The Ex-Gay Proof-text: "And Such Were Some of You!" 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Ex-Gays: The Big Hoax

Herman Goebbels was right: tell a lie often enough and soon it will be thought to be the truth. Such a lie has been circulating for a few decades now, but is finally being held up to the light of truth, scientific truth to be exact.  It is the lie that gays can be made straight through proper counseling and prayer.  It’s been stylized as “Pray away the gay,” in many conservative Christian churches and movements.  Last January, no less an authority than Exodus International president Alan Chambers completely reversed his longstanding view that gays can be made straight. Here's the full quote: “The majority of [gay] people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them, have not experienced a change in their orientation.”    (Interestingly, that would likely include himself, who has for years claimed an orientation change.)  Exodus International is the leading organization contending that gays can change.

I have on a CD, a speech from a former member of EI's board of directors suggesting that, since a preponderance of gays don't change, EI should change its motto to "Come suffer with us."

There has been only one “scientific” study that has held that gays do change.  It was conducted by none other than the psychologist who led the American Psychological Association to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in 1973, Dr. Robert Spitzer.  It was his presumed objectivity that gave the study its prestige.  Recently, Dr. Spitzer retracted his study with an apology to the gay community for the harm he had caused.

So, what drives the conservative Christian movement to applaud such studies and accept this lie at face value?  Very simply, it’s all about one short paragraph in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

This verse straightforwardly states that some in the congregation were once sodomites, but are no longer.  Sodomites, of course, are understood to be today’s homosexuals.  Many gay Christians took this verse to heart and subjected themselves to every conceivable treatment to rid themselves of this condition because they believed what they read.  (Mel White estimates he paid nearly $500,000 in efforts to change his orientation, including shock treatments.) However, this verse does not actually say anything of the kind.  The translation, sodomites, was not coined until 1000 years after the Bible was written, so its use here is anachronistic.  Therefore, a more suitable translation is required, and one is at hand: users of temple prostitutes. Male prostitutes were temple prostitutes in Corinth and they had customers/users.  These are the people under consideration in this paragraph, and no wonder Paul could claim you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ…. But to expect the same for nonheterosexuals is not warranted or even possible, and NOT under consideration in this paragraph.

Here's a sampling of what experts in the field have to say about the impossibility of changing sexual orientation and the harm it causes:

American Academy of Pediatrics (1993)
“Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.”

American Medical Association (2003)
“Our AMA opposes the use of ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy that is based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.”

American Psychoanalytic Association (2000)
“Psychoanalytic technique does not encompass purposeful efforts to ‘convert’ or ‘repair’ an individual’s sexual orientation. Such directed efforts are against fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized homophobic attitudes.”

American Psychiatric Association (1998)
“The American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation.” The APA removed homosexuality from its list of disorders in 1973.

American Psychological Association (1997)
“No scientific evidence exists to support the effectiveness of any of the conversion therapies that try to change sexual orientation.” The association removed homosexuality from its list of disorders in 1975.

National Association of Social Workers (2000)
“People seek mental health services for many reasons. Accordingly, it is fair to assert that lesbians and gay men seek therapy for the same reasons that heterosexual people do. However, the increase in media campaigns, often coupled with coercive messages from family and community members, has created an environment in which lesbians and gay men often are pressured to seek reparative or conversion therapies, which cannot and will not change sexual orientation. Aligned with the American Psychological Association’s (1997) position, NCLGB believes that such treatment potentially can lead to severe emotional damage. Specifically, transformational ministries are fueled by stigmatization of lesbians and gay men, which in turn produces the social climate that pressures some people to seek change in sexual orientation. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful.

Gays can’t change their orientation any more than straights can.  Since God made each of us in our own special way, why would we want to?

Here's Justin Lee's take on it:

Leviticus: When Is an Abomination Not an Abomination?

This is the third in a series of posts that support same-sex marriage by examining the biblical passages that are used to condemn it and homosexuality in general.

Here are the two passages in Leviticus that are at the center of the controversy:

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Quite straightforward, aren't they.  After reading this in my seminar, I would close the Bible, and announce that the seminar is over.  This is so clear, how could anyone with any credibility believe that God approves of LGBTs after hearing this?  Moses wanted them executed; how could we possibly defend this?

