believe them any more.

Do you want some more rope and a hole in the ground, Moot? I always think that you are playing clever little wordgames rather than just trying to look at the question honestly.

I changed my mind. People do.

So, no “equal choices”, because only heterosexuals have the option of marriage and thus a life partner.

My father is an identical twin, and my grandparents in their infinite wisdom, treated them equally.  If one got a blue suit, they purchased a blue suit for the other one.  Only, it wasn’t equal treatment, because my Dad and my Uncle are not the same. 

Similarly, homosexuality is not the same as heterosexuality.  Thus, it cannot be treated equally within the Christian worldview. 

But generally speaking, the act of self-denial is the same with those of us who take up Christ’s yoke.  We all have been called to reject those things that God calls evil, even those things that feel good to us.

Seraph: yes, I think that the exgay groups themselves seem to be divided into two main streams.

You get the ‘victory’ strand where God will heal you and change your orientation and find you mrs. Wife in order to produce 2.4 kids and become the Standard Nuclear Family

Or there is the - rather more realistic - ‘carry your cross’ strand, who accept that change of orientation is unlikely but believe that according to one’s faith, one should remain celibate. Not so much exgay, but celibate gay.

The former tend to get most of the publicity (Stephen Bennett being an example), but perhaps the latter are a bit more honest - if, in my view, honestly mistaken. But at least they aren’t suggesting messing up others lives in the process.

I changed my mind. People do.

Right - You decided that Christianity is a set of beliefs;  which is different than the claim of Christianity.  Thus, you rejected a straw man. 

Therefore - your claim to have been a Christian is spurious.

No, Moot. That wasn’t what I said. But in your eyes, no-one could have ever been a Christian if they later recant.
I’m quite sure that when I was one, I saw it as a ‘relationship with Jesus’ to use the jargon, but once out of that mindset, its easy to see that this was an essentially psychological construction.

Okay ....here is one for you….just google ex-ex gay and surprise!

Jeremy Marks| BIO
A Call for Dialogue From an Ex-“Ex-Gay”
Posted June 28, 2007 | 02:35 PM (EST)

As I write these words, Exodus International, the world’s largest network of “ex-gay” ministries, is preparing to hold its annual conference in Irvine, California. As a former President of Exodus International Europe, I hosted a similar event in 2000 in the U.K. Like many of my former colleagues, I too have a story of transformation and redemption, but it is a very different journey from the narrative of change that I believed as an Exodus leader from 1988-2000.
As a Christian who “struggled” with same-sex attractions from the age of 13, I was unable to accept being gay until very recently. I was thankful to God that I found an ex-gay ministry in 1986, and subsequently came to know the Exodus group of inistries. “Freedom from homosexuality” was an intoxicating hope for all who, like myself, struggled with internalized homophobia. But we refused to consider we could possibly be wrong about the message we championed. We closed our ears to dissenting voices, like Evangelicals Concerned or Soulforce, who preached that it IS possible to be a gay evangelical Christian, and to make an honorable, life-long commitment to a same-sex partner with God’s blessing.
But by the end of the 1990s, I had become seriously concerned about the long-term fruits of our ministry, which upheld heterosexual marriage as God’s purpose for mankind and proscribed a life of repentance, self-examination, and celibacy for all who could not achieve this ideal. From my vantage as a leader, and in my own life experience, I came to understand that our approach was sowing isolation, loss of faith, broken marriages, and even attempted suicides. I knew I must change our ministry’s approach. There was no one moment of revelation, but rather, like the proverbial frog-in-a-kettle, I experienced a creeping realization that I was wrong, based on years of accumulating stories of personal catastrophe. Had I not been so afraid of the financial ruin I would inevitably face personally and been less worried about my own reputation in the eyes of other ex-gay and traditional church leaders, I might have faced up to that growing realization a bit sooner.

Unsurprisingly, when I finally “came out” in a gay-affirming ministry in 2000, I became a pariah amongst evangelical churches in the UK and beyond. But apart from the sad loss of what I had believed to be many good friends, I have no regrets. I could not possibly return to the spiritually and emotionally corrosive ministry style that has proved to be so misguided and downright damaging in the long run.

The evangelical Christian world, which includes ex-gay ministries, presents a contradictory message of God’s unconditional love on the one hand, and a seemingly innocuous list of conditions for membership on the other. Yet the Christian gospel is, above all, a gospel of reconciliation. This week, men and women who have been damaged by the message of ex-gay ministries will also gather in Irvine, California, to share their stories and begin the healing process at The Ex-Gay Survivor’s Conference. We invite Exodus leaders to sit down with us and discuss our experiences in a spirit of humility and prayer.

The time is long overdue for Exodus ministry leaders to face these issues with an attitude of honesty and integrity. With a profound change of heart, they might find, as I have, that years of experience working with lesbian and gay people now equip them to minister to those who have been hurt by “ex-gay” ministries and the homophobia espoused by so many churches.

Let those who have ears ....hear…all is not well in Wonderland!

blessings
seraph

Well, whatever the back and forth comments above said, I am just delighted that Michael Glatze has taken this step and pray that the Lord blesses and enriches him and those in his life. 
Praise God

all is not well in Wonderland!

No reasserter has ever made that claim.  The Bible declares that we live in a fallen world, corrupted by sin, and that Jesus Christ came to redeem us from that sin by shedding His blood on the cross for us.  We need to receive that precious gift of salvation by having true and genuine faith and repentance.

But at least they aren’t suggesting messing up others lives in the process.

You don’t think +VGR and former governor James McGreevey et al have messed up the lives of their former spouses and children in the process either, do you?

What can I add to this discussion that has not been said? 

Why suspect the motivations of those who attempt to engage in serious dialogue?  I first began reading postings at SF in order to get past the ease of stereotyping those with whom I was in disagreement.  I contribute only when I feel strongly led, which is typically when sweeping generalizations and stereotyping is present.

Regarding the article about Mr. Gatze—Peace of Christ to him!  Though my experience was in the reverse, I have no reason to doubt his testimony.  But as we discuss his story, let’s not confuse sexual orientation and “lifestyle”.  Mr. Gatze writes, “I feel strongly God has put me here for a reason.  Even in the darkest days of late-night parties, substance abuse and all kind of things—when I felt like, ‘Why am I here, what am I doing?’—there was always a voice there.”

Amen!  Mr. Gatze’s life would have appeared to have been filled with things that were far from peace-giving and did nothing to know a relationship with his Creator; it is no wonder he heard the call of the Spirit to new life.  This is a God thing.

But if we listen carefully to Mr. Gatze’s story, then we must listen to the experiences of others that in their attempt to please God and other believers, created a life as vacuous.  Just last weekend there was a press conference sponsored by an “ex-ex-gay” organization at which former leaders of ex-gay ministries apologized for unintended harm.  In addition, recipients of such intervention relayed their experiences.  I won’t post a link, since that might be considered bad form, but finding such stories online is easily done.  Michael Busee, Jeremy Marks, Peterson Toscano and Daniel Gonzales are the names of just a few gay believers who have felt led to participate in a public way in this conversation. 

In the end, I believe that using the word “lifestyle” to mean acting upon, or not acting upon a same-gendered sexual orientation does nothing to further the conversation as it brings with it an assumption that one already know everything they need to know about the object of discussion.  In the end, I believe that there are only two lifestyles—Gospel and not.  A Gospel lifestyle requires us to follow Christ, no matter the cost—to love others, no matter the cost.  Heaven forbid if I oppose the stirrings of the Spirit as it leads a fellow believer on a path that furthers the ministry of incarnation and reconciliation.  I cannot define the cost of the Way of the Cross for another ( i.e., not my will, but God’s); I believe that is part of “growing up” as a believer and moving beyond the “childish things.” 

Believe me or not, but, you slice off a member of the Body of Christ when you equate our differences on these matters as the measure of one’s authenticity of faith.  If these are the defining matters of the faith, I think that we would be reciting them with the creeds and Jesus would have spent a great deal more time making them very, very clear. 

What he did make very , very clear was what defines a Gospel lifestyle, and his two-part plan left those who wanted a more complicated way wanting.  It is in him we must ultimately rest, nothing else, and it is through his Spirit that Gospel lifestyle is possible.  Nothing else.

On Topic ...this was interesting…

My Thoughts on the Conversion of a Previous Gay Activist
Timothy Kincaid
July 3rd, 2007

Michael Glatze was quite young when he became involved in gay activism and the gay community. And the gay world applauded him. He wrote for XY and then became the executive editor for GYA. He spoke on panels and received awards. He was a roll model and a young hero.

