Bill Baldwin's blog

My friend Bill Baldwin, whose exegesis of Romans 1 appeared in an earlier post, has started a blog called Better Covenant, Better Promises. I was going to wait a couple of weeks to let him get going before mentioning it, but already he's posted something that's too good to ignore. Here's Bill talking about Christians who call for gays to "take up their cross," while caring little of what that would entail for them:

We don’t suffer, yet we call gays to a lifetime of suffering. And we behave as though we, unlike they, don’t need to suffer. We’ve redefined discipleship so it isn’t about bearing the cross, it’s about family. Now the Christian life is centered around a husband and father who’s the head of his house, a wife who submits, and children who obey. It’s hard enough for straight singles to latch onto this paradigm. But at least singles have hopes. One day they too may enter the ranks of full-fledged Christians by becoming a loving husband or a submissive wife with children in tow.

But what about gays? We call them to become eunuchs for the kingdom while we live comfortable lives. Or perhaps we tease them with the enticement that God will “cure” their homosexuality if only they have faith. That’s even less kind than telling cancer patients they’ll be healed if they convert.

As gay marriages and civil unions become more common, that call to costly discipleship gets even tougher. We’re calling them to abandon the family they have (or at least to complicate that family life rather severely). And for what? So they can come to a place where they’re not allowed to have a family. When we define the Christian life in family-focused terms, that essentially means we’re calling gays to be second-class citizens in the kingdom of heaven. Come to Christ! You can sit in the back of the bus. The call is snobbish and condescending if, indeed, we bother to make it at all . . .

But wait. It gets worse.

The problem is more than calling gays to suffer when we don’t suffer ourselves. The problem is that Reformed and evangelical Christians have been the cause of much suffering among the gays. Sure, we say we hate the sin and love the sinner; but do our words and our actions really reflect that? How many gays would look at the evangelical church and say “Those Christians sure do love us”?

Why don’t they see our love for them? Is it perhaps because the love isn’t there? Or is it that the love is unexpressed? At the very least we’ve got a serious communication breakdown, don’t we?

This day

Today some of you will be sharing Thanksgiving with family or friends, but some of you may not. If you are fortunate enough to have your loved ones around you this year, there may have been Thanksgivings in the past where it wasn't so. I know that a lot of us straights don't understand that. We blithely wish you a "Happy Thanksgiving," taking the many things we have in our own lives for granted. A lot of you will be in my thoughts today. This day I'm grateful for what you've taught me and shared with me that has made my own growth possible. Thank you for that.

"They Will Know Us By Our T-Shirts"

I've added another defunct blog to the sidebar. They Will Know Us By Our T-Shirts is a real gem, though sadly short-lived, created by an evangelical who comments on the ridiculousness of Christian culture, and was able to write from a particularly keen angle during his brief stint working at a Christian bookstore.

Thoughts on his job:

My coworkers and I are thinking about writing a book. We'll call it, How I Almost Lost My Faith and Committed Murder Working At a Christian Bookstore.

And on the merchandise:

We sell these bumper stickers that say, "Angels protect this car."

I'm probably evil for thinking this, but if I ever see a car with that bumper sticker, I want to run it off the road. Then I'd ask them, "Where were your angels? On their cigarette break?"

Like I said, I'm evil.

Enjoy, and be sure to start from the beginning.

Gay Restorationist

Sadly, Gay Restorationist stopped blogging last May. Nevertheless I'm adding this short-but-sweet blog to the sidebar for the quality posts you can find there, written by a 25 year-old gay man who is grappling with his homosexuality and his ultra-conservative Church of Christ upbringing. One of his best posts is called A Letter, written to his father but never sent (as far as I know). I've linked to it before on my Musings On website, but in case you haven't seen it, here's how it begins:

Dad,

I’ve given much thought in recent months about our relationship. I’ve wanted to call you, tell you everything that’s going on in my life and in my head. I’ve wanted to open myself up to you in hopes that you could understand what, exactly, I am doing and thinking (and correspondingly, why I am doing and thinking those things).

But I haven’t called to talk. I haven’t written, and I decided not to talk to you when I was visiting home. I can think of a few possible reasons why (but, frankly, I’m not sure which is the real reason):

I think I haven’t talked to you because I’m afraid of losing you and Mom again . . .

Read the rest of the letter here.

Moderate evangelicals on Haggard & homosexuality

Normally I'm hard-pressed to find any good in the media frenzy that feeds off scandals and personal failures surrounding public figures. Yet it seems that one positive fall-out from Rev. Ted Haggard's situation is that it has given more politically moderate voices within the evangelical community a chance to sound off.

