Ok. I’ve remembered that one of the times I heard the stats we were speaking of was on the old Matthias Media ‘Love, Sex & Marriage’ tapes (I think I ‘lent’ mine to someone- a couple of years ago! So can’t check up on them). But as Matt says, I guess the details of the statistics are not so important except that they reveal that SSA (whether ongoing or brief) might be more prevelant than we might expect- thus making this thread ever more relevant.

I’m a bit worried about the barbed wire fence thing though!

[quote author="Matt"]Dani - were you saying the people from Liberty actually visited your church? What is involved in such a visit? Do they do that kind of thing regularly?

Liberty visited us at church a number of years ago now and it was excellent. Chris Keane (who heads up Liberty with his wife Truda) gave his testimony about how God brought him forgiveness and the ability to turn from his past life through his relationship with Jesus. It was a great privilege to hear how a relationship with Jesus transformed his life in so many ways! His wife Truda also spoke about pastoral care issues etc.

I know that over the past few years they have had a growing number of requests to speak at various engagements (despite significant opposition from the gay lobby) so I don’t know whether they still visit churches regularly. But it would be worth contacting them and finding out if you are interested.

They also run a number of workshop/afternoons throughout the year. I am sure if you contacted them they would be able to put you on a mailing list to keep in the know about what they have on when.

For anyone who is interested you can read Chris’ testimony (and another persons) in What Some of You Were on the Matthias Media website. Go to www.matthiasmedia.com.au and look for ‘What Some of You Were’ in the grey boxes on the left hand side of the screen. When the new window opens up scroll towards the bottom and you will see you can download a pdf.

Hi guys, thanks for the feedback re the statistics.  I don’t think it is as irrellevant as it looks on first reading though.  I agree that arguing between 70% or 80% is irrelevant, but the gap between 10% and 80% indicates two entirely different classes of people, and as such the pastoral care needs to be different.

I also think this could be an issue best supported from within the small group context. I think the pulpit might be a bit of a blunt instrument in comparison.

Rowen,

I acknowledge it could make some difference, brother, I was just trying to circumvent the tangent :-)

I’m interested in your suggestion about a small group context - I assume you mean standard bible study groups? I can’t begin to imagine how that would work - maybe you can explain it further?

The advantage of pulpit is that people can learn and be encouraged without feeling ‘targeted’ or awkward or even needing to admit their problems first because it’s just being stated from up-front to everyone and no-one in particular. The advantage of one-to-one is confidentiality which lessens the sense of risk, and enables a tailored pastoral approach. The small group approach would have none of these advantages. What advantages does it have?

Or, if you are referring to small groups of people sharing the same struggles, wouldn’t that be another step of courage beyond approaching (say) Liberty for confidential counselling?

My question isn’t really about the most effective method for the person struggling with SSA - though that is still a relevant question for this thread - I’m sure counselling & other personal support methods would be more effective than the pulpit, which as you say is a bit of a ‘blunt instrument’. But pastoral approaches can be multi-pronged and you can’t always assume people will feed into your ideal scenario like sheep. So the question for the pulpit remains as a separate and complementary question, does it not?

Your brother because of Jesus

Matt

Thank you to Anon and Anon2 (know you are in my prayers), and all contributors in fact, on this thread.  I am glad this thread can be used as somewhere to explore the issue, rather tha just garnering hate.

Craig: thank you for sharing your struggles.  My relationship with my father is fine: could always be better.  If I was to look to the past it would probably be high school where I let male friends “dominate” the relationship: perhaps that is what I sometimes look for again.

As Anon and Anon2 have been so honest, I might go a bit further too.  Generally, 8 out of 10 times lust for me is directed towards a woman [not that that makes it better]; 2 out of 10 times it is towards a man.  For some reason the lusting after women does not bother me as much; perhaps because SSA is a big issue at the moment and a confusing one as many have said.  I have not experimented with SSS, nor do I have any desire to: it is more, as I alluded to above, the need for male companionship that may drive the attraction.  I do not desire sex in any form really [perhaps I need a testosterone check ;-)]; it is more the comfort and friendship I suppose.  Not that I have thoughts about male friends or contacts continually: it is generally someone unreachable or someone I see who I think - for whatever crazy reason - may be a comfort because they are rather good looking.  Rather sad and inexplicable; esp. as I considered myself reasonably smary and logical!

Matthew: thanks for explaining what you meant by examining our hearts - I was a bit dense that night.  100% agreement.

