Camping it Up?
The London Times yesterday ran a feature about the recent Exodus Conference in North Carolina. You can read it here. This is one of the opening paragraphs that sets the scene:
Exodus is one of the ministries of the so-called “ex-gay” movement, a controversial fundamentalist Christian campaign that encourages gay people to renounce their sexuality. This, its annual conference, promises “an amazing week of breakthroughs, transformations and healings”. A Christian rock band begins to play and the 800 men and women who moments earlier seemed to have only awkwardness in common begin singing and clapping in unison. Eyes closed, they raise their hands above their heads, uplifted by the hope of being reborn.
Where to start? The problem with Lucy Bannerman’s piece is that she betrays her non-objectivity from the start. The language of "renounce their sexuality" displays very clearly that Lucy believes that sexual attraction isn’t a fluid thing, and that the very idea that someone might see a (dramatic) change in their sexual orientation is simply beyond her radar. This combined with the use of emotive language – for example, the North Carolina based Freedom Conference is described as an "ex-gay boot camp", which is a bizarre way to describe a gathering that not only includes men and women struggling with issues of sexual attraction and identity, but also pastors and counsellors – delivers a critique that is less interested in getting inside the real human stories and is more concerned with a sensational headline. Her use of expressions like "evangelism psychotherapy" demonstrates that she hasn’t even done her basic groundwork (the word she is looking for is "Evangelical", not evangelism – a religion reporter who doesn’t even know the difference between "evangelical" and "evangelism" isn’t off to a good start in anybody’s books).
That isn’t to say that Bannerman doesn’t put her finger on one or two of the more unfortunate aspects of ex-gay ministries. She is absolutely right to comment on the perceived goal of such ministries:
Each evening, a roll-call of “former homosexuals” hold up their husbands and wives like kitemarks of their newfound heterosexuality. We are told repeatedly that marriage is evidence of healing. Stereotypes are the ex-gay currency, and the heterosexual ideal is practically ringed by a white picket fence.
This visual display of victory seems to contrast with the words of Alan Chambers, the current Director of Exodus:
“The opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality,” says Chambers, sagely. “It’s holiness.”
There are also examples given of some more questionable seminars on offer:
The timetable is packed. A class on “True Femininity”, which concludes cryptically that true femininity “is the ability to receive”, would probably have reduced Germaine Greer to tears. Another features an Angela Lansbury lookalike who manages to link her gay ex-husband’s death from an Aids-related illness to his father’s links with the “Serbian mafia”.
Bannerman shares some of the journey of her room-mate (though Bannerman’s criticism of the sharing of rooms at the conference strikes me as odd, as though she’s suggesting that it’s simply impossible to keep your pants on in the presence of anybody of the same sex that you are attracted to) but these aren’t ever really followed up and explored. Rather, they are presented in a format that is designed to cast scorn upon her decisioning:
Back in her room, Michelle has had an epiphany. “I’ve realised that I’ve been looking for satisfaction in all the wrong places – food, drugs, sex,” she says, firmly. “My homosexuality is just one of many things to come from this place of pain, and all it gave me was a heart full of ache"
If the Exodus experience seems far-fetched – the sort of thing that could happen only in America – then think again.
Perhaps for me though, the most disappointing part of the piece was the failure to engage with anybody in the UK who has had a positive experience of these kind of ministries. While Bannerman was happy to talk to Jeremy Marks whose Courage ministry did a complete volte-face on the issue a few years ago, given that the piece was finished off by Ruth Gledhill (the Times’ wonderful religion correspondent and blogger), and given that Ruth is fully aware of myself and my availability to comment on these issues, the blatant failure to speak to anybody in this country who has seen dramatic changes in their sexual attraction through this kind of approach (and other approaches) is at best a journalistic failure and at worst, an obvious and unfortunate sign of the bias of the author.
The final paragraph of the piece sums up the myopia of Bannerman’s approach:
Packing her suitcase, Michelle feels that she has found an answer. “To focus on sex is missing the point,” she says. “It’s not about gay or straight. It’s about holiness and my relationship with Christ.” She wants to marry but admits that she may never be attracted to men. “Then it means I’ve been called to singleness.” And lifelong celibacy? “I’m surrendering to God’s way.” And she leaves, ready to face a new life in which love and sex are reduced to the sound of elevator music.
One is left wondering that if Bannerman feels that any life would be empty and pointless without sex, and that one cannot love in any meaningful way without coitus, then perhaps she needs to book herself into chatting with someone about that, and maybe this time she won’t need to lie about her reasons for being there.