But time went on and his 20’s ended. And something changed. Michael began to see his life as empty and meaningless and, not unlike many before him, he looked for what set him apart from others whom he thought had better lives. Michael decided that it was because he was gay, and so he discovered himself “leading a movement of sin and corruption” and came out “from under the influence of the homosexual mindset”.

And today, Michael has done that which others who suddenly find a religious conversion have done. He wrote an article decrying the evils of homosexuality.

In looking at Michael’s column, printed in WorldNetDaily, some observations came to mind:

First, Michael has adopted the peculiar language of anti-gay activists. Although he lived for many years as gay, he cannot now use the word without quotes and instead must use “homosexual” instead. Other examples – of which there are many – include “the grip of homosexuality”, “the homosexual agenda”, and our old favorite “the Truth”. This article is not written to be understood by Michael’s previous audience, nor by the secular public. It is a “testimony” written in Christianese for a purpose.

Michael also hints at the “causes” that are favorites of the ex-gay and anti-gay movement: weakness, a missing father.  He even tries for Sickness! and Disease! - though the most he can come up with is intestinal cramps and an upset stomach.

Second, Michael provided some clues as to what his future plans are:

Homosexuality allows us to avoid digging deeper, through superficiality and lust-inspired attractions – at least, as long as it remains “accepted” by law. As a result, countless miss out on their truest self, their God-given Christ-self.

Poland, a country all-too familiar with the destruction of its people by outside influences, is bravely attempting to stop the European Union from indoctrinating its children with homosexual propaganda.

I think we can safely assume that Glatze will soon become the public face of some political anti-gay action.

I do not know Michael Glatze and perhaps it is unfair to speculate about the motivations for his conversion. Nonetheless, I think I have a guess as to why some, if perhaps not Glatze, find themselves leaving gay activism for anti-gay activism. It is because activism on its own is not fulfilling. And when you face a disappointment – or when you are no longer getting the attention that you once had – bitterness and anger can set in.

Many of us have been fortunate to have been able to craft a life that involves many different components – professionalism, activism, spirituality, friendships, and much more. When we face a disappointment in one area, there are other things for us to do. But unfortunately, I have seen those who build their life around just one aspect, be it work or religion or politics, and when things sour – as they always will – there was no balance to give their life meaning.

And I think too often activists make this mistake. They have no life outside their insular world. There is no religion or faith to give perspective. There is no non-activist friend network, or family backup or other forms of getting away and seeing your life from the outside. And when a blow comes along that shakes your perspectives, there’s no one to turn to who isn’t part of the problem - so instead they turn to that which gives substance and validation to their bitterness and anger.

I don’t know if that is what happened to Michael Glatze. But I do know that we’ve seen conversions like his before. We’ve seen those who quite publicly “left the homosexual lifestyle” to step up anti-gay efforts… only to later quietly recant their anti-gay media blitz.

I wish Michael Glazte much happiness. If his conversion gives him meaning, then I am happy for him. But from what I’ve seen before, I fear he’s abandoned one cause for another. And when this new cause disappoints, I hope he will be able to reconsider his focus and his base and find a way to give his life a breadth of experience and meaning and find pillars that can hold him when he sees his new friends for what they are.

blessings

seraph

MM and Seraph,
Have you read the articles???
Do you realize the magazine he was publishing and the video he made? How he came to question? How much support he was getting for staying in the lifestyle? Your comments are so generic it seems clear that you have not read the article this thread is about.
Isn’t it kind of arrogant and close minded to endlessly repeat the same points without even reading the articles?
Endlessly repeat… obsessive repetitive patterns, oh, now I’m starting to get it.

but once out of that mindset, its easy to see that this was an essentially psychological construction.

Spoken like a non-Christian, speaking their own worldview. 

Look, if your lover (Heaven forbid) acquired terminal cancer, and lost his physical attractiveness ... and if you rejected him ...(If) ... Then people would rebuke you on the basis that your lover is more than his physical appearance.  And they would aptly say that you never truly loved him. 

Your worldview may reject the claim of Christianity to be more than a set of beliefs ;  but that claim IS part of Christianity. 

You’ve rejected nothing;  precisely because you embraced nothing.

Believe me or not, but, you slice off a member of the Body of Christ when you equate our differences on these matters as the measure of one’s authenticity of faith.

That statement sort of misses the whole point.  No one is trying to slice off anyone.  What is being done is to encourage and exhort fidelity to God and His Commandments in His Word.  Occasionally, this means confronting first-order heresy to prevent further apostasy in the body of Christ.  Biblical discipline is commanded in Scripture.

Your sentiments, shared by many in the clergy and bishopric offices, are precisely why TEc and the AC are in a declining state of spiritual health.

Ahh, Truth Unites.  First order heresy?  Further apostasy? 

There we have to disagree.  You confirm my point and have assumed lack of a spiritual life and renunciation of faith because of differences regarding matters not pertinent to salvation.  It was and is because of my faith in Christ that I am whole in terms of sexuality and spirituality and I can share my story with you.  If you chose to not believe my witness, what can I do about that?  It does nothing to change who and Whose I am.

Peace of Christ

There we have to disagree.

I do not seek to disagree.  But if we have to disagree, let’s do so agreeably, shall we?

Here’s a specific point of contention:  Is it a heresy to deny that same-sex behavior is a sin?  If so, what order of doctrinal heresy is this?

I would submit to you that this is a very serious heresy indeed and that it grieviously harms the Body of Christ.

If you politely disagree, tell me why you don’t think it’s a serious heresy, or even why it shouldn’t be considered a heresy at all?

I understand the errors of TEC and think that the current Presiding Bishop and other revisionists are Apostates who are doing great damage to the Church and depriving us of our Scriptural heritage, but I think we could communicate more effectively if we did not make accusations of heresy. I understand what the people on this site mean when they talk about heresy but accusations of heresy still carry the burden of the inquisition as it was practiced in England during the reign of Queen Mary I, when many Christians, including Archbishop Cranmer, were charged with heresy and burned at the stake.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/OutPut/Page45.asp

“Mary also revived the old heresy laws to secure the religious conversion of the country; heresy was regarded as a religious and civil offence amounting to treason (to believe in a different religion from the Sovereign was an act of defiance and disloyalty).
As a result, around 300 Protestant heretics were burnt in three years - apart from eminent Protestant clergy such as Cranmer (a former archbishop and author of two Books of Common Prayer), Latimer and Ridley, these heretics were mostly poor and self-taught people.”
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/queen-mary.html

Sorry, I posted on the wrong site, I am really off topic here.

Sorry, I posted on the wrong site, I am really off topic here.

BURN HER AT THE STAKE!

Still the same point, Moot. You appear to be saying that if I had embraced it, then I could never give it up. Convenient argument, that. Calvinist, by any chance?

Truth…in McCreevey’s case, undoubtedly he caused a lot of hurt. With Gene Robinson, it appears - thankfully - that they were able to remain friends but it must have been unspeakably difficult for his ex-wife. Its a question of integrity and not using others to sort out your own perceived problems.

Still the same point, Moot.

Yes Mike, WE are still on the same point. 

You appear to be saying that if I had embraced it, then I could never give it up.

That’s not at all what I’m saying.  Either you are not reading carefully enough, or you are employing straw-man argumentation. 

Not quite.  Convenient argument, that. Calvinist, by any chance?

(Chuckle)  So, you fancy yourself an expert on Christianity, and now you fancy yourself an expert on Calvinism? 

**Actually Mike, a purely Calvinist argument would go like this:

“Since you had left the Church, either you are:
a)  not Elect, and never will be Elect, or;
b)  Elect, and will eventually come around to embracing Christ once again.”

That’s a lot different than what I’ve articulated in my numerous posts on this thread.  Are you trying to play shell-games with category again? 

**{And I know this because (yes) I happen to believe that God is a wee bit bigger than the gods of myth- Ancient, Modern, or Post-Modern.  I’m pleased that you got something right, but unfortunately (for you) it has no bearing on the discussion.}

It does nothing to change who and Whose I am.

Whether you eventually belong to the Lord of Light or the Lord of Darkness… thankfully that’s God’s domain.

All I can do is share God’s Word with you:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:9-11)

Why do I share Scripture with you?  The answer is in Scripture:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear — hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.

Pax in Christ alone.