In terms of from the pulput or in small groups, I can see reasons for each.  From the pulpit provides anonymity as well as enabling the issue to reach the whole congregation: after all, that is a major problem - as Dani so graciously shared with her experiences [thank you].  I have many other struggles, many of which are preached from the pulpit - why cannot this be said also?

Small groups may provide some support: knowing you have a confidant.  Small groups would scare me though: I’d really need to know the person involved and trust them.  Though it would provide an arena where deep discussion could take place, whereas the puplit would not give that [3 hour sermons, anyone?]

I think I’d go to a priest first and talk it over with him.  As God’s appointed, I pray he would have the common sense and knowledge to know how to press forward.

What can be said from the front to help such people with their struggles without them needing to break their silence first? That may, as Dani suggested, lead to them seeking counselling, but what happens first?

Unfortunately (or perhaps, fortunately for you all! ;-) ) I need to go: I may add some thoughts later.

For now: I think SSA should be treated on par with other struggles in the Christian life from the pulpit.  Break the barrier that sees it as “unmentionable” and get it out there.

This could be problematic as many people may reject it outright due to prejudices and seeing it as “theoretical”: perhaps an example of someone [not from the parish; someone unknown to people on a first hand basis] could make it more real-life and perhaps drive the point home.  Theory is fine, but a real life example would help greatly.  They are my thoughts.

Thanks to all; God bless,
Ian.

...of course, nothing beats empathy when it comes to pastoral help.

Anon (the original) has sent me something for Anon2. I have forwarded it on directly but thought it might benefit others if I posted most of it here.

Anon2, looking at your comments just amazes me.  I have been through exactly the same thought processes.  Reading them is like replaying a tape recording of my mind when I was maybe 10 years younger than I am now.

The initial curiosity and admiration for other guys, fascination about the gay lifestyle, interest in the male form but disgust (at first) over gay sex, lack of sexual desire for women, but a longing for the companionship of a wife and the blessing of children.  These things swam around in my mind for years.  I knew in my heart that involving a woman in my life, or having sex with a woman, would not alter my mind, or ‘correct’ my sexuality; but I wondered all the same.

To my profound regret I went beyond mere thoughts.  I ‘experimented’ and even though I was initially disgusted with myself, a couple of years later I did the same thing again, and then again and again.  I won’t go into the details.  Gradually the disgust diminished, and I became less and less uncomfortable with the things I did, and just tried to live as if I could obey God in everything but this (while in reality it became a bigger and bigger part of my life, like a growing tumour destroying everything healthy and good which God had given me and especially faith in his Son).

Can I say it is a real mistake to think that when Jesus says to lust after someone is to commit an adultery, it means that there is no difference between the two.  There is a profound difference between thinking about something (bad as that is) and actually acting on it.  I would give everything to erase from my memory the things I have done, and the way that my deeds have shaped my mind.

Do not give in to the cravings.  It is very very hard to get back again and you have taken that first faltering step into hell.  Also do not (as I used to as well) think that sex might be a means by which your sexuality could be normalised.  You will be depressed when you find it doesn’t work, and having turned this once away from God, will not try so hard to resist other turnings.

What does work?  I am only beginning to find out.  I was not sexually abused as a child.  There are other factors in my upbringing which led me to be insecure about friendships and associations with men, and to crave proof of other peoples’ love.  My mother and father, loving and wonderful as they are, probably had a bit to do with it.  My mother ran everything and made all the decisions.  My father was a quiet, shy figure, and not particularly demonstrative, easily overruled in everything by Mum.  Of course that is not the whole story - my siblings turned out different to me - but it is a part of it.

I count it miraculous that God has called me back to him.  I was a long way gone.  I am not home yet, not by a long shot.  I know I could slip back at any time.  I am getting occasional counselling from a minister about the things that have made me what I am now, and what I can do about it.  In my case at least, homosexual desires are more of a symptom of more deep-seated personality problems.  I know that in my case this is no ‘orientation’ I was born with.  I am loathe to judge anyone else’s experience - but everything I hear from other gay people tells a similar story.  I never had sexual interest in women as a teenager, but I did not develop homosexual feelings until I was in my 20s.  I would imagine it’s different for everyone - if I were growing up today, I suspect sexual interest in guys would be stimulated much earlier - nobody had heard of ‘being gay’ at the time and place I grew up in.  So I never thought about it as an option.

