Читать книгу Straight to Jesus - Tanya Erzen - Страница 9

CHAPTER 2

New Creations

On New Year's Eve, 1999, thirteen men between the ages of twenty and forty-five arrived in San Rafael, California, from all over the country to begin the one-year residential program at New Hope Ministry. Although they were strangers to each other, they began the night by making dinner and finished by praying in the New Year together. The date is deliberately symbolic. In the past, these same men might have celebrated the New Year by engaging in drinking, drug use, and same-sex behavior. This New Year's Eve is a rite of passage, the beginning of what will be a year spent living in close proximity to others, delving into personal issues and problems, trying to conquer various sexual addictions, and hoping to eventually become sexually and religiously transformed. Some arrived believing that within a year their sexual attractions for members of the same sex will have diminished; others simply hoped to conquer debilitating addictions. Many were seeking the camaraderie and sense of community that were absent from their lives. They were joined by eight other men: four were continuing into their second year as leaders in training, and four had completed two years at New Hope and were now house leaders in the program.

At their initial New Year's meeting, Frank warned them, “The kind of miracle I want to discuss with you is not an instant kind of miracle, rather it is a long-term progressive miracle. Many would say it is not a miracle at all, but when God accomplishes something the world says is impossible, it is indeed a miracle.” During the evening, the men mingled.Each was required to speak to every other person in the room, writing down their names, hometowns, and any other facts about them in their workbook. Later, they carted their belongings into rooms shared with one to two other men, deliberating over which bunk would be theirs for the duration of the year. In a few days, they had covered the walls of the rooms with posters and whatever other personal mementos they had to demarcate the space as their own. Curtis's room, for example, was wallpapered with magazine clippings and snapshots of friends.

After the initial euphoria of New Year's, what veteran New Hopers call “the honeymoon period,” each man immediately begins a job search in the surrounding area. A sympathetic temporary agency assists in placing the men in local companies where there are other ex-gay men. This is important, because for the first several months of the program, known as phase one, participants are not allowed to go anywhere unless accompanied by two other people. The ministry includes weekly drop-in support groups, an organizational office, and a full-fledged residential program where men take part in group activities, classes, Bible studies, and counseling for a year. The four-quarter “Steps Out” workbook, written by Frank, is the basis for the classes and the structure of the residential program. Men also receive a copy of the “Steps Out” program manual, which lists the program's rules and regulations. By living in a dormitory-style arrangement, sharing living space and household duties, and working full time in the local community, they are to learn how to build healthy relationships with other men. Their one-year commitment to New Hope is designed to teach them coping skills and give them information about the root causes of their homosexuality while acknowledging that the process of change is one that potentially takes a lifetime.

Many are elated to be at the ministry, tentative yet hopeful that they will change. However, Frank also cautions them, “Change is difficult. It involves self-denial, which today is a no-no. The world cannot understand and doesn't want to understand that there are some things so valuable that people will deny their instincts and forgo immediate gratification to gain the pearl of great price who is Christ himself.” Obedience to God and acceptance that any conversions they undergo are an unfolding process is Frank's main message. “The place of the homosexual in the church is not acceptance as representing a third order of legitimate sexuality, but acceptance as one in the process of growth and change.” Hank seconds Frank's caveat, but he is a more formidable presence because he lives, eats, and spends all his time with the men. His long hair and propensity to go everywhere barefoot only add to the awe he inspires in new men in the program like Curtis, who always seem at a loss for words in Hank's presence. During the orientation, Hank leads the men through a series of requirements for participation: develop a positive attitude, be diligent, keep a journal, share, be celibate, be fervent in prayer, repent, be open and transparent, be committed to the church, and be cautious of seducing spirits.¹ “You have made a sacrifice to be here; make that sacrifice pay off for you. This program is important to you and your future; apply yourself,” Hank practically booms. “Do not just try to slip by. You could waste a year of your life and squander what God has provided for you. Not only that, you could inhibit another member's growth. Enthusiasm breeds enthusiasm; lethargy breeds lethargy.” Hank's physical and spiritual presence, more than any other, dominates daily life in the program. Because of the heavy responsibility for someone in Hank's position and the tendency for men to demand his individual attention, he is careful to delineate specific boundaries. The “Steps Out” workbook counsels the men, “Do not place heavy expectations on your house leader. To do his job effectively, he must divide his time between all house members; he cannot be exclusively yours.”² As the year progressed, these boundaries became increasingly difficult to maintain, and often Hank's only respite was the privilege of his single room or his escape to his job.