Truth Unites,

You previous comment makes it sound as if i’ve been disagreeable or I have impolitely disagreed.  If you feel that is the case, you are reading more into my words than are there.  To share emphatically from the heart is not to be disagreeable. 

You have appeared to have decided that I cannot be Christian and gay.  You seem to believe that if two believers disagree on such things, then one of them is not really a believer.  You accuse me of heresy and being apostate, but then say that is for God to decide. 

Regarding the providence of God, we have complete agreement since in the end, what you or I believe will amount to nothing and it is in Christ alone I rest.  You do not believe that about me, but as I’ve said before, there is nothing I can do about that.

Regarding ranking the order of heresy, I see no purpose in that and I do not believe that a Gospel lifestyle spends its efforts on such tasks which I believe Jesus’ response to the question of what was the most important commandment affirms.  But I think a good beginning is to read the Gospels and find the things that made Jesus mad.  I would also refer you to the quote from CS Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” someone included in a thread the other day.

Regarding understanding the views of others regarding sexual orientation, I think that discussions on this and other blogs has clearly indicated the counter-productivity of “dueling” scripture verses in a blogging format.  Subjects even less volatile such as the ordination of women show the futility of such discussions.  If you are sincere in understanding the view of others there are many resources that you can read.  For example, the writings by Ralph Blair, founder of Evangelicals concerned are excellent, and not just on matters of sexual orientation.

However, please remember, that if you use differences on this subject to decide who is and who is not Christian, then I think a faith that does not rest on Christ alone has been created.

I keep hearing from those who by definition “non-orthodox conservative traditional Christians” about how we who are by definition are orthodox-conservative-traditional Christians, don’t “get it!” I won’t get the brokenness of a homosexual or a lesbian anymore than I would alcoholism since I am not either of those! But then a homosexual, lesbian or alcolholic isn’t going to understand me from my point of view either, because they are just not where I am anymore than I am where they are.

But, what I do understand is that all sin, homosexuality, lesbianism, pornography, gluttony, pride, murder, stealing, etc…(the list is lengthy), including my own, is a form of brokenness and thus keeps us seperated from God & His grace until we repent, ask for forgiveness and walk in the Light of His Son Jesus Christ in order to be grought back into God’s loving grace!

I don’t like hearing that people like Mr. Michael Glatze “probably won’t stay away from the gay life for long.” (paraphrasing) Support and counseling and helping from others is key and vitally important for anyone who has sought out help for any type of brokenness for their continued growth and walk in life. Here in our diocese, the San Joaquin which is very conservative, we have such a ministry! It is called New Creations Ministry (link) http://www.ncmfresno.org/
which I might add is right on the campus of the Cathedral! It has been very successful and very much endorsed by Bishop Schofield. It is one thing to pray & preach that individuals who are living a life of lesbianism or homosexuality or any sexual addiction to repent and change, but it is quite another to make sure that you have something in place to minister to them, counsel & support them in their transformation (for lack of a better word) in Christ and living a much more fulfilled life with out all the turmoil that is associated with the gay/homosexual/lesbian, etc…life! It’s not just about conversion but it also comes with an accountability on our part to each other just as it would when one is baptised! We are asked as the Body of Christ to help these newly baptised to stay in the faith and help them to walk their Christian walk, so we should do the same for those of sexual brokenness!

In regards to this post:

Because if something is simply a human variant, there is no reason why it should be a problem, other than unless external influences such as religion, make it so.
Thankfully, as society does become more open and accepting, the numbers of people who feel the need to self-oppress via adoption od hostile religion will decilne. Membership of ex-gay groups here is tiny. I have a friend who was part of one for a while (now living with his partner) and I was sincerely surprised to hear that the total national membership wasn’t even in three figures. Happily, most realise the limitations of their religious stance, and come out of conservative Christianity.

It rings of a defeatist speech! Why? Because there is nothing in it that is positive, affirming, or supportive of the young man Michael Glatze and his journey. This person would rather Mr. Glatze have stayed living his gay life it sounds to me! And this persons post begins to pick apart Mr. Glatze with his perceived views as if he already knows the outcome when in fact he does not! Only God has that capability!
Case in point:
“Thankfully, as society does become more open and accepting, the numbers of people who feel the need to self-oppress via adoption od hostile religion will decilne. Membership of ex-gay groups here is tiny.”
Not only a negative assumption but also minimalizes a membershp of which he does not belong to!
So he has one friend “who was part of one for a while (now living with his partner) and I was sincerely surprised to hear that the total national membership wasn’t even in three figures.
And again minimalizes the membership as if to make it non-worthy! Maybe that friend didn’t get the support and counseling he so needed. And I would likely guess this friend did not get it at all from this above poster as a friend! I can only guess what that friend did get in the way of supposed acceptance & support from the above poster in terms of his friend seeking to walk another path!

Oh, he certainly did get support from me - to make his own decision.
As for Michael Glatze, he is typical of someone who found deficiencies with his gay life - hence turned to religion. As I said earlier, that’s always the pattern. I don’t know him, so I can’t tell what his ‘gay life’ was actually like, but I’d imagine not a lot like mine. After all, we are all different and simply having a sexual orientation doesn’t indicate anything specific about our lives in detail.

I suggest you read Peter Ould’s take on the subject of Michael Glatze - he is an ex-gay, celibate for 10 years and now married.  His blog is Excercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy.

Cannuck,
If you are addressing me, I have and I found it very encouraging and I thank God for what He has done and will continue to do for Mr. Galtze! And I pray we her more stories tlike this one in the future! I rejoice in his conversion! My post above is primarily for those who see it differently or try to discount, discredit, or minimalize it! If you were not addressing me then my apologies are extended!

Sorry - I wasn’t addressing anyone in particular - the conversations seem to go around and around.  God is raising up former homosexuals to tell their stories and I praise him for that.  Peter Ould’s story is one of the older ones and he certainly did not go back to his former lifestyle.  John Sandford has a chapter in his book “The Transformation of the Inner Man” which explains the nature of homosexuality.  It is interesting that Michael notes that coming our of homosexuality was the most liberating experience of his life.  Praise God for the freedom he gives us.

Even in Dr. Spitzer’s study of 200 “former homosexuals” (from which he concluded that change IS possible), the deciding factor seemed to be a strong faith and religious motivation.

Isn’t it awesome that there actually IS healing for homosexuality, and that it is Jesus Christ Himself?  Nothing else seems to work at all!

Claim the Blessing?  Heck—Praise God and Embrace the Miracle!

All miracles and blesings come from the Triune God for true and faithful believers & doers!

No.Marty, I think you have unbeknowingly hit the nail on the head - its the dissonance between the adopted reality and the reality of sexuality which makes the self-oppression all the stronger.

But, its their lives in the long run - they are responsible for what they choose to believe, as am I.

You have appeared to have decided that I cannot be Christian and gay.

Not for me to decide.  Although I would kindly suggest a humbly repentant celibate gay Christian cross-bearing lifestyle for anyone who’s struggling with their homosexual desires… so as to fully love and obey Christ and His commandments in Scripture.

- its the dissonance between the adopted reality and the reality of sexuality which makes the self-oppression all the stronger

Adopted reality.  In tension with the sexual reality.  Feeding self-oppression.  Oh my. 

Let me get this straight…

The sexual reality is integral to the person, right?
And the adopted reality is not integral to the person?
And the self-oppression is a choice?
... and you find this hypothesis completely credible? 
... and you do not find the hypothesis, circular?

At any rate, after all this time it’s interesting that you don’t have a more complete answer to my question:  “Can you give a more complete, reasoned explaination for the behavior of these ex-gays, based on your worldview?”

It’s simply, you believe it, so there. 

(And some, believing that they can fly, fall.)

Thanks anyway. 

Truth….I didn’t notice anything posted by Kthurible which suggested he was ‘struggling’- and if one isn’t struggling, then your advice may seem anything but applicable!

Moot! You are the bomb! 

Oh my, the Spitzer study.  I won’t list links to critiques of the study as they can easily be “Googled”.  Dr. Spitzer despairs over the misuse of the information and videos of his response to such misuse by ex-gay programs can also be found on line.  However, in brief:

In spite of ex-gay programs claiming thousands of “successes”, it took Spitzer a year and a half to find two hundred subjects for the study (As an aside, this number includes those employed by ex-gay ministries which in any other study would cause one great pause when reviewing findings based solely on subject report.).  One hundred and forty-three subjects were male, the rest, female.  In particular, he was looking for subjects that claimed a change of sexual orientation.  The subjects were interviewed over the phone for 45-minutes. 