Looking back, I wish I had sought help from someone before I ever acted out.  I don’t know if it will work or not.  I don’t have perfect faith that I will be ‘healed’.  It is very much day by day.  I am told that it is much harder to overcome mental habits which have been formed and fostered in actions, than to address cravings and desires which have not yet been acted upon.

I always used to think that all that talk about “getting your relationship with God right before worrying about finding a wife” was well-meant but not really true, generally dished out by guys who had no difficulty with either.  But I am much more relaxed now about God’s options for my life.  I don’t feel called to be celibate, and I would prefer it if God had other plans for me.  I would love to have a wife and kids.  I really envy other guys those relationships.  But I would be truly happy to have my sexual desire for men diminished, even if I never developed appropriate attitudes towards women, but were to be satisfied by a complete love for God.

God bless you, mate.  Go and talk to a Christian counsellor.  Liberty Christian Ministries, even though I don’t live in Sydney, were able to find me someone to speak to, and I have found that I understand much better the reasons why my life has turned out as it has.  Knowledge and Understanding are trusty weapons against the Prince of Lies.

What I will make of my new found wisdom is up to God.  May I (and you) trust him in everything. Amen.

I think that Ian has hit the nail on the head by saying he craves male friendship.

*In todays society why is it hard for a man to say to himself and to others, “I need friends”?
*Why is it in todays society that if a man/ boy thinks that, that he is automatically gay?

It is my experience that my friends and myself chased women to prove we were men, we would confirm to each other that we were mates when drunk, but rarely spoke of mateship when sober.

I think as a church we can bring about change in our society to speak about the need for companship, for great mates. When I went to Bible college, we had to do an assignment on friendship in a class on leadership. We had to go to another class mate and deliberatly ask them if they would be our friend (it had to be some one of the same sex), and part of that assignment was to talk to each other, be honest with each other about how that friendship was going and to report back on that friendship.

It has been my experience that men in particular within a church setting are not prone to get involved in talking about their deepest concerns, honestly with each other.

I can honestly say right here and now, that I am not gay.

Having said that I would also like to state,
“I CRAVE FOR MALE FRIENDSHIP, I LIKE HAVING MALE MATES, I LOVE MY MATES, (not in a perverted way) I LOOK FORWARD TO TALKING TO THEM AND SEEING THEM WITH GREAT PLEASURE. ”

When I was younger, I had these same feelings for men, but I thought they were not natural feelings, then the devil gets a foot hold and wispers his lie you are gay, and shoots lustful thoughts into your mind which at first disgusts us, he shoots them back again, and we are disgusted again, and he shoots them back at us, and slowly they penetrate our armour, we slowly start to think that is what we are, we start allowing those lustfull thoughts to dominate us and suddenly we find that we have taken ownership of those flaming arrows that have been shot at as , as we have taken ownership of them they become our thoughts, then as we think we start to desire, and as we desire it turns into sin, and the devil has a foothold on us, we are disgusted by what we have done, and not only we but the devil brings great condemnation upon us.

Now I have never been in a gay situation, but I can say that is how it happens with good God given feelings for women as well, if men were born and made gay, they would not fight it, they would not be disgusted with it.

James tells us, to confess to one another, to pray for one another, and the prayers of the righteous will avail much and we will be healed.

Why is it that generally speaking, we men confess to be Bible believing but don"t put it into practice.?

craig

Great thoughts and questions, Craig.  I certainly don’t have the answers.  As you said, I think a big issue is the fact that in Western society in particular, men don’t relate as close as they could or should.  “Sharing time” after Bible study for me was very superficial at times: no-one went deep and I didn’t want to be the one to do so.  Perhaps someone else felt like me and my not sharing prevented them.  A vicious circle.

Thanks to Matthew for posting Anon’s message to Anon2: and thank you Anon for sharing.  I find several similarities in my own life in terms of the why and how when the “cravings”—for want of a better word—occur.  It is wonderful to hear you have found someone/something that can help you, and your honesty in taking it “day by day” and wanting the desire diminished truly had me in tears as it echoes my thoughts.

Matthew: to add something rather obvious as to “Where should it all start?”: I say here.  Thank you for starting this thread.  I am sure we shall all gain a great deal from it.  I know I have.  Simply honestly acknowledging (for the first time; I tried to convince myself it wasn’t happening) that I do have SSA has been a breakthrough and godsend.

God bless and thanks,
Ian.

