Better Than A Husband

Yesterday I saw a repair service truck and the name of the business was “Better Than A Husband.”  Being the pastor of a church with more than a few gay women who can fix anything and have a shed full of tools I chuckled and thought to myself, “Yeah, that guy working for that company may be better than a husband, particularly if I’m the husband, but I bet he’s not better than the Wedgewood gay women fixer-uppers.”

I can’t fix a darn thing.  Well, I’m good with computers, but in terms of the typical stuff that needs to be fixed up I just – I just lose my religion, particularly when the Wedgedwood gay women give me hell about my lack of fix it skills.  They are so smug and arrogant (smile). 

My mother had four boys.  I was number 3.  2 of the 4 boys turned out to be Mr. Fixers, like my father.  The other two – well, God help us.  Are the two Ayers fixer-uppers as good as the Wedgewood gay women fixer-uppers?  Now that’s a question. 

Kid Theology

TJ Jameson in his Halloween costume.

Jo Jameson, with a mean, but apparently nice at this particular moment, pirate, and TJ Jameson

TJ hugging his mom, Kris Jameson, at Preschool Graduation

Kids say the darndest things. And kids can have the best theology.

But before I get to the kid theology let me share a few important details about TJ, as in cute as a button, as in all boy TJ.  For starters, TJ likes to wear boots to church.

Second, TJ sometimes arrives at church with his shirt backward, with the front on the back and the back on the front.  This is by design.

Third, when we were filming what we call a Wedgie Tale TJ was the lead character, Zacchaeus.  As you know, Zacchaeus climbs a Sycamore tree.  Well, we improvised but we did get Zacchaeus, uhh, we got TJ up into a tree, but not for long.  As the cinematographer commented, our star actor “went on strike”.  When TJ wanted to get out of the tree he got out of it.

You can see his Oscar performance at:

http://www.youtube.com/user/liberalbaptistrev#p/a/u/0/3nEsr_mV-EI

But back to kid theology.  Unfortunately, a robber broke into TJ’s home.  TJ expressed his desire for robbers to make better choices and know they don’t have to steal.  In the same conversation he talked about how he would want the good transformers to change the mean ones into nice ones too.  TJ was a “good” transformer for Halloween. And for the record, TJ is already a good theologian too!

Kris Jameson, also reflecting on the robbery, shared this with me from the book Enough by Adam Hamilton – “Contemplation Prayer – Lord, help me to be grateful for what I have, to remember that I don’t need most of what I want, and that joy is found in simplicity and generosity.”

A Better Use Of 9/11 Steel?

Two caveats.  One, 9/11 was a tragedy of such magnitude that any comments must be measured and given only with the great suffering of victims and the families of victims in mind.  Two, Christians need to be voices for peace in a world battered by wars and saturated with violent rhetoric; and yet, liberal Christians must acknowledge the reality of evil in others even while we remind ourselves of our own evil and our country of its evil.

Now to our topic.  The bow section of the ship USS New York contains 7.5 tonnes of steel from the towers destroyed in the 9/11 attacks.  Television news programs today showed clips of the USS New York as it passed the tragic scene of 9/11.  Here’s a question (after a statement).  I recognize the need for a military (although some early Christians refused to serve in the military) and I appreciate the courage and service of all US soldiers.  Was the use of the 9/11 steel in the USS New York, however, the best symbolic use of that steel which represents the loss of so many precious lives?  What if that steel had been used to build a Center for Christian/Islamic Understanding and Cooperation?

Three Dot Dave: Celebrating My 95 year-old Golf Buddy

Dave Kelly “Three Dot Dave”

Dave on hole 9 at Raintree Country Club,

Charlotte NC

Me congratulating Dave at his 95th birthday

party at Raintree Country Club

Dave’s family at his big party.  Some family

members traveled all the way from Michigan.

Below are remarks I made at Dave’s party.

