Be Not Deceived: The Sacred and Sexual Struggles of Gay and Ex-Gay Christian Men

---

The ex-gay ads and websites were designed to create more media coverage, which they did. This ex-gay media included a high-profile story in Newsweek featuring an ex-gay couple named John and Anne Paulk. In , he presented a study published two years later claiming some gay men and lesbians could change their sexual orientation through religiously mediated means. Since , the movement has faced several high-profile setbacks.

In , a negative media frenzy erupted in the United States surrounding a gay teenager named Zach Stark who was forced against his will into an ex-gay residential program in Memphis, Tennessee, by his conservative Christian parents.

Ex-gay Movement

In , an American Psychological Association report tabled in Toronto, Canada, found little evidence gay-to-straight therapy is effective, suggesting instead that it is probably harmful. Later that same year Dr. Spitzer publicly and officially retracted his own study, confessed his methodological errors, and apologized to the gay community for any harm he caused. Following that, California and New Jersey outlawed reparative therapy for minors bans that were upheld by the courts in Also in , a consumer fraud lawsuit was filed against the Jewish ex-gay group JONAH in New Jersey leading to a partial summary judgement ruling against them in February Finally, in , Exodus International shut down, its termination preceded by a confessional apology to ex-ex-gay survivors from Alan Chambers both online and in an episode of the Oprah Winfrey—produced documentary serial Our America.

Meanwhile, in Canada, the federal Official Opposition party, the New Democrats, passed a resolution in calling on the Government to disallow charitable status for any religious groups offering or promoting conversion therapy, and the Ontario New Democrats proposed legislation delisting conversion therapy from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan in that was unanimously passed by the Ontario legislature in June of that year.

Since , numerous former ex-gay leaders in addition to Alan Chambers have denounced the movement and apologized for promoting it, including John Smid, who ran the Memphis ex-gay residential program teenager Zach Stark was forced into, and John Paulk, one of the ex-gay participants showcased in Newsweek following the first advertising blitz. All of the participants are Christian, but they range in their levels of religiosity, with some participants attending churches regularly and others rarely attending formal church services.

These respondents also reflect a range of religious dominations, including Methodist, Southern Baptist, Assembly of God, Metropolitan Community Church, and non-denominational as well as some who attended church sporadically and did not claim a specific denominational affiliation. Other than those who attended a Metropolitan Community Church, we did not find any differences in respondent discussions of maintaining a Christian identity in rural spaces by religious denomination.

Likewise, little to no differences were evident in the responses of the bisexual women as compared to the lesbian women. Interviews lasted one hour on average.

Follow-up interviews were conducted with two respondents to gather more information about involvement in local church and gay communities as interviewee time constraints limited the discussion in the first interviews. Before the interview began, each participant was given an informed consent form to read and sign.

JSTOR: Access Check

The interviews were semi-structured, starting with basic demographic questions such as age, gender, race, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, place of residence, partnered or marital status, and educational background. While an interview schedule was used, questions were also asked regarding unique experiences of each participant. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded using an open coding format [ 70 ]. During this open coding process several themes were identified, including the different ways that individuals discussed their religious identity and the different reasons given for preferring to live in a rural environment.

Once these themes were identified, the research team wrote memos that sought to make connections across themes and analyze nuances within each of them [ 70 ]. Memos that were written during the analysis process were developed into the findings section below. During the analysis process, we returned to the data to look for disconfirming evidence as we developed our arguments.

No Results Found

In order to ensure confidentiality, all names of people have been changed. Through our in-depth interviews, three overarching themes emerged: We find that rurality underscores how those interviewed experience resident choice, community, and religious identity. Interviewees made a clear distinction between their identities as rural and urban LGB individuals and rejected what they interpreted as urban LGB culture and stereotypes.

This was paramount in their narratives. One interviewee, David, criticized urban gay men and thought better of rural gay men. David lives in an urban environment currently and recently moved there for his work. David has very strong opinions of gay men who live in urban environments. His quotes reflect his conflation of gay men in cities with culturally circulating stereotypes of gay men.

In contrast, when asked about the gay men he encountered in his rural community, he had very different things to say.

David recalled a more tight-knit community in his small town and one that was explicitly tied to religion. As he put it: He discussed missing such a group where members shared not only sexual orientation but also faith. For David, living in a rural place meant having close friendships with other gay and lesbian people that had similar values. Several other interviewees, who still live in a rural area, had similar things to say.