Attending worship services at Open Door Church their first Sunday in the program was startling for many of the New Hope men. Instead of condemning them, Pastor Mike warmly welcomed the new arrivals from his pulpit, and members of the church beamed at them from their seats. Open Door receives a new crop of ex-gay men every year when the program begins, and the other members of the church were expecting them. Most men who arrived at New Hope defined themselves as conservative Christians who believe that an ex-gay ministry represents their last opportunity to live according to Christian principles after leading lives of what they characterize as sin and unhappiness.³ In the language of New Hope, they are “strugglers,” or dealing with “sexual brokenness.” They joined the program because they have been unable to reconcile conflicts between their deeply rooted religious belief that the Bible is the word of God and that it expressly condemns homosexuality and their own sexual desires and practices. Their experiences growing up in conservative Christian churches where they heard dire warnings about homosexuality only reinforced this interpretation. Many arrived with tales of sexual and pornography addiction and anonymous sex in lavatories, rest stops, and parks; stories of loneliness; and suicide attempts. All of them spoke of suffering from guilt, shame, and distance from God. The men used the word homosexuality to describe their pasts because it refers to acts and feelings rather than an identity. Only a small percentage of the men in the program ever identified as gay, had long-term lovers or partners, or were socially or politically involved in a wider gay community. Most men eschewed a gay identity and described their sexuality as an experience of guilt about sexual acts, practices, feelings, and desires. Others had left long-term lovers, friendships, and relationships in order to become ex-gays. Hank explained his eleven-year relationship this way: “After many years I just got tired of the contradiction. I would get out of church and I would go have sex with somebody. God said, ‘You have to choose between your sin and me. What's it gonna be?' I was never able to deny God. I've tried to justify and it never set well. There was never any question in my mind; I always knew it was wrong.” The men also spoke of their expectation that by being at New Hope, their sexual conflicts would diminish as their Christian identity strengthened. They felt certain that it was only through an ex-gay program that they could reconcile their sexuality with their religious belief system through a process of religious and sexual conversion. Having a public intimacy with God and a personal relationship with Jesus would enable them to be new creations in Christ. Their new ex-gay identity would emerge through what they called “an identity in Jesus.”

SHOUT TO THE LORD

The men at New Hope grew up with or were familiar with conservative Christian traditions, spanning a wide range from Nazarene, Assemblies of God, Baptist, and Pentecostal to nondenominational backgrounds in Vineyard Fellowships or Calvary Chapels. A few men had upbringings in mainline Protestant denominations like Presbyterianism or Lutheranism. Some left their churches and faith for a time and then rediscovered it. Others attended church at the same time they engaged in clandestine homosexual relationships and sexual practices. The sole Catholic man at the ministry had tried an ex-gay group run by a Catholic church but found that it did not provide enough structure. During his year at the ministry, he was baptized by Pastor Mike and began to describe himself as a “saved Christian.” New Hope is adamant about promoting a non-denominational form of Christianity at the ministry. The program book states, “Please don't push your denomination's peculiar sectarian doctrine or dogma on others. New Hope Ministries holds to the simple Gospel presented by Jesus Christ.”⁴

Even by defining themselves simply as Christians, the people at New Hope and Open Door reference a very specific theological belief system. This includes the necessity for personal salvation through becoming born again, or saved, faith in the inerrancy of the Bible, and the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, with whom a person can have an intimate relationship. The theological tenets of Open Door Church echo these ideas: belief in the Holy Trinity (Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit), the virgin birth, the Second Coming of Christ, and salvation by faith and grace alone. Open Door's official doctrinal statement reads, “We believe the essence of the Christian life is a personal relationship with Christ lived out in the fellowship of the church.” The idea of grace is central to how New Hope and Open Door Church conceive of homosexuality. In this view, God's grace extends to all people, regardless of their sins, as long as they ask for forgiveness. Open Door and New Hope understand salvation as an act of divine grace received through faith in Christ, not through any kind of penance or good works. When a person is reborn, the guilt of sin disappears and an inward process of sanctification takes place as he or she leads a Christian life. The New Hope doctrinal statement links the issue of homosexuality to this belief system:

