The New Ex-Gay
How a failed movement is rebuilding in new and problematic ways
Even though Exodus International, the premiere ex-gay organization for 40 years shut down in 2013, a similar ex-gay philosophy has popped up among some of the younger generation. This time with a blend of Reformed theology influenced by prominent voices like the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) or Rosaria Butterfield (Butterfield is a former atheist lesbian turned homemaker, author, and speaker). This new blend is seen in the young Emily Thomes, whose video testimony went viral a few years ago (2 million views on Facebook and many news media reports: see here and here). Emily says she was in her first lesbian relationship at 15, but decided in her early 20s, after attending a Bible study, that same-sex relationships are wrong. She is now married to a man.
First, I want to say that Emily strikes me as a genuinely likable person. I believe her heart’s response at the Bible study was the Spirit's prompting that she needed God in her life. I resonate with how she takes Scripture seriously and truly wants to submit her life to Christ. She seems to be leaning into that the best she knows how.
That being said, I am concerned about this new blend of ex-gay philosophy and Reformed theology. Specifically:
Classic ex-gay presentation:
1. Wild, promiscuous gay turned saint: A hallmark of classic ex-gay testimonies is that the person has a wild past involving sexual promiscuity, substance abuse, and/or atheism. If the person previously identified as Christian, they were usually not practicing. Emily states: "By 18, 19, 20, I was super wild and in serial relationships with women." She abused substances, and even though she began to slow down after becoming engaged to a woman, she reports a potpourri spirituality devoid of the gospel.
The Problem: What typically happens is that a person associates destructive behavior with their sexual orientation. The person experiences a genuine Christian conversion that results in significant life transformation. They truly find God. The thrill of knowing Jesus and ceasing destructive behaviors are truths they can’t deny. Usually, same-sex relationships are assumed to be wrong based on an initial novice reading of Scripture or the teaching of the conservative community in which they are converted. Thus, the belief that same-sex relationships are sin is entangled with an incredibly powerful spiritual experience. Yet, it’s possible to have a spiritual conversion and leave behind destructive behavior without concluding that same-sex relationships themselves are sinful. This whole phenomenon is portrayed with great accuracy in the movie Save Me (#affiliate link).
2. “It’s not about heterosexuality, but holiness”: Emily repeats this mantra that originated with the ex-gay movement. Notably, right after she states this, the camera pans to a picture of her and her husband. The video then ends with her snuggling and laughing with him. This may be the producer's fault, rather than Emily's, but her marriage to a man is presented as the happy ending to her spiritual conversion, thereby implying that it really is about heterosexuality.
The Problem: Overwhelmingly, the primary criticism leveled at the ex-gay movement is that it spoke out of both sides of its mouth. It claimed the movement was about holiness more than sexual orientation change, but that’s not true. Sometimes this dishonesty was intentional, but often it involved self-deception. Theologically, we believed in pursuing God no matter what. In that respect, we put holiness first, not heterosexuality. But, simultaneously, most of the prominent leaders were in heterosexual marriages, even though most participants in the movement were unable to achieve that. By elevating married people as the leaders to aspire to the clear message was that if you pray hard enough, you too can get happily married to the opposite sex and have a family.
This reinforced the idea that same-sex attraction is the result of spiritual complacency or psychological wounds that can be healed. The message was, if these leaders can do it, anyone can (never mind that more than one of these leaders’ marriages ended in divorce). Not only have these testimonies been used to fight gay people’s basic civil rights, but they are also used to suppress the truth that most people cannot change their orientation. The belief that people can marry heterosexually with enough spiritual maturity prevents the church from honestly addressing what it's demanding: life-long single celibacy for a huge demographic of millions of people. If we care about truth, we will be honest about low rates of sexual orientation change.
Problematic use of Reformed theology:
1. “We’re all born that way.” Emily states, "People say to me all the time I was born this way. I said okay, me too. You're not born with the right affections. That's why Jesus had to come." I suspect she may get this from Rosaria Butterfield who has popularized this sentiment in her own speaking and writing. The idea refers to the Fall and total depravity. Any anomaly is blamed on the Fall. But this oversimplifies the issue and fails to contemplate scientific knowledge about the body and sexual development. Even if one were to believe it is a birth defect not intended by God, one still has to reckon with how we should respond to a person who has a medical condition rather than a moral flaw.
