Gay Away the Pray!

As I strolled along London's Oxford Street one Summer in 1991, I turned into Poland Street and entered a bar specifically catering for gay men and women. Not long after buying myself a drink at the counter, two young men entered, obviously partners. The better-looking of the two caught my attention. Sporting a moustache, he was otherwise clean-shaven with long hair reaching past his shoulders. His partner, also with long hair, was fully bearded.

I approached their table and asked permission to sit with them and talk. The better looking fellow was not only willing to have my company, but also began to praise me for having such courage to approach a complete stranger to open a conversation. Shortly after, he came up with this question:

You are religious, aren't you? Into Christianity?

I gasped. How did he know? And that wasn't the first time that has happened either. I recall January 1980 whilst at a temporary job at a Reading warehouse. A female colleague who I hardly knew came up to me and affirmed that I was a Christian believer - before ever opening any conversation with her.

My new friend then went on about his involvement at his local church where his pastor was fully accepting of his lifestyle. In those days I couldn't accept any idea that this pastor, whoever he might be, was a true Christian, but one of many who just had a mere profession. Of course, I had absolutely no idea of the state of this minister's heart in relation to God. I just thought that by being friends with this person, who happens to be in a relationship with another of the same gender, has exposed this pastor to be a fake, a phoney.

This gentle, softly-spoken man must have developed a crushing fancy for me, even to the detriment of his partner, because a while later he began to ask whether I would like him to take me to his home. At this point he became more persuasive. At this I began to feel my skin crawl, as I realised that his home really meant his bedroom, and I politely turned down his offer. However, we were both clinched in a tight hug before I walked out of the bar.

I have wondered about this church minister, whoever he might be. From this time of writing, I'm going back more than a quarter of a century. Things might be different now. But who he was and where he was, he was a far cry from many of his contemporaries who preach condemnation towards homosexuals and making them the subjects of God's hatred. I wonder who is really the better representative of Jesus Christ? This unknown church minister somewhere in London, or the late Fred Phelps, the pastor of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, in the State of Kansas, who paraded the city streets with "God Hates Fags" placards. (Fags, short for Faggots, is a degrading nickname for an effeminate male homosexual.)

Fred Phelps was, of course, a representative of the extreme, the zenith of religious hatred and bigotry. But there is a general anti-gay sentiment in most churches. But their efforts to "pray away the gay" seemed to have been a disastrous failure among Christians who are homosexual or with gays seeking counselling altogether. One such advocate of "deliverance from homosexuality" is Franklin Graham, the son of the famous American evangelist Billy Graham. Franklin did not graduate in theology or in any spiritual or pastoral degrees. Instead, he graduated in business. But in his attempt to match his father's credibility, he latched on to the idea that any homosexual can be delivered from his orientation by "asking Jesus into his heart" and presto! The gay man becomes straight, that is, a "normal" hetero.

Such "successful" attempts to change one's orientation, according to what I have read, are extremely few and far between. Such rarity has made me question whether such "healing" can really be genuine. More likely that the "cured" person has married and even fathered children, and there seems to be some records of this, but his orientation is still present, although repressed. Sooner or later such arousal resurface when just the right set of circumstances were to occur, and I have read plenty of records of this too. That is why I tend to believe that the "cured" person is really bisexual, a term meaning to be attracted to both genders. This may be more of a case when it comes to having a fetish towards a particular part of the body, such as the thigh, the feet, or even the neck. Many years ago in the early 1970's, I recall an article published in The Sun national newspaper about four images of a man wearing a shirt.
The first pic was of him with his shirt fully buttoned up and wearing a tie.
The second was him without the tie and with just the top button of his shirt undone.
The third had him with the upper two shirt buttons undone.
The fourth showing him with his shirt totally unbuttoned.