We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and is infallible and authoritative in its original writings. We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful man, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and regeneration by the Holy Spirit are essential. We believe that the Bible teaches that all homosexual conduct is wrong and against God's standards. We believe that through making an unconditional commitment to Christ, we are empowered by Him who gives us victory over homosexual desires and leads us into a new life and a new walk that is within His will.⁵

Services at Open Door are informal and spontaneous. At one of my first visits, Pastor Mike's son, who is the unofficial leader of the Open Door band, played soft Christian rock songs on guitar accompanied by a keyboardist, two female singers, and a drummer. Their band toured Ireland and parts of Europe later that summer as part of a series of Christian youth events. A disco ball that belonged to the community center revolved overhead, refracting the light from outside. The lyrics to “Shout to the Lord” were projected on a screen above us, and the congregation sang the chorus over and over:

Shout to the Lord, all the earth,

let us sing

power and majesty, praise to the king;

mountains bow down and the seas will roar

at the sound of your name.

I sing for joy at the work of your hands,

forever I'll love you, forever I'll stand,

nothing compares to the promise I have in you.

The singing was heartfelt and expressive. Brian closed his eyes and extended his palms upward. Curtis shook from side to side as if he were at a concert and frequently lifted his hands in a posture of surrender. This part of the service lasted for half an hour. The singing reached a crescendo, but the band continued, and the congregation repeated the chorus one more time. The program bulletin called it praise and worship, and the intensity of singing was meant to express a deep love for God. Brian and Curtis's participation in worship was much more bodily than cognitive. Afterward, when I asked why Pastor Mike had used a particular word during his sermon, Curtis could not recall what I was talking about. “I loved the worship service,” he replied, humming “Shout to the Lord.”

With the music playing gently in the background, Pastor Mike had preached a short sermon based around Romans. His sermons tended to be Bible-centered instead of topical. Members of New Hope are encouraged to interpret scripture for themselves and have direct interactions with God. Pastor Mike was an understated and folksy minister rather than a fire-and-brimstone preacher or flashy televangelist. He frequently spoke about the apocalypse and his belief in the Second Coming of Jesus, a belief that some evangelical churches espouse to varying degrees.⁶ “The Bible is fuzzy on the end times issue. There will be an ending. I tell people to pick your poison and to be ready,” he later explained. The official church doctrine listed at the Open Door Web site states, “We believe the age will end with the return of Jesus Christ to set up His kingdom.” Pastor Mike and Frank see evangelizing and sharing their beliefs with a wider culture as a necessity. They often speak of their “callings” to minister to those struggling with homosexuality.

At the end of the service at Open Door, with Pastor Mike's encouragement, several people came to the front of the room for healing prayer. Brian strode forward and leaned over a new member of the program, laying his hand on his shoulder, praying fervently but softly. Ray, in his late forties, wearing jeans and a rumpled shirt, knelt before him with his eyes squeezed shut, also praying. Brian intended his laying on of hands to be caring but casual, so that anyone would feel empowered to step forward to receive healing. Open Door teaches that everyone should receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. “We believe in the power of the Holy Spirit, his dwelling presence in every believer, and the gifts that he imparts,” Pastor Riley explained. “People teach that you're automatically filled with the spirit when you're born again and to a certain degree I believe that your spirit is quickened,” said Hank. One of the signs that a person has accepted the Holy Spirit is that he or she receives a prayer language or the ability to pray in tongues. Connected with this ability is a feeling that one has what Hank calls “a prophetic gift of healing.…I really believe that the mainstream church is lacking in a dynamic manifestation of the spirit. It's more a religion, [a] head thing, and that has never done anything for me whatsoever. I think everybody should be filled with the spirit.” Hank's everyday life is suffused with this practice. Frequently, as he went about his other tasks as the resident New Hope handyman, he would start praying loudly or singing a particularly religious Johnny Cash song, like “Will You Meet Me in Heaven Someday?” He believed that these manifestations of his spirit-filled nature were simply spontaneous eruptions beyond his control, which was further proof to him of the way the spirit moved in his everyday life.