Critiques include the lack of controls, independent measurements, and based entirely on self-reports by people who were motivated to say the had changed because of their affiliation with ex-gay or anti-gay groups.

Findings included:

86% of the men and 63% of the females reported still having attraction to persons of the same sex.

11% of the men and 37% of the women reported that at the time of the interview that they had a heterosexual orientation, but the study did not identify what percentage of these individuals identified themselves as bisexual versus homosexual prior to treatment. 

66% of the males and 44% of the females reported to have arrived at “good heterosexual functioning” defined as having been “in a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year, getting enough satisfaction from the emotional relationship with their partner to rate at least seven on a 10-point scale, having satisfying heterosexual sex at least monthly and never or rarely thinking of somebody of the same sex during heterosexual sex.” 

Of the 112 men (out of the total of 143) who acknowledged that they masturbated, 56% said the used homosexual fantasies some of the time and about 31% said they seldom had opposite-sex masturbation fantasies. 

Quotes from Dr. Spitzer include:

“Our sample was self-selected from people who already claimed they had made some change. We don’t know how common that kind of change is. . . . I’m not saying that this can be easily done, or that most homosexuals who want to change can make this kind of change. I suspect it’s quite unusual.”

“I suspect the vast majority of gay people would be unable to alter by much a firmly established homosexual orientation.”

“...the kinds of changes my subjects reported are highly unlikely to be available to the vast majority [of gays and lesbians]... “[only] a small minority—perhaps 3%—might have a “malleable” sexual orientation.” He expressed a concern that his study results were being “twisted by the Christian right.”

He told the Washington Post in 2005 that supporters of reparative therapy have misrepresented the results of his study.  He said:
“It bothers me to be their knight in shining armor because on every social issue I totally disagree with the Christian right…What they don’t mention is that change is pretty rare.”

Hi KJthurible—you had better post the spin you would put on Lisa Diamond’s study as well—you know the longitudinal one of committed lesbians in long term relationships which shows a significant proportion of them (I can’t remember how many off hand) had somehow become heterosexual over the course of her study.
From memory she decided that sexuality is “more fluid” than she had expected and that their move to heterosexuality just showed how committed they were in their same-sex identity. I couldn’t follow the reasoning myself.
She is of course a lesbian herself—so by definition beyond reproach whereas my understanding is that Spitzer is not gay therefore suspect by those who don’t like his findings. My recollection of his study though is that he did not expect to find ANY people who EVER changed their orientation, and so was very surprised with the results of his study.

Mersey Mikey, i’m flattered.  Utterly. 

KJ, it’s no secrent that Spitzer is unhappy that his survey supports the views of the Christian Right—but thankfully he won’t let this color the results of his findings. 

No one is claiming that the success rate for “ex-gays” in religious therapy is any better than the [dismal] rate of success in Alcoholics Anonymous.  Only that this is still your best shot. 

Jesus heals the sick, and raises the dead.  I’ve seen it too many times to listen to those who are disgusted by the miraculous.

Excerpt from:

Wall Street Journal   May 23, 2001
Commentary: Psychiatry and Homosexuality
By Robert L. Spitzer

“....
In reality, change should be seen as complex and on a continuum. Some homosexuals appear able to change self-identity and behavior, but not arousal and fantasies; others can change only self-identity; and only a very few, I suspect, can substantially change all four. Change in all four is probably less frequent than claimed by therapists who do this kind of work; in fact, I suspect the vast majority of gay people would be unable to alter by much a firmly established homosexual orientation.
I certainly believe that parents with homosexually oriented sons and daughters should love their children—no matter how their children decide to live their lives—and should not use my study to coerce them into unwanted therapy.
However, I continue to hold that desire for change cannot always be reduced to succumbing to society’s pressure. Sometimes, such a choice can be a rational, self-directed goal. Imagine the following conversation between a new client and a mental-health professional.
Client: “I love my wife and children, but I usually am only able to have sex with my wife when I fantasize about having sex with a man. I have considered finding a gay partner, but I prefer to keep my commitment to my family. The homosexual feelings never felt like who I really am. Can you help me diminish those feelings and increase my sexual feelings for my wife?”
Professional: “You are asking me to change your sexual orientation, which is considered by my profession as impossible and unethical. All I am permitted to do is help you become more comfortable with your homosexual feelings.”
The mental health professions should stop moving in the direction of banning such therapy. Many patients, informed of the possibility that they may be disappointed if the therapy does not succeed, can make a rational choice to work toward developing their heterosexual potential and minimizing their unwanted homosexual attractions. In fact, such a choice should be considered fundamental to client autonomy and self-determination.
Science progresses by asking interesting questions, not by avoiding questions whose answers might not be helpful in achieving a political agenda. Gay rights are a completely separate issue, and defensible for ethical reasons. At the end of the day, the full inclusion of gays in society does not, I submit, require a commitment to the false notion that sexual orientation is invariably fixed for all people.
Robert L. Spitzer, MD, is Chief of Biometrics Research and Professor of Psychiatry, Columbia University.”

I have a question for thoughtful bloggers:

As part of casting out demons, Jesus sometimes commanded spirits to identify themselves.  Mark 5:9, Luke 8:30.  Today, commanding in the name of Jesus Christ that a spirit identify itself remains a key step in casting out the more stubborn demons.  The names by which spirits identify themselves are behaviors that the Church has traditionally considered sinful. 

Credible people experienced in casting out demons observe that there is a demonic spirit which identifies itself as homosexuality.  They have observed no demonic spirit that identifies itself as heterosexuality.  There are several other spirits that identify themselves as other forms of sexual behavior traditionally considered sinful: adultery, pornography, incest, rape, masturbation.  What conclusion, if any, should we draw from this different treatment accorded homosexuality and heterosexuality by the demonic realm?

Mark Brown
San Angelo, Texas
July 5, 2007

Just coming back to the focus of the thread again…

By all accounts, Glatze’s religious conversion and baptism has actually been not to traditional Christianity, but the Latter-Day Saints. He is a Mormon.

Dr. Throckmorten has posted an interview with Glatze:

http://wthrockmorton.com/2007/07/04/interview-with-michael-glatze/

He did confirm a report that he was baptized into the Latter Day Saint church earlier this year.

Well ....lets see ex gay…joins a homophobic pseudo Christian sect which denies the Trinity and most tenets of the faith….!!!

Hey but no longer gay , now repulsed by sex with men…God must have led him there ...

Lets see…..prophet Smith and his girls, the angel Moroni, golden tablets, Jesus and Satan brothers, women’s standing in the afterlife linked to their husbands, darker skin people are like that because of a curse   ....a paradise for good old boys…!!!

Then again those cute missionaries in bikes..hard to turn down.

blessings
seraph

seraph - I thought pseudo-Christian sects which deny the Trinity and most tenets of the faith were to be celebrated.  How close-minded of you.

Why would you think that?
seraph

Because our opponents spend most of their time rejoicing in the actions of ECUSA.

The words and actions of many in ECUSA and the AC as it relates to the inclusion of gays and lesbians fully in the life of the church…do not rise to the level of redefining Christian belief as stated in the creeds. To question wether the social/sexual prejudices of a premodern society apply in the 21 st century is not quite the same as having Moroni appear to you and give you the missing Scriptures. Would you agree?
I wonder if the joy over this conversion from “gayness” will be as applauded in this forum when all other things are considered. 

blessings

seraph

seraph – What “rise[s] to the level of redefining Christian belief as stated in the creeds” is redefining Christian belief as stated in the creeds.  So, for example, we have adherents of Episcopalianism denying the literal Resurrection of Christ or denying the Virgin Birth – both in the Creeds.  Or, we have a large and growing segment of Episcopalians practicing a functional blend of Arianism and Marcionism, i.e., elevating their passions above the teaching of the pre-modern philosopher Jesus (pace, well, you) and redacting and re-writing Holy Scripture as necessary to support the same.

So, no, I don’t agree that questioning whether the “social/sexual prejudices of a premodern society apply in the 21st century is not quite the same as having Moroni appear to you and give you the missing Scriptures.”  Given that Christians (Protestant to Catholic: the whole range of Christians) regard the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God, it’s the exact same thing, with Louie Crew playing the role of Moroni.