 

Dave Kelly, a Great Golfer and Human Being

by

Rev. Dr. Chris Ayers

October 31, 2009

Tiger Woods, Nancy Lopez, Jack Nicklaus, Annika Sorenstam, Bobby Jones, Amy Alcott, Ben Hogan, Arnold Palmer, Judy Rankin, Billy Casper, Ben Crenshaw, Byron Nelson, Betsy Rawls, Tom Watson and——-and Dave Kelly.  Yes, Dave Kelly.  If you think Dave Kelly is not one of the all time great golfers, if you think I’m exaggerating, then you obviously haven’t played golf with Dave.

I first played golf with Dave four years ago and I was amazed at his golf skills then and I’m amazed by “Three Dot Dave” every time he tees it up.

We call Dave “Three Dot Dave” because he puts three dots on all his Titleist golf balls for the purpose of being able to identify his ball, but let me tell you, Dave is wasting his time putting three dots on his golf balls because his golf balls aren’t hard to find.  Dave hits the ball in the middle of the fairway—-always, like clockwork, as predictable as the sun coming up every morning.  Dave is what we call a boring golfer.  Most of us play what is called “army golf”—as in marching troops going right, left, right, left, as in we hit our shots way left, we hook them, and then we overcorrect and hit way right, we slice them.  Dave, Mr. Boring Golfer, hits his down the middle all the time.——————–Dave, I repeat, you don’t need three dots to identify your golf balls.  There’s no danger of confusing your great shots with our bad shots.

Three Dot Dave.  I also call him Mr. Raintree because he is the oldest golf playing member at Raintree Country Club.  I think that deserves some applause. 

If Dave wants to hit a mulligan or do a practice shot, I tell him, “Go on, Dave.  You own this club.”

If you want to experience a precious moment I invite you to go down to the tee box on hole number one on the North course. I’ll describe it for you.  Dave steps up the tee, his shoes shiny clean—-get him to tell you about his father getting up early to shine the family’s shoes before going to church—-Mr. GQ Golfer Dave steps up the tee dressed to the nines, dressed to the hilt —–and frequently there is a crowd, a multitude watching him, cheering him on.  Dave is a living legend at Raintree.  The recently retired in the crowd, the 60 year-olds, 70 year-olds, the 80 year-olds gather to watch Dave swing the club, coveting his longevity, coveting his athleticism, coveting his golf swing, coveting his ball which has just landed in the dang middle of the fairway.

Last year Dave’s children bought him a new Ping driver for Christmas.  Dave’s been hitting his tee shots 20 yards longer.  I remember the smile on his face when he got the club and hit it so well.  He looked like somebody that had just won the lottery, like a kid in a candy shop.

Dave loves golf.  He will not play if it’s pouring down rain or if it’s too cold but I’ll have to tell you, there are have been occasions we’ve played and he’s been more enthusiastic than me about  hitting the driver, making approach shots, and chipping and putting in the 40 degree windy conditions.  On one such teeth chattering, body shivering outing, Dave, at the end of the round, said, “Well, it wasn’t bad when we were in the sun.”

Dave loves to play golf so you will understand my surprise when he informed me he didn’t want to play on a certain Friday.  He mentioned something about having to go to a Navajoe meeting, some high school group he had been in.  You can get Dave to tell you why they called it Navajoe, not Navajo.  Anyway, I thought it must be some high school service organization he belonged to in his younger days.  When I inquired, though, Dave informed me the Navajoe’s were a group of guys in high school that rented a house so they would have a place to dance with, as Dave puts it, their honeys.

There’s not a lot that can keep Dave off a golf course, except maybe a Navajoe meeting.

O.K., here are the facts.  Inside 100 yards, Dave Kelly 9 times out of ten is on the green.  I’m serious.

Here are the facts.  Dave Kelly makes most of his five foot putts.  He is a great putter.  He can read greens.  He has an outstanding short game.