Lucy was present at one of Mario Bergner’s talks at Canterbury in July. I did get the impression that she didn’t really want to hear what he had to say, but wanted people to listen to her. Sadly I had to run off as I had someone waiting for me, just as she was holding forth, so didn’t catch much of it. I would have liked to hear any exchanges which might have taken place between her and Mario.
She wants to marry but admits that she may never be attracted to men. “Then it means I’ve been called to singleness.†And lifelong celibacy? “I’m surrendering to God’s way.†And she leaves, ready to face a new life in which love and sex are reduced to the sound of elevator music.
Sounds like Michelle has come to the same place I have concerning my sexuality, which is encouraging because in the back of my head Exodus is still primarily the organization that sees heterosexual marriage as “true healing” and everything else as “second best,” which was evidenced by the “roll-call” Ms. Bannerman mentioned.
But perhaps — as I’ve heard — they are doing their best to move away from that image, and the present state of mixed signals is simply due to that transition. Surely it is not wrong for an ex-gay man to talk about his wife and family and how his life has changed, but I would find the testimony of a lifelong single who has found meaningful relationships and purpose without marrying to be equally encouraging, and it’s hard to find those type of role models out there.
Finding positive theologies of sexuality is important to balance the general negativity that surrounds so much conservative thinking. I’d like to commend to readers two books which are positive and very worthwhile reading. One is by Jo ind and called Memories of bliss: God sex and us. And the other is by Adrian Thatcher and called Liberating sex. It would be helpful for Lucy Bannerman to read such works to see that not all church people think so negatively about sexuality.    Â
I’ve not read the Jo Ind book. Adrian Thatcher’s is disappointing.
I for one have a very positive theology of sexuality. It appears to me though that you have automatically assigned as “negative” anything that denies homosexual activity as holy, and that’s why you describe conservative theologies as such. You seem to have bought into the lie that if one can’t have sex then somehow one is destined to have an inferior life.
When I read such critiques of Exodus International I find myself wanting to come to their defense, but then I find myself having my own objections (mostly their dependency on Joseph Nicolosi) which are the reason why I left. I think there needs to be a more Biblical and theologically sound alternative. But on the other hand I am in support of their intentions and motives, to provide loving support to those who do not want to give in to their homosexual temptations.Â
Why not just accept people for who they are and not focus on who they love? God is Love and He made me lesbian. Who am I to deny what God made?
The problem with your position (“Why not just accept people for who they are and not focus on who they love”) is that in order to believe it you must be prepared to accept any consensual sexual relationship. What about one between a 13 yo girl and a man of 40? Would you just accept that? If not, you admit that there are moral boundaries to be considered that surpass the simple (naive?) rule of “let people love who they choose”.
@Peter Ould
I think that you are deliberately choosing to try and put words into my mouth that I did not utter nor condone. I will prepare a response for you a little later. I want to make sure to choose my words wisely with grace and respect.
@John Foxe
Dear Happily,
thank you for your reply. I am sad to hear of your difficult experiences.
Yet now the question remains: does the fall affect our sexuality too? And if so, how?
Regards,
The Foxe
PS You may now find your answers to me elide with those to Peter.
PPS I have no problem with the Niebuhr quote: after all, Reinhold was a man ;) But we’re back to Peter’s questions again.
Dear Happily,
God made me in a fallen world full of sin, in which I am a sinner. Who am I to deny sin? After all, if God made sin, I should embrace it.
Antinomistically yours,
The Foxe.
Butting in…
John Foxe: I realise this could be wrong, but I’ll guess you take it that one of the effects of the fall on our sexuality, is that some of us have same-sex desires. If this is your view, what of the fact that few people’s orientation changes after they convert to Christianity and/or grow into deeper faith? (What’s behind that is something James Alison has written – that if same-sex desire is simply a result of the fall, “it would have to be the case that the life of grace would lead the gay or lesbian person to become heterosexual in the degree of his or her growth in grace”. As he later adds, “The problem is that such changes [of orientation] do not seem to take place in a regular and trustworthy way”).
Peter: I don’t understand how your question follows from what Happily said. She asked, “Why not just accept people for who they are and not focus on who they love?”, but you gave the example of a relationship “between a 13 yo girl and a man of 40”. She didn’t say ‘let people love who they choose’ but ‘let people be accepted for who they are’. Putting that slightly tedious point aside though (my pedantry again) – in any case why do you think this analogy pertinent? What are the points of correspondence between a sexual relationship of a 13yo girl to a 40yo man, and that between 2 adults of the same sex? (As you’ve said before, committed relationships between 2 same-sex adults are what the campaigners within the church are talking about).
