It is personally revealing when I go back and look at past posts. While I certainly don’t consider myself focused on gay issues much at all, other than for general reference, I have been making a whole heck of a lot of posts regarding the gay vs. ex-gay issue, and concerning the Christian Right’s anti-gay prohibitionist agenda. So, what is going on inside of me that causes so much attention and effort being put into this. I’ve been thinking and reading about this stuff for years, but not much else, aside from the personal herculean effort in reconciling my Christian faith and my orientation. I have a stake in this, of course, but I think it revolves more around being Christian than being gay. I am always and foremost a follower of Jesus Christ; being gay is just a characteristic (being, not behavior!). Is there something to this that will be reflected in my future?
comments? e-mail me

If you want to see the face of the Christian Religious Right regarding homosexuality in American life, the politicized anti-gay prohibitionist movement, then read this from Robert Knight and Concern Women for America.
comments? e-mail me

I came across this ad from P-FOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-gays) this morning.



It seems a fair and simple request that other people respect their decision to “chose to go from gay to straight.”
A couple comments:
First, I don’t know of anyone personally or anyone speaking publicly who is trying to deny anyone’s right to attempt a change or to participate in an ex-gay organization. Are some actually attempting to force people not to attempt a change or to participate in an ex-gay organization? P-FOX doesn’t want simply toleration for those wishing to change, they want respect. Ironic, isn’t it?
For the Religious Right and the politicized ex-gay movement, however, the request is not about simply accommodating and respecting ex-gays and their claims, but really to demanding that ex-gay ideology be the only option – no exceptions! They advocate for laws and social policies that do not respect gay people’s equal rights under the law. Heck, if they had their way, there would be no toleration for homosexuality anywhere in society. If they want respect and toleration, they must give respect and toleration, but they will not because to do so will violate their particular understanding of theology, and their theological dogma trumps anything! As a minority, the politicized ex-gay movement demands respect, but they will not accord the same to other minorities.
The second concern I have, which is not new by any means, is the claim by Chris that he simply “chose” to change from “gay to straight.” We all know that simply does not happen. Even honest ex-gay ministries publicly state that does not happen. Chris, if he is emotionally and mentally healthy, can certainly choose to change from being sexually active to not being sexually active, which of course is the claim of change from homosexuality to heterosexuality made by ex-gay ideology.
They also advocate that anyone wanting to change should not self-identify as being homosexual – as one thinks, so shall he be. In my twenties, if I received a call from a polling organization asking me whether I was gay or not, I would have said, “No!” I would have said “no” not because I no longer had homosexual feelings or had developed heterosexual feelings, but because I believed that God originally created me heterosexual and as I claimed heterosexuality as my self-identity, then heterosexual I would be. It was the idea of “things hoped for but yet not come.” There was no inner-conflict in admitting to my continued homosexual feelings and self-identifying as a heterosexual. I had faith in what I truly thought I was – straight – and the gay feelings were just residual effects of the original deception that I was homosexual. Of course, I could not sustain this way of thinking for very long, and neither can most ex-gay people. I wonder how long it will be before Chris has to admit, to God if no one else, that he cannot change the innate feelings going on within him. If he is constitutionally gay, he will have to admit that he cannot change his orientation, although he can certainly choose to be in a relationship or not or whether to engage in sex. He can choose to act like a heterosexual, but again we know that simply acting like one does not make us one.
I respect the intense struggle people go through trying to reconcile their orientation and their relationship with God. I would have much more respect for ex-gay organizations if their public face were as honest as their private face! Of course, that is the call of Christ to us all as we remove our masks and receive His freedom. They won’t do it, however. There is too much pain and failure. The face of Chris with his implied promise is compelling, but there is so much more involved.
comments? e-mail me

Here is a great article by Rederick Turner from Tech Central Station: The Liberal Trademark. I came across the article from a recent Andrew Sullivan post.
comments? e-mail me

Not that I support the Christian Religious Right in much of their political agenda, but there is also a Christian Religious Left that must be acknowledged. I do not support much of the Religious Left’s political agenda, either. Both the R.L. and the R.R. infuse their political goals with their theological or theocratic beliefs. While I support both sides in their attempts to express their beliefs and concerns in the political arena, I also know that politics coopts religion and not the other way around. Power tends to corrupt… Here is a news item from the Episcopal News Service:

Church officials meeting in Geneva reject legitimacy of G-8 summit
(ENI) Church officials and protestors who met during the summit of the Group of Eight nations in Evian, France, which ended on June 3, rejected the legitimacy of the grouping of the most industrialized nations, also known as the G-8.
"We see the G-8 as an illegitimate group because they were not elected by anybody to rule the world," said Rogate Mshana, economy and justice program executive for the World Council of Churches (WCC), at the Ecumenical Centre in Geneva, about 25 miles from the summit.
"On whose behalf are they speaking?" Mshana said at a meeting on Monday hosted by the general secretaries of four world church bodies headquartered in the Ecumenical Centre--the WCC, the Lutheran World Federation, the Conference of European Churches and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches.