Here are the facts.  Last year on the North Course, on the front nine, with its very difficult hole 3 and hole 4, from the senior tees, not the front tees which he should be hitting from, Dave shot a true 47.  That deserves applause.

One comment I make repeatedly to Dave before he hits is “Do your magic, Dave.”  Really, what he does with a golf club is magical.

Two years ago I went on a beach golf trip with Dave, his son, David, and Bill Hartsell.  We let Dave plan the trip, let him decide how many days and how much golf we would play.  We played 3 straight days.  Yep, 54 holes of golf.  Almost killed me.  Dave played every day, playing all 18 holes the first day, 15 holes the second day, and around 14 the last day.  After that last round, I told Dave I was going to have to find some younger friends with whom to hang out because he was wearing me out.

I only have one complaint about Dave when it comes to golf.  I told you Dave typically, predictably hits boring golf shots; he hits his three dotted Titleist golf ball exactly where he wants the ball to be.  My complaint, though, has to do with the 2% of the time he doesn’t and Dave’s habit of going where nobody, not even a teenager, should go to retrieve a lost ball.   I don’t want Dave getting hurt on my watch.  It’s just a golf ball Dave.

Last week on hole number 4 on the North course, Dave went down a red dirt bank that had—-I’m not kidding, at least a ten foot drop off right at the edge of the pond.  I was yelling at Dave—-“Dave, don’t go down there.”  Dave later called that retrieval experience his “Waterloo”.

As it turns out, the retrieved golf ball wasn’t his ball.  Guess where his golf ball was?  He had out hit the fairway and it was in the rough, but it was not to the far right side where he was looking.  It was right smack dab in the middle.  Dave, if you’ve got to guess, guess middle.  Dave, we are thrilled you don’t act your age, but please—– when it comes to your few lost golf balls for once in your life – act your age. 

What I’m trying to say is this:  about four years ago I went on the internet and logged onto the Raintree golf tee time reservation system.  Bill Hartsell and I were going to play together and so I put down 2 players for a nine o’clock tee time on Friday.  We had no idea if we would be paired with anyone else or with whom the pairing might be.  When we showed up we met Dave Kelly.  How lucky can you get!  It turned out to be a serendipitous meeting.  And we’ve been going down fairways and chatting on greens together ever since.

One of my brothers who is a smart aleck says that the reason I play with a soon to be 95 year-old is because he’s the only one I can beat.  And I respond, what’s your point?——–For the record, Dave, from time to time, beats me.

Some people think I play with Dave Kelly because my wife will not complain about me playing too much golf with a senior citizen.  Others may think with me being a preacher I need all the brownie points with God I can get and I play with Dave because I need to do a good deed.——–But I do not play golf with Dave to do a good deed or because I need an out with my beloved to play golf or because I need a “W” in the golf win column.  I play golf with Dave because Dave is Dave, because Dave is a great golfer and an even greater human being.

Happy birthday Dave!  And may you have many more—-and I’m confident you will—may you have many more happy golf shots!

Good Words from The Prophet Muhammad

Like the church’s Bible, Islam’s Koran has its horrific texts.  Christians need to be aware of the Koran’s horrific texts just like we should be aware and honest about our own horrific texts, but Christians need also to be cognizant of inspirational words from non-Christians such as The Prophet Muhammad.

What actions are most excellent?  To gladden the heart of a human being.  To feed the hungry.  To help the afflicted.  To lighten the sorrow of the sorrowful. To remove the wrongs of the injured. That person is the most beloved of God who does most good to God’s creatures.

The Prophet Muhammad

Popular Preachers and Unprophetic Churches

This post appeared in The Charlotte Observer before Billy Graham’s last crusade in Charlotte.

 Is it possible for a preacher to be too popular? 