* TEC has not formally done any of the things you list here, though some adherents of Episcopalianism may have….I could think of a few catholics that come perilously close…
*  “elevating the passions over the teaching of Jesus”...oh you mean like allowing divorce, remarriage and those folks to be fully included in the life of the church???
* I do not remember Jesus adressing same sex attraction in any text…. he did speak about divorce. Questioning wether St. Paul, who had ideas many no longer hold( women , slaves), could have been wrong about sexual orientation and behaviour…is not quite the same as Moroni….imho.

blessings
seraph

So, was his switch to heterosexuality at God’s prompting - and if so, we must assume that Mormons and conservative Christians follow the same God.

Sounds like he was just a poseur.

seraph,

you mean like allowing divorce, remarriage and those folks to be fully included in the life of the church???

Yes, in many cases.

I do not remember Jesus adressing same sex attraction in any text…. he did speak about divorce. Questioning wether St. Paul, who had ideas many no longer hold( women , slaves), could have been wrong about sexual orientation and behaviour…is not quite the same as Moroni….imho.

I respectfully disagree: in fact, I think you’re pretty much making my point.  By reducing the important parts of Scripture to a list of sayings specifically attributed to Jesus, and that would pass muster with Jesus Seminar-types, you’re not taking an approach the Church has ever accepted.

On some level, we should recognize that the Church included writings in Scripture that it considered Apostolic, and that, therefore, it believed to have come from Jesus Himself.  This is consistent with both viewing Scripture as the Word of God and eschewing its division into parts that are really Christian and parts that aren’t.  It’s also part and parcel of professing a belief in an “Apostolic Church,” for those that (claim to) say the Nicene Creed without crossing their fingers.

Of course, of words directly attributed to Jesus, we find negative commentary on “sexual immorality,” and we all know what a first-century Jew would have included in that phrase.

Ah, right, so its first century Jewish mores you believe in…...almost as if life stopped in the past.

Which other mores would you have us abandon, MM, for the sake of not living in the past?  Should we allow murder?  Theft?  Polygamy?

I hope you can see that it is not defensible to claim that, because something was believed in the past, it should be abandoned today.

The question, moreover, was one of whether Jesus addressed the topic of homosexuality, which was the context for bringing in the viewpoint of a typical first-century Jew.

Then again those cute missionaries in bikes..hard to turn down.

Is this acceptable innuendo on this blog?

I don’t recall Jesus addressing homosexuality specifically.  But then, he ALSO didn’t address wife-beating, child molestation, or gay-bashing…and I really don’t think He meant to imply that either of those things are OK.  Omission is not permission.

And the Apostles Paul, along with Jesus’ half-brother, Jude, most certainly had something to say about it…Jude said, in verse 7, that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the residents going after “strange flesh.”

Omission is not permission.

I like that catchy phrase… a lot! 

BTW, it’s rather arguable about whether Jesus addressed homosexual behavior.  It’s quite logically inferred.  Besides, it’s a silly tactic to elevate any part of Scripture above another.  It’s all divinely inspired and authoritative and sufficient and sufficiently clear.

I’d like to type in my new favorite phrase of the day:

Omission is NOT permission! 

MerseyMike, you have said that you don’t see any reason to change from being gay (if I’ve misquoted you, I apologize…I am reconstructing from memory.)

Brother, I would respectfully and prayerfully ask you to study Revelation 22:15, where Jesus (as dictated to John), talks about who may enter the tree of life and the New Jerusalem.  “Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolators and everyone who loves and practices lying.”

“Dogs” was a common Jewish slur in those days for “homosexual.”

Please, MM, I urge you to pray to the Lord and ask His will for your life and how He wants you to live…with an open heart and an open mind.  Ask Him to show you the truth…and open your heart so you can hear what He says, not merely what you want to believe and what “tickles your ears.”

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” 2 Timothy, verses 4:3-4

We’re there, brother, we’re in that time.  And I don’t want you to have to be lost!

Come to think of it “dog” was a pejorative term used also to demean non-Jews, remember the Caananite woman? Thankfully we are now freed of 1st century slurs and prejudices.

Back on the topic…is it still a reason to rejoice in this forum that our ex gay friend converted not to Christianity but to Mormonism? How about if it would have been Islam? Non Christian but just as homophobic…would it have been great too???

blessings
seraph

Truth…dont read innuendos into a very innocent statement… now I do see how you are looking at it and it is not how intended.
seraph

Back to the topic of changing sexual orientation—Dr. Spitzer’s own words in the the Wall Street article provided by Mark reveal a more nuanced response than what most of you are allowing.  It is a HUGE leap to assume that the findings “support the views of the Christian right.”  Regardless of ideology, his call is to review the data and be aware of its severe limitations!  To not do so is like getting your best medical information from Reader’s Digest (My apologies to readers of Reader’s Digest.).  I would not go to a doctor who did so. 

It is not “spin” to look very closely and critically at a study and its findings.  As many on this blog are aware, there is no perfect study that answers all questions on any given topic, and in fact, good studies typically create more questions.  Reputable studies are “peer reviewed” and evaluated for their methodology.  Such review allows for follow-up studies that can address some of the weaknesses identified in earlier studies.  It also allows for debate regarding interpretation of the data.  Regarding Spitzer’s research, you can easily find that information on line.  Some you will have to disregard given bias one way or the other, but objective analysis is available. 

I neither want to promote nor denigrate Dr. Spitzer’s findings, but in the face of claims that this study proves one thing or another with great authority are simply not true and not consistent with the data. 

Now Marty, regarding reparative therapy being “the best shot”—As you have indicated, regarding the results of “reparative therapy”, the numbers aren’t great, and if in such things is where our hope is placed, then there is very little hope indeed.  For those not “successful”, is it just too bad for them? 

I believe that anyone’s best and only “shot” is Christ since all other shots are blanks, to beat the metaphor to death.  Rather than being “disgusted by the miraculous” as one contributor has assumed, for what reason, I’m not sure, I stake my life on it. 

In the course of this discussion, I and others have either been described as being or implied to be apostate, heretical, and demon possessed.  I cannot help but point out, hopefully without bragging, that those charges were also made of Jesus, and so I find myself in excellent company.  Is it any wonder that the incarnation requires gay Christian GLBT individuals to be the face of Christ to the non-Christian GLBT person?

Seraph: barely a day goes by without someone here pleading for me to adopt conservative christianity, but the chances of it happening are nil.

I’m surprised that no-one appears to want to refer to the source of this ‘conversion’ as Mormonism, rather than conservative Christianity. It rather suggests that either the early cries of joy indicate that Mormons and conservative Christians follow the same God after all, or perhaps its just a sense of embarassment at not reading the small print.

KJ: Now Marty, regarding reparative therapy being “the best shot”—As you have indicated, regarding the results of “reparative therapy”, the numbers aren’t great, and if in such things is where our hope is placed, then there is very little hope indeed.  For those not “successful”, is it just too bad for them? 

Is this really how you feel about Alcoholics Anonymous?  That it’s “just too bad” for those who fail the course?

If at first you don’t succeed…

This is the statement by Mr. Glatze:

My religious beliefs are these: Jesus Christ came to take upon Him all of our sins. There is a place called The Kingdom of God. The only way to the Kingdom of God is through Jesus Christ. We must “give up our lives for His sake” and do as He commands, and we become welcomed in the Kingdom of God. Those are my religious beliefs. Most people who are Christian (not fake Christian) know, exactly, what I’m talking about. Other people think it is dogma or jargon.

We will pray that his relationship with Christ becomes deeper daily.  And just for the record, anytime anyone, even a non-christian, turns from something which separates them from Christ, there is reason to rejoice.  One never knows - it may well be the first step in removing the barriers that have blocked Christ from their view.

“My religious beliefs are these: Jesus Christ came to take upon Him all of our sins.” Welcome home, brother!

Marty,

You are the one trying to make a connection between AA and “reparative” therapy. I’m not sure why you would try to make my comments say things that they don’t.

I have family and friends who encountered God through AA and are in recovery from addiction.  This cost them nothing financially and the benefits are immeasurable. 

In contrast, I have even more friends who found their sexual orientation unchanged after years of reparative therapy.  The expense to most of individuals was thousands of dollars.  Further, they were led to believe that lack of change was their responsibility regardless of their participation in good faith and not due to the unproven premise of the therapy.  While this paradoxically led some to grow in their faith as they saw the futility of human effort over the things of God, it led others to abandon their faith as things of religion became confused with the things of God.

When comparing AA and “reparative therapy, we are comparing “apples and oranges.”

Back on the topic…is it still a reason to rejoice in this forum that our ex gay friend converted not to Christianity but to Mormonism?

OK Seraph, I’ll bite.