From Tony Campolo

I have heard so many of my colleagues in ministry express deep concerns over what this scandal will do to the image of the evangelical movement, but I have heard little concern among us for how all of this will impact those Christian gays and lesbians that we know. They are in our churches. They teach in our Sunday schools and sing in our choirs. Most of them are closeted brothers and sisters who suffer in ways that are impossible for the rest of us to even imagine. They are good people who do not take drugs or visit prostitutes. Will the ugliness of this sorry mess feed a diabolical stereotype of them, which is too often circulated in our churches by unkind preachers who have little, if any, understanding of homosexuals?

From Meredith Efken at Violet Voices

I’m angry that our leaders–with our support and encouragement–have made things like gay marriage such a key battle that we destroyed any opportunities to reach out to the gay community and build friendships and open honest communication with them. And then when one of our own is struggling with his sexual identity, he had no safe place to turn, no network of support.

From Brian McLaren of the Red Letter Christians

Perhaps this painful story will help more preachers (like myself) to back away from the easy answers and binary thinking that are so easy to dispense, and to reject the simplistic moralism Jesus diagnosed in the Pharisees, who, he said, loaded up burdens on the backs of others that they themselves couldn't bear.

Fresh insights on Romans 1

Here are some terrific insights on Romans 1 sent to me by an ordained Reformed minister, my good friend Bill Baldwin:

I've been thinking a bit about Paul's point in Romans 1 where he singles out the "degrading passion" of homosexuality as an example of ungodliness and wickedness. Why this particular passion among so many others that degrade? Many Reformed and evangelical Christians assume the answer is obvious. Paul chooses homosexuality because the particular sins resulting from that passion are of the most depraved sort. It doesn't get any lower than that.

But of course a thoughtful reader of Scripture has two immediate problems with that idea. 1) It does get lower than that. Most of us would rather have a homosexual than an axe murderer for a neighbor. 2) Paul never again spotlights homosexuality as the worst of perversions. Nor does any other New Testament writer. In fact, whether you consult Paul or Jesus, you'll get the same answer when asked what the worst of sins is: Pharisaism. Jesus and Paul really just held legalists in utter contempt. They couldn't stop talking about how bad such people are.

So why in Romans 1 does Paul go after the homosexuals? What's so special about homosexuality? Well, it's a Greek sin, isn't it? He's writing to his audience of converted Jews and he's setting them up. I imagine those Jews as being something like the conservative Christians today. Family-oriented. Squeaky clean on the outside. Primly disapproving of the excesses indulged in by the surrounding culture. The way to "witness" to your homosexual neighbor is by making sure he's aware how shocked you are by his behavior.

So Paul starts by talking about how God has given some people up to homosexuality and how they've followed that perversion by rejecting God and embracing behavior contrary to his image. And the converted Jews all say, yeah brother Paul! Preach it! Tell them how dirty they are.

That's when the gotcha comes.

He suddenly turns on his audience. He doesn't say, "Therefore they have no excuse." That's a sentiment his Jewish hearers could get behind. He says, "Therefore YOU have no excuse, WHOEVER YOU ARE, when you judge others." And he goes on to tell those Jews they're just as bad, just as sinful, as ... the homo Greeks! They never saw it coming.

In short, Paul chose homosexuality because it was the worst of sins in the eyes of his audience, not in God's. That way, when he tells them they're just as bad, they sit up and take notice. It's the same rhetorical ploy Jesus uses when he tells the Pharisees that tax collectors and prostitutes will enter the kingdom ahead of them.

The real perversion enters in when modern evangelicals read Romans 1 and stop there. "Look!" they say. "The Bible says right here that homosexuality is the most degrading of passions, the most sinful of sins." They imitate the self-righteousness of the original audience and fail to notice how Paul implicates them as well.

So what's worse than a homosexual? A "Christian" who looks down on homosexuals and says they are the worst sorts of sinners. And what's the easiest way to drive that "Christian" into a rage? Tell him the homosexuals will enter the kingdom ahead of him.

I guess I shouldn't have worried . . .

James Dobson has already quit the panel to counsel Ted Haggard.

But when I predicted in Monday's post that Haggard's support would dry up, I didn't expect it to start happening so soon.

Thoughts on Rev. Ted Haggard

My thoughts on Rev. Ted Haggard have oscillated between feeling like the chickens came home to roost for someone who tried to run with big boys James Dobson and Chuck Colson in opposing same-sex marriage, and feeling sick at heart knowing what he will have to face over the next few years, in repairing his relationship with his wife and kids, and finding out how many friends and supporters will actually stick around now that the whole house of cards has collapsed. After reading his letter yesterday to his former congregation, I feel relieved for his sake that he finally stopped running, opened up his soul and came clean.

