What followed the publication of The Third Sex?
For some
period of time, a few weeks, four of us met in my office at the Christian
General Store at 2140 Fourth Street in San Rafael. We were joined by three
women, all self-described homosexuals. One of the ladies came up with a name
for our little group, others joined in and before long an actual ministry was
under way. It was suggested we notify others of what we were doing so the idea
for The Third Sex? was born. Since I had a book already in print, A Manual of Demonology and the Occult, published
by Zondervan in 1973, it was decided that I should write the book.
That which followed the publication of The Third Sex? in 1975
and then a couple of years later, its sequel, The Gay Theology, could be
described as something analogous to a whirl wind. At times I regretted the
publications due to the grief that descended upon me and my family, which
continues, to one degree or another, even to the present day.
Though I had been trained as a
counselor I was not prepared for dealing with people who had the misfortune of
being involved deeply in homosexuality. It
was difficult for me to understand the pain and frustration they were enduring.
Though I could present Bible truths and could patiently listen to their
stories, I could never get inside their skin as a heterosexual who did not have
a very clear understanding of the gay life.
On the door step
From all
over the country people were arriving hoping to find a way to leave their
homosexual behavior behind. There were, in the broad sense, two motivations
that brought them to San Rafael and the ministry we had developed, Love in
Action. One, as Christians they
wanted to follow Jesus more carefully and they knew that homosexual behavior
was neither biblical and nor pleasing to their Lord. Some of these had been to
pastors and other ministers who saw nothing wrong with homosexuality and who
then attempted to confirm or affirm them in their sinful ways. Usually such
unbiblical counsel worked for a season only. The Holy Spirit we found would not
endorse homosexuality so any “fix” was merely temporary.
Two, there were those who showed up
who were not Christians but were desperate to leave the gay lifestyle. From
these people I learned that the designation “gay” did not accurately describe
the day-by-day life of the homosexual. Many of these were older, both men and
women but mostly men, the “aunties” whose bodies were not what they were and
found that the gay life was one of repeated rejections, that or the sex lives
they were forced into was not acceptable. And, by the way, this was all before
the days of HIV and AIDS.
Often there would be a knock at the
door and there would be a poor creature, sometimes without baggage or money in
the pocket, wondering if he or she had found Kent Philpott and Love in Action.
None of these came to have a
surgical operation performed. Few desired to become heterosexual; in fact, it
was usual that they figured they would be gay in their mind all the rest of
their lives. They simply wanted to be faithful followers of Jesus Christ.
Reparative therapy
Those who
opposed us, the gay activists, enjoyed saying we were trying to make
heterosexuals out of homosexuals. Such a process is called reparative therapy.
And oppose us they did. For a short period gay activists showed up at
Carpenter’s Hall on Lindaro Street in San Rafael and picket the morning worship
services of Church of the Open Door were I was the senior pastor. Attempts were
made to intimidate worshippers and there would be efforts to sneak into the
services as well. Yes, there were death threats phoned in and rumors were
spread about that I was homosexual, a pedophile to be exact, and was only
repressing my natural, gay, inclinations.
Changing a homosexual into a heterosexual–that
was a lie then and it is a lie now. It may actually be that someone out there
has this as a goal, but I have never found one. To the complete contrary, we
were almost overwhelmed by people who wanted out of the gay life, men and
women.
If a person believed they would
always be homosexual in their minds and emotions, even in their sexual
attractions, this was not something we attempted to deal with, at least as long
as I was involved in Love in Action. I have heard it said that things changed
in 1978 after I withdrew from active participation in the day-by-day operation
of the work, but I have never had this confirmed though I tried to do so.
Our goal was peace and joy in the
Holy Spirit and living in the kingdom of God so as to glorify Jesus. To have
homosexual desires did not mean they would have to be acted upon. Now there was
a higher calling. Before the focus was on sex to the point of addiction. Being
a follower of Jesus was not a sublimating exercise either; rather it was the
calling of God. Those outside of a converting faith would never grasp our core
message but instead felt obliged to distort it.
A simplistic, but perhaps useful,
breakdown into “types”
So many of
those who came to us had somehow been seduced into homosexuality at a young
age, in some cases, a very young age. Over and over I would hear these people
say that they had never had a heterosexual thought. Due to dysfunctional
parent/child relationships, their sexual identity was confused from the very
beginning. Then, their first sexual experience was with a homosexual, usually
an older homosexual, and they had learned to have physical pleasure in that
context. Gradually a gay identity took shape and gayness would even be affirmed
as a superior, a cleaner, way of life. Antagonism would be developed for those
of the opposite sex. Any thought of marriage and children would be scoffed
at—sometimes any suggestion of sexual contact with someone of the opposite sex
would be likened to something vile. It was with this group in particular that I
felt most empathy, but I discovered I was ill equipped to be of much help.