No, it is not a reason to rejoice. This man has jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire. Mormonism may be ‘conservative’ but it is certainly not ‘Christian’. At all. Ever. End of Argument.

May God have mercy.

<blockquote>Seraph: barely a day goes by without someone here pleading for me to adopt conservative christianity, but the chances of it happening are nil.”

(1)  God can work miracles!
(2)  How do you define “conservative” Christianity?  If you mean an actively obedient, biblically faithful, cross-bearing disciple of Christ who repents of his sins and makes Jesus Lord and Savior, then yes, by all means, please do adopt “conservative” Christianity.

MM,

As for Michael Glatze, he is typical of someone who found deficiencies with his gay life - hence turned to religion.

You may sneer, but sometimes God uses pragmatic considerations to bring people to faith and repentence. The prodigal son found ‘deficiencies with his life’. Would it have been better for him if he had an infinite supply of money and could continue his lifetyle? The only way you’d respect Glatze’s decision is if he did some sort of abstract doctoral dissertation demonstrating his lifestyle was immoral?
As for the Mormonism stuff, well, so far as I know Cyrus of Persia never converted to Judaism, and yet his actions were cause for rejoicing. The Law has 3 uses - to show us our sinful nature and hopeless condition, to show us the content of God’s righteousness, and as a mercy to all people since they are the most salutary principle to live by. I see all three taking place here- any step towards sanctification is a Good Thing.

seraph - I join with you in wishing he had converted to Christianity, and I pray he still will.

As is evidenced here, those promoting the gay lifestyle and agenda feel it is all about them.  It’s what they want and how they feel…not about what God wants or how God feels.  They sit on the throne of control…not God.

We have tried to convince in dialog and through Holy Scriptures what we know to be Truth.  We don’t draw people to Christ by loudly discrediting what they believe, by telling them how wrong they are and how right we are, but by showing them a Light so glorious that they want with all their hearts to know the Source of it.  We’ve tried.  We can show MercyMike and others that Light, but they are the ones who must decide to give up control.  My life was miserable living as a gay man.  Not until I surrendered it to God, did He begin to transform my mind and will.  We can pray that they too will come to that fork in the road. 

I have many former friends who continue to walk in the gay lifestyle….I’m sure we all do.  What motivates me to share my own story, is that when we die, I pray they don’t look at me and say, “You knew…but did not say anything.  If you had only told me!”  What kind of love is it that keeps silent when we see others committing spiritual suicide?

What kind of love is it that keeps silent when we see others committing spiritual suicide?

RevOrganist, I truly appreciate your testimony.  And to answer your question, that’s not love at all.  Not at all.

So continue to NOT be silent, even if it risks mockery, disdain, false accusations, and wrongful persecution. 

Pax in Christ alone.

Regarding a previous comment as to the number of people who are involved in ministries or counseling that for those seeking to leave the gay lifestyle:  I have been a facilitator for Living Hope Ministries for the past 4 years.  http://www.livehope.org/

We currently have
New Members:
7 Last 24 hours
23 Last 7 days
68 Last 30 days

Totals:
3905 Members
402769 Posts

Here’s Version 1.0 of a list of folks on StandFirm who’re following Christ and have left behind the same-sex behavior/lifestyle:
o RevOrganist
o WhiteH2OWoman
o Episcopalienated

Here’s Version 1.0 of a list of folks on StandFirm who affirm Same-Sex behavior:
o MerseyMike
o Seraph
o KJThurible

I’m sure there are folks I’ve neglected to mention on these lists.  If you know, can you add to them?

Truth,

I think you can add Manny Publius to your first list.

Coming to faith in Christ, making the affirmation that “Jesus is Lord,” involves an act of unconditional surrender.  It is not an invitation to participate in a negotiated settlement in which we are free to make demands upon God.  Apart from His grace, we are lost and miserable offenders.  The demands to be made are His, not ours.  I don’t think this can be emphasized too much in these interminable discussions about sexuality and the Christian faith.

I will say this again.  There are two opposite but related errors we can make where change of sexual orientation is concerned.  One, is that it is never possible; the other, that it is always necessary.  This type of change does sometimes take place, through healing and reparative therapy.  I am far from denying it, although what may appear to be a “change” in orientation can be the restoration of an orientation that was never really lost in the first place, and when genuine change does take place it may not resemble the swinging of a pendulum from one extreme to the other.  These issues have to be dealt with on a case by case basis, always taking individual differences and needs into account.

What if no change in sexual orientation takes place at all?

Again, there are two opposite but related errors that can be made.  One is to say: “Well, God, I’ve accepted Christ, but I still have homosexual feelings no matter what I do.  Obviously, Christianity is false so I might as well abandon it and return to what I left behind.  At least that was real.”  The other is: “My sexual orientation hasn’t changed since I became a Christian.  This must mean that God made me this way and is affirming my sexuality.  I can be a Christian and remain sexually active, but I will limit myself to a monogamous union with only one partner.”

Both of these approaches are wrong.

There is only one reason for becoming a Christian: you have been persuaded that the truth claims of the Christian religion are compelling, and you are prepared to accept the demands that God makes on your life through the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  (Which never happens, of course, without God’s grace making it possible.)  That’s it.  There is no other basis, and there are no special categories of behavior which necessarily make this more problematical for some than it is for others, even if we imagine that our own needs and problems are somehow unique.  God is familiar with all of them, and they do not pose unique challenges for Him.  But it is never simply about what you are going to “get out of it.”

When I became a Christian, after several years of very active involvement in a gay lifestyle, of course the question of change came up in my life.  The one immediate and lasting change which did take place was a recognition on my part that homosexual behavior is completely incompatible with a Biblical view of human sexuality.  Completely.  Sorry, revisionist friends, and you can argue the “clobber” passages as much as you like, but I have never wavered in that view.  I hardly consider the point worth arguing anymore.  I can accept the Biblical view, or I can reject it, but I cannot in good conscience seek to change it.

During my early years of struggle (and it was a struggle!), I also discovered that God apparently had no interest in turning me into a heterosexual.  It just never happened, and it’s not going to happen now.  My sexual orientation is exactly the same as it was before, arousal factors and all, although considerably less intense and far easier to manage.  I then had a choice to make.  Give up and go back, or find out what “Plan B” looks like when I’m not the one in control.  For me, the alternative was celibacy—and I have spent more than 15 years discovering what a truly wonderful plan it is.  (And yes, for the curious, that is with no “lapses.”) 

That does it for me, and the issue is laid to rest.  I no longer worry what “biblically orthodox” Christians think about it, with their message of “straight if you want to be,” or the idea that having to go through life without a sexual partner is somehow a fate worse than death.  (I have really learned to laugh at that last part!)  Of course, God does want to comfort and heal us, and when we embrace Him we become new creatures in Christ.  We are set free from the bondage of sin and death, but we are set free in order to take up whatever cross He wants us to bear, and that half of the equation is just as important as the first.  Sometimes healing bears a close resemblance to what we have in mind, but sometimes Heaven’s answer is: “Suck it up!” or “Walk it off!”  Since God appears to know more about it than I do, I have learned to trust His judgment.

If you are a Christian struggling with same sex attraction, find out what God’s will is for your life.  It is not an inscrutable mystery.  The God who knew you before you were formed in the womb, and whose love for you is unlimited, will help you figure it out.  Your own healing may include a vocational calling to fatherhood or motherhood and an accompanying change in your sexual orientation.  If so, go for it!  If not—welcome to “Plan B.”  The criterion is faithfulness, as God measures it, and not “success” as we measure it, far too often.  No matter what, there is no need to give up and go back, or to compromise with the truth.  No matter what!  The One who is Truth is always on hand to take you through your own wondrous journey of self discovery, as you discover His will for your life.  Just allow Him to do so, and He will see you safely home.  Don’t be afraid!

Or alternately - realise that the struggle is simply not necessary - embrace and celebrate being gay and hopefully, you too will meet a partner to spend your life with. I met mine over 15 years ago and have never looked back!

In other words, Mr. Mike you are preaching that it is much easier to find a relationship that makes you feel good, all you have to do is abandon the struggle to have a real relationship with God. 
Just don’t seem like a fair trade to me.

Even secularists (such as stoics) would not advocate ‘embracing and celebrating’ being controlled by every emotion and desire that goes through one’s head. Jesus gives us the power to rise above that, and regenerates us so that we can discern which are holy and which are not.

