- Progressives can be just as closed minded as conservatives. And by closed minded I mean resistant to contrary evidence. Now don't all my conservative friends come asking me why it took a homosexuality conference to teach me this.
- A retired school teacher can be the most effective minister in a room full of PhDs, DMins, PsyDs, and ordained pastors. That's what's so awesome about the Body of Christ.
- Context is everything. Words that are helpful to one person are harmful to another, and when taken out of context, can create biased impressions. Also, it's cool to show gay porn in church when it's from the ancient Greco-Roman world and helps you make an exegetical point.
- I need to base my sexual identity on my Lord and Savior. My attraction to the opposite sex can lead me into sin just as easily as someone else's attraction to the same sex can lead them into sin. My same sex attracted brothers in Christ have much to teach me about how have a Christ centered sexual identity.
- Ex-gays have nice suits, fashionable eyeglasses, and great haircuts. So does Dwight Nelson. (And just today two people complemented me on my fabulous frames...)
Blogging the Homosexuality Conference (other posts)
LOL... about gay Porn, I was thinking the same exact thing during the presentation... ha
ReplyDeletecould you leave a little background for each point. Kinda a little lost with the statements.
ReplyDeleteDavid:
ReplyDeleteI'm willing to answer specific questions. The background is largely in the text of my summaries, etc. As I mentioned, I'll be posting a more detailed reflection, hopefully soon.
Thanks for your reports.
ReplyDeleteYes, as taking psych 101 points out, everyone tends to filter out contrary evidence.
But another popular slip in thinking lies in folks not taking the time to parse the qualities of competing evidences.
I'd love to hear more about #1 as in all the reporting from the event that I've read, I haven't actually found much actual hard evidence (maybe I'm missing something) and, I'd like to know what evidence I should be open-minded about.
Also, what are you getting at in number five?
Alex:
ReplyDeleteHard evidence is in short supply regardless. I think how we relate to soft evidence is more revealing of our biases. I'll offer these two pieces of soft evidence to back up my claim.
(1) I see very little effort among progressives to engage with the stories of ex-gays on their own terms. These stories are dismissed out of hand as a valid way of dealing with same-sex attraction. As a minority within a minority, I think ex-gays deserve better than that from progressives who are supposed to care about such people.
(2) I also see progressives dismissing people who take the opposite position on this issue as bigots with only a superficial knowledge of their true feelings towards homosexuals. It's a way to close down the argument before it even starts. There are true bigots out there; some are more obvious than others. But if someone believes that sex practiced outside of same sex marriage is wrong, it does not imply that such a person is homophobic, etc.
Point 5 was a collection of observations I found interesting. I think the lesson is that stereotypes might be accurate but not generally useful. What do you think?
Oh, was there a lot of bigot calling at the conference by progressives?
ReplyDeleteThe term "ex-gays" is really problematic since religious conservatives tend to parade around folks who actually admit to still experiencing same-sex attraction, they just don't act on it. Sure, there are always exceptions and anecdotes, but their paucity and the massive amount of quality research that reveals that sexual identity is not the same as self-control. No one is saying that ex-gays don't exist. Questions include where they fit on the continuum of sexual identity and the continuum of sexual attraction. Does a bi-sexual get to be called an ex-gay because s/he was moved to the opposite gender. Is someone an ex-heterosexual because s/he is celibate?
Also, the flippant comment suggesting that since progressives care for minorities, they should care for ex-gays, misses the point that a small group does not a "minority" make. Furthermore, when that small group is actually serving the purposes of the majority in its discriminatory practices, it makes little sense.
And just to clarify, when you write "soft evidence" and the make sweeping generalizations about progressives or anyone for that matter, it raises questions for me about how careful you're being in evaluating evidence.
Speaking of hard evidence, I would encourage folks to read the APA taskforce, which "conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates."