By Chris Ayers

Special to The Observer

 The memory of that night is still vivid:  George Beverly Shea’s strong voice hitting all the notes in “How Great Thou Art.” Billy Graham preaching about salvation and the end of the world, the invitation being extended to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, the choir softly singing “Just As I Am,” people streaming down the aisles making the decision to become a Christian or to rededicate their lives.  Graham appearing on the television screen to speak to those of us watching the crusade in our homes to encourage us to make a profession of faith, and me as a little 9-year-old boy publicly saying I wanted to turn my life over to the Lord.

My mother was ecstatic with my decision.  It seemed she called everyone in the whole world to tell the good news of what I had done.  I will forever be grateful to Billy Graham for introducing me, leading me, to Christ.

As we anticipate Graham’s coming to Charlotte for his last crusade, many people are having similar sentiments of thanksgiving for his life and ministry.

Billy Graham, in an era of much televangelist fraud, has been a shining example of integrity. He has been more concerned with our souls than with our pocketbooks.   He really cares about us.  Unlike others, this evangelist always makes it a point to encourage individuals to get involved in a local church.  Yes, much is to be admired about this favorite son of Charlotte.

Despite his deserved accolades, I find myself comparing our response to Billy Graham—and to other popular preachers, such as Charles Stanley—with responses to Jeremiah, Peter and Jesus by people of their time.  Billy Graham has a highway named after him.  He will be awarded the congressional gold medal.  He has been invited to the White House by presidents on numerous occasions.  The religious establishment drools over Graham.

In contrast, when Jeremiah preached in the temple the priests and the prophets and all the people said, “You shall die.”  It must have been “a killer of a sermon.”  When Peter preached, the government authorities arrested him and told him to shut up.  When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the religious establishment plotted to end his life.  Government officials did, in fact, order his execution.

Why is Billy Graham so popular?  Why were Jeremiah, Peter and Jesus so unpopular?

While we do not want to encourage a victim mentality among ministers, maybe anytime a preacher is popular we should wonder about it.  On the other hand, I like what Grandpa says in Olive Ann Burns’ “Cold Sassy Tree”:  “When Jesus said, take up your cross and follow me, he didn’t mean for us to nail our hands to a board.”

The church does not need Christians, ministers or not, “nailing their hands to boards.”  The church does, however, need prophets—whose messages are not as popular as the messages of evangelists.  Sermons about the salvation of individuals, judgment of personal sins, the coming end of the world, God’s assured victory . . . yes, those themes need to be preached, especially by people like myself and liberal Christians who have conveniently ignored them.

The hard prophetic themes must not be neglected either.  Like Jeremiah, we must tell the religious self-assured they are not as saved as they think they are.  To those interested only in self-protection, a ticket into heaven, and who are not committed to helping the poor, we must join the prophet and preach about not oppressing the alien, the orphan and the widow (Jeremiah 6:4-6).  Like Peter, we must preach even that which is disturbing to our government.  No civil religion for us.  And we must remember that Jesus seemed to save his harshest words for the “big Bible believers of his day.”

Obviously, and for good reasons, the religious establishment and the ruling government did not like what Jesus, Peter or Jeremiah preached.  They preached about the principalities and the powers.  For them sin was not only personal, it was corporate.  They talked about the end of the world, but they talked much more about how God expects us to live on this earth than about our next destination.  They talked about the impotence of the religious practices of their day.

Of course, sermons preached along those lines will not get you invited to the White House or get you a highway with your name on it or have much of the Christian world drooling after you.  Preaching in this manner will not get you taken out to lunch after church by congregants or get you a suit to add to your wardrobe or a week at a church member’s beach house.  Such themes may end a career or, even worse, a life.  But if the Church is to be relevant and faithful, it must not neglect these unpopular themes.

Perhaps as we give thanks for the life and ministry of Billy Graham, we should also give attention to those voices who unsettle us to the very core of our being, to those people we frankly would not welcome into our city or our churches.

There is more to being a Christian than hearing what we want to hear.  Can you and your church tolerate unpopular preaching?  Have we organized our churches so that prophetic preaching is highly unlikely?