Here’s Version 1.0 of a list of folks on StandFirm who affirm Same-Sex behavior: ... Seraph

This is kind of broadly stated….for clarity here is what I affirm:

* people with same sex attraction are beloved of God and made in his image, Christ died for them, they are called to life, to the church, to heaven.

* Discrimination and exclusion of gays and lesbians is completely unnaceptable in civil society and in the church.

* People with same sex attraction that come to Christ are , as other Christians called to holiness. This may mean, celibacy, chaste friendships, or the possibility of a romantic, long term relationship for those so called.

* relationships among people with same sex attraction can have the same virtues as any other relationships in the body of Christ….friendship, loyalty, acceptance, selfless love. 

* Although closed to the procreative aspects , same sex realtionships are not closed to the unitive aspects of sexuality. For those who feel called to the companionship of another, monogamy, chastity, fidelity, longsuffering…love.

imho
seraph

The one immediate and lasting change which did take place was a recognition on my part that homosexual behavior is completely incompatible with a Biblical view of human sexuality.  Completely.  Sorry, revisionist friends, and you can argue the “clobber” passages as much as you like, but I have never wavered in that view.  I hardly consider the point worth arguing anymore.  I can accept the Biblical view, or I can reject it, but I cannot in good conscience seek to change it.

Thank you Episcopalienated.  Many blessings of love, holiness, strength, and courage for you and others.  As John the Baptist said, “He must increase, but I must decrease.”  May it be so for all of us.

Pax in Christ alone brother.

My sexual orientation is exactly the same as it was before, arousal factors and all, although considerably less intense and far easier to manage.  ....

....  For me, the alternative was celibacy—and I have spent more than 15 years discovering what a truly wonderful plan it is…

...“straight if you want to be,” or the idea that having to go through life without a sexual partner is somehow a fate worse than death….

  ...Since God appears to know more about it than I do, I have learned to trust His judgment….

Your story is very inspirational and I wholeheartedly affirm most of what you say.  Here are some comments….

* I have found that for a number of people with same sex attraction, what seemed to be an initial healing where the attractions seemed very out of the picture….it does not stay that way and then, despite prayer, counseling, fasting, therapy…etc, the orientation remais the same..though maybe more manageable.  That is why stories like the one we are discussing have to be considered with care…it is not always as he says!

*Celibacy certainly is an option. This certainly beats the serial sexual partners and one night stands, which are so demeaning, yet part and parcel of the gay culture for many people. This may have been part of this guy’s experience that he wanted lo leave behind!Yet not everyone is expected to have this “gift of continence”...! Better to “marry than to burn”, Not good for “man to be alone”..Why should gay people be excluded from that possibility as a class? Has God then decreed for all same sex attracted people that he would give them the gift of celibacy? What to you has been a discovery and blessing, to someone else may be a curse of loneliness and despair longterm.

* Many straight christian people are for the most part clueless as to what it meas to be gay…unless they happen maybe to have a loved one be so ..and truly litsen. Many here think it still is a choice, that it can be done away with.  Or make comparison to their own lives showing no empathy or understanding…..“straight if you want to be”...yeah right…clueless.

*  I do not understand why you would think that a same sex friendship which is loving, committed, provides companionship, is faithful and long lasting would not be valuable or would be rejected by God. Where does it begin to be cursed? When you talk? when you hold hands or hug? When you kiss or is it when you have sex? Maybe it is when you feel the attraction and inwardly consent…and if that is the case you and many more are fried…..mastubation is a slip, dreams give you away and to think and lust….done deal! I just do not believe it could be this way!

* God’s judgement…..he could take it all away, and chooses not to, that should say something! Maybe in his judgement the capacity to love someone of your same gender is not as bad to him as it has been to people…religious or secular in our society.

blessings

seraph

I can accept the Biblical view, or I can reject it, but I cannot in good conscience seek to change it.

Seeing how the church has redefined what appears to be the biblical view on so many other things, I can not in good conscience see how we can not question this one.

You know the laundy list….divorce, remarriage, female clergy, slavery, interest rates, dress codes, dietary laws, day of worship…. etc.

I do not know how people can cherry pick as it relates to so many subjects then in good conscience be literal as it relates to the subject of same sex attraction…or the possibility of faithful monogamouus relationships for those so inclined. 

blessings
seraph

That’s so awesome seraph!

You mean i can actually write my own rule book from top to bottom and still get away with calling it Christian?

Too cool!  Who knew???

You know the laundy list….divorce, remarriage, female clergy, slavery, interest rates, dress codes, dietary laws, day of worship…. etc.

Which begs the question - How would the precedent of a lesser evil be grounds for a greater one?

Or even more generally - how would the precedent of one evil, be grounds for another one?

That’s so awesome seraph! You mean i can actually write my own rule book from top to bottom and still get away with calling it Christian? Too cool!  Who knew???

This is very funny….are we reading the same Bible?

In mine for Jesus is pretty much of a law breaker….he heals on the Sabbath, his disciples eat with dirty hands, he touches lepers, allows an adulterer to go free ....that is not counting the social conventions of the day he ignores….

His disciples…well following the lead of the Spirit of course, some visit and eat with gentiles to the chagrin of most lawkeepers, allow non-convert gentiles into the church, do away with the keeping many elements of the Mosaic law, goodbye circumsicion, change the day of worship, declare all foods clean….

The Church…well for starters they add books or take them away as in the case of the reformers… scism against Jesus’s express will which the Churches still justify , in the last 2000 years among Anglicans…lets see divorce and remarriage in the church, female clergy, female bishops….boundary crossings…hmmm lots of rules changed, some broken.

I like this one….“love and do as you please”...St. Augustine.
“God is love and all who love are of God”.... St John

Some rules were meant to be changed and some evidently to be broken… so all people can have access to the blessings and love of God….even gays.

seraph

Which begs the question - How would the precedent of a lesser evil be grounds for a greater one?

I do not feel that a committed same sex friednship that may involve romance is evil.

As for the rest of the cherry picking done by us Christians…ever heard of ...what is good for the goose is good for the gander? 

seraph.

Seraph, like Jesus did, I too sit down for supper with adulterers, homosexuals, and worse.  And like Jesus, I encourage them to “go and sin no more”.

I do not feel that a committed same sex friednship that may involve romance is evil.

Any evidence that the adulteress thought that her “friendships” were evil?  Her own “feelings” on the matter were not particularly relevant to the Lord.  He knew the truth, forgave her, and set her on the path of righteousness.

As for the rest of the cherry picking done by us Christians…ever heard of ...what is good for the goose is good for the gander?

So two wrongs DO make a right after all! 

I can only imagine the how the story of Jesus and the Adulteress might have gone, had she chose your argument!

Imagining:

“Don’t you talk to ME about adultery Mister—after all wasn’t it YOU who healed the sick on the Sabbath Day??? Forgive your own sins, and let me worry about mine!  So there!”

The list (Version 1.0) of who’s “following Christ” and who apparently is not is interesting.  It is telling that the list is not based on profession of faith, but rather views on human sexuality.  This reminds me of an incident in my “pre out” days when I heard a well known evangelical Christian leader promoting the anti-gay efforts of a Jewish leader.  Shared faith in Christ was apparently immaterial next to the importance of being united toward the “gay threat”.  That was a defining moment for me. 

As I’ve mentioned before, this is a view of faith that is not “Christ Alone” but rather a litmus test Christianity.  Perhaps it’s even more alarming that no reader of SF that might agree more with those on the first half of the list (Peace to them!) thought it necessary to point out how unhelpful “us” and “them” lists are when it comes to any discussion within the church. 

But even if the list were based on profession of faith, I still would want to be listed with those considered “out” (My word—Shout out to Mike.  You know I love ya man!).  I think that a Gospel of incarnation requires that, and if I were of a faith that made seeking “in” with like-minded people as the goal, then I would need to begin doubting my faith.

So, if you’d like to stick a big pink triangle next to my name, please feel free to do so, but if any other markers are developed for other “out” categories, please add them to my name too.

I cannot speak for others, but you will notice that my comments have not denigrated those who might identify themselves as “ex-gay”.  How arrogant would it be of me to think that I knew better for them how the Spirit was leading them to live their lives?  You honor them, as well you should, since if they are “out” regarding their sexual orientation to the church body to which they belong, then a level of transparency has been required of them that is seldom required of other believers.  They have known the peace-filled humbling that comes with following Christ no matter the personal cost.