Many men eagerly anticipated the healing portion of the service at Open Door, but overall a communal aspect of worship infused the entire church experience. Pastor Mike asked us to hug and talk to our neighbors, to hold hands, and there was a lot of bumping into each other as everyone swayed to the music. When he noticed my hesitation and stiffness, Curtis grabbed my sweaty palms during praise and worship, forcing me briefly to move along with him. Open Door's mode of worship reintegrates bodily experience into religious life. Being there seemed to allay the men's deeply felt anxieties about their sexuality, and many spoke of feeling ecstatic joy and profound peace after services. It made sense that in a program where physical and sexual contact is strictly regulated, the euphoric and physically intimate experience of worship could serve as a release or safety valve for frustration and loneliness. The repression of all forms of sexuality at New Hope could manifest in the emotionalism of the religious service at Open Door. The lyrics to the last song, projected on the screen from a transparency, read, “Bless our lives, Holy Spirit,/Holy Spirit, fill our lives with peace.”

After the services and during the week, men in the program attended Bible studies, men's meetings, and other special-interest groups under the auspices of Open Door. Robert Wuthnow points out that after the 1960s, Christians demonstrated their faith in small, politically oriented groups that transcended denominational and theological affiliation.⁷ Miller writes that, “New paradigm churches tend to be filled with programs that deal with the specific needs of those attending them. It is not surprising, then that small group meetings in homes are at the core or all these movements.”⁸ Open Door and New Hope are descended from this form of special-interest Christianity, except that they focus solely on issues of homosexuality, which has alienated them from other post–denominational churches. Contrary to the perception that conservative Christian theology and practice are rooted in exclusion, New Hope offers inclusion for those who have been shunned or alienated by both mainstream and conservative churches as long as they acquiesce to the process of change. One man praised Pastor Mike: “When he's really talking about things that are more pointed toward people's lives, he's amazingly open, amazingly supportive. I didn't hear any of the stuff about you're scum, you're going to hell. I was really surprised how supportive he was.” In a conservative Christian religious landscape in which homophobia is prevalent, Open Door provides an unlikely haven.

BIBLE BELIEVERS

The idea of a church organized around transforming sexuality has not generally been the norm in most fundamentalist or evangelical religious traditions, which either rarely mention homosexuality or deem it a sin. New Hope and Open Door are part of a wider evangelical tradition, which is a broad category that encompasses fundamentalism and a range of communities, congregations, and movements associated with modern Protestantism. Evangelicalism emerged in the early eighteenth century as a form of “Jesus-friendly Christianity” with what historian Stephen Prothero calls a “unique combination of enthusiasm and egalitarianism, revivalism and republicanism, biblicism and common sense.”⁹ The revivals of the Second Great Awakening in the 1830s and 1840s provided a new set of religious ideas within Protestant Christianity. In contrast to the Calvinist doctrine that emphasized a fallen humanity and sovereign God, revivalists claimed that sinners could choose salvation and their own spiritual destinies. The evangelical notion of self-determination and agency went hand in hand with individualistic impulses in American society. Evangelicalism's main tenets—that each person can be transformed through conversion, that people have free moral agency, and that inequality is not divinely mandated—altered the ways marginal people in the United States viewed themselves and their social circumstances during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Conversions and revivals had an impact outside of religious life and ultimately represented new forms of democratization in which religious outsiders like women, African Americans, and working people achieved greater access to the public realm and forms of social power. They used the revivals to register discontent with wider economic and social changes brought on by the market revolution.¹⁰ For decades after the Second Great Awakening, fundamentalism and evangelicalism emphasized approximately the same thing: soul winning and orthodoxy. After World War I, evangelical and neoevangelical groups perceived benefits in contact with outsiders and secular culture, while fundamentalists held onto an opposition to secularism and maintained a more separatist stance than other evangelicals.

Generally, evangelicalism in America describes a vast, varied, and interactive aggregation of many different groups, like Pentecostals, charismatics, Vineyard Fellowships, Assemblies of God, and Churches of the Nazarene. Evangelicals believe that people must have an intimate relationship with Jesus and that only an individual desire to follow Jesus will suffice for salvation.¹¹ The simple meaning of the word “evangelical” refers to the “good news” presented in the Gospels, and many modern evangelicals understand their mandate as spreading this good news and winning souls for Jesus by testifying to their own life-changing experiences. Within evangelicalism, some churches and denominations understand the Bible as infallible, true, and literal, in contrast to a liberal Protestant view that considers the Bible a product of human history and context. For instance, one of Open Door's doctrinal statements reads, “We believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. It is infallible. It is inerrant in the original. It is the final authority for the Christian faith and practice.”¹² However, many evangelicals do not actually read the Bible literally, believing there is metaphor and poetry in the Bible.