How can I begin to talk about the problems in the evangelical church that lead to this sort of thing happening over and over again? Let me put it this way. It seems to me Rev. Haggard basically has two options from here on out: 1) he can continue living at some level of denial about the reality of his own homosexuality, or 2) he can try bravely to grapple with this issue in a brutally honest, soul-scouring way. Evangelicals will continue to be supportive of him as long as he goes with option 1, treating it as merely “temptation,” “addiction,” or “demonic oppression” that can be fixed. But taking that road is what has caused the pressure cooker to explode into this current mess in the first place. Surely Haggard must know that. As he explained in his letter, “Through the years, I’ve sought assistance in a variety of ways, with none of them proving to be effective in me. Then, because of pride, I began deceiving those I love the most because I didn’t want to hurt or disappoint them.” In other words, he had to pretend to others that he was making progress in overcoming his homosexuality because he couldn’t bring himself to admit to them (or maybe even to himself) that, in fact, no progress was being made.

Yet how can Haggard go with option 2? Even though it would be the road toward a genuine healing of the soul and most likely lead him to the conclusion that he will be homosexual the rest of his life (i.e., that he is gay), it might also mean watching the support of his family and friends dry up faster than rubbing alcohol in desert heat.

While I’m not unaware of the hypocrisy Haggard has indulged in, in the end I can only look upon his situation with a heavy heart. Being evangelical means being in a culture where facing the truth about one’s own homosexuality is not an acceptable option. Even if someone does eventually face up to the truth about himself, managing to fight his way out of the dark maze of his own soul, he does not emerge blinking and smiling into a warm and welcoming light. More often than not his reward is bile and accusations and painful rejection from those closest to him. There is so much incentive to stay in the darkness of the maze, lying to oneself and to others.

I was disappointed to learn that one of the counselors Rev. Haggard will be submitting himself to during this “healing and restoration” process will be James Dobson. On the other hand I also sense from Haggard’s letter that there is a genuine person in there, who seems to understand that embracing honesty and humility is the only way to be free from this nightmare. As I’ve learned from various experiences in own my life, sometimes undergoing the humiliation of a big crashing failure is the best thing that could ever happen to your faith. I hope this is the case here. I hope and pray that Rev. Haggard will find his way out of the maze and into a place of peace with himself and with God.

Rev. Ted Haggard's letter to New Life Church

You may find Rev. Ted Haggard's letter to the congregation of New Life Church at Chris Rice's blog, A Desperate Kind of Faithful

Important quotes:

"The fact is, I am guilty of sexual immorality, and I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar. There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life. For extended periods of time, I would enjoy victory and rejoice in freedom. Then, from time to time, the dirt that I thought was gone would resurface, and I would find myself thinking thoughts and experiencing desires that were contrary to everything I believe and teach . . ."

"Our church's overseers have required me to submit to the oversight of Dr. James Dobson, Pastor Jack Hayford, and Pastor Tommy Barnett. Those men will perform a thorough analysis of my mental, spiritual, emotional, and physical life. They will guide me through a program with the goal of healing and restoration for my life, marriage, and my family . . ."

"Please forgive my accuser. He is revealing the deception and sensuality that was in my life. Those sins, and others, need to be dealt with harshly. So, forgive him and , actually, thank God for him. I am trusting that his actions will make me, my wife and family, and ultimately all of you, stronger. He didn't violate you; I did . . ."

Why I favor the "m" word

The latest ruling in New Jersey has gotten a lot of people talking about the question of “civil unions” vs. “marriage” for gay couples. The general feeling these days is that taking the “civil unions” stance is the more moderate position, with people such as mainstream Democrats and even a few centrist Republicans willing to get on board. But supporting full-on marriage rights is supposed to be more radical and extreme. Although most professing social conservatives would prefer that gays just stayed in the closet so we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all, even they are hoping to hold the line at civil unions. Maybe tossing that bone out would help keep the peace, and prevent gays and lesbians from breaching the dam into the sacred ground of marriage.

Here’s why I support civil same-sex marriage with the “m” word and all. It is basically the point Jonathan Rauch made several years back, which is that as a social conservative I have never been comfortable with the idea of rewarding heterosexual “domestic partnerships” with the same legal benefits as regular old married couples; and as far as I can tell establishing a “civil union” status for gay couples would be the same situation. I am actually more sympathetic toward a gay couple that is “C-U’ed” than toward straights who shack up with their girlfriends/boyfriends, because most likely that gay couple would be married were they not legally barred, whereas the straight, live-in girlfriend-boyfriend couple is avoiding marriage by choice. So now we have a situation where after years of griping about the moral cesspool this country has become with people shacking up in sexually irresponsible relationships while demanding benefits for their “partners” just the same as us married couples, along come gay couples who want to be legit and take the plunge into the full nine-yards of marriage, and social conservatives would rather tell them, “No, no, just shack up and we’ll allow you the same benefits just like the rest of us.” Whatever.

