Our America: Pray the Gay Away?

I get most of my news from LGBTQ Nation and Change. Well one day I saw a guest piece on LGBTQ Nation about the new episode of Lisa Ling's Our America. Our America has so far been a pretty noncontroversial show. It's about showing the parts/sides of America that most people may not see. She takes a neutral third-party stance in every episode, letting the people she interviews tell their story. So what could be so controversial about the latest episode?

This article appeared first at Truth Wins Out before it spread to an article on LGBTQ Nation and a Change petition. The outcry was from a single writer angry about an episode titled "Pray the Gay Away?". That's right, there is a question mark in that. Lisa Ling sought an answer to the question about the clash of Christianity and homosexuality.

The writer at TWO was upset because that meant a lot of air time to Exodus International and similar minds. They were upset because she didn't ask the hard questions and do good investigative journalism.

Ling was completely uninterested in Exodus’ nefarious lobbying efforts, including the group’s work to pass Proposition 8 in California and enthusiastic support of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban marriage equality in the United States constitution. Could Ling not have taken a moment to explain how Exodus vigorously opposed federal hate crime legislation, was in favor of sodomy laws, and is still fighting against all efforts to protect students from bullying in schools?

No, it was more important for Ling to humanize a group of activists dedicated to dehumanizing LGBT people than to state the plain facts. Better to produce a tearjerker for Oprah than shine a spotlight on the anti-gay jerks causing tears for their victims.

I'd like to point out a problem with this article. Namely the fact that they accuse Ling of not doing good investigative journalism while not doing any themselves. I didn't see any kind of freak out when they aired the episode she made about sex offenders. There was no outcry about her humanizing a group of rapists and child molesters.

So, out of curiosity, I watched the episode in question. Yes, probably more than half the time was given to Exodus International and one other similar program. However, she also featured The Naming Project, a youth summer camp based on keeping the Christian faith and accepting your LGBTQ identity. There were also interviews with Michael Bussee, a co-founder of Exodus International who left after (1) seeing the harm the program was doing and (2) falling in love with another member. He spoke on the harmfulness of the program, and what he found in accepting himself as a Gay Christian.

Unlike all the insanity that was written about the episode, I found it to be pretty balanced. Not once did Ling affirm that you could change your sexual orientation. A few people in the ex-gay programs did say that they didn't feel it really did. She even pointed out that one of the members seemed very gay and she couldn't imagine him ever marrying a woman.

There is one thing that the writer at TWO was absolutely correct about, which is that Alan Chambers, the current EI president, lied during the episode to make himself look better to outsiders. After telling Ling that he believed those gays who really love Christ would also be in Heaven, he issued a statement clarifying his belief that gays are still not allowed in Heaven. He was a deceptive jerk on the show, but did you expect him to be honest? He wanted to make his program look more alluring in this tense climate.

However, my biggest problem with the whole TWO attack is that the writer seemed to make up his mind before the episode even aired. They wrote an article hours before the show aired, asking for some intense investigative journalism. That decision set them up for disappointment because it was beyond the scope of the show. Don't get me wrong. I'd love a good main-stream investigative look at Exodus and their associates, but it's not going to happen on the Oprah Winfrey Network (eerily abbreviated to OWN).

My opinion in short: (1) journalists should do their homework before accusing someone of not doing their job, (2) Lisa Ling did the job she claims to do and stayed mostly neutral, and (3) it was a pretty good (and quite moving) show.

If you'd like to see the full episode, try here, though it seems to be a bit buggy today. It is episode 4 of Our America, and it aired on March 8.

Progress In the Church

Right off the bat, Murray Richmond catches your attention with the title "I preached against homosexuality, but I was wrong."

His first sentence states the "huge shift in American attitudes toward gay marriage," which recent polls from many groups put around 53 percent approval (up from 32 percent in 2004). The second sentence gets the ball rolling on the rest of his column. "I am one of those people who changed their minds."