The historical division between evangelicalism and fundamentalism stems from theological debates about their relationship to God and wider society. There is still discussion among historians about when fundamentalism developed as a movement and as a set of religious ideas.¹³ José Casanova writes that fundamentalism emerged as an anti-modernist reaction to the disestablishment of evangelicalism from liberal Protestant churches and from American public education. Fundamentalists fought battles on three fronts: liberal modernist heresies in northern congregations, Darwinism in public schools, and Catholic immigration.¹⁴ “The Fundamentals,” a series of booklets published between 1905 and 1915, helped define the tenets of fundamentalism. They defended the Bible, conservative doctrine, and the Second Coming of Jesus. However, according to Casanova, “The particular ‘fundamentals,' chosen rather arbitrarily, were not as important as the fact of proclaiming some ‘fundamentalist' tenet, some taboo boundary which could not be trespassed.”¹⁵ These publications produced a body of dogma that was distinct from the rest of Protestantism and helped to consolidate the theological position of fundamentalists.¹⁶

Historically, popular culture cast fundamentalists as anti-modernist crusaders who advocated a separation from the world and modern society's corruption. This narrative solidified with the Scopes Trial of 1925 in which a schoolteacher, John Scopes, was fired for teaching evolution in a Tennessee public school. The court battle that emerged over evolution and creation and the subsequent representations of the trial in the play and film Inherit the Wind created a definitive legacy for Scopes.¹⁷ The trial came to symbolize the triumph of science and empiricism over religion and to embody the defeat of fundamentalism.¹⁸ According to Joel Carpenter, rather than disappear after 1925, fundamentalism continued to thrive in the 1930s and 1940s, and these years were a time of significant institution building by those who defined themselves as fundamentalists and evangelicals.¹⁹ The Billy Graham Evangelistic Crusade and the National Association of Evangelicals inaugurated a new era of neoevangelism. They eschewed religious separatism by working with other religious groups and saw their mandate as influencing the wider culture around them. The 1940s and 1950s witnessed the creation of a variety of evangelical institutions, political action groups, and universities.²⁰

For conservative, nondenominational Protestants, many of the distinctions between fundamentalist and evangelical practices and theology have eroded. For churches like Open Door, the descriptive term “fundamentalist” or “evangelical” is less important than their particular set of beliefs and the ways they practice religion and faith as a community. They simply refer to themselves as Christians. Frank and Pastor Mike, for instance, were always reluctant to use either term to describe Open Door. “It really means sticking to fundamental beliefs, but today it means right-wing, and we're not that,” maintained Pastor Mike. “We're fundamental in our theology.” He describes his church as evangelical charismatic and agrees with the label “postdenominational.” “We're a church that always tried to go down the middle, and we got in trouble with both sides. The fundamentalists think, Why would you let gays in your church? The liberals think we're too judgmental.” He accepts the Bible as literally true but qualifies his statement, “I have to understand that the Bible has poetry, history, literature, and interpret those things, but I accept it as it stands. The Bible affects lives more dramatically when it is taken as literal truth in a literal interpretation.”

Many men in the New Hope program grew up hearing sermons that taught homosexuality was the most horrible sin of all. At New Hope and Open Door they interpret scriptures from Genesis, Leviticus, Romans, and First Corinthians to mean that homosexuality is not God's intent, and Pastor Mike would agree. In the sermons, classes, and Bible studies at New Hope, Frank and Pastor Mike argue that the book of Genesis is proof that sex should be tied solely to procreation, that heterosexuality is mandated by God, and that the aim of sexuality is completeness, or the bringing together of the male and female. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah figures prominently in the conservative Christian debate over homosexuality.²¹ Using the New International Version, the New Living translation, or the New American Standard Bibles, conservative Christians traditionally read Leviticus 18:22 as an unambiguous repudiation of homosexual acts. The New International Version states, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” New Hope's interpretation of First Corinthians includes the use of the words “sexual perverts” and states, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, not adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” In the “Steps Out” workbook, Frank writes that the Greek words for sexual perverts are malakoi and arsenokoitai. He translates these terms as “soft” or “weak,” and by extension “effeminate,” and concludes that the words connote the passive partner in homosexual intercourse.²² In the Revised Standard and Living Bibles, these terms have been translated respectively as “homosexuals, homosexual perverts and partakers in homosexuality.” Frank acknowledges that the basis for New Hope's belief in homosexuality's sinfulness rests on the translation of a few words. However, rather than viewing these translations as the result of the bias of a particular cultural context or religious tradition, Frank believes the translation is a moot point. To him, the Bible is the word of God and is infallible regardless of human error or interpretation.