Now as you can see from my previous post, I live only 15 minutes from this bizarre place called Hollywood. Hollywood folks are always bombarding the rest of us ignorant civilians with their high moral pronouncements, one of which is to decry the institution of marriage as a hideously unromantic, love-killing institution where the shackles of legal commitment intrude into a perfectly blissful live-in relationship and destroy all feelings of tenderness and authenticity. If you want true love, they say, shacking up is the way to go because then you know he is staying because “he wants to” not because “he has to.”

I guess there’s nothing more romantic than a guy who insists on keeping the back door open so you can wake up every morning for ten years and rejoice to see that he hasn’t walked through it. And how unromantic of you to suggest that maybe he ought to love and respect you enough to get rid of that back door altogether. Marriage is the ultimate declaration of love because it is about commitment. Awesome, ballsy, B.S.-free commitment. There is no greater gift a person can give than him- or herself, and this commitment says, “Everything I am, all that I’ve worked for, all that I hope to become, I give to you unreservedly.”

“Oh, but my boyfriend just said those exact words to me the other night after we finished making love. He says he’s totally committed to me, only he doesn’t want to get married, that’s all.” Well, dear, I’d say that’s because he wants all the privileges of “commitment” without any of the responsibilities that come with it, that's all. The reason why marriage means commitment, and anything other than marriage is less-than, is because getting married means he is becoming family with you. Your parents become his parents, your siblings become his siblings, your gossiping aunt and alcoholic uncle become his problem relatives too. It is the deepest of moral commitments because he is willing to pledge to your ex-military father and overprotective mother that he will take care of you, their baby, as if you were his very own family, as if you were the child of his own parents. Just as someone would have to be some kind of sick bastard to abuse his own sister, that’s the stigma he’d be willing to bear if he ever mistreated you--not to mention the wrath of your parents and siblings--because now he is family and is expected to act the part. But he is willing to do it because he loves you and it would never cross his mind to do otherwise. That is what marriage means.

Social conservatives are a slightly cynical bunch when it comes to human morality. We suspect that if left to ourselves without any social constraints to encourage us in the right moral direction, we would all be on the verge of degenerating into some kind of Lord of the Flies chaos. That is why the institution of marriage fits into our moral agenda so perfectly. It brings the ideals of love and the dubiousness of sexual drive together into a socially respectable relationship under the watchful eyes of parents. Oh yeah, it doesn’t get any better than that, baby.

And now along come these homosexuals, at whom we have been spitting bile for years because of their shoddy sexual morals, and they want to be a part of this thing too. They don’t want just sex and shacking up with the back door wide open. They want the in-laws, the joint bank accounts, Thanksgiving at Aunt Bessie’s every year even though you are allergic to her cats, and the stigma of being “divorced” if this whole endeavor should fail. Yet instead of being smugly delighted and giving that fatherly, “I knew you’d come around someday” smile, we’re panicking and falling all over ourselves to prevent them. Uh . . . why?

Thanks, Andrew

After six years of exchanging emails with Andrew Sullivan through his blog, we finally got a chance to meet this past Friday night while he was in L.A. for an appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher. I'm still recovering from the blur of activity, starting out with the car ride to CBS studios (apparently that's where they broadcast the show) and winding up at the pool deck of the Mondrian Hotel talking until 2 a.m. It's been a long time since I've stayed up that late actually having fun (as opposed to getting up to feed the baby).

What I've always appreciated about Andrew is that he has faith in other people. He aims to reach the few conservatives who might listen to him amidst a sea of those who might not. Reading Virtually Normal (subtitled, "An Argument About Homosexuality") back in 2000 changed my life. Part of the reason I had to take his arguments about homosexuality seriously was because I saw that he was taking me seriously, someone with a conservative Christian outlook on politics and life. Religious conservatives are not used to having their values and concerns taken seriously by those who disagree with them. After I got hooked in by the novelty of the experience, it wasn't long before I was convinced by his arguments, except that conservative Christians aren't supposed to be convinced by arguments in favor of legalizing gay civil marriage. Too late, it was already a done deal.

What followed was six years of musings, the creation of a website, and now this blog. In other words, all the trouble I've gotten myself into ever since is all Andrew's fault. Seriously, it's been a wonderful journey and a tremendous blessing, and I wouldn't change a thing about it. Thanks, Andrew!

Homosexuality and pedophilia: there are differences, you know

Years ago I was planning on writing a fictional story about a kid who got placed in foster care, which led me to research the foster care system in this country. Sadly enough, I learned the whole system is shot through with abuse. This led me to research the subject of child abuse, which led me to ordering a bunch of materials from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), produced by a division of the U.S. Dept. of Justice in collaboration with the FBI. (I’ll bet you never knew how much research goes into writing fiction.)

