Monday 8 June 2009

PT testimony on growing up gay in WCG

James, the editor over at the Painful Truth site, advises that he is featuring a new article, an autobiographical account by a former "church brat" of what it was like growing up gay in the WCG of the 1980s. Following the account is an interview by the editor.


Anonymous said...


As someone who dated (and fell in love with...) a guy I met at Ambassador College in the 70's who ultimately confessed to me that he was struggling with homosexuality, this interview/article is one of thee best, most informative ones I've ever read. I am so impressed with Sean's answers to the interview questions, and I like the way he thinks - thanks for posting it.


Russell Miller said...

Now THAT was an interesting article. Thanks.

It's interesting to see a gay conservative who is at least expressing some doubt that gay adoption is necessarily a good thing. I think he's right that the really atrocious gays might be a really vocal minority.

larry said...

I have had close friends who struggled with their homosexuality for years, trying to be hetero. It is a strange phenomenon which most of us cannot comprehend.

I do know that they suffered greatly, both before and after they finally admitted to themselves and to the world that they were "gay".

Sadly, three that I know of, ultimately died of AIDS. One valuable lesson that we should all learn from this and other trials is to not be judgmental. Every one of us has our own cross to bear.

gaylcg said...

Very good article. There are many who wrote about there queerness on the PT but this one guy stands out.


In a culture were the unnatural has become more commonplace, it becomes more difficult to distinguish right from wrong. One's moral compass is misdirected by pervasive perversion.

Byker Bob said...

If the goal was that of seeking to understand, I believe that the article and interview were fair.

This relates to a collection of activities which most people consider to be both repulsive, and extremely sinful. That's what makes it such a lightning rod issue. But, in the grander scheme of things, it becomes just one more activity or thought process which could distance one from God, and derail a personal relationship with Him.

I suppose that it is also experience which could lead a person back to God, much the same as atheism often does. We do have the book of Ecclesiastes to illustrate the conclusions atheists and secularists end up drawing towards the end of that part of their journey, but the Bible is very sparse in its treatment of homosexuality.

Bottom line is that God has the keys to our minds, and is our healer. It is awesome to contemplate the restitution of all things!


gaylcd said...


David and Johnathan were queer and the God of the bible shut his eyes. If the God of the bible wanted to show his contempt for gays, David and Johnathan should have been struck down dead. Instead, the God of the bible who many claims is the author the good book, makes it a point to show this "friendship" and "love" of two grown men in his good book. Hell, they even kissed according to the book by God! Why did God not strike them dead?

But then again, maybe some of the books where authored by men who had another God at another time in history? Or perhaps God is bipolar? How do we reconcile this "queer issue" to the book of Romans where God is pissed about queer men and those delicate and sensuous lesbians?

Anonymous said...

'...David and Johnathan were queer...'

How about Jesus and John? And his love for Lazarus and the 'young man'? And, at the same time, for Martha and Mary?

The concept of true love has become distorted in the twisted modern Western mind.

And the response is not 'and Jesus was one, too'.

Byker Bob said...

Given the often poetic language, and the cultural nuances of ancient times, I don't believe that you can conclude that David and Jonathan were gay lovers. They did have a covenant which appears to have been platonic, and we are left with statements which are subject to interpretation, such as David loving Jonathan with a love greater than that for a woman. But, God's love for us is also greater than human love, and is not sexual in nature.

It would be conclusive evidence of gaity if the scriptural record stated, "And David knew Jonathan". But it does not. The Bible does not generally make a secret of sexual relationships. One of the self-validating aspects of the Bible is the fact that it carefully spells out the character flaws, weaknesses, and sins of all of the individuals whom God used.

If anything, David appears to have been an enthusiastic heterosexual. Still, human sexuality is often complex, and probably deals quite a bit in percentages. How did testosterone driven warriors take care of their sex drives while off on maneuvers, or at battle? Probably they "took matters in hand". But, would it "spoil" David for me if I knew that he and Jonathan had exchanged a few blow jobs? No. Any judgment of David and Jonathan is totally the responsibility of God. David repented of his sins, and is described as being "a man after God's own heart."

All sin is detestable, and all humans are potential children of God. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Leave the judging to God.


Anonymous said...

"And the response is not 'and Jesus was one, too'."

Why not? It would certainly explain a significant portion of "difficult scriptures" from the Christian canon.

If the idea of gay!Jebus makes you uneasy, switch to the gnostic canon: In at least some of the gnostic myths, the christological figure was married and had kids.

Anonymous said...

'...Why not? It would certainly explain a significant portion of "difficult scriptures" from the Christian canon...'

Which are?

Anonymous said...

"'...Why not? It would certainly explain a significant portion of "difficult scriptures" from the Christian canon...'

Which are?"

- In the incomplete canon, the women are largely written out of the picture, but when they do show up, the narrative is full of holes and inconsistent from piece to piece.

- Example, the Samaritan woman at the well who was "accepted" by the christological figure (even though she was a biblical black widow), versus the woman whose child wasn't "worthy" of "healing" until she admitted SHE WAS A DOG.

- There are women at the tomb for the "resurrection", then there aren't. There are angels, then there aren't.

- See here.

But, like I say, if homosexuality in the Christian canon gives you pause, switch to the gnostic narratives: The christological figure had a Mother AND a Father,was the consort of Mary Magdalene, and probably had kids.

Now, what law-abiding, gay-hating Christian, would have a problem with that?

As opposed to, say, three dudes that are one dude that are three dudes (Mystic circle-jerk?) and "It's a wonnnderfullll mysteryyyyyyy lalalalalala".....