In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

132 “ B E N O T D E C E I V E D ” Presentations of this research have often evoked questions from audience members about the men’s motive and intent for doing the kind of transformative work described in the last few chapters. I have often been asked if these men are not just fooling themselves and making the Bible say what they want it to so they can feel less guilty about their homosexuality. Those who ask these sorts of questions seem troubled by the men’s revised theology because it does not match their version of Christianity. The answer to these skeptics’ question is yes and no. By choosing (or being pushed) to step outside conservative evangelical Protestantism and joining a group that endorsed an alternative theological view, the men were choosing a theology that was more affirming of their sexuality or their sexual struggle. But the men’s goal was never to make the Bible condone their sexuality (Accept), to excuse or lessen the sin of homosexuality (Expell), or to change any aspect of Scripture. Indeed, for these men, biblical truth was the most important thing in their lives, and it guided how they lived. So, their quest was not to “make the Bible say what they wanted it to” but rather to figure out what their homosexuality meant within a Christian context. That what the men now perceived of as the truth about homosexuality differed from other Christian interpretations is not surprising or unique, nor is it strange that other believers think one or both groups are wrong. There are multiple and diverse scriptural interpretations Authenticity and the Good Christian 7 132 A U T H E N T I C I T Y A N D T H E G O O D C H R I S T I A N 133 across and even within denominations, and these varied interpretations have been the source of much denominational debate and hostility . Most recently, for example, this hostility was visible in the uproar over whether Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, could become an ordained bishop in the Episcopalian Church. In another example of denominational split over this issue, the authors of the 1991 Methodist “Report of the Committee to Study Homosexuality” could not decisively offer a position on homosexuality and instead drafted two competing additions to their Social Principles to give to the General Council of Ministries. The first argued there was no “satisfactory basis ” to “maintain the condemnation of all homosexual practice,” while the second asserted there was no “satisfactory basis” to “alter [the] previously held position that we do not condone the practice of homosexuality ” (Yamasaki et al. 1991, 28–29). To date, no changes have been made, and the issue is unresolved in the Methodist Church. Further, believers on all sides of the issue feel that they (and others like them) are the ones who have gotten it right. Like other Christians, the men in this study earnestly debated the meaning of homosexuality, trying to discern divine truth. To write off their attempts to reconcile their sexuality and their faith as self-serving manipulation of the Bible would be a grave misrepresentation of the men’s intentions and efforts. In fact, as we have seen, the men’s most pressing and central concern was that they live their lives in accord with biblical directives. It was for this reason that the groups had to link each step of the process of transformation to God’s Word to persuade the men to proceed. Before the men would give up their adherence to existing interpretations of homosexuality, the groups had to show them that existing interpretation was flawed by human bias— and therefore was not God’s Word. Similarly, each new theological revision offered within either group had to be connected to and consistent with biblical tenets before the men would consider it as a legitimate guide for structuring their lives. Now, in order to take the final step in their transformation, to authenticate their new identities of gay or ex-gay Christian, the men likewise had to first ensure the religious validity of these identity meanings. As the men in both groups moved closer to becoming established group members—that is, they knew group theology, used it to structure their actions and feelings, and felt connected to the group—they repeatedly told me that they had to “make sure they were right with God” before they committed entirely to the...

Share