An interesting question I missed from one of Ian’s earlier posts:

In addition, there are many homosexuals (and heterosexuals) who believe a monogamous homosexual relationship is as good as an heterosexual one. Bearing in mind Matthew’s statement at the beginning of his first post about not re-tracing debates on our doctrinal views of homosexuality: what do we offer these people? Thumping Bibles at them may drive them away; do “liberal” churches offer something for them?

My doctrinal views are well known to anyone who followed the debate on the ‘Let’s get real’ thread. As per my mandate, I won’t retrace it, but my response to this will obviously assume that view.

The answer is ‘yes’, liberal churches do offer something to people who believe that monogomous homosexual relationships are as good as heterosexual ones. They offer a weekly church experience, depending on the church they may offer a sense of community, they may offer friends, they may offer great music and a wonderful sensory ‘worship experience’ (not to infer, of course, that all churches that offer these things are liberal).

But if my understanding of scripture is correct, they do not offer them encouragement through the narrow gate. Certainly, to scare people away by just heartlessly thumping the bible is to fail in the pastoral task - and that is the problem this thread is (hopefully) addressing. But there is no greater pastoral failure than to teach parishioners complacency about sin, and so potentially shepherd them away from eternal life.

So they may well offer them something, but that something is not enough.

Matthew you said:

The answer is ‘yes’, liberal churches do offer something to people who believe that monogomous homosexual relationships are as good as heterosexual ones. They offer a weekly church experience, depending on the church they may offer a sense of community, they may offer friends, they may offer great music and a wonderful sensory ‘worship experience’

One advocate of the Church’s acceptance of gay people on their own terms, Gavin Simpson, the religion columnist for The West Australian newspaper, has acknowledged that gay people themselves rarely describe their relationships, for which many seek legal and ethical equivalence to marriage, as “monogamous” but rather “committed” or “faithful”.

The reason why, is highlighted in what was for me quite a moving account of a gay man’s exodus from a liberal American church (one of ours in fact).

You can find it here:  http://www.doxos.com/more.php?id=524_0_1_0_M

But I will also quote the guts of it here to save readers the trouble of looking it up:

“I was in Hell.”
In 2000, Bishops of Singapore and Uganda consecrated two men as bishops of the “Anglican Mission in America”. Knowing that they had set them selves up in opposition to folks like my Home Parish (St Gregory of Nyssa Church in San Francisco) and knowing that I, a sexually active gay man who wanted to be an Episcopal priest, was on their list of “enemies”, I prayed for them: St Gregory’s church was big on praying for enemies, you should have seen us on 9/11. One Sunday, I stood vested as a deacon in the morning liturgy and raised my hands upward, and mentioned the AMiA Bishops and clergy (as we then knew them) all by name and asked the congregation to pray God’s blessing and guidance on them - meaning “if they’re wrong, God help them, if they’re right, God advance them.”. At that point the congregation normally replied “Lord, Have Mercy.” Instead, a priest, Rick, one of the two rectors of the parish, stepped forward to the middle of the room and prayed loudly “and for their conversion!” To which the congregation said, “Lord, have mercy.”

In an extended email conversation among the liturgical staff after that event it was evident that he thought my prayer misguided and that they were wrong and we were right. No other view was to be accepted in the liturgy at his parish - he, a man who had just come out to the parish and had, obviously, swallowed the party doctrines, hook line and sinker: these AMiA folks wanted to send us all back to the dark ages and we needed them to be enlightened. We were called to enlighten them.

5 or 6 years earlier, talking to my then supervisor at the Episcopal Church Center about the (then) American Anglican Congress and its predecessor the Episcopal Synod of American - especially in terms of one of member of those bodies (Bishop Wantland) that worked closely with my boss, a support person for Wantland’s diocese and also a gay man living with his clergy “spouse”. The question was how can we as gay Christians make room for those who disagree with us: St Paul says not to scandalize each other, shouldn’t we as gay folks side with Saint Paul and stand down our new morality so as to keep from scandalizing those who held an opposing view? The answer was a clear, “No.” There was no room for people like that in the Church - the time to insist was now. In the words of Barbara Harris, “let them go.” Or, “Good bye and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”

One more time leap: A few months after my prayer was “edited” by another gay man, as noted above, I met with the other rector of our parish who asked me, point blank, why it was I wanted to be in communion with those folks who didn’t want to be in communion with me - and why I was willing to ignore folks who wanted to be in communion with me. The problem was not that I was rejecting those folks - old friends, comforting faces. The problem was they were rejecting me: not for my sexuality but rather for the heresy (in liberal eyes) of believing in the Bible and the created order of things, of believing in a bodily crucified and bodily resurrected Christ; the heresy (in liberal eyes) of being a mostly (small o) orthodox Christian. A quote currently making the rounds - “A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying: ‘You are mad, you are not like us.’” - Abba Anthony of Egypt. I was mad in their eyes.