Many thought that in their small town whether or not it was the one they grew up in there was a community that was accepting of them. They were insiders to their small town community. They felt comfort in knowing everyone in town and being able to talk to them about church, school, and family life. Some felt they had to move out of their hometown to find acceptance, but still stayed in a rural area instead of moving to a larger city. Several of those interviewed expressed interest in living in a small town where they could know everyone, as well as going to a small church for the rest of their lives.

Further reflecting the distinction interviewees made, when Esther was asked specifically about stereotypes of rural people she recounted her experience of moving to and coming out in her small town, she said: They think we [gay people in general] go out and party all the time or something like that.

Esther found that the stereotypes her town had about gay people fit in with similar religious and cultural stereotypes about gay identities, which are almost exclusively in reference to urban gay life [ 71 , 72 ]. Although the stereotypes that Esther lists non-monogamous, partiers are perhaps most commonly associated with gay men, her quote illustrates that the women of our sample also expressed the understanding that these stereotypes are associated with lesbian women. Thus, both the men and women sought to distance their own sexual identity from what they saw as stereotypes of sexual minority identities more generally.

For Esther and others, it was important to distance themselves from what they interpreted as negative stereotypes of gay identities. Due to their rural and Christian identities, individuals asserted difference from presumed urban LGB individuals who party and similarities to other rural dwellers who are also family-centered. The rejection of urban culture meant that those interviewed were negotiating their religious and sexual identities outside of urban spaces. Feeling a connection to rurality and small town life was the most important underlying theme within these interviews; it also shaped the different experiences the men and women had in these spaces.

We find gender differences with regard to residential choices and importance placed on having a community. When discussing why they lived in a rural town, women, but not men, unanimously talked about the natural environment, the freedom, independence, and privacy they felt they were offered in rural places. The natural environment was an important aspect of rural living for the women in our sample. As Deborah put it: I grew up on a farm. I had pet cows. All of these quotes underscore the importance women placed on the natural environment. None of the men in our sample mentioned the need for nature and space in the same way.

Importantly, for the women, the natural environment afforded a sense of privacy, and freedom that was not seen as available in large cities. I like to have my space. These women talked extensively about wanting to be in areas with few people.

Citation Tools

Women linked the privacy afforded to them by living in a small town to why they felt comfortable or safe being lesbian or bisexual in rural environments. When asked specifically whether or not they felt safe these women stated they not had experiences any physical or verbal violence of any kind. Here we show how the fact that rural environments afford privacy might also contribute to lesbian and bisexual women feeling more comfortable in rural areas. This is not to say that the lesbian and bisexual women in our sample are not out in their communities.

Again, they expressed being out and accepted. However, our findings indicate that they value the privacy of rural areas and that they feel that this privacy allows for their sexuality not always being under scrutiny. This interest in privacy is echoed in how some women explained their religious choices, which we will discuss in Section 4. Another difference we find between men and women is in how they talked about the necessity of community.

All of the men interviewed described a need of some type of community support, while the women either did not mention it or specifically mentioned not needing or wanting a community. The men interviewed expressed the need to have a group that understood them, where they would fit in, and that would be there for them. What remained in question was how does one maintain a gay community within rural communities that are unlikely to have specifically gay places? Respondents maintained a gay community within rural spaces in different ways.

This is very much in line with previous work regarding differences in what community sites look like in rural locales [ 26 , 64 ]. For Noah, it did not matter whether someone lived in a city or in the country, one can find accepting people in both types of environments and cited his move from his non-accepting small hometown to a different small town that is a lot more accepting. Matthew cited having a loving and supportive environment that enabled him to create his gay community.

Daniel cited driving to the next big town to go to the one gay bar in that town. Jacob mentioned the Internet and social media playing a huge part in how he met his partner while both were living in rural locations at opposite ends of the state of Louisiana. This suggests an important evolution in the creation of gay communities. Indeed, as Kelley et al. Consistent with prior research, we find that some individuals did in fact experience a conflict between their religious and sexual identities, and found it necessary to worship in churches that had explicit welcoming policies.

Some of these individuals drive up to two hours to cities to be able to attend an open and affirming church. Seeking to integrate their sexual and religious identities outside of urban contexts, these individuals do so in two ways: We focus on these two strategies below and argue that both reflect how a rural context influences Christian and LGB identity formation. While all respondents did speak to a personal relationship with God as the source of their faith, four spoke solely about this issue. For these respondents, a personal relationship with God rather than having a church community was how they experienced their religious and sexual identities within a rural context.

They were trying to lead a Christian life, live the way their God wanted them to live and did not see participation in any formal institutions as necessary to do that. There was a gender difference in how men and women talked about their personal relationship with God. Women valued independence and privacy to worship however they wanted, which they thought living in a rural environment facilitated.