A group of volunteers gave their verdict on their sexual arousal. It turned out that stimulation was strongest at the third image, meekly followed by the second. There was hardly any arousal with the first picture, and it also dropped significantly on the fourth. Gay forums on the Internet seemed to have backed this up. Under the heading Popular Fetishes, the open neck of the shirt was on the list, although not at the top of the chart. If this is true, then the bisexual, for example, could be aroused by the open-neck shirt of both man and woman, making possible for straight sex and fathering children. My point is: this praying away the gay looks to be nonsense, without any veritable evidence that it works.

The homosexual world does fascinate me. This fascination might have arisen from being bullied at school, and being accused of being homosexual in the classroom and the school playground. This accusation has reared itself over and over again throughout adult life. Yes, even right up to the present day, I actually had to answer a question asked by one of our present church elders, most likely motivated by hatred from a very English Pharisee who also attends our Sunday services. I told him that even if the Bible was to give consent to same-sex activity, I still wouldn't go for it, for the simple reason that such activity has no appeal whatsoever, as demonstrated by my refusal to go home with such a good looking fellow back in 1991. It has much more to do with personal lack of appeal rather than religious conviction.  

That said, before marriage, I tended to gravitate towards a gay bar in order to seek friendship of the "bromance" level. Bromance is a level of companionship without the sex. The friendship between David and Jonathan recorded in the Old Testament is a good example of bromance. And according to reading gay forums posted on the Internet, there is a considerable number of gay men who are also put off various same-sex activity, particularly anal-intercourse, but still have a preference of same-sex friendship over opposite sex relationships. As for myself, I believe that church attitude against excess showing of emotion was what made the gay bar attractive, especially in London, a city where I was able to remain anonymous. As for the church, according to my own experience, is generally very reserved, with emotion frowned upon, middle class, very heterosexual, and tend to be judgemental over those who don't fit the ideal English model.

Exactly like back in 1978. As the Summer of that year approached, a small number from the singles group were preparing to hire a narrow boat to ply the canals of the Broads of East Anglia for a week. The group consisted of both young men and women, each sharing cabins according to gender, and each contributing to the common purse. While the team was still in formation, I approached one of them with my share of the financial contribution. I was told flatly "No!"

I felt crushed as I wallowed in such rejection. But at least God was good to me, and I walked into a travel agent to book a flight across the Atlantic to New York, the start of a month-long backpacking trip across the States, taking in the Grand Canyon and California. But still the rejection had a long term effect. How much more intense would this be to the average homosexual?

No homosexual chooses such a way of life. Even psychologists admit that one can be born with a predisposition towards homosexuality, later developing towards full same-sex orientation. Although the ratio of the gay population to the straight population is only about 4%, the rate of suicide among gays can be as high as 40% - which is much higher than among heterosexuals. They are the ones who suffer social rejection and harassment - even falling victim of murder, family rejection, shame and embarrassment, loneliness, a want of a family of his own, church condemnation and a feeling of alienation from God, a fear of Hell disguised as scepticism, together with unfulfilled sexual desires, along with the threat of disease. Indeed, no child would have chosen this way of life if the alternate straight life was of easy choosing.

And so to see church leaders condemning gays - even if they don't necessarily practice the sex - driving them away from God and towards atheism. Their anger towards God can be so intense that it is impossible to turn their hearts towards him short of a miracle. And the negative spirit felt towards them is continued to be felt in the assembly. And that what makes this so wretchedly unfair. He feels alienated and condemned because of who he is, and not just what he might have done. A gay person walks into a church for the first time and he is ghosted by someone who, just by glancing, has decided that this person is evil and is to be avoided. Yet this same judgemental person may be a lover of money and tend to give in to greed as well as to nurture snobbish superiority. He may be standing next to someone with a history of adultery, but is looked upon as "one of those human weaknesses" and so far better tolerated. And there could be someone else who has suffered a divorce, or his son is divorced, and that's too is reasonably okay. Another standing in the church may have a constant affray with his next door neighbour, another wishes he could quietly poison his boss and secretly dispose of his body, yet still looks calm and collected while he is singing a hymn. Yet another cannot control his temper whilst driving his car. And not to pass over the young man who keeps glancing at a pretty lass standing by her husband.