A group of persons that progress was more easily made was with
those who had developed a gay identity in their teen years. Perhaps shyness or
fear of the opposite sex was the underlying issue, but the early sexual
experience was of a homosexual nature and once the natural barrier was down,
homosexual behavior became attractive. Some of these would refer to themselves
as bisexual, but it was usual that the homosexuality predominated.
Then there were those who had acquired a taste for
homosexuality in some kind of institutional setting—group home, boarding
school, the military, or some sort of lock up—juvenile hall, prison, and so on.
It was not unusual for some of these to be described as sexual opportunists,
but for the Christians among them, they knew such sexuality was not what God
wanted whether it be of a homosexual or heterosexual nature.
Successes and failures
Love in
Action was the most problematic ministry I have ever engaged in. For one thing
we were besieged by precious people desperate for help. Many had been used and
abused for much of their lives, some were suicidal, and others were looking for
another rejection. But we kept meeting. Frank Worthen did a remarkable job
working with those who struggled the most. Slowly, but very slowly, there was
healing in many areas and potential leaders began to emerge.
Then, fairly early on, one of those who formed the second
tier of the group, Bill,[1]
committed suicide in the psychiatric ward of the local hospital. Some of the
original group blamed Love in Action, mainly Frank and I, for the death. It was
said that Bill could not break away from the gay life and out of unrelenting
guilt decided to end it all. These grieving people began espousing the idea
that homosexuality could not be changed but must be accepted as normal. Love in
Action, it was said, tried to force change and the failure, the suicide, was
proof that a born homosexual was just that.
Bill himself did not blame anyone, not Frank, myself, or Love
in Action. (I have a copy of his suicide note.) Nevertheless, the story will
yet surface to the effect that homosexuality should not, cannot, be changed. Bill
did struggle, and mightily, and I for one was unable to communicate grace and
mercy to him, could not enable him to see that He was completely forgiven and
secure in Christ. Bill’s suicide has troubled me all these years.
There were other failures but much less dramatic. Several of
those whom I had interviewed for The
Third Sex? and The Gay Theology did
return to homosexuality. This is beyond dispute. But others continue faithful
to their Lord and to Scripture.
Those who came to Love in Action
from various parts of the United States, and from other countries, discovered
it was not an easy to make the necessary adjustments. The Church of the Open
Door did well to meet their needs and established more of what we called
Christian Houses. The congregation quickly adjusted to an influx of gay people then
and demonstrated genuine acceptance. Instead of driving people away, the
opposite was what we experienced. Some of those who came to Love in Action
became leaders and ministers with the church. This yet continues but Love in
Action moved to Tennessee years ago while Frank Worthen continues the work he
began in the early 1970s, and now accompanied by his wife Anita, who also came
out of the gay life.[2]
The opponents and why they would
oppose
It became
abundantly clear to me that our opposition was highly motivated and energetic.
There were the protests, the pickets, and the rumors—like I would not have
imagined.
It took some time for me to understand the radical nature of
the opposition, which is still very much in place and even more so due to the
success they have achieved both within and without the American Christian
community, and elsewhere of course. At stake was the core identity of those who
argue they were born homosexual and so are homosexual by the will of God. It is
either that, for those who count themselves within the Christian community, or
turn away from homosexual behavior. And I admit that it is harder for some than
others to go against that core sexual identity.
Since the culture, apart from the Christian Church, is rather
fluid in regard to how homosexuality is viewed, there is little the gay
activist has to be concerned about. With a broad range of civil rights
established for gays and a growing acceptance and approval, what remains as a
threat to the gay outlook is the moral and ethical views of Bible based
Christians. Let it be noted that I have not witnessed gay activists going after
Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, or even the liberal end of the Christian spectrum.
The latter are ignored because these have so often become allies in the
struggle for gay acceptance. More on this issue will follow.
The Bible, and those who abide by it, is the problem for the
gay activist. The usual method of attacking the Bible is to assert that the
Bible is not talking about homosexuality at all, but when Scripture appears to
be speaking to the issue in reality it is only speaking about the abuse of
homosexual practices much as the Bible speaks of adultery or rape. Or, the
Bible is culturally conditioned, that is, it was written for a different
circumstance in a far removed time and place. These two arguments are part of a
twin attack since they are so closely linked.
Moral failures on the part of Christian leaders are used to
discredit the whole of the Christian worldview. Then there are those known for
their opposition to homosexuality who subsequently turned out to be gay
themselves—the usual “attack the messenger” approach. And there are other
points that could be discussed, but the issue is that it has not been enough
for the gay community to win the civil rights battle; it is really the need to
be able to feel that they are perfectly normal and right. Therefore, those who
stand for a biblical perspective on homosexual behavior must be countered.