Most of the men at New Hope read these biblical verses as the inspired word of God and refused to acknowledge cultural or historical context. There were exceptions, like Evan, a seminary graduate spending the year at New Hope. I had assumed Evan was an imposter or spy when we initially met, because his Ivy League education, Methodist background, and progressive political ideas were glaring aberrations at New Hope. His serious, lined face showed signs of time in the outdoors, and he rarely smiled or evinced the emotion of other men in the program. He had written sermons as a theology student, and he was equally well versed in biblical interpretation and postmodern theory, speaking of Judith Butler and John Calvin in the same breath. His nuanced discernment of scripture often led to clashes with Hank and disagreements over Frank's teaching style. “Many conservative Christians believe it just fell out of the sky and it's God's word, and he intended everything there to kind of speak to us in our time and place,” he told me. “There's a part of me that holds onto the view that God inspired these texts, that God was active at the moment of their creation and still speaks through them. But I haven't quite figured out how to totally balance that view with the idea that these are historical documents.” Lars, a social worker at an AIDS organization, had left New Hope after several years in the program to live as a gay man. At times, he was bitter about the conservative Christian hypocrisy around homosexuality. “I'm very confused, to be honest. I know what it says at face value. It basically says it's not favorable in God's eyes and is sin, in a nutshell; however, there are other things very conservative Christians don't follow anymore, like women not being allowed to talk or wear head coverings, so I'm left to think, if I can't take everything in the Bible at face value, then everything is up for discussion. They excuse things that are convenient for them.” His interpretation of the Bible had gradually shifted over time: “Honestly, I don't know what the scriptures say. Before I believed that the word of God was absolute and infallible and you had to do things, and I was willing to do that no matter what the cost. Now I'm not so sure.” Unlike Evan and Lars, most men arrive at New Hope believing that when the Bible references homosexuality, it does so in condemnation, and that these isolated verses are part of a larger tapestry of the word of God serving as irrefutable proof that homosexuality is wrong.

Scholars like John Boswell contend that some conservative Christians have reinterpreted biblical scriptures to reflect the political agenda of Christian organizations and that these scriptures are not irrefutable truths. According to Boswell, the word “homosexual” does not occur in the Bible, and no extant text or manuscript contains such a word.²³ He presents evidence that the preoccupation with homosexuality is a result of contemporary politics rather than long-standing biblical injunctions. One of the most powerful arguments for this viewpoint is the fact that Jesus never mentions homosexuality in any form in the New Testament. As Evan put it, “I think it's significant that it wasn't a big issue for Jesus. Jesus never mentions it.” Other scholars of sexuality have rigorously demonstrated that modern homosexual identity emerged in the West during the past two centuries, and the category “homosexuality” used by conservative Christians is a modern term placed on a different historical and cultural context.²⁴ Many of these debates are simply irrelevant to the men at New Hope because the idea that homosexuality is “not what God has planned and not what God wants,” as Hank puts it, is the bottom line. The scholarly réévaluation of the scriptures means nothing when a person believes that the scriptures are absolute and immutable truth. As Drew bluntly said, “In Genesis God created man and then he made woman. I believe that Christ walked this earth and that he's real [and] that it's not right. I believe it's a choice.”