The reality of human nature, whether in church or outside. Yet all can take comfort with the Biblical fact that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses against them (2 Corinthians 5:19). God's wrath was lifted from the whole world the day Jesus Christ died on the cross, and by his resurrection, eternal life is given to all believers, including homosexuals. God is no longer angry with us. If only a trace of anger remained, then nobody would be saved, as everyone of us have broken the Law, even by a minor stumble (James 2:10). If God is no longer angry with us, then we have no grounds for homophobia, whichever form it takes. No person has any right to shun a homosexual, or to refuse friendship. If God loves that person enough for Christ to die for him, then he is no worse than anyone else, for without Christ, we are all guilty of sin. That's why I find people like Franklin Graham, alongside with Fred Phelps of Topeka, Steven Anderson of Phoenix, and Roger Jimenes of Sacramento, to have taken a bad attitude towards gays, singling out their sin for special condemnation and to hold special prayers to "pray away the gay" in them without paying too much attention to these other "secret sins" lurking among their hearers. Then we wonder why gays are so hostile to the Gospel.

Gay Issues? You're Were Right, Boris

Within the past week of writing, while many a chocolate Easter egg is still only part eaten or even intact, newspapers began to blaze out about an advert that was meant to be posted on London buses plying across the main city routes. For two weeks these words would have been blazoned across the world-famous red vehicles:

NOT GAY! EX-GAY, POST-GAY AND PROUD. GET OVER IT.

This ad was sponsored by two Christian groups - the Core Issues Trust and Anglican Mainstream. However, Boris Johnson, the current Mayor of London, blocked the ad from being posted. The fact that early next month Londoners will have the opportunity to either re-elect Johnson, or his main rival, Ken Livingstone as Mayor of London for the next term of office. As a matter of fact, the two main party leaders are heavily banking on the victory of their candidates. Conservative leader and current Prime Minister, David Cameron, is hoping that Johnson will win, while Labour Opposition leader, Ed Miliband, is relying on the victory of the socialist candidate. So we wonder exactly on Johnson's prime motive for the ban, whether it was to do with morality, a political vote-winner, or a bit of each.

The leader of Core Issues Trust, Mike Davidson, was aghast that, as he says, was unaware that censorship was in place, as the Advertising Standards Authority had originally passed the message for publicity. But here he is missing the point.

And the point missed by Davidson is the theme for this blog. And this may be a shock to any Christian reading this. But I believe that Boris Johnson was right in banning the ad from publicity. And this is coming from a committed Christian, who would desire all men everywhere to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

According to a poll conducted by the Daily Mail Newspaper, at the moment 65% agreed with Johnson's ban, while the remaining 35% disagreed, not so much for moral support, I guess, as for the right to exercise free speech. In other words, that Davidson had the legal right to express his opinion. But any reader can be assured that not a single homosexual or LGBT associate would have agreed with Davidson or any Christian group for that matter, it would have resulted in hostility against the faith altogether.

For example, the advert was the subject of the forum at a Gay Sports and Fitness website, which also has a section on spirituality. Checking the responses, hostility towards Christianity was inflamed and praise for Johnson's action encouraged. One commented that this kind of publicity against them causes a rise of suicides among Gays, with the usual enforcing of guilt, rejection, social isolation and loneliness. He then concluded his post with the words:
In other words, Christians are inadvertently murderers in my book.
In another post was written:
(I) guess the Christians just hate everyone as usual.
In the Daily Mail, one commented:
At least there's a cure for religion - it's called Education.