Yesterday, an openly noncelibate gay man was confirmed in his election as a Bishop in the Episcopal Church. The key word here is not gay, I think, but rather non-celibate. He intends as Bishop to live with his sexual partner in the Bishop’s residence. This event is predicted to cause schism and turmoil - a nullity of convention has been declared already by the Bishop of Pittsburgh, a chaos resulting from lack of leadership and intervention from overseas bishops. Yet Monday morning Canon Robinson set on national TV and said his election would bring hundreds into a church that now saw that church as welcoming and inclusive.

And, I want to admit - he may be right. The chance to attend a rite with one’s lover, to sit there and enjoy the music, to be told God loves you, and to hear a sermon about “green ecology” and “social justice” and “liberal politics” would be a lovely way to spend a Sunday morning - and to be followed up by coffee and maybe brunch with friends at some local eatery. We’d all go home and feel much better. It would help so much.

Why then, was a woman crying in the corner of the room at Canon Robinson’s election - lamenting that her church had departed from the faith? Why then are thousands of Anglicans around the world prepared - as never before - to get out a can of whoop-@55 should this event come to pass? Why are soon-to-be-exEpiscopalians (at least one family of them) already showing up at my Orthodox parish’s door? Because, “Salvation”, as Fr. Schmemann says, “...is not only not identical with help, but is, in fact, opposed to it.”

Modern psychology and the obvious advances in culture and education which have brought us the freedom to show full frontal nudity to teenagers and to teach them condom use, have also taught us that ancient cultures were horribly backward in their understandings of sex and sexuality. It is so painfully obvious that the aberration of Judeo-Christian ethics must be stopped that some folks will go so far as to imply that such morals are not part of the faith at all - never intended to be included in the “enlightened” teachings of Jesus.

There is, however, another view:

Eugene Rose, a gay man living in San Francisco in the 50s and 60s, wrote,

“...my mother has discovered, rather illegitimately (I shall tell you of it later) that I am homosexual; if you have not surmised the fact already, it is time you know of it. I have not quite been kicked out of the house, but I probably shall not return after September. My mother was quite hysterical, but my father persuaded her that I am only ‘sick.’ I have agreed to go to my friend’s psychiatrist in S.F., which I was rather interested in doing for other reasons, at parental expense.
“I suppose you have also surmised by now that I shall live this summer, and sleep, with a young man I love, and who loves me.”
(letter dated June 1956, quoted online.)
Later we learn,
It was Rose’s gay partner in San Francisco who introduced him to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. But while Rose was immersing himself in the mystique of ancient Orthodoxy, his partner, who had written a book about the Church, was losing interest in it. Soon the Church took Rose wholly, and he and his partner split up.
A social doctrine adopted by the Council of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate last year describes homosexuality as “a sinful injury to human nature” to be “treated by sacraments, prayer, fasting, repentance and the reading of the Holy Scriptures.”
Referring to his young adult years before he became fully involved in the Orthodox Church, Rose once said: “I was in hell. I know what hell is.”
(Ibid.)
I was in hell. I know what hell is.

I stand by those words of Fr Seraphim. This Hell is being driven by one’s hormones and knowing that to deny them is unhealthy. Hell is being driven by one’s desires and fantasies and knowing that to deny them is to deny the only joy there is, the joy that defines your whole being. Hell is a fine San Francisco morning standing in one’s bedroom while an orgy takes place in the hallway outside. Hell is a foggy San Francisco afternoon standing in a room full of men involved in various actions with each other - and somewhere a voice tells you it’s all wrong, but you don’t know what to do. Hell is a balmy SF evening on a back porch listening to ten gay men in the middle of the most liberal Episcopal Diocese in the country insist that all churches are homophobic and evil. Hell is being told in a Sunday sermon that Jesus died in 1st century Judea, that Jesus isn’t alive, that Jesus isn’t coming back, and that he would want that you should “follow your bliss” to find the will of God in your life - all of this when you know now that your “bliss” makes you more depressed every time you indulge in it.