Frank and other ex-gay leaders also interpret biblical passages to mean that in addition to condemnation, the Bible also offers the promise of liberation. The ex-gay movement's founding statement includes compassion for those struggling with homosexuality, but the ability to feel compassion does not translate into endorsement. The idea of homosexuality as sin is central to New Hope's view of scripture, and the distinction between sin and sinner translates to the difference between sexual behavior and identity for ex-gays. Nowhere do they read the Bible as a way to understand homosexuality as a positive way to live. Dwight, a man from Scotland in his early forties who worked in the New Hope offices, claimed, “So, how I see it is that basically God doesn't want anybody to use their bodies for sex unless it's within marriage. I guess I tend to focus on that rather than on looking just at homosexuality.” Marvin Ellison, a Christian ethicist, argues that the Christian tradition has never had a constructive ethic of sexuality that truly affirms and honors the rich diversity of human sexualities.²⁵ He asks, “What would a progressive Christian ethic look like that regarded homosexuality as a morally good way to be and ‘do' sexuality? What difference would it make to focus moral concern not on gender and sexual identity, but on the quality of relational intimacy and whether our connections with each other are just and compassionate?”²⁶ The idea of homosexuality as a social and moral good was beyond the conception of Frank or any of the men at New Hope. They had fully assimilated the idea that positive sexuality could exist only for married heterosexuals.

Many men at New Hope were quite comfortable with accepting and assimilating a view of scriptures predicated on a starkly polarized moral view of the world. The creation of a moral universe devoid of ambiguity was also a defense against and reaction to reproof and censure for joining an ex-gay ministry. Their experience of being ostracized from their primary community, the church, was critical in their decision to join an ex-gay ministry. Many men endured early rejection as members of their congregations, and others heard messages that homosexuality was a sin akin to murder. Growing up as an active member of an Assemblies of God church in Southern California, Brian internalized these messages from an early age, and they were still the linchpin of his identity. He told me, “It was like, this is sin. You've got to stay away from it, and it's a spiritual battle. It's a war. Spirit forces are raging in the heavenly realm—that kind of thing.” Doug, a new arrival at the program, was a heavyset man who had lived in a gay neighborhood in San Francisco for over twenty years before joining New Hope. He remembers sitting next to his high school boyfriend when Jerry Falwell visited as the guest pastor in the Pentecostal church in Oregon where he was raised. “What is significant was he got up on the pulpit and had this list in descending order of who was going to go to hell, and at the top of the list was the homosexuals,” he recalled. “So, for the first time in my life, being there in church with my secret boyfriend, we both looked at each other like, oh my God, he's talking about us. Here I am a sixteen-yearold boy and this guy is telling me I'm going to go to hell. And so from that point on, there was no way I could live with the guilt of trying to be a churchgoing Christian and trying to be gay.”

Brian remembers, “[In] any kind of example you wanted to give about how bad the world had gotten you included homosexuality.” During one sermon while he was a teenager, Brian, in his typically outspoken way, went forward and was bold enough to say that he needed prayer for his struggle with homosexuality. The pastors of his church escorted him into a back office where they attempted to exorcise the demon of homosexuality. “It was very weird, with them pounding on me with their fists. Of course, more than anything, I wanted to be rid of it, so I tried my hardest to participate and to eject this thing out of me. And, of course, they didn't succeed.” After pastors urged them to pray more, to fast, to gain more experience in the spiritual disciplines, and to conceal their feelings, many ex-gays simply left their churches. Without exception, this separation produced turmoil, and many ended up rejecting Christianity in all forms until they found New Hope.

New Hope was one of the few places where these men and women, after years of silence and denial, interacted with others who had shared similar experiences, and where their sexual struggle was the central part of their religious identity. Yet their resentment toward their churches lingered and erupted at times. Lars was one person willing to expose the hypocrisy of many Christians who preached love and compassion but practiced something quite different.

Most of them can't handle the truth. If you're in the church and you're a drug addict, murderer, whatever, guys will come up to you and slap you on the ass. You're one of the guys. But if you state you struggle with homosexuality, you get the whole pew to yourself.

The church has a hell of a long ways to go in accepting people where they are because they hate people who are gay. When I was at church the very last time they were talking about Matthew Shepard and his sin and what a tragedy it was, and I wanted to stand up and say, You are the problem. You're the reason Matthew Shepard got murdered.

I heard Frank and other ex-gay leaders condemn Matthew Shepard's murderers and disassociate themselves from people like Fred Phelps and members of his Topeka, Kansas, church, who protested Shepard's funeral with signs reading, “God Hates Fags.”²⁷ However, neither Frank nor most of the men in the program were willing to go as far as Lars, calling the church to account for preaching words that kill.

THE LORD'S LAND