If you are a parent as I am, it is a good idea to be informed about the nature of pedophilia and the tactics of predators so that you can protect your children. (Sample advice: Avoid the 40 year-old single guy in the neighborhood who has the cool electric train set—i.e. bait—set up in his open garage on the weekends.) But honestly, after a few weeks of looking through the materials, I couldn’t stomach the subject any longer. One morning right in the middle of eating my breakfast cereal, I felt like I was going to be sick. I put away the materials and decided my fictional character will be taking a different course in life.

A couple of years later I started researching homosexuality because of a friendship I was trying to establish with my gay neighbors, which is why I ended up starting my website and now this blog. Looking back, I’m glad that I had done that research with the NCMEC materials earlier, because I was never confused about the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia, even though the propaganda of the religious right has tried to conflate the two.

You have to wonder why the religious right feels the need to do so. Isn’t it because they know that the issue of homosexuality, in itself, is not enough to strike the panic button for a lot of people? After you get over the initial weirdness of, “Gosh, how on earth can someone be attracted to other people of the same sex?” you start getting to know people and see that it’s not much different from the feelings that heteros go through when mutual attraction is discovered and enjoyed. Even if you don’t feel comfortable with it, or agree with it, or think it’s the moral ideal, you are capable of reaching some level of understanding, because there’s something human going on there that you can relate to. And just like in heterosexual society, you will see some people handling their sexual desires in a safe and responsible way, and others in a dysfunctional and irresponsible way. How that pans out depends on the individual, not upon the issue of sexual orientation itself.

During the six years I’ve been “researching” homosexuality (which pretty much amounts to enjoying some great friendships I’ve made over the years), I’ve never even come close to having the same freaked-out experience that I did with the NCMEC materials. I couldn’t even last a month reading about pedophiles, and I commend those FBI people whose job it is to confront that evil every day. It is an evil because to act upon it necessarily involves exploitation of the innocent and defenseless. Homosexuality may not be the norm, and it may not be what my faith regards as God’s ideal, but it isn’t a psychosis, it doesn’t involve exploitation, and it isn’t criminal. The fact that some feel the need to conflate pedophilia with homosexuality to make it sound criminal shows that maybe they understand the difference too.

The spin for this November

What's this malarkey I keep reading about how the Republicans are going to lose Congress this coming election because of the Foley scandal? Like, they weren't already fixin' to lose just by being their regular incompetent selves? The election was already going down the tubes due to the fact that this administration 1) supports torturing prisoners to the point where the moral distinction between our policy and Saddam Hussein's has become practically non-existent, 2) is fighting the war in Iraq with about the same level of competence as they provided aid to Hurricane Katrina victims, and 3) is spending money as if there is no tomorrow.

The Foley scandal will probably just be the nails on the coffin. But I already hear the whirrings of a spin machine. My fellow Republicans will probably blame any loss of congressional seats on a secret homosexual agenda to infiltrate the party and sabatoge it from the inside out. It will never occur to them that the real credibility problem is, that it has been bad enough the way Republicans have pandered to the religious right which slanderously tries to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia in the name of "protecting our children," but then when there is an actual gay congressman in their midst who does prey sexually upon teenage boys, they turn a blind eye in order to protect their own political interests.

I hope we lose big time this November.

Human suffering

I've been studying the books of Job and 1 Peter because of a women's retreat this past weekend where I had to give some Bible studies on the topic of suffering. The question of why human beings suffer in this life is something every major religion has to deal with, because if God is truly benevolent, then to allow suffering would seem to call his benevolence into question.

The remote cause, according to the Bible, is the sin of Adam. Through Adam's sin this once-utopian world became corrupted and broken, and all the laws of stable, sane existence got thrown into awry, like the delicate inner-mechanisms of an expensive watch getting flooded with sea water. For those who inhabit such a world, redemption, atonement and the coming of the heavenly kingdom are the only permanent answers to our present sorrows. Those of us who believe in the world to come are to live our present lives with a kind of patience, optimism, self-sacrifice and love for others that can only characterize those who are invested in a future hope. Another way to put it is that we follow in the example of Jesus himself, whose atoning death has paved the way for this very hope.