But to assume that this is not so of the Christian GLBT individual who has come to a different conclusion is a faulty assumption.  I spent 40 years closeted, and had no great angst about that, and was at peace with what I believed would be a solitary life in terms of personal relationship.  Then came God’s call of complete transparency, against which I fought with all that I had, until I had nothing left.  I too had to let go of what I wanted to be true of me and dive into the arms of a loving Savior, regardless of the cost.  I then knew the beauty of peace-filled humility that was not based on what others thought of me, but rather who and Whose I was.  I immediately knew the blessing of sharing my faith with others who knew of religion, but not the Gospel, and were surprised that I would believe the latter given their confusion of the two. 

So, do with that information what you will.  You do not know me at a personal level, so can easily discount my testimony.  But if nothing else, please keep me on the “out” list, because it is through being on the “outside” that I had opportunity to know the Christ of the outcast and the words “born again” finally made complete sense to me. 

Peace of Christ

I do not feel that a committed same sex friednship that may involve romance is evil.

Interesting, though irrelevant.  The point of your argument is to justify what the Church has historically called a bad thing, with bad things (and not-bad things) that the Church has been mixed up in at one point or another. 

So then, why does the act of justifying homosexuality on the basis of other evil things, make homosexuality good in a moral sense?

As for the rest of the cherry picking done by us Christians…ever heard of ...what is good for the goose is good for the gander? 

Sure have.  I’m positive that a lot of stuff you mentioned - especially how heterosexuals have messed up their own garden, and the clerical thing that we can’t really talk about on many SF forums, gave rise to the present crisis.  I think that these things are BAD and wrong… which would beg the question I posed earlier. 

Slavery’s a mixed bag.  I don’t think Noah’s curse upon Canaan is (or was) sufficient exegetical justification for the practice of slavery.  But I don’t think that the enslavement of the Jebusites was evil, except that it resulted from Joshua’s disobediance, and except that it probably sewed the seeds of destruction that came to fruition after Solomon’s death. 

But again - if slavery is bad, and the Church was mixed up in it at some point, how would that justify something else that was bad? 

(That was your point earlier - which again, is why I’m asking).

RE:  Dietary Laws ???  You’re kidding, right?  Read Acts 10.  Every religious teacher I’ve sat under, cites this as the abrogation of the Dietary Laws.  Even Reconstructionists cite this. 

Basically, there isn’t as much cherry-picking going on, as you think.  But I’ll save that for another post, so as to not get the discussion sidetracked, so you can answer my humble question.

Seraph,

In mine for Jesus is pretty much of a law breaker….he heals on the Sabbath, his disciples eat with dirty hands, he touches lepers, allows an adulterer to go free ....that is not counting the social conventions of the day he ignores….

His disciples…well following the lead of the Spirit of course, some visit and eat with gentiles to the chagrin of most lawkeepers, allow non-convert gentiles into the church, do away with the keeping many elements of the Mosaic law, goodbye circumsicion, change the day of worship, declare all foods clean….

Well, to begin with, most of those passages address the fact that the Pharisees were distorting scripture, and things such as ‘washing hands’, or the Korban rule had no scriptural basis.
Then there is the other issue- is it your belief that we are fundamentally like Jesus, so that if Jesus can change the administration of the moral law, such as a punishment for a sin (as stoning the woman caught in adultery) we can change the definition of what constitutes sin?
The way reappraisers seem to approach religion is as if it is a fashion or a hobby, so naturally condemning someone for disagreeing with you is morally unjustifiable.
Reasserters think more along the lines of ‘this is objective truth that applies to all’, so simply asserting Christians have disagreed in the past is like an anarchist saying, ‘Scalia and Ginsberg have disagreed, therefore there is no law.’
Naturally that is absurd and facile, but reappraisers never want to go into detail to prove their case, they just throw out the ‘Well, there have been disagreements in the past, so don’t criticize any interpretation, no matter how far out.’

So, given that, let me ask you if you can see the difference between two alleged examples of picking and choosing:
a) a pastor is absolutely OK with members of his congregation getting divorced/remarried for no reason at all, but condemns homosexuality as unforgivably evil.
b) a gentile Christian not getting circumcised since scripture (Gal)
says it is not necessary, but condemning idolatry (Rom 1) since it is morally wrong.

I think you’re conflating real ‘picking and choosing’ with simply following God’s revelations as they are applicable to us.

You say….Pharisees were distorting scripture, and things such as ....had no scriptural basis.

I answer:

But dear friend we are them! We have a track record of distorting scripture and its application in ways that have actually harmed people. As the Pharisees did, we have defended our distortions with great passion. After 2000 years of that , how can you not expect people to question your interpretations?

Then there is the other issue- is it your belief that we are fundamentally like Jesus, so that if Jesus can change the administration of the moral law ....we can change the definition of what constitutes sin?

We are sent in “Jesus name”, in his stead…“as the father has sent me so I send you”. We are Christ body and as such the church has taken upon itself the administration of many things.
As far as defining what is a sin..really only God can do that, yet we have altered the definition and punishments of what is sinful. Tell me; when did it become okay for a witch to live? or a false prophet to escape stoning? when did the polygamy of the patriarchs become unnaceptable and work on the sabbath day okay?  When did the adultery that remarriage explicitly means become no sin ...just something that happens? We have ...in Jesus’s name of course administered and changed many things…..it seems hypocritical to balk at the question of equal treatment for gays.

Reasserters think more along the lines of ‘this is objective truth that applies to all’, so simply asserting Christians have disagreed in the past is like an anarchist saying, ‘Scalia and Ginsberg have disagreed, therefore there is no law.’

That the earth was flat used to be believed as objective truth, the world was created in a literal seven days, the sun used to orbit around the earth and everyone knew it, women were unfit for the service of the altar…and homosexuals were just perverts that had rejected God and “been abandoned to their lust”. The problem is humans can not at all times discern what “objective truth” is yet they try to make others believe as if their interpretation/version of events is Gods…..no cigar!
 

Naturally that is absurd and facile, but reappraisers never want to go into detail to prove their case, they just throw out the ‘Well, there have been disagreements in the past, so don’t criticize any interpretation, no matter how far out.’

Acknowledging disagreements and litsening to those we disagree with helps keep all of us healthier, maybe more objective. There is plenty of detail about how things change…many reasserters just will not deal with it!

So, given that, let me ask you if you can see the difference between two alleged examples of picking and choosing:
a) a pastor is absolutely OK with members of his congregation getting divorced/remarried for no reason at all, but condemns homosexuality as unforgivably evil.

This is not alleged…this happens everyday in nice parishes the world over and several times a day in the US!!!!!!

I think you’re conflating real ‘picking and choosing’ with simply following God’s revelations as they are applicable to us.

I think you may be in denial of the real picking and choosing we Christians have done and do when it comes to the application of God’s revelation.  You can do that if you choose…do not ask me to….

blessings

seraph

Imagining: “Don’t you talk to ME about adultery Mister—after all wasn’t it YOU who healed the sick on the Sabbath Day??? Forgive your own sins, and let me worry about mine!  So there!” Posted by Marty the Baptist on 07-07-2007 at 02:25 PM

Actually it was the religious people who did this to Jesus, the same kind that were so keen to stone the woman caught in adultery….(where the guy was , no one knows). These same kind of folk called Jesus a sinner, a glutton , drunkard and demon posessed…in the end they killed him for it…for being a law breaker.
blessings

seraph

Seraph,

As far as defining what is a sin..really only God can do that, yet we have altered the definition and punishments of what is sinful. Tell me; when did it become okay for a witch to live? or a false prophet to escape stoning? when did the polygamy of the patriarchs become unnaceptable and work on the sabbath day okay?  When did the adultery that remarriage explicitly means become no sin ...just something that happens? We have ...in Jesus’s name of course administered and changed many things…..it seems hypocritical to balk at the question of equal treatment for gays.

That’s an interesting question. I’d be willing to accept correction on it since there’s no explicit satement on this in scripture, but my take so far: Paul in his epistles (and of course Jesus in John 8) never calls for the death penalty. But they do still think of it as sin. So I’d say that although these sins are part of the unchanging moral law, the punishments in the Pentateuch only applied in the God ordained (not Bahnsen or Rushdoony ordained) theocracy of Israel, and now we are not to punish these by death, but are still required to call them sin.
I still think there’s ambiguity in allowing secular punishment for certain sins (bestiality or even adultery could merit at least a prison term, IMHO), that would depend what the secular government decides (it must, after all decide on other ethical issues).
But all this means it is not hypocritical to say that practising homosexuals sin, and that an unrepentant sinner should not be allowed to hold a clerical post.