Hell is a “Pride Parade” where no one looks at you, where know one returns your compliments where no one bothers to notice you - on a day when egos are supposed to be full and fluffy, hell is having one’s ego bashed. Hell is knowing that at this point someone reading this essay will say “Oh, he’s ugly and bitter, that’s all.” Hell is watching your friends die for the sake of their own freedom to damn themselves - and hearing them cry “I didn’t do anything to deserve this… God is hateful.”

Hell is knowing that there is the slightest possibility that these “Jesus Seminar” folks and these other “new theologians” are wrong. That 2000+ years of orthodox Christians are right: what if gay sex is evil? Equally hell is standing next to those who end that conversation by saying “Oh, shut up.” Hell is being told that all the Gospel is wrong - millennia of your brothers and sisters in the faith were wrong - that Jesus loves you just as you are and no change is required, we’ll just throw out everything that disagrees with that. Hell is being told that this nihilism and denial of any and all truth is exactly what church is supposed to be - liberating us from the dark past of sin and law.

Hell is finding out that no one really wants “a relationship” no matter how much they want it blessed or accepted; rather just the ease of sex, the right to demand acceptance of their neighbors and the ability to collect insurance. They’d also like it to be open, please, not monogamous, with a don’t ask don’t tell policy and weekends free to “play around.” And don’t judge us, please.

Hell is standing in the middle of the most gay-friendly city in the country - perhaps the world - and knowing that, please God, there must be something more than this.

Or maybe Hell is belonging to a church that just pats you on the head and says, “That’s ok, dear.”

Hell welcomes you in from the cold by leaving all the windows and doors wide open and turning off the heat (too great a change can be a shock, you know). No change is required. No shift in vision. “We value every person and support a widely diverse community” means we have no standards, there is no difference between church and Denny’s.

There is a way out.

I really can’t add anything to this.

Ian you said:

In terms of ministers being trained, I think if we insisted they be trained in this area, a thousand thousand new “struggles” may be on the agenda for teaching and a B Th. will extend to 20 years! ;-)

Granted not every church can be expected to have a ministry specialising in helping people who are dealing with unwanted SSA, but by the same token, I think this thread has done a lot of good on highlighting just how widespread the need for such a ministry is.

Without such training and education, persons coming into our churches desiring help with unwanted SSA are all too likely to keep hearing sermons like this:

I remember a Doctrine Commission session in Sydney a couple of years ago, when we were preparing our book on homosexuality in the Church, where an ex-homosexual Evangelical speaker was invited to tell us about his conversion and healing by Christ, with his wife along to prove it, though in his speech and manner he was still as camp as a row of tents. It was an extraordinary and for me a deeply disturbing performance, and I felt that if this was nature as the Bible intended it, then it was more like Frankenstein’s version of nature than Christ’s.

The whole sermon (by an Anglican minister - apparently) can be found here: 

It is hard to believe that such scarcely-concealed ridicule and contempt, based it would seem on a rather crude stereotype, should issue from a pulpit.

Alan,

Thanks for your post.

[quote author="Alan Dungey"]Ian you said:

In terms of ministers being trained, I think if we insisted they be trained in this area, a thousand thousand new “struggles” may be on the agenda for teaching and a B Th. will extend to 20 years! ;-)

Granted not every church can be expected to have a ministry specialising in helping people who are dealing with unwanted SSA, but by the same token, I think this thread has done a lot of good on highlighting just how widespread the need for such a ministry is.

Without such training and education, persons coming into our churches desiring help with unwanted SSA are all too likely to keep hearing sermons like this:

<cut>

Shocking sermon indeed!

100% agreement with the need to highlight how widespread the need for such a ministry is!  I in no way meant to make light of the subject and I apologise if that is how my comments were taken.

Some form of training to deal with a variety of sexual matters is required, though.  Though I often wonder what form of training ministers-to-be get.  I am still reeling from an episode a few years back where I expressed to a catechist that I was feeling down and away from God, and he responded with, “Have you had sex lately? [I am not married] That is a common cause of such feelings!” I felt that was over-reacting a tad!

Better stop before I go more off-topic; Anon 1 and 2: know you are in my prayers.
Ian.

Homophobia and the Church

This topic is very difficult to talk about openly on a christian front.

When I was young I only thought of my mates - boys. My world was surrounded by other boys with adventures and fun etc. As I grew older I was attracted to girls, as puberty emerged.