The thing about suffering, though, is that when you are going through it, your soul craves so much more than theological articulations about remote causes. Understanding the ancient sin of Adam is not much comfort to me when I'm in pain. And although, like Job, I understand that "the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away," and I can bow with creaturely acceptance to the mysterious workings of One who is wiser and greater than me, the greatness of God is more crushing than comforting during times of perplexity and loss. This was Job's complaint:

For He bruises me with a tempest,
And multiplies my wounds without cause.
He will not allow me to get my breath,
But saturates me with bitterness.
If is is a matter of power,
Behold, He is the strong one!
And if it is a matter of justice,
Who can summon Him? (9:17-19)

Job says that the problem with God is that, as God, he can be of no comfort to us. Since he is the Almighty, when you have a quarrel with him you have no recourse, because he will always be in the right. For all his wisdom God, being God, simply cannot understand what it is like to suffer as a human creature. He would have to become human to truly understand what it's like.

So that's exactly what he did. I think God knows that we don't really want neat theological answers to questions about suffering when we are going through it. I think he knows that the best answer he could give us is not to thunder words down from heaven, but to come down and walk upon this earth, in Job's shoes as it were. And so after he was abandoned by his closest friends, tortured all night by a band of thugs, sentenced to death like a vile criminal, and forced to spend the last feeble hours of his life hanging on public display, like some kind of captured, half-dead animal strung up as a prize, God found out what human suffering was all about. He even knew the anguish of feeling abandoned by God. "My God . . . why have you forsaken me?" God experienced what it was like to feel abandoned by God.

So many of us who have sought to walk by faith have felt abandoned in our sufferings. Yet now God can say he's been down that road too. I believe it is his answer to our questions about why we suffer, not addressing our intellect but the craving of our souls. Because in his compassion for us, he understands that words are not enough.

Dark closets

I only saw a few snippets of the IM conversations ex-Congressman Mark Foley had with the male teenagers who worked as pages. I haven't read all the material that ABC News has put out there because, frankly, it's too embarrassing. (I never read the Kenneth Starr report on the Monica Lewinsky scandal either, for the same reason.) In any case from what little I already saw, I get the idea.

With regard to pedophile Catholic priests, Andrew Sullivan has been saying for a long time that being deep in the closet can lead people down dark paths that they never meant to travel. I never understood before what connection he saw between being a closeted homosexual in a very conservative environment and the temptation to take sexual advantage of minors. But I think with this Foley case I'm starting to get what Andrew means.

Catholic priests, Republican congressmen, these are people whose conservatism is not only a personal view but a public identity. And if you're also gay there's not a lot of wiggle room for being honest with yourself. You can't afford to confront certain truths about yourself because there is simply too much at stake. Maybe that was part of the reason, subconsciously, for entering into the ministry or a political career in the first place, to lock oneself into a situation of social pressure where those unwanted feelings and impulses could be straight-jacketed.

But these individuals can't keep the lid on the pressure cooker forever. There has to be some outlet, but without the consequence of having to admit anything to themselves about what they're doing. A relationship with a mature adult carries with it too much accountability. An adult might ask them to explain themselves, or probe into their motives, and for someone in extreme self-denial that is something to be avoided at all costs. So in order to remain in the closet, even to themselves, and yet be able to act out on their impulses, they will seek out children, minors or anyone who is too naive and powerless to call them on the carpet for their actions.

Undoubtedly many conservatives will come to the opposite conclusion, that this proves all homosexuals are a danger to society and need to be shoved further into the closet. But from what I've seen, from the many gay people I've met over the years, it's apparent to me that honesty in dealing with one's own homosexuality is the healthiest approach a person can take. Where that leads a person depends upon his or her values, religious beliefs, family situation, whatever. But nothing can be dealt with morally (yep, morally) until a person first comes to grip with the truth about him or herself.

Quote for the day

In Bird by Bird, Christian writer Anne Lamott says that in order to gather inspiration as a novelist, you must learn to become more involved in the world around you.

To be engrossed by something outside ourselves is a powerful antidote for the rational mind, the mind that so frequently has its head up its own ass--seeing things in such a narrow and darkly narcissistic way that it presents a colo-rectal theology, offering hope to no one.

I thought "theology" was an apt word choice on her part, since one can't help but notice how well this advice applies to many theologians as well.

Who's saying, "HIV is a gay disease"?

According to Saturday's L.A. Times, who is currently running billboard ads in Southern California blaring out the message: "HIV is a gay disease"?

Is it . . . Door Number 1: James Dobson; Door Number 2: Jerry Falwell; Door Number 3: Pat Robertson; or Door Number 4: the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center?

Click here for the answer to see if you are the lucky winner.

Frankly, when I see stuff like this, I already have a hunch I know what's going on. I am aware that people who have long been involved in AIDS activism are disappointed at the apparent complacency of gay men toward the issue of HIV in recent years, especially since AIDS medication has been so effective in keeping new infection rates at a fairly stable number each year. So when I saw this story in Saturday's paper, I kind of guessed that someone is trying to galvanize the gay community and return to the glory days when everyone cared a lot more about fighting this disease.