In contrast, the men said it was important to have a personal relationship with God insofar as it provided a unique context to accept their sexuality. For these men, their faith in a Christian God that loved them no matter what, that would be there for them, and that would accept them given that He had created them is how they interpreted being Christian and gay.

David explained it in the following way: Could I justify it to the face of God? Could I say yes sir I take my punishment, I know what I did was wrong, it is who I am, it is who you made me to be, I know you love me anyway, and I know I have to take this punishment? And I found that yeah, I could do that. Moreover, his quote reflects his nuanced and at times contradictory interpretations of how God views his sexuality.

This could reflect the degree to which the Bible Belt 6 , which overlaps with many of the Southern states discussed in this study, promotes a homophobic environment in where same-sex sexuality is defined as immoral [ 30 ].

Access Check

Yet, importantly, David does not wholly embrace such a stance on same-sex sexuality. Thus, his personal relationship with God allowed him to claim his gay identity as essential to his faith. This phrase is what Jude said he often repeats to himself and others. He believes this idea is important to having a personal and intimate relationship with God.

He described this phrase as the foundation for his beliefs. They did not see being gay as a hindrance in this mission. They were able to be both gay and Christian through their understanding of a loving and accepting God. Extending prior work, our findings suggest that there are differences in the identity negotiations of rural LGB Christians as compared to urban LGB Christians. Whereas previous literature emphasizes individuals choosing one identity over another gay and not Christian or Christian so not gay [ 33 , 55 ] or attending an explicitly gay-friendly church [ 8 ], our findings show that for those who wanted to maintain both identities in a rural context chose to do so in ways that were influenced by both their gender and their rural context; specifically, these individuals maintained a personal relationship with God as their connection to Christianity instead of relying on an explicitly gay-friendly church that would be, for many, hours away.

Those interviewed here created a space for themselves that was accepting and aligned with the principles of how they understood Christianity. This personal relationship with God in lieu of a church community was a unique feature of this group from the overall sample. This group was different in terms of how they maintained both identities as the first group sought out gay-friendly churches and the other group, as we turn to now, still wanted a church community but established different criteria as to what it means to be an accepting church.

As discussed above, for some interviewed having a personal relationship with God is their connection to Christianity. In contrast, many interviewees did discuss wanting to worship with others and find a church community. This was largely, but not entirely, driven by the men in the study. However, the majority of the people interviewed did not mention anything about looking for a specifically gay-friendly church; instead they discussed finding a church that was a good fit.

For them, this meant finding a church that first and foremost held most of their same religious beliefs and secondly accepted their sexuality in terms of not preaching openly about homosexuality as a sin. The rural context in which these LGB Christians live has perhaps shaped what they view as an accepting church.

It is not a church that necessarily explicitly discusses LGB issues or has small group bible studies for LGB people, for instance. Rather, it is a church where homosexuality is not preached as a sin. For example, Joshua discussed the need to attend a church that was accepting of him, although he did not specifically look for a MCC. Rather, he was able to find acceptance in his local Methodist congregation. His quote illustrates that in terms of his feelings of being accepted as a gay man, he places more importance on the way he is treated in interpersonal interactions than on the official doctrine of the denomination.

Not only did people find churches within their rural communities within which they felt comfortable, but some explicitly distanced themselves from gay-friendly, urban churches. These quotes illustrate how the rejection of urban gay culture extends to a rejection of urban MCC churches.

Contribute

Rather than seek out an explicitly welcoming and affirming church, Esther, like the majority of other respondents, sought to worship in their rural communities. It was this aspect of community that they valued, a reason why they chose to live in rural places and a reason why they specifically sought out churches that were in their small towns.

Bibliography Includes bibliographical references p. The cultural origins and biographical paths of the dilemma: The problem with being gay and Christian 2. The dilemmas of Christian men who desire men 4. Choosing a path to resolution pt. The resolution of dilemmas and the transformative process: Challenging traditional meanings 6. Learning to be a gay or an ex-gay Christian 7. Authenticity and the good Christian 8.

Об этом товаре

The wives of ex-gay Christian men 9.

• The Formation and Progress of the Tiers État - Volume II
• Understanding Rituals (European Association of Social Anthropologists)
• Resizing the Organization: Managing Layoffs, Divestitures, and Closings (J-B SIOP Professional Pract
• Here Is Joy For Every Age
• Días de llamas (Spanish Edition)
• Genesis
• Waves of Words