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/therapeutic-resp.html
I appreciate your stances on issues, I was surprised to see you toss of #1. It just seemed odd to see you characterizing (any group) sans actual quotes, in this case from progressive Adventists. There are thousands of comments on this topic on Spectrum by progressive folks. I wish I saw you calling out the shoddy arguments and poor language at the conference with as much gusto. From discussions of this at Adventist Society for Religious Studies meetings to Spectrum conferences to debates among progressive students, I just haven't heard much to justify the equivalency argument you seem to be making.
Saying both sides need to do better can be an excuse for folks to sit on the fence and not engage the actual hard evidence showing that homosexuality is not a sin and treating GLBT folks equally in society and church is the moral thing to do.
"Oh, was there a lot of bigot calling at the conference by progressives?"
ReplyDeleteNo. Progressives at the conference that I talked with were very good about that. It's conversations online where I've seen this stated, or said in so many words.
"The term "ex-gays" is really problematic since religious conservatives tend to parade around folks who actually admit to still experiencing same-sex attraction, they just don't act on it."
I agree that "ex-gay" is a problematic term (I don't believe either of the "ex-gays" at the conference actually used it.), but I don't have a better one. By "parade around" you minimize the agency of ex-gays, but the ones I met at the conference had sought public venues to tell their story. Apparently, in the experience of ex-gays, same sex attraction is not the same thing as homosexuality, and to understand that you have to be willing to deal with their stories on their own terms.
"Furthermore, when that small group is actually serving the purposes of the majority in its discriminatory practices, it makes little sense."
I do not recall the ex-gays the conference speaking to public policy at all, much less advocating something discriminatory. I don't get the impression that most ex-gays are into issues like Prop 8. I hope you don't mean that by their very existence they serve the purposes of the majority, because that would mean writing them off before they even had a chance.
"And just to clarify, when you write "soft evidence" and the make sweeping generalizations about progressives..."
I indicated my generalization was not sweeping by writing "progressives can be" not "progressives are". It depends on the issue under consideration.
"I just haven't heard much to justify the equivalency argument you seem to be making."
During this conference I saw I lot of openness from conservatives. To watch a guy like Richard Davidson publicly grappling with his wrong treatment of homosexuals in the past was impressive. What I saw on the Spectrum Twitter feed from that talk was all of his sins and none of his repentance. I worry that on this issue progressives feel that don't have to seek common ground with conservatives, and they should know better.
David, thank you for your thoughtful coverage. For people like me who were not able to attend the conference (with the exception noted below), it has been helpful.
ReplyDeleteI was able to drop by for the Richard Davidson panel. In your comment you said: "To watch a guy like Richard Davidson publicly grappling with his wrong treatment of homosexuals in the past was impressive." My response was that Dr. Davidson's grappling made me uncomfortable. As he was confessing his bigotry, the audience laughed and tittered in a way that seemed to encourage him to reveal more stories (or at least repeat the stories he told). I believe Davidson is sincerely sorry that he behaved in an unkind way, but I just found it disconcerting that he was using the conference as his "catharsis" (his word).
I suppose this just goes to show that people react differently. Anyway, the main reason for my post here is to say "thank you" for your thoughtful approach. (Also, the interview with Miller was well done and helpful - thanks.)
Anon:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kudos. I was also disappointed by the audience reaction, not only to that, but other presentations (Zentner's comes to mind). I'm curious what you find objectionable about Davidson finding catharsis in the conference. It seems to me that such a conference would be a space in which someone should work through struggles with bigotry. As you say, different reactions, but I'd like to know more about yours.
You make a good point, David. Perhaps MORE catharsis would have been helpful for the conference! I'm not sure. I think I reacted negatively to his statement because Dr. Davidson has written widely on the subject of homosexuality. And he's just coming to terms with his bigotry and unkindness now (not in, say, writing articles)? I suppose we should just be happy that coming to terms with one's weaknesses - which we all have - is happening at all. In any event, I'll try to be more supportive of growth (mine or Dr. Davidson's) whenever and wherever it occurs.
ReplyDeleteThanks, again.
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your summaries of the Marriage & Homosexuality Conference presentations, and I really like this one ... had to laugh about the reference to showing gay porn in church. The same thing had crossed my mind ...