Jesus On Bulletin Mistakes (Mark 412:12-17, Goofed-up Bible)

Jesus had spent weeks preparing what he believed would be his greatest sermon, The Sermon On The Mount.  A great crowd had gathered to hear the new guy preach, but Jesus’ sermon delivery was horrible, perhaps his worst sermon delivery ever.  Right before the service Jesus noticed a mistake in the bulletin.  His disciples’ failure to proof the bulletin so infuriated him he almost called off the worship service.  He shouted, “Didn’t I say ‘Be ye perfect’?  Well, that includes the bulletin too, you numbskulls.  Do you want people to think we are stupid?  Do you not know what is important?”

Mark 412:12-17, Goofed-up Bible

Homophobic Biblical Exegesis By Non-homophobic Christians

Theodore W. Jennings, Jr. is the acting academic dean and professor of biblical and constructive theology at Chicago Theological Seminary.  He is the author of several books, including The Man Jesus Loved:  Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament (2003), Jacob’s Wound: Homoerotic Narrative In The Literature Of Ancient Israel (2005), and the newly released Plato or Paul?  The Origins of Western Homophobia (2009).  For anyone interested in gay issues, specifically, the intersection of biblical exegesis/theological interpretation and sexual orientation and gender identity, Jennings is a must read author.  I’ve read prolifically on this issue and Jennings’ scholarship is extraordinary.  His readings of biblical texts are like none I’ve read before.  Jennings even questions if Jesus was gay.

Personally, I have no theological problem with Jesus being gay.  In fact, I chuckle when I think about the irony of homophobic Christianity if Jesus, in fact, was gay like I chuckle when I think about conservative Christians insisting on the King James Version, being that King James was probably gay.  (See Michael B.  Young,  King James & the History of Homosexuality.  New York:  New York University Press, 2000, and David M. Bergeron, King James & Letters of Homoerotic Desire.  Iowa City:  University of Iowa Press, 1999.)  

Despite being a liberal Christian who doesn’t believe homosexuality is a sin, my initial reactions to Jennings’ scholarship were:  1) Why hasn’t anyone else made the points you are making?, 2) there is no way you are going to prove that Jesus was gay, and 3) if you can’t prove Jesus is gay, then is talking about Jesus being gay the best route to take?  Being a formerly homophobic heterosexual Christian, I know that any talk about Jesus being gay will pretty much shut the door to a homophobic heterosexual brain.  It comes across as some crazy scholar grasping for straws, just finding in the text what he wants to find in the text (like we all do at some point in time, or like we do most of the time!) and puts into question the rest of his scholarship.  The more I read Jennings, however, the more I found his arguments hard to dismiss.  No, he didn’t convince me that Jesus was gay, but he did persuade me that it was a possibility, and that my inability to conceive that a faithful reading of the  Bible could support the idea that Jesus might be gay was an indication of just how tainted my interpretive eyes had become from homophobic translations and exegesis.  In other words, I was having trouble seeing what was, or could be, in the text because I was suspicious of seeing in the text what I wanted to see.  How’s that for an exegetical suspicion dilemma?  (Kinda like worrying about people who worry too much.)  I thought Jennings and I were probably trying to squeeze something out of the Bible that simply was not there, but what if my exegetical  suspicions were actually getting in the way of me being able to read the texts?  Generally speaking, exegetical suspicion (asking if you are just reading into the biblical text what you want it to mean) is a good thing, but in this case maybe it was a roadblock.  Perhaps I, a non-homophobic Christian, was engaged in homophobic biblical exegesis and completely ignorant of what was happening.

Liberal me preferred to admit up front that the Bible did condemn homosexuality (in at least two places) but that in those instances those Biblical authors were simply wrong just as the biblical authors were wrong who depicted God as approving of the killing of  the enemies of Jews and Christians, the subordination of women, and the slavery of any human being.  A better tact, I reasoned, would be for us just to be honest about the Bible and about theological method (need for use of science, reason, experience, Bible and tradition and sources for theology, with the Bible not allowed to trump other sources).  Jennings, though, has taught me that liberal Christians resorting to “the Bible at that point is just simply wrong” argument are failing to see some remarkable things in the church’s book, failing to recognize and factor in what Jennings calls homoerotic Biblical narratives/texts.