Gay activist success and how they did
it
During the
1970s, because of the publication of The
Third Sex? and The Gay Theology, I
was a part, to some degree, in the debates that went on in some Christian
denominations on the issue of homosexuality. From 1976 to 1980 I was a doctoral
student, DMin., at the Presbyterian school, San Francisco Theological Seminary
in San Anselmo, California—while I was also pastor of Church of the Open Door
in San Rafael. On a number of occasions I was part of a panel of church leaders
debating gay issues, or a speaker at church events focused on the topic, or
part of some sort of media presentation, news program sometimes, dealing with
homosexuality.
Once, at the seminary in San
Anselmo, probably in 1979, I was with a gathering of gay activists where
strategy for their agenda was being discussed. It was a boisterous group that
was exulting after what they considered to be a victory in a debate on
homosexuality. Apparently they did not know that one of those listening in was
not one of them. At any rate, I heard outlined a most startling plan for the
legitimizing of homosexuality. The chief means was to be the persuading of
Christian denominations that a new civil rights fight was to be fought—the
right to be gay in American with all the rights and privileges attending
heterosexuals. And the battle would not be waged in the pews but in the offices
and corridors of the headquarters of major denominations.
One statement made at that time, and which has stayed with me
all these years is: “And the enemy is the born againers.”
The strategy I heard outlined back then worked. One after the
other, major denominations adopted the “gay rights struggle” as they had the
civil rights movement for blacks in the 1960s. It yet goes on, only now it
comes under the label “Social Justice.” And who is against social justice for
all? I am not and I know of no Christian leader who is. Certainly Christians of
all varieties are for social justice, but in the process there is the danger
that Christians might relinquish the moral and ethical standard that homosexual
behavior is sinful.
How can the Christian
community that is biblically faithful work for social justice for gays? What
about gay marriage and adoption? Where will it end? Already in elementary
schools young children are taught to view homosexuality as normal and good.
Christians like me face a real challenge, a serious dilemma—and it is not
easily resolved. Perhaps it must be acknowledged that, again, we live in a two-kingdom
world. The church will be the church while functioning in the world, and at the
same time, be law observant even if it means a kind of compromise. This is how
it is working now in the county in which I live.
Gay rights and the inevitable
My views on
homosexuality are decidedly in the minority. Yes, there are those who remain
true to the clear teaching of Scripture, but the faithful base is being eroded.
Such is not the case everywhere. There are areas of America that remain a
challenge for the gay activist, but the law of the land is on their side and
eventually they will prevail.
However, that said, it is not enough for the gay community to
have full rights under the law, it is what others think that matters most to
them. It is simply unacceptable that people like me think and believe that there
is something wrong with homosexuality. As long as the “born againers” are
taking a stand that homosexual behavior is sinful, the gay activists will
fight. So the battle lines are drawn and biblically faithful Christians must
wage their warfare in a way that their Lord Jesus would do so, with grace,
mercy, and prayer.
The issue of how the broad Christian Church views
homosexuality may divide it more so than it already is. In a way, we can
celebrate denominationalism since it is probable that not all groups will cave
into the culture. Imagine one single monolithic organization as was common to
the world’s Middle Ages. This is an age of the rising and falling of many. Do I
dare say that there are churches already not worthy of the identification but
have morphed into something else, something other than a center of a
proclamation of the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is hardly a point
worth arguing. There is a biblical passage that may be relevant here: “They
went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they
would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain
that they all are not of us” (1 John 1:19)[3]
A perspective on the Scripture and
homosexuality
In several
chapters that follow I will look at the biblical material in regard to
homosexuality, but at this point a few general points could be made.
More than once I have examined the Scripture to see whether
there was any wiggle room for those who wanted to be openly gay and Christian.
Could it be that one could continue in homosexual behavior and still be a
faithful follower of Jesus? In short, and in the next chapter, I will present
my view of what the Scripture has on it. The conclusion I have come to is that
the original intent of God for human sexuality does not include homosexuality.
Not a few times have I gotten to know those whom I felt,
notice the word “felt,” were genuine Christians but who were at the same time
living a homosexual life. It was not uncommon for people to request help out of
the gay life who were at the time living with a lover. It was all so confusing
at times, but we had to deal with what was in front of us.
There is no sure fire way for anyone to know if one is
actually born from above or not, but there are those instances that make me
wonder if it is a situation where one is converted but living the gay life
anyway. I have realized, after fifty years in the pastoral ministry, that not
all Christians, and perhaps very few, are careful followers of Jesus in line
with the biblical moral ethic.
What I have seen is persons who were stubbornly, even
desperately holding on to both the gay life and biblical passages as proof
texts for their behavior, change, repent, and acknowledge their error.
[1]
Not his real name.
[2]
Frank Worthen died some two years ago.
[3]
Another passage along the same line is 1 Corinthians 11:19. Paul, concerned
about differing understandings about the Lord’s Supper and the divisions
generated in the church as a result said, “there must be factions among you in
order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.”