Blair
The point is this Blair (as I have repeatedly said on this blog), an argument based upon consent (and that is ultimately what HL’s argument is, needs to deal with consensual sexual relationships between an adult and a minor. If we concede that such a consensual relationship is not moral, we have admitted the point that consent does not automatically guarantee morality, and the argument based on consent is rendered irrelevant.
Peter,
 You say “What about [a consensual sexual relationship] between a 13 yo girl and a man of 40?”.Â
Do you really think that a 13 year-old girl can give valid consent to such a relationship? She may think that she can, of course, but children may think that they can validly consent to all sorts of things of which they don’t really understand the full meaning and significance; it’s only when they get older that they fully realise that. That’s why, as I ‘ve pointed out before, the law protects children against the consequences of their own ignorance and immaturity – why, for example, a child can’t make a legally valid will, bring or defend a legal action, or have a credit card. And no, this is not a case of the law dictating morality; it’s a matter of morality dictating that the law has a duty to protect children.
Of course there are boundaries, even if a relationship really is consensual. That’s why we regard adultery as wrong, to take the most obvious example, and I’m sure that we can think of other reasons why a sexual relationship may be wrong even if it is between two consenting adults. As far as I am concerned, the fact that a sexual relationship is between two person of the same sex is definitely not one of those reasons (although you clearly think otherwise), and that is the point at issue. What Happy Lezzie Me was really getting at was “Why not just accept people for who they are and not focus on the sex of the person they love?”
William,
I know of at least one consensual relationship between a boy of 13 and a man over 30. You are deluding yourself if you refuse to accept that these things (however rare) happen. Attempting to argue about whether consent really is consent in these cases is just dodging the issue, and often the dodging comes because the one dodging understands the implications of the reasoning.
HLM is making an argument about consent – she simply wants us to accept to a consensual relationship. Whether we are talking about age differences, or same-sex partners, the case she is making is that if both partners desire the relationship and consent to it, why should anyone else care? All I’m doing is applying that exact same argument to another relationship to demonstrate that if you apply such a reasning consistently, either you accept the under-age relationship or you admit that the “we consent so it’s none of your business” argument doesn’t hold up.
You say that Lucy’s language shows that she “believes that sexual attraction isn’t a fluid thingâ€. Well, for a few people it may be, but for most – and certainly for the vast majority of men – it clearly isn’t. Jeremy Marks finally faced this after many years, and that’s why his Courage ministry did a volte face, as you put it. All credit to him, and I highly recommend his recently published book, Exchanging the truth of God for a lie (available from Amazon).
William, you have completely avoided coming back on the issue of consent.
My understanding, and I am happy to be corrected on this, is that Jeremy Marks entered a marriage thinking that somehow that would help solve his sexual attraction issues. I have to say I don’t think that was the wisest move ever.
Dear Blair,
thank you for your comment. I’d express the effects of the fall rather more broadly. Our sexual desires are fallen so that we desire sexual relations beyond the limits God has set. Homosexual desires would be covered by that as would heterosexual desires outside of marriage.
Growth in holiness for someone with homosexual desires does not necessarily equate to becoming heterosexual because the opposite to sinful sexual desires is either to express them within marriage or to be celibate. Celibacy is thus the path of holiness for those unable to feel heterosexual desires, just as it is for the many heterosexual Christians who are single.
Thus I cannot see that James Alison’s quote reflects scriptural reality.
As an aside I nearly typed, ‘Celibacy is thus the path of holiness for those unable or unwilling to feel heterosexual desires’. That, of course, brings us back to the question as to whether homosexuality is mutable or not (or whether it is in some people but not in others). I don’t profess to have any expertise on the answer to this question but if a homosexual person considers that it is mutable, ie it is a matter of the will, then an unwillingness at least to lose homosexual desires is sinful to that person at least. (This applies just as much to heterosexual desires which are willed beyond the boundaries of marriage.)
I’m sure Peter can be much more erudite on these points than I.
Regards,
John Foxe.
Dear William,
you seem to be confusing the legal and the moral notions of consent. The law deems that people below a certain age are not able to give consent. This is not at all the same as saying they are incapable of ‘understanding the full meaning and significance’ of what they are giving consent to. If you were correct we would have to accept that a child the day before their 16th birthday doesn’t understand the full meaning and signficance of sexual relations but, hey presto, the following morning they do.
On the other hand if understanding ‘the full meaning and significance’ is essential to consent and therefore moral sex perhaps we should sterilise all those below a certain IQ?