There are some wonderful quotes as he goes through his story. He says that after 5 years of being a minister in the Presbyterian Church, homosexuality became the big issue. His response was this:

The truth is, I was put out that this was an issue. Feeding the hungry, preaching the gospel, comforting the afflicted, standing up to racial intolerance -- these were the struggles I signed up for, not determining the morality of what adults did in their bedrooms.

But the debate would not go away. It came up, again and again, year after year, pushed by activists on either end. Each time, I grudgingly voted to hold the traditional line and limit the role of gays in the church. But I felt increasingly uncomfortable. What I believed was biblically correct began to feel less and less right in my heart.

Later, Richmond says that he talked to a man who "finally decided ... that God was more concerned with his pride than his sexuality."

Another epic quote is this:

Toward the end of my parish ministry, I was approached by five individuals who demanded that I do a sermon to come out strong against any acceptance of gays and lesbians in the church. They wanted to hear what the Bible said on the issue. The funny thing was, all five of them were divorced and remarried. Had I done a sermon on what the Bible said about divorce, every one of them would have left the church in a huff.

He then said that he did that sermon, but did not feel so great about it. He says he took a "back-door approach to the subject." Also saying, "[I]f we were going to start throwing out sinners from our church, I wanted to start with the gossips."

By far the best part comes at the end of his story:

With distance, I could see the mean-spirited nature of the anti-gay movement, and the naked way large Christian organizations used the "gay threat" to raise money. Free from the constraints of a congregation, I could spend more time actually looking at the biblical texts that deal with homosexuality, and I was surprised to find they were not as clear as I had supposed they were. At this point, I have done a 180 on the topic. And I believe it's a change for the good.

So why had we singled out homosexuality as a litmus test for True Christianity in the first place? Why had it become such a lightning rod for self-righteousness?

One reason, I think, is that it's easy to condemn homosexuality if you are not gay. It is much harder than condemning pride, or lust or greed, things that most practicing Christians have struggled with. It is all too easy to make homosexuality about "those people," and not me. If I were to judge someone for their inflated sense of pride, or their tendency to worship various cultural idols, I would feel some personal stake, some cringe of self-judgment. Not so with homosexuality. 



Now I am wondering why, if two gay people want to commit their lives to one another, they should ever be denied that chance. No church or pastor should be forced to perform those ceremonies, and they can choose not to recognize gay marriage for their adherents. But the constitution of the Presbyterian Church does not explicitly forbid a pastor from being a thief, a murderer, or an egotistical jerk. It is not designed to do these things. It does prohibit a gay person from becoming a pastor. All I can ask is: Why?

I think he definitely found a good reason as to why it's so easy for conservatives to attack gays. I have found it often is an "us vs. them" sort of issue. It's like how it can be so easy for people to be racist or classist because the people you're against are people you can't relate to. If you were condemning someone for doing something you struggled with, you'd have to confront the issue of your own struggle, or take a seat on the ego throne and say you're still better than them.

Probably the saddest part of this whole issue is what he says about his congregation: "And while the people who believed it should be accepted were not going to leave if we maintained a position of non-acceptance, those who felt it was a sin would bolt in a heartbeat if we ever allowed gay clergy or gay marriage. If they bolted, half our budget would go out the door." I'd like to challenge anyone in a church that preaches non-acceptance to go against this. Talk to the clergy, stand up to the position, and don't ever be afraid to go looking for a more accepting church.

I'm hoping that his change in attitude will spread. I know there's not a whole lot I can do, as I'm not active in the Christian church. However, I hope that there are people out there who will take his ideas to heart. I hope there are pastors and ministers and priests who have family or friends or parishioners who are gay, people who will show them that we're not evil or possessed or some group of "them" that will never affect them. Send Richmond's story to your clergy, your family, your friends. Tell them to keep an open mind. Maybe, just maybe, we will make more progress in changing people's views and gaining true equality in this nation and in the world.

If you missed the first link, you can find Murray Richmond's story of transformation here.

Thanks to LGBTQ Nation for tweeting about this special transformation.