Here is the Religious Left. They claim the meeting is illegitimate because the leaders were not elected to rule the world. Well, except for possibly Russia, all the leaders of the eight nations were duly and legitimately elected! Why does the WCC support the United Nations, since none of the representatives at the UN (the ambassadors) were elected? They were appointed by leaders of individual nations, whether the leaders were freely elected or whether the leaders are despotic dictators, yet the WCC is a big supporter of the UN. It can be argued that the very reason that these eight national leaders meeting together to coordinate world policy IS legitimate is because they were elected in a democratic political system! It is not an illegitimacy of structure, it is a perception of illegitimacy because of political and economic positions the Religious Left disagrees with. Remember, the Religious Left has just as much of an agenda and theological leanings as do those of the Religious Right (that the R.L. has a more tolerant disposition towards diverse beliefs is a theological leaning, although hypocritical because they do not tolerate conservatives at all!). If the G-8 concluded with policies supported by the Religious Left, they would be all over them with praise and support!
Okay, the next question: “On whose behalf are they speaking?” A legitimate question, I do believe. The implication is that they only speak for corrupt international corporate interests that wish to rape world society and destroy the earth. They may simply be speaking for the interests of the people of the individual eight nations. The fact is, if the people of the individual nations do not support what their leaders are doing at G-8 meetings, they can vote their leaders out of office. If the WCC can persuade the voting interests of the individual nations to install leaders who will champion their social and political policies, more power to them. They have not succeeded in doing so at this point.
I do not blame or hold in condescension those who champion and advocate for their political, theological, or economic positions. I support the WCC’s right to protest and to attempt to cause change even if I do not believe in some of their beliefs or positions. I do resent, however, that those who hold liberal positions feel justified in deriding those with conservative positions – it is hypocritical for those who espouse liberal beliefs of inclusion and toleration to do so. They act just like the Religious Right, except that the R.R. never claims to be accommodating to everyone.
comments? e-mail me

Another cool and rainy day in New York City. Today, however, I’m loving the rain. Sometimes, slow, rainy days are wonderful.
comments? e-mail me

I found this very interesting. I was reading an article by Fritz Ritsch on the Washington Post website this morning concerning the Iraqi war and a tendency among many Americans to see this nation as some sort of special entity with a Manifest Destiny to accomplish God’s work in the world. He was commenting on the president’s use of hymnic language in his speeches as demonstrating the view that the United States and the world would be much better submitting God’s rule through their particular perspective of what that rule would look like and through whom it would be exercised.
Understanding the Zion/Davidic Covenant of the ancient Hebrews, specifically in the southern kingdom of Judah, where the understanding of Messiah dealt with a specially anointed (by God) ruler that would exercise both political and religious power, brought together, in order to restore Israel to its divinely promised destiny as a nation-state and as a people. Ritsch’s comment took this idea and applied it to many within the religious right.
Here is the quote from Ritsch:

But some on the religious right have built a theology around this hope. Many of them believe that America will be at its best if its government submits to their understanding of God’s work on Earth. What they have longed for is a Davidic ruler — a political leader like the Bible’s David, who will unite their secular vision of the nation with their spiritual aspirations. All indications are that they believe they have found their David in Bush — and that the president believes it, too.

Interesting, huh?
comments? e-mail me

I’m going to pick up my last make-up final exam. I have been studying all week, but the volume of material is just so much. I will do badly. The whole affair may simply be an exercise in futility. Frankly, at this point I just don’t care. I’m tired, I’m spent, and I’m at the end of my motivational ability. This illness, trying to cram 4 1/2 weeks of work in four classes into two 1/2 weeks of make-up exams has left me apathetic. In the grand scheme of things, I don’t care whether I fail this exam or not. I’ve enjoyed studying for it and I’ve learned a lot, just not the kind of stuff needed to effectively reproduce on an exam.
I still have three papers to write. Writing is different, however, and I won’t mind do it. Exam taking, especially when there are 20 pages of stuff to memorize (and that is the reduction and compilation of the semesters worth of material). Writing, okay, exam taking – I’m over it.
comments? e-mail me