In the USA, Westboro Baptist Church pastor Fred Phelps assembles his flock where ever there is a Gay Pride or festival, and even at the funeral of American servicemen who were killed in battle. Phelps makes sure that placards are held up high for all to see - all reading: God Hates Fags, God Will Judge America, and Homos will Burn in Hell, and so on. According to my knowledge, not only a single person was ever converted to Christ, but hostility spilled over into public ridicule. Phelps was the major contributor in bringing the Christian faith down to the level of laughing stock in the eyes of the LGBT. Cartoons such as the following may bring even a committed Christian to crack a smile - but it does contain a serious message:

There is nothing new in any of this. Those who advocate such advertisements are actually preaching the Law. And as Paul writes, that by the law comes the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20.) Yes,I believe that there are proper times to preach the Law, particularly to any unsaved person sitting in Church. But the purpose of preaching the law is always to convict the heart of sin and thereby prepare the ground, so to speak, to receive the gloriously good news of the Saviour Jesus Christ, who was crucified to atone for those sins, and was resurrected on the third day. The Law, summarised in the ten Commandments, was meant to lead the person to Christ, and it had no saving power of it own. Rather the Law condemns, and without any saving faith, the condemnation would eventually lead to hostility and atheism. Paul himself writes:

For if those who live by the law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. (Romans 4:14-15.)

Wrath expressed here is twofold. First the Law brings the knowledge of sin. This resulting knowledge makes the sinner aware of the wrath of God, in turn, guilt leads to the sinner's hostility towards God, even denying his existence to cover his guilt. In the aforementioned Gay Fitness website, I have seen that the vast majority of homosexual men are hostile to God and the Christian faith. They are not afraid to express this hostility on their forums. The reason is always the same - constantly being told that homosexuality is wrong and Hell awaits those who practice it. This shocking sense of unfairness is further amplified by their belief that being Gay was from early childhood, often with the idea that such orientation originated from gestation in the womb. Adding to this is their awareness that other animal species having similar homosexual habits - but without the fear of Hell.

I am fully aware where all this is coming from. Reading through the Old Testament, one reads of the shocking apostasy repeated over and over by the whole nation of Israel. From almost immediately after crossing the Red Sea under the leadership of Moses, they quickly turned away from the true God who delivered them from slavery in Egypt to worship a golden calf. The sorry state continued, until at the time of the Prophet Jeremiah, their apostasy and hostility towards God had got to such a bad state, that the whole nation was first captured by the Assyrians to be led away to Assyria, then shortly afterwards, the remaining Jews were led away to Babylon, leaving their capital - Jerusalem, desolate. God himself knew this was set to happen. In Deuteronomy 28, Moses prophesied that the Jews were going to be subject to one particular nation (the Babylonians - verses 49-57) and then scattered across the globe (verses 64-68).

Israel was not able to keep the Law, and at the end the "wandering Jew" without a homeland was a byword to all other nations for nearly two thousand years. No one from any nation can keep the Law either. Nobody can keep the Law, for the Law condemns. Thus the advert on the London buses would have brought condemnation, not reformation as the ad would have implied. Because of this, the advert would have pushed more people into Hell, and saved no one at all. Furthermore, the advert would have brought the Christian faith and all the churches to disrepute, a self-righteous, hypocritical group committed to frowning on the Gay world, while bypassing the sins of others - not unlike the Pharisees of old.

The Law brings the knowledge of sin, and correctly used, meant to be a schoolmaster leading us to faith in Jesus Crucified. It is through faith in Christ alone that one is saved. And this so great salvation is free to all who believe. The heterosexual (straight) person and the homosexual (gay) person is saved in the exactly the same way - faith in Christ. I personally believe that the Gay person should not be told, "Stop that way of living or you will be judged." Nothing would crush his spirit and cause him to turn away from the faith as such a statement! Instead, the Gay and the Straight believer should be seen as saints, redeemed of the Lord, and loved equally by God. Both have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, and such it is up to God to work in their lives. Just as a devoted husband will do anything to please his wife, the object of his love, so likewise, the saint - whether gay or straight - will want to please God as best as he could. If that means quitting the gay lifestyle, then God will give him that power. It is not for us to tell him not to, unless he sincerely wants to know.

Every sinner, straight or gay, wants to be loved and accepted. To God there is no difference between the two - God loves them both equally and his wish is that both be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. We as Christians should not distinguish on the sexual orientation because God does not.

Well done Boris Johnson, for blocking that advert from being posted on London's buses. That action most likely had spared us from wiping our brow in embarrassment.