That said, isn't it ridiculous to be using the same catch phrase that the religious right has used to stigmatize people who have HIV? I mean, duh. I spent a number of years of my life detoxing from the religious right mindset. It is not just about knowing the right facts about homosexuality. These issues are highly emotional, and you have to navigate your way through so much of your own bigotry and fear. "AIDS is the judgment of God on homosexuals." "Romans 1:27 says homosexuals are 'receiving within themselves the due penalty of their error.'" "God AIDS those who AID themselves." Then I see an ad campaign like this, and I wonder if these activists are even in touch with where other people are at.

What's more, the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center admits that most of the gay men who are currently infected or at risk of being infected are men of color. Yet their ads feature white men, for one thing. And for another the communities that most need to be educated and involved in fighting AIDS because their members are so much at risk, are the highly religious black and Hispanic communities. I can tell you that they are not going to rally in support of their HIV-infected members around the campaign message that "HIV is a gay disease." According to the Times article,

Activist Cynthia Davis, who has labored for years to ease the stigma of HIV in the African American community, said the Gay & Lesbian Center's campaign could erase years of progress in a community that is skittish about homosexuality but at high risk for the disease.

"This is ludicrous. It's ridiculous," Davis said. "It's going backward."

I feel for that poor woman. Fortunately there are still some people out there who are making sense.

"I applaud the desire to have more personal responsibility in the gay community, but this is not the way to achieve it," said Michael Weinstein, head of the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

"AIDS is not a gay disease . . . It is a disease of the immune system."

Queens, drag queens, etc.

Another theory about drag queens has been suggested to me. Since drag queens are essentially comedians, maybe they are just parodying certain extreme personality types you find among gay men. Kind of the way Jeff Foxworthy portrays the redneck. This stereotype is not a real person, but a highly exaggerated portrayal of a particular kind of effeminate gay man you might run into in certain social circles.

Sure, I’d buy that. That would explain why drag shows appeal to some straights too. But to my mind it only raises the question of why those gay men exist. Couldn't it be said that those types of gay men are allowing themselves to become parodies of straight women in a half-serious, half-mocking way? So then we have come full circle to the first theory about drag queens I posted yesterday, that they are in some way poking fun at straight women.

Now about these kinds of gay men, “queens” as one of my friends calls them. (I don’t know for certain if that isn’t a derogatory term, but since my friend is gay I’d rather go with his term than the ones some of my straight friends would use.) I can understand this kind of campiness as a comedic act, so from that angle drag queens make some sense to me. But I have more trouble understanding how someone gets to absorbing that campiness into their personality. I don’t want to believe it is entirely put on. Maybe some gay men really do feel that being effeminate is authentically “them.” And even though I don’t happen to believe that homosexuality is about gender-blending for most people, seeing how little we know scientifically about the origins of homosexuality, I’m open to the possibility that maybe this is the case for a certain percentage of the gay population.

That said, whenever I see so-called “queens” doing their thing—the whole bitchy, vain, smart-alecky, swishy deal—I also see someone who is putting themselves in a situation where they can be either laughed at or dismissed. Because even if being effeminate is really “him,” it seems to me he is putting it out there too aggressively, as if daring someone to knock it. And for another thing he is putting up a wall. I know there’s a real person in there. Am I ever gonna get to meet him? I mean, if Mr. Queen and I were stuck with each other in a cabin during a Colorado snowstorm, so bored there was nothing to do but chuck little wads of newspaper into the fireplace and watch the sparks kick up, and by 1 a.m. we got to talking about the meaning of life, the prospect of death, and the existence of God, I would hope that I’d discover an actual person in there who has some serious things to say. I’d think it would be unfair of me to hope otherwise.

What's the deal with drag queens?

One of the big challenges I’ve tried to tackle is understanding so-called “gay culture,” particularly male gay culture (I’ve made less progress with lesbian culture, but that's for another post). Why are there certain gay male "types"? Why do some gay men act effeminate? Why is there a certain older generation that really digs stuff like operas and divas from the 1950’s? Because of some of the conservative social circles I've run in, I know I'm supposed to dismiss all this as evidence that gays are depraved and perverted and that the whole package is a part of their lifestyle choice, etc. But since it's pretty obvious to me that people don't choose to be homosexual, I figure there must be logical explanations for why certain phenomena crop up in gay culture .

I think I understand most of this stuff, except for one area. What is the deal with drag queens? When it comes to drag queens, that’s one planet that seems to have orbited off the chart of the known universe that I thought I shared with gay men. I’ve tried to ignore the phenomenon, push it aside as a bizarre interest for a bizarre sub-group within a sub-culture. But I’ve come to see that it’s a bit more mainstream than that. Just last week Andrew Sullivan was recommending a New York performance of drag queen Dina Martina to his readership, even though his readers are a largely straight male crowd. In 2004 Nia Vardalos made a movie (that I didn’t see) about a couple of women who posed as males doing the drag queen thing (women posing as men posing as women).