I’m still on this gay vs. ex-gay thing. These are all just thoughts. I’m not making declarative statements!
So, this morning I was thinking about how many gay prohibitionists (not prohibitionists who might be homosexual in orientation, but those who campaign against homosexuality – as in, “we want to prohibit any positive expression of homosexuality for purposes of ending homosexuality and exposing it for what it truly is: evil and destructive to all that is good and godly. And, to send a message of hope to the poor homosexuals that they can be free to change into heterosexuals through our exclusive theological perspective of God’s will, which of course IS God’s will.) still demand that the public (and government) accept the notion that homosexuality is a chosen element in a person’s life, whether that element might be defined by behavior or sexual/emotional attraction. Along side of this, as I was thinking, is the comparison of having a homosexual orientation with being of a racial group other than Caucasian in the fight for civil-rights and equal protection under the law.
Many African-Americans are up in arms because gay-rights leaders compare the fight for homosexual equal protection with the fight for minority (black) civil-rights in the 1960’s. For these African-Americans, having dark skin is genetic and something that cannot be changed (except for M.J.), but being homosexual is not genetic (of course, not proven) and therefore a choice, so then to compare the two as being the same in the fight for civil-rights/equal protection is an outrage. By the way, why not just call the campaign for gay equality just that, campaigning for “equal protection under the law,” rather than “civil-rights,” which is a word with such cultural connotations to the just fight for black civil-rights in the ’60’s that using the term causes much unneeded tension and animosity. It may be semantics, but powerful emotions are in play.
The equivalent can be expressed in behavior, however. Just like there are many black-stereotypes that still exist in this country (blacks like fried-chicken and watermelons, they are fat and lazy, the women let the men abuse them, they don’t know how to speak English, they are all druggies or at least drug dealers, etc.), there are also gay-stereotypes that abound (gays are sex-crazed and have hundreds of sexual encounters, they are irresponsible and selfish, they are much more wealthy than the average person, they are drug-addicted and alcoholics, they are pedophiles and never have lasting relationships, they want to destroy the American way of life, etc.). Of course, there is nothing wrong with liking fried-chicken and making a lot of money, but all the above ARE choices, based on behavior. If an African-American stopped engaging in all the stereotypic “black” behaviors and acted just like a stereotypic Caucasian or Asian or Hispanic person, he or she would not stop being “black.” His or her behavior would just be mimicking white or Asian or Hispanic behaviors. Likewise, if a homosexual stopped engaging in all of the stereotypic “gay” behaviors and acted just like a heterosexual, he or she would not stop being “homosexual.” His or her behaviors would just be mimicking heterosexual behaviors. Behaviors do not determine the innate make up of a person. Behaviors are a choice. It is true that repeated behaviors can become habits that seem at times impossible to break, but a person’s innate make up is not a choice. In terms of equal protection under the law, whether one is gay or one is black, that person should be treated equally.
As has been written many time before, gay prohibitionists have to cling to the choice angel, else their anti-gay agenda won’t fly – the public is too caught up on fairness for those who cannot help their internal make up by choice. In this case, if homosexuality as sexual/emotional attraction is truly not the choice of the individual, then it is comparable with other non-chosen elements of personal life. If homosexuality is to be defined strictly by behavior, thus chosen, then it is much easier to deny homosexuals equal treatment in society because, then, all homosexuals have to do is stop the behavior and all will be well again.
comments? e-mail me

In Andrew Sullivan’s website, in the “Letters” section, there is the following letter from the respondent:
END TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH:
I think Mr. Ponnuru is "misunderstanding" social conservatives badly. I have lived in Montgomery, AL, most of my life; it isn't called "The Buckle of the Bible Belt" for nothing. I suspect I know more social conservatives than Mr.Ponnuru, and they will happily abandon Mr. Bush if he doesn't show he is on their side. You see, most of them are convinced we are living in the "end times," the prelude to Armageddon. This has led them to the conclusion that they are in a no-lose situation: if they can elect a candidate with their beliefs, then the world will become less bad, but if they don't, and things become worse and more sinful, then this will bring about the Second Coming faster.
Example: In the governor's race of 1998, their candidate, Fob James, lost to Don Siegelman. As I was watching the coverage, it showed the head of the Alabama Christian Coalition and his wife (the names escape me), and her comment was "Well, if Don Siegelman wins with his immoral agenda things will just get bad enough so Jesus will come back." They actually believe this! Of course it's profoundly unscriptural; Jesus Himself said even He didn't know when He would return; only God did. Cal Thomas was also articulating this theme a few years ago, telling Christians to stay out of corrupting politics and let the chips fall where they may."
If those of the Christian Religious Right are looking expectantly for the second coming of Christ as their vindication, they should take the prophetic admonishment of Amos to heart. I’m studying for my OT final and am reading Amos. Amos 5:18-20 deals with the expectation of the inhabitants of Israel, the northern kingdom, the Israelites, as piously expecting to be vindicated against their enemies at the “day of the Lord,” but in reality it will be a very dark day for them because of their own injustice and sin – their own self-righteousness. The day of the Lord will not be their vindication, but their humiliation and destruction, unless they turn back to the Lord. How familiar when applied to the attitudes coming from the politically motivated members of the Religious Right! They, too, should be expectant not of vindication when the Lord returns, but of chastisement and possibly being “left behind” at the Rapture (according to their eschatology). Why? Well, basically, because of their self-righteous judgementalism (read Romans chapter 1:18 through chapter 2). Those of us who think we are “the bomb” before God, will quickly discover we are not when God’s views are made apparent in a undeniable way! Take heed of Amos’ prophetic announcement, which is as relevant today as it was in 750 B.C.
comments? e-mail me