Barkingly,
The Foxe.
Dear John Foxe,
You say:
“The law deems that people below a certain age are not able to give consent. This is not at all the same as saying they are incapable of ‘understanding the full meaning and significance’ of what they are giving consent to.”
No, it isn’t, but it does mean that the law deems them to be incapable of understanding the full meaning and significance of what they are giving consent to. Why? Because on the strength of a whim the law wishes to pretend that they’re incapable of giving meaningful consent when it knows perfectly well that they are? No, of course not. The law does this because it has a moral duty to protect people, so it has to calculate an age below which it is reasonable to think that a person is unlikely to be able to give meaningful consent – or, if you prefer to put it the other way round, it has to calculate an age above which it is reasonable to think that a person is probably able to give meaningful consent. The simple fact is that laws of regarding ages of consent and age limits are arbitrary, but unavoidably so, and they are based on moral considerations.
You then go on:
“If you were correct we would have to accept that a child the day before their 16th birthday doesn’t understand the full meaning and signficance of sexual relations but, hey presto, the following morning they do.”
You could apply the same argument to, e.g. making a will, and say that the law implies that a person the day before their 18th birthday doesn’t understand the full meaning and signficance of making a will but, hey presto, the following morning they do.
“Unlikely” implies “possible”. Therefore the question about consent still stands.
Dear William,
you are trying to equate legal capacity with morality. The two are simply not synonymous. Although issues of morality undergird some laws, we are trying to get to the moral principles themselves. Again, although it is (usually) immoral to break the law, being within the law does not equate to acting morally. It’s not illegal to sleep with the wife of my next door neighbour, but it is immoral, for instance.
You took consensuality as the ultimate moral criterion. Though the law may deem under 16s to lack the legal capacity to consent they might understand the full meaning and significance of sex so any sexual relations they engage in are, on your analysis, immoral only because they are breaking the law. Were a pair of 13 year olds to go to Austria (example picked to pique Peter) their act would not be immoral as long as they understood the full meaning and significance of it. On the other hand, on your uliimate criterion, if they did not understand the full meaning and significance then their Austrian fling would be immoral. This illustrates that legal capacity and morality are not coterminous on your arguments!
Your will example proves my point the other way. Legal capacity isn’t directly linked to understanding the full meaning and significance of an act. You either can do it in law, or you can’t. Whether you can or can’t do it has no direct connection with an independent morality in any particular case.
Thus the fact that certain laws are based on moral assumptions for the good of society does not establish the morality or immorality of any particular act.
Even though you seem to take the view that consent is all that matters, as long as its legal (hence Oscar Wilde’s acts were immoral) my comments demonstrate the incoherence of this stance. Consent on its own does not establish morality.
Regards,
The Foxe
PS Peter made my point much more succinctly!
Peter, you say:
“I know of at least one consensual relationship between a boy of 13 and a man over 30. You are deluding yourself if you refuse to accept that these things (however rare) happen.”
No, Peter, I’m not deluding myself. I know perfectly well that these things happen. I have a former work colleague whom I haven’t now seen for many years but with whom I’m still in occasional touch by telephone, and who has a number of convictions for sexual offences against boys aged around 11 to 14. (As in so many of these cases, he is, or rather was – he’s now divorced – a married man with children of his own.) He insists that his behaviour with these boys was consensual; he even told me that the only thing wrong with it was that it was against the law. I say that he was taking immoral advantage of those boys, whether they consented or not, and that boys of that age were not capable of giving valid consent to sex with an adult. That was what made his behaviour morally wrong (quite apart from the legal aspect), not the fact that it was same-sex behaviour. It would have been equally wrong if he had behaved in this way with girls of that age.
I have already agreed with you that sexual behaviour may be wrong even if both partners are adult and do fully consent, and I gave adultery as an example. What I do not accept is that homosexual behaviour is wrong simply by virtue of its being homosexual, although there may be, and are, times when it is wrong for other reasons.
It sounds to me – and I apologise if I’m wrong – that you are trying to impale those who disagree with you on the horns of a dilemma, something along the lines of: “If you accept that homosexual behaviour between consenting men or consenting women can be morally licit, then there’s no point at which you can stop; you’ll have to accept sex between adults and children.” I repudiate that. It rather puts me in mind of a talk which was given by a Catholic philosopher back in 1978 in defence of the Vatican’s teaching on birth-control and which the Catholic Herald was injudicious enough to re-publish a few weeks ago to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the encyclical Humanae Vitae. In it she said:
“I used to think you could argue, sufficiently to convince a Catholic, that no sort of sexual acts could be excluded if once you admitted contraceptive intercourse. But the enemies of Humanae Vitae seem now to embrace that conclusion.