But I do wish to make sure you don't include Wayne Blakely in your references to "ex-gays." To the best of my knowledge, there was only one avowed "ex-gay" at the conference, and that was Ron Woolsey. (There were three others, besides Wayne, from the GLAdventist ministry, but they don't call themselves "ex-gay" either, though they are experiencing freedom from behavior patterns that enslaved them, such as gay porn, gay sex and emotional dependency.)
Wayne Blakely specifically rejects the label of "ex-gay." He rejects descriptions of "change" of sexual orientation. Neither does he identify as a "former homosexual."
Alexander's remarks didn't seem all that relevant to the conference as a whole. The chief presenter who addressed "change" was Dr. Yarhouse, and he pointed out that the research demonstrated that there is no real change of sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. However, on whatever questions they used to determine sexual orientation, about 30% of the original sample experiences some change-- and it was most marked in those who scored highest on homosexual orientation.
I don't know, but I'm guessing that those who were into promiscuous gay sex were freed from the power of their sexual addiction, and that would register as "change." It is to be expected from ministries that focus on a relationship with Christ, no matter what they call themselves.
The conference was not about change of sexual orientation, and I am a bit puzzled as to why this comes up.
I would have preferred the conference to have more of a human face, but Nick Miller clearly didn't know where to turn. He did the best he could. Wayne and I were sort of shoe-horned into the program after the schedule was already made up, and I think Nick did a great job.
The conference was historic in that the church has never addressed the issue of homosexuality in such public fashion before. That, in itself, is encouragig.
Alexander refers to "folks who actually admit to still experiencing same-sex attraction, they just don't act on it."
To us "conservatives," that's like referring to "folks who actually admit to still experiencing temptation, they just don't act on it." We don't normally dismiss that as lightly with a "just."
Not "acting on it" is actually a pretty powerful statement. Sexual attraction being what it is, to not "act on it" -- to experience freedom from sexual addictions -- is a testimony to the power of something or Someone in that person's life, don't you think?
"It's conversations online where I've seen this stated, or said in so many words."
ReplyDeleteSo, David, can you show me quotes from Adventist progressives employing "bigot," with any parity to the number of conservatives who attack homosexuals for having sex out of wedlock while also organizing to keep them from getting married.
You're original statement was: "Progressives can be just as closed minded as conservatives. And by closed minded I mean resistant to contrary evidence."
I would love to see some actual quotes, as well as evidence that you're comparing representative groups across the ideological spectrum.
I'm glad to hear the Richard Davidson was publicly experiencing catharsis over his attitudes in the past, but I wonder how many folks who accept the church's status quo position now will be experiencing catharsis in a few years as well as progress marching on, as it did with civil rights and interracial marriage.
The bottom line is that things are moving in one major direction in the Adventist church as more and more folks, especially the next generations, actually learn about normal homosexual experience and find that there are actually larger issues to worry about as we all work to follow in the path of Christ.
Inge:
ReplyDelete"Wayne Blakely specifically rejects the label of 'ex-gay.' He rejects descriptions of "change" of sexual orientation. Neither does he identify as a 'former homosexual.'"
I had that impression, though I don't recall it being actually stated, so I don't think I've ever referred to Wayne specifically as an ex-gay. However, as someone who has left the homosexual community, which I believe is his phrase, he could in that sense be called ex-gay. As I said before, I think the term is problematic, but at the moment I don't know of a better one by which to refer to those who have chosen not to practice homosexual sex.
Alex:
ReplyDeleteI don't have the time to and am not interested in compiling quotes of people at their worst. Those who wish to can go over to Spectrum, where the lion's share of the debate has taken place, and judge for themselves. (BTW, I do think there is some good, informative debate there.)
My good friend, Alex: I think you have proven David's point in #1. Perhaps he could quote your response to him as evidence for this closed-mindedness.
ReplyDeleteDave,
ReplyDeleteYou luck out. Alex presents himself and proves your point #1.