2. “No one is gay.” Quite in contradiction to the previous message of “born that way,” which superficially seems to acknowledge that some people can be born gay, Emily supports the view that sexual identity is a social construct. On her Facebook page (which has since been deleted), she quoted Butterfield who says the concept of gay as personhood is a recent Freudian invention. This is not Reformed theology per se, but it has become popularized in Reformed circles. First, historically, people have speculated from antiquity about attraction to the same-sex, so this is not a new Freudian social construct. But, the primary problem I have with this argument is that it gives the impression gay people just need to change their identity and happily proceed with a heterosexual life. While identity can change, sexual orientation typically does not. Saying “no one is gay” also suggests same-sex attraction can be set outside oneself as just temptation, not recognizing that as sexual beings we are not capable of disconnecting and separating out our sexuality as something apart from us. For a gay person to treat their same-sex attraction as temptation would be an impossible attempt at having no sexuality at all, since it would involve eliminating all sexual attraction entirely.
3. Misapplication of progressive sanctification. Emily doesn’t get into this so much, but it’s increasingly being used in Reformed circles against gay people—namely, the idea that sexual orientation change can come through progressive sanctification. While the ex-gay movement encouraged prayer and spiritual disciplines, it was heavily rooted in a psychoanalytic theory of parent/child relationships. Heal your childhood wounds and you will heal your same-sex attraction. Reformed folk do not argue on the basis of psychology as much as a theology of sanctification. As we become more Christ-like through mortifying sin, same-sex attraction will diminish. Since sexual desire and not merely behavior is considered sinful, a gay person is expected to be in a constant state of repentance for any attraction to the same-sex. Of course, this ignores the fact that sexual orientation can have prenatal causes. All the santification in the world is not going to heal a physical condition. (For more on santification, I touch on this in my article for Interpretation. I also discuss the Fall in the chapter “Is It Adam’s Fault” in my book Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships).
My Direct Request to the Reformed voices:
Be honest that most people will not experience sexual orientation change. Even evangelical psychologists like Mark Yarhouse recognize that only a small minority of people experience sexual orientation change. Yarhouse’s and Jones’s optimistic book Ex-Gays claiming change is possible admits that almost 80% did not experience change to heterosexual attraction; and only a minority experienced a shift to “complicated heterosexuality” (i.e. bisexuals who continued to be bisexual; see page 8 of the book summary where results show only 23% “conversion” after several years of trying). See also Dr. Dehlin’s research and Dr. Throckmorton’s work . Don’t use a testimony (or allow others to use it) implying that most people can change their attractions. That means being careful about use of words like “change” or “transformation,” which many misinterpret to mean sexual orientation related change, not merely identity or behavioral change. Too often people with sexual fluidity or bisexuality are claiming to change from “gay to straight.” If you experience any sexual attraction to the opposite sex, you are not gay or lesbian, you are bisexual. Not every sexual minority can benefit from the privilege of choosing a heterosexual marriage like a bisexual person can.
Be honest about divorce rates and extra-marital affairs. Many gay or “ex-gay” people who marry heterosexually have higher rates of divorce and extra-marital affairs (see page 54). Those are facts. The ex-gay movement encouraged many to marry believing they were healed only to realize they had been motivated by idealism. I have seen more than one marriage end tragically, as well as mixed orientation marriages with extra-marital affairs. Many straight partners have lamented suffering in mixed orientation marriages characterized by a lack of physical and emotional intimacy.
Be honest about life-long celibacy. Gay people are expected to be celibate for life if they cannot function in a heterosexual marriage. That means no spouse to come home to. No children of their own. No ability to leave mother and father and form their own kinship unit, a family that provides a lifetime of support. Be honest that Jesus and Paul and most of Christian tradition have agreed that not all people can live a celibate life. Wrestle with that truth.
Be honest about causes of same-sex attraction. People can be born with wiring that makes them sexually different. No, we are not “all born that way.” Don’t play semantic games. Most people are born with heterosexual wiring. Only a small percentage of people are born with in utero effects causing permanent, exlusive and life-long same-sex attraction. Secondly, sexual orientation is not merely a social construct. Implying as much is a painful dismissal of people’s bodily reality. For example, the science is solid that a certain percentage of gay men have the sexual orientation they do because of an immune response in the mother’s body when she carries male fetuses. This boy when he hits puberty, through no fault of his own, will only be attracted to other males. Does it seem right that he should be condemned to never having a family of his own because his mother had an autoimmune response while pregnant?
If churches are going to hold to a traditionalist view, they need to be honest about: 1) very low rates of sexual orientation change; 2) higher rates of divorce and extra-marital affairs for gay people who attempt to marry heterosexually; and 3) the inability of most people to live out life-long celibacy. Failure to be honest about these realities actually prevents holy living, as gay and lesbian people are prevented from stewarding their sexual desires in a covenant relationship that matches their sexual orientation.