Â
“Not indeed without any restriction, but at least as far as concerns sexual activity between two people; I suppose adult people. For though I know Catholics who solemnly defend and commend homosexual activity, I don’t know any who make propaganda for bestiality, group sex or paedophilia [emphasis added]. No doubt, however, all that will come as the world at large becomes accepting of these things.”
That was a crass statement to make at the time. To read it now is downright embarrassing, especially in view of what has come to light concerning the way in which the ecclesiastical authorities covered up sexual abuse of children and adolescents by some of their priests.
With regard to Jeremy Marks, I can’t comment on the circumstances of his marriage since I know little or nothing about them. What I do remember was the reason that he gave some years ago for Courage’s change of direction, which was that none of the clients of Courage’s ministry had converted to heterosexuality “no matter how much prayer and effort they’ve put into it.” He gives a very full account of this in his book.
No, John Foxe, I have taken consensuality as an indispensable criterion, not as the ultimate criterion nor the sole one. I have never stated or implied that “consent is all that matters.” See my post above.
Peter, I seem to remember some time back on your blog citing the case of an Indian judge in his seventies who had married a girl of ten (and who got a mouthful for it from Madame Blavatsky). This was apparently legal in India at the time (I don’t know about nowadays), but more importantly from your point of view it was presumably consensual as well as being heterosexual and within the bonds of matrimony. Was it morally all right? With whom would you side, him or Madame Blavatsky?
William,
The answer to your question is quite simple. Would the judge be able to love his wife as Christ loved the church, giving himself up for her? If the answer is yes then the marriage is moral.
Thank you for that, Peter. You’ve made your position very clear.
And what position do you believe that to be?
“And what position do you believe that to be?”
(1) That as long as it’s heterosexual, intramatrimonial and consensual (irrespective of the age of a younger female partner, although you don’t say whether you’d impose any lower age limit at all), then it’s fine.
(2) That if it’s homosexual, then it’s bad.
Nope, that’s not my position.
O.K., sorry. Then how about a nice, pithy, “in-a-nutshell” statement of your real position, as clear and unambiguous as my misstatement of it? It shouldn’t be that difficult. Even if you can’t make it as brief as my misconceived attempt, you surely should be able to make it at least as short as the Apostles’ Creed – or even as short as LGCM’s Statement of Conviction.
Not a problem.
If the husband is able to love his wife as Christ loves the church, laying himself down for her, then the marriage is moral.
Well, that sounds fine to me – except that you still haven’t said whether you’d impose any lower age limit at all. That reservation apart, I can subscribe to that with no trouble.
That doesn’t, however, as far I’m concerned, preclude a gay relationship in which the two partners love each other as Jesus loved his disciples from also being moral. If that includes sex, then that’s fine by me, and I believe that it’s also fine by God.
William,
You’re the one who insists in the age limit, and in doing so you define a moral marriage in a manner that Scripture doesn’t.
Your second argument (“a gay relationship in which the two partners love each other as Jesus loved his disciples”) is only valid if you can first demonstrate that Jesus had sex with his disciples. Otherwise all you’re arguing is for strong male friendships, and you won’t find me objecting to that.
Dear William,
I think my points about consensuality and children stand. I see you acknowledge thre are some boundaries in sexual behviour. Nonetheless I recognise that the issue for you is that you do not see the sinfulness of homosexual sex. I have no desire to flog a dead horse on this subject and no doubt Peter will chip in if he considers you are unaware of the arguments from the Bible on this.
As an aside I note John Knox’s second marriage was at the age of 58 to a 16 year old.
Regards,
JF
Peter – going back a few steps, you say, “HLM is making an argument about consent”. She does not mention consent at all but asks, “Why not just accept people for who they are”. You haven’t shown how what she said implies an argument about consent. I’m aware of your position on this and that we’ve debated it before but frankly it seemed a red herring in the context of Happily’s post.
Blair
Peter, you can’t demonstrate that Jesus has or ever had sex with the church either, but that doesn’t seem to bother you – nor should it.
Ephesians 5, referring to Genesis 2, makes the clear link between the sexual union of husband and wife and spiritual union of Christ and the Church. If you can explicitly demonstrate from Scripture how the sexual union of two men signifies an action of Christ then you might have a case.
Blair,
The argument that HLM is making is one of consent. The acceptance of someone’s sexual orientation has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
No one is arguing about the facility to love. What we are arguing about is the way that that love is to be expressed.