I didn’t know how to deal with girls really. I had a brother, and all my mates were boys. But, I did find the girls attractive more than anything in a purile way.

It think it takes some changes in life tactics and behaviour for a boy/man during these years, and I pesonally think that homosexuality is a result of not being able to make adequate changes in many cases. (Other homosexuls seem to be quite unashamabley girlish even in these days, and never change later)

I did have homosexual type incidents in growing up, where boys would compare penises ( at age 12 or so) publicly, and talk about what sex was going to be like. We all dreamed of kissing a girl more than any thing else. Sex was an unthought of result. We were experimenting with asking girls out on dates, or meeting them in cinemas at the time. This was common.

Boys felt comfortable with other boys in matters relating to the mystery of sex. (Could it be that homosexuality stems from not leaving this stage??)
I can only relate that argument based on my experience.

Phillip Jensen once stated, in a sermon about homosexuality, that a cure was available. He didn’t actually state what the cure was. But I thought I knew what he meant, vaguely.

I see the cure as first ceasing the act of homosexuality, and then involving oneself totally with the opposite sex in all ways, previously connected with same sex. This is very hard, (like giving up smoking) but may lead to changes in a desired direction. (I know by my past life, in late teens, that I produced results leading to positive changes.)

These days I am strictly a meat and potatoes man, and my childhood tendencies have gone completely. I was married, and had two children (But this is a different story - before God’s grace saved me).
Since becoming a christian about 18 years ago, I am not plagued by sexual temptation, but seek relationship instead as a prime goal.

I have opened up my feelings and hope anything I said is helpful. 1 Corinthians 5-7 I guess is basic reading on this subject.

Ken

It is hard to believe that such scarcely-concealed ridicule and contempt, based it would seem on a rather crude stereotype, should issue from a pulpit.

For the record, this sermon was preached in a gay-friendly parish, with numerous openly gay men and women in the congregation, some of whom have been vilified and subjected to abuse. None of them felt ridiculed or held in contempt, but rather empowered by such a brave sermon. The above quote also highlights why we should not take things out of context, because the so-called ridicule was preceded by the statement:

Further, I’m informed that therapies purporting to ‘cure’ homosexuality are commended through pastoral ministry in Sydney diocese, so whether it’s prayer or counselling or (for some) even electro-convulsive therapy, the distortions of sin can be realigned by God’s grace, so the true heterosexual nature, as God and the Bible intended, can establish itself at last.

And then commented on the futility and abusiveness of such techniques, speaking in terms well understood by the congregation.

And, before anyone asks, yes I was there.

Chris B, thanks for pointing out the context of the sermon, which explains it to some extent:

For the record, this sermon was preached in a gay-friendly parish, with numerous openly gay men and women in the congregation, some of whom have been vilified and subjected to abuse. None of them felt ridiculed or held in contempt, but rather empowered by such a brave sermon. The above quote also highlights why we should not take things out of context, because the so-called ridicule was preceded by the statement:

Quote:
Further, I’m informed that therapies purporting to ‘cure’ homosexuality are commended through pastoral ministry in Sydney diocese, so whether it’s prayer or counselling or (for some) even electro-convulsive therapy, the distortions of sin can be realigned by God’s grace, so the true heterosexual nature, as God and the Bible intended, can establish itself at last. 

And then commented on the futility and abusiveness of such techniques, speaking in terms well understood by the congregation.

I did not mean to suggest that the preacher was ridiculing people in the congregation (who - if you describe them well - no doubt would have felt ‘affirmed’ and ‘empowered’ by such a sermon - whether edified is another matter).

What I find objectionable is not that the preacher obviously did not think that ministries to help people overcome unwanted SSA worked (he is entitled to that opinion); but that he reached that conclusion solely by way of ridiculing someone who had overcome his unwanted SSA.  I took the text of the sermon to insinuate that, by virtue of what appeared to its author to be effeminate mannerisms, this person was obviously a homosexual, whatever he claimed, and therefore not only ‘living a lie’ (though I suppose, to the world, it might seem that all Christians are doing that), but a fool as well.

Surely it is (to say the least) ungenerous to make this sort of accusation in public, and in the absence of the person accused; and absurd to draw such a conclusion based not on any actual knowledge of the person, but solely on prejudice of the crudest sort (the idea that any person with effeminate manners must be a homosexual - the stuff of schoolyard name-callings and jokes - not the pulpit)

It is a shameful truth as you point out Chris that gay people have been vilified and subjected to abuse in Christian circles.