Below are some excerpts from Plato or Paul?:  The Origins of Western Homophobia.

“I have attempted to show in my study of the Hebrew Bible that there is a great deal more in this literature than meets the homophobic or hetero-normative eye.  That is, there is a remarkable amount of narrative material in the literature of ancient Israel that take’s same-sex attraction, same-sex relationships, and same-sex eroticism for granted and even makes it exemplary of the proper relation between the deity and “his” people.  Thus if there are two verses of Leviticus that seem to condemn same-sex erotic practices, there are a great many narratives, including narratives produced in the prophetic literature, that take same-sex erotic relationships for granted.”  (p. 10)

“Nor does this end with the Hebrew Bible.  I have also shown that New Testament narratives (the Gospels) may be read as accepting same-sex relationships and even as suggesting that Jesus himself was engaged in such a relationship.  And I have sought to show that this reading, for example, of the Gospel of Matthew or John helps to make sense of the elements of the narrative as a whole.  In neither the case of the Hebrew Bible nor that of the Christian Gospels do I claim that my reading is the only possible one, but rather that it is a reading that takes the narrative seriously and pays close attention to the texts in question.”  (emphasis mine)  (pp. 10-11)

“…I will be arguing that the often cited texts from Paul do not by any means require a homophobic reading or appropriation.”

“….what Paul says doesn’t cause Western or Christian homophobia; instead, (cultural) homophobia causes the texts of Paul to be read in a homophobic way.”

“…those who are personally and professionally opposed to homophobia may nevertheless read biblical texts ‘homophobically,” that is, read them through the lens of a preexisting tradition of homophobic reading or appropriation.”  (emphasis mine)

“Of course, the point of this exercise is not to absolve biblical texts of any and all responsiblity for the emergence of homophobia, but rather to ask how it came to make sense to appropriate just these texts in just this way.  How does a tradition of interpretation come into being such that it could ultimately be made to seem that these texts produce the homophobia by which they are appropriated?” (p. 11)

“The effective origin of Western homophobia, I maintain, is to be found in the very influential texts of Plato.” (p. 12)

Thank God We Have A Godless Constitution

(The article below appeared in The Charlotte Observer and The Center for Progressive Christianity’s newsletter.)

The claim that America began as a Christian nation rewrites history.

Modern-day conservatives say our nation began as a Christian nation but, through liberal courts and judges, has become secularized. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In their book “The Godless Constitution,” Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore assert that the framers of the U.S. Constitution and its amendments were aware of Europe’s history of ecclesiastical tyranny and violence, and they intended to create a godless constitution and a secular government.

What is true is that many, but not all, of our founding fathers were deeply religious people. It also is true that the Declaration of Independence invokes the Creator in laying out the human rights that propelled the colonists to revolt against England. The Articles of Confederation of 1776, America’s first framework for government, does give credit to “the Great Governor of the World.” It is accurate that most of the earliest state constitutions contained an explicit acknowledgement of God, and 11 of those 13 state constitutions had a religious test for an individual to pass to become an elected official.

Government defined in secular terms

All of which makes the achievement of a secular government by the framers of the Constitution so remarkable. When they wrote our Constitution, they made no mention of God, Jesus or Christianity. The Constitution’s sole reference to religion was one that restricted religion. Article 6 declares “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” A person’s religious convictions, or his lack of religious convictions, were irrelevant in judging the value of his political opinion or in assessing his qualifications to hold political office.So successful were the drafters of the Constitution in defining government in secular terms that one of the most powerful criticisms of the Constitution in the ratification process was that it was indifferent to God. During the ratification conventions in the states, outraged Protestants advocating a Christian commonwealth proposed specific changes in the Constitution — all of which, fortunately, were rejected.