Then a few years ago I was at a gay and lesbian Christian conference with some friends and listened to a guy who mixed in drag queen humor while giving the most moving Christian testimony of the night. Before he got to the testimony part where I almost cried, I was laughing really hard. Then one of my friends who is about as straight-laced a person as you’ll ever meet leaned over and said, “Yeah, you should see this drag act he does called ‘Momma.’ It’s really good.” I looked at him and thought, “If B— likes drag, then this appeals to a broader gay crowd than I thought. And look at me. I’m laughing too and I don’t even know why.”

So now I will make a better effort to try to rope that planet back into the rational part of my known universe. Here is one explanation about drag queens that I’ve heard of. Only one, because only one brave soul has ever tried to explain it to me.

Imagine yourself as a gay male growing up in this heterosexual-dominated world. There you are standing on the sidelines looking with frustration at all the great-looking men who will never pay any attention to you. Why? Because they are hetero and they are too busy chasing after women. And who are these women anyhow? Strange creatures with their high heels and heavy make-up and big hair and busty dresses and swishy walk. Yet the straight guys are inexplicably going ape over them. Meanwhile you are a man, you don’t have all the “accessories,” and so they will never go ape over you. So while you stew in a mixture of frustration and envy and puzzlement and disgust at the whole situation, along comes the drag queen. The drag queen makes a mockery of all that. He is a mixture of a gay man’s fantasy of “why can’t I be like that?” and his disgust of “why would I want to be like that?” and makes grosteque fun of the whole kettle of soup with his exaggerated femaleness. And now you get to laugh at the drag queen, at yourself, and at the whole ridiculous situation.

I consider that a good, rational explanation. However, it doesn’t explain everything. Like, why its popularity among gay men grows and grows. I mean, after awhile wouldn't people settle down with their partners, buy a house, get some pets, live a quiet life, and eventually get over the antics of those crazy straight women? Why the need to keep up the perpetual mockery? Nor does it explain why some straights apparently are getting into it. What does drag have to offer that they can relate to? I remember laughing at the conference, but I can't pick apart why I thought the humor was so funny. Will renting the Nia Vardalos movie help to explain it?

How Christians and gays talk past each other, part 2

Christians and gays are so good at talking past each other, it would be impossible for me to talk to both groups in the same room. I’ve written some articles trying to explain homosexual issues to conservative Christians, but I can’t post them on this blog or on my website because gay readers will probably take offense at the way I put things. Likewise, when my former denomination discovered my Musings On site in February 2002, they took offense at the way I chose to address my mainly gay audience.

When I talk to conservative Christians, the first thing in order is to try to convince them that being homosexual doesn’t automatically make someone a morally bankrupt person. That’s why it is important for me to share with them about the gay and lesbian people I’ve met who have tried very hard to change their orientation, who would agree that their homosexuality is a part of their sinful or fallen nature. If I don’t tell fellow Christians about these types of gays and lesbians, they will continue to buy into the idea that most gay people choose to be homosexual for the purpose of indulging in a “homosexual lifestyle.”

But this is exactly where many gays take issue with me. Why do you present us as if we are all ashamed of who we are? We’re proud to be gay. We’re not self-haters! Then I have to explain. Sure, not everyone feels ashamed of their homosexuality in the way a religious person might. And sure, many people who have started out that way often reach a place where they learn to overcome depression and destructive behaviors and become positive contributors to society. I get that. But what I’m trying to do is “Homosexuality 101.” Getting into why gay people put such a premium on self-acceptance and “pride” is graduate level stuff, and the fact is a lot of people will never fully understand all that. You have to start where people are at, and even though it may be scary to realize that it is at such a basic level, that is often the reality of the situation.

The same happens when I address a gay audience. Christians have taken issue with me because they hear me using words like “admirable” and “courageous” when I’m giving encouragement to people who are trying to deal with their homosexuality in a morally responsible way. How can you say such things? Do you approve of sin? Whose side are you on anyhow? Then I have to explain. No, I don’t approve of sin. But as long as people can’t help being homosexually oriented and they are stuck having to deal with this reality about themselves, they can do it in either a responsible or an irresponsible way. Shouldn’t the person who chooses to live celibate, for instance, be commended over the person who chooses to live in wanton promiscuity? As long as we are going to criticize the gay community for their promiscuity, we are obligated to commend those individuals who are siding with us in that criticism and trying to seek out more moral options. Aren’t we?