One might be excused in believing that this is the last word on the subject who reads the Bible strictly on a “face value” basis.  “It says what it means and means what it says.”  But that is often a very misleading way to read the Bible, as we shall see.

Just what is meant by a biblical abomination?

Here a couple of other interesting abominations in the stories about Joseph.

Genesis 43:32 They served him by himself, and them by themselves, because the Egyptians could not eat with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians. 

Genesis 46:34  When Pharaoh calls you, and says, 'What is your occupation?' you shall say, 'Your servants have been keepers of livestock from our youth even until now, both we and our ancestors'—in order that you may settle in the land of Goshen, because all shepherds are abhorrent [toévah] to the Egyptians.

Some abominations are clearly culturally derived.

Here are some other notable abominations (all from the Hebrew toévah).

Observing the nakedness of a relative
Sex during menstruation
Eating shrimp, lobster, rabbit, pork, etc.
Wearing of other gender’s clothing
Planting two different crops in the same field
Wearing clothing of two different fabrics
Spots on a priest’s bald head
Eating fruit from a tree less than five years old

Abominations, all.  So, if you are a woman reading this wearing bluejeans, you are an abomination.  If you are anyone wearing a cotton/polyester shirt, you are an abomination.  If you are a farmer planning hybrid crops, you are an abomination.  If you raise most cattle or livestock, all hybrids, you are an abomination.  If you had a shrimp cocktail or lobster at Red Lobster last night, you are an abomination.

I think you get the point.  However, some miss it entirely, as they know that all these are also biblical abominations which require the trespasser to avoid all such behavior, yet blithely, even cavalierly, think nothing of ignoring these biblical abominations.  Yet they insist on holding steadfastly to the ONE and only ONE regarding same-sex loving.

The problem, though, is that this is a package deal.  We can’t just pick and choose what abominations we will observe and which we will ignore.  They all stand or fall together.   We have no problem ignoring the shrimp prohibition or any of the others, except the ONE that bothers some people the most.  I’ll let you decide why this one and only this one is picked as the inviolable one, “because the Bible says so.”

This clip from the West Wing TV show nicely sums it up:

Yet, it is said that this prohibition carries with it capital punishment, as both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.  What about it?  Shouldn't we place this into a special category, since, well, how could God not still consider this worthy of death?

Let’s see.  Well, here are other Laws that require the death penalty:

Not impregnating your brother’s widow according to the Levirate marriage laws
A child cursing one’s parents
A woman’s lack of virginity on the wedding night
Adultery
Incest
Working on the Sabbath day

Would those who insist on upholding Lev. 20:13 insist also on making each of these a capital offense?  I think not.  So why the ONE?

If we executed every child who cursed its parents, and every person who committed adultery, there would be few adults left to raise the remaining children.  (Let alone, serve in Congress.)
And as loathsome as incest is, we are not about to begin killing its perpetrators.  So let’s cut the hypocrisy here and admit that there are no grounds for insisting on keeping the Levitical prohibition in place.

But there is one more piece of work left to do.  I introduced the cultural aspect of how abominations are formed with the examples of Joseph in Egypt.  In America, I might ask if you had sauteed Poodle for dinner last night?  That would appall you, wouldn't it.  Other cultures might find it appetizing.  It’s how the culture creates what is approved or not.  In Israel, coming into the Canaanite territory, the temptation was always to adopt the habits and mores of their neighbors.  All the prophets railed against this, and Moses stipulated against certain things that would draw the Israelites closer to worshiping Baal.  

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying:Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan. Lev. 18:3

One example is male temple prostitution.

1 Kings 14:24 …there were also male temple prostitutes in the land. They committed all the abominations of the nations that the Lord drove out before the people of Israel.

The Levitical prohibition certainly was aimed at forbidding this abomination and may have been the only reason for it, as nowhere in the Mosaic Law is female to female sex banned.

Okay, the fallback position is Romans 1.  This shall be the subject of tomorrow’s post. Please tune in.

TOMORROW: Romans 1