The movement to make the United States a Christian nation has never died and has had some success. In 1863 God entered in, of all places, the U.S. currency. “In God We Trust” was printed on our money. The move to a Christian commonwealth had another success in 1912 with mail service no longer providing seven-day service. And in 1954 God made it into the Pledge of Allegiance. The author of the pledge, Francis Bellamy, a socialist, had left God out.

Recently, individuals wanting the U.S. to be a Christian nation are trying to get God back in school, as if God could be taken out of schools. What has been restricted is forced prayer. School children and employees can voluntarily pray any time they want to pray.

The modern proponents of a Christian commonwealth also are trying to get the Ten Commandments posted in public places.

Study free-thinker Thomas Jefferson

Being a Baptist — a denomination that historically stressed freedom of religion, included freedom from religion — I wish I could force others not to pray or read the Ten Commandments, but to learn about Thomas Jefferson.

When Jefferson ran for president he was accused of being an infidel by religious conservatives, but he was a free-thinking Christian. Jefferson wrote: “Almighty God hath created the mind free.” Unfortunately, preachers, according to Jefferson, had missed this important development. Jefferson believed all denominations should be like the Quakers, who don’t have clergy. Jefferson said clergy — he called them the irritable tribe of priests — had perverted Christianity into “an engine for enslaving mankind, a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves.”

In addition, Jefferson noted “all priests dread the advance of science. They preach bigotry and fanaticism at the expense of human reason. A band of dupes and impostors, they sponsor ignorance, absurdity, untruth, charlatanism, and falsification.” Jefferson, aware of the violent nature of Christians, wrote: “Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned.”

Religious nation, but not government

The framers of our nation’s Constitution shared a conviction that religious beliefs should not divide or destroy a nation. They did not want America to be godless, only its Constitution and government. The framers knew there were many versions of Christianity, that Christians could be un-Christian to other Christians and to non-Christians, and that “in your face” religion was not healthy for the country.

They were aware religious correctness and people who were sure of God’s will could be very dangerous. And for their wisdom and foresight we should all be thankful.

When Ex-Gay Doesn’t Work

 

The phone rang and I immediately noticed the voice had a serious tone.  “Could I meet for lunch?” he asked.  A counselor had referred him to me.  “Yes, I would be glad to have lunch.  I look forward to meeting you.”

It wasn’t the first time I had agreed to have lunch with a gay person needing to share his or her story with a minister, but it was the first time I had met someone who had been involved in an ex-gay ministry.  Ten years, to be exact.  Ten years of trying to be rid of same sex desire.  The man was a Christian, deeply spiritual.  He loved his wife, but not in a sexual sense.  He loved his children.  He loved God.  He was having trouble loving himself.  Why—why hadn’t his attraction to men gone away?  It wasn’t for a lack of trying.  He was active in his church.  He had prayed.  He had gone to counseling.  He had been in the ex-gay movement for 10 years with no success.

Before me was a human being living a tortured existence.  He desperately wanted to please God and to be a good husband, a good parent, a good human being, and yet, he felt dirty, sinful, like an abomination.

Exodus International is an ex-gay movement.  The group believes people can be healed from their homosexuality.  I don’t believe it.  I’ve heard too many stories.  Can I believe that some gay Christians refuse to act on their same sex desires because they believe God disapproves of homosexuality and because they fear going to hell.  You betcha.  But I don’t believe God disapproves of homosexuals or intersexed or bisexual or transgendered people.  And I think its tragic that someone would choose to live a lie based on a misunderstanding of God and based on an incorrect, fundamentalist reading of the Bible.

My prayer is that people will accept other people for who God created them to be.  And I pray that with the help of God and the help of the church sexual and gender minorities will no longer live tortured, anguished lives.   Exodus International leads people to “the slavery of Egypt” not to the promised land.