But I wonder if ‘gay Christian circles’ are not - by virtue of sermons of this kind - somewhat returning the favour.  How would a person seeking to overcome unwanted SSA be made to feel if he admitted his plight to such a preacher?

He would likely be affirmed in something he did not want, and believed God did not wish for him.  I cannot imagine anything less affirming or more disempowering than that.

Chris:  thanks for putting the sermon in context - I should have read the whole thing before replying, and I apologise.

Ken: thank you for sharing.  I am sure it was difficult.

Though I’m not sure I’d count comparing penises and talking about sex as “homosexual”: if so, 90% of my school was homosexual which would be an interesting statistic.

I am glad you have found a way that can help you, and thank you for sharing that.  I must say that I am a bit unsure about “cures”, though it could be my ignorance.  As I read the article Matthew provided, it came across to me that we should treat SSA as other troubles such as lying, stealing, etc.  Do we all believe there are “cures” for these?  I’m simply trying to throw this up for discussion, not lessening your experience, Ken, and I hope it doesn’t come across like that.

Ian.

Ken, you said:

When I was young I only thought of my mates - boys. My world was surrounded by other boys with adventures and fun etc. As I grew older I was attracted to girls, as puberty emerged.

I didn’t know how to deal with girls really. I had a brother, and all my mates were boys. But, I did find the girls attractive more than anything in a purile way.

And this is completely normal. Not heterosexual, not homosexual.

It think it takes some changes in life tactics and behaviour for a boy/man during these years, and I pesonally think that homosexuality is a result of not being able to make adequate changes in many cases. (Other homosexuls seem to be quite unashamabley girlish even in these days, and never change later)

...
Boys felt comfortable with other boys in matters relating to the mystery of sex. (Could it be that homosexuality stems from not leaving this stage??)
I can only relate that argument based on my experience.

So what you are saying is that homosexual men are just boys who haven’t grown up. They are “girlish”, they are “childish”. By corollary they are “immature”.

I find that offensive, Ken, and if I were a gay man who was struggling with homosexual attraction I’d be somewhat upset to be written off in those terms (which are something of a very unfair stereotype).

I have found (as a woman) that gay men are very at home with women, and are equally at home with men. Those I know are well adjusted socially, and are not “girlish”. Not all gay people support or are interested in the Mardi Gras, not all are exhibitionists who flaunt their sexuality, not all exhibit the extreme “femininity” (actually, the femininity is not so much definitively homosexual) some gays express.

Immaturity is not something bounded by sexuality. My observations of men my age is that MOST are immature. Most have not realised their sexuality, most are scared of it, most are not at home with who they are. They seek to build themselves up by boasting of their achievements, they are afraid of intelligent women. Other twenty something males prove their “maleness” by loud car stereo systems (personally I think they like the loud beat because it makes them forget the small size of their genitalia… *snort*), or by immersing themselves in the “mateship culture”.

I did have homosexual type incidents in growing up, where boys would compare penises ( at age 12 or so) publicly, and talk about what sex was going to be like. We all dreamed of kissing a girl more than any thing else. Sex was an unthought of result. We were experimenting with asking girls out on dates, or meeting them in cinemas at the time. This was common.

This is not homosexuality. It is normal sexual exploration on the part of young and growing boys. The fact you all were wondering about what it was like to kiss a girl suggests to me that you were as far from homosexual experience in this as the Eiffel Tower is from the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

(On second thoughts, if the whole peer group was engaging in that sort of exploration - esp asking girls out etc - then there may well have been an undercurrent of frustration and confusion… I imagine that your peer group was not uniformly heterosexual. If so, those who already had gay leanings would have been very confused, possibly bullied… and I also imagine not all boys were interested in the whole “girl” thing for one reason or another. I don’t think that’s a sexuality issue at all. Rather, some young folk just aren’t interested in exploring sexuality or the opposite sex. I wasn’t. And I know many intelligent “nerd” types who also were more interested in their studies. )

They say that homoeroticism is “big” in the locker rooms of footy clubs - not sexual experiences necessarily, but in Australian culture, giving a mate a hug is considered borderline homosexual. Given the mateship these sorts of sports encourage and the almost exclusively male (and male hormone driven) environment, homoeroticism must be a serious consideration for some people. Personally, I think it goes too far: our culture here in Australia represses men’s sexuality, it represses their self-expression - and any outpourings of that nature are treated with great suspicion.