At 12:31 AM 2/2/97 -0500, 
Steve C wrote: 
I read the account with sadness at the obvious suspicion with which both "sides" viewed each other. It was also strange to be able to feel what people on both "sides" may have been feeling. I've been one of the gay men in the audience (so to speak) and I've been the ex-gay speaker to a couple of student university groups. Neither role is without anxiety in a situation like that. It sounded like it wasn't a bad first step though as there was a desire for respect and some communication.
 

It is interesting that the people who had the hardest time with it were the counselor and clergy who were so bothered by it that they were not able to attend the debriefing, having rather to spend time calming themselves.
 

Do clergy have more followers and counselors more clients when tension remains? Could there be a subconscious need of counselors and clergy on both "sides" to maintain the "us and them" mentality surrounding this issue in some sort of a "professional self preservation instinct"?  Anyhow, I guess it was a tentative and tension filled encounter but was much better than we often hear about. A step in the right (sorry, not literally) direction. :-)
 

Well, that's my .02 worth. 
Regards to you all,
Steve 

At 01:01 AM 1/27/97 -0700, Patrick Rogoschewsky wrote:
After reading what you wrote - I went back and reread the article. They -the chaplain and counselor - were too upset after the talk to deal with debriefing period that followed the talk. This does seem a little odd in the sense that counselors would I think have more self control than this - it doesn't seem quite right to just leave the people upset by the talk without a counselor (mind you it sounded like they helped each other).
 

I agree with you that such an event would be stressful for both parties - the exgay speaker and the largely gay crowd. Part of me though thinks that the organizers of the event wanted this - firstly they choose a particularly sensitive area - AIDS and combined that with an exgay message - the implication is that AIDS is the result of being gay or being a sexually active gay - not to mention the overtones of AIDS is God's punishment (even though it wasn't explicit - it definitely was a subtext). To me it seemed almost as though the sponsors of the talk wanted a reaction - they wanted to do a 'in-yer-face' kind of gay=AIDS=sin message. Kudos would have to go to the gay crowd for exercising control. A Big Raspberry however for the organizers of this talk. IMO I might add.
 

The us/them mentality is supported by a whole host of things - I don't think counselors share any burden in propping this us. I think the us/them is a deep seated human need actually.

At 03:56 AM 2/2/97 -0500, Maggie Heineman wrote: 
I wanted to hear from Steve before commenting. My initial emotional response was considerable pain that Tracie's narrative was so biased against the ex-gay speaker. Joe Hallett is in the Steve C role -- the ex-gay man.
 

But Joe is no Steve C. Joe's statements about sex being only for procreation and that he practices safe-sex with his wife make him instantly ridiculous.
 

That aside, Joe fulfills our expectations for ex-gay ministry, at least as filtered through Tracie's narrative. Joe comes across as "My Truth is the Only Truth." Steve says many of the same things that Joe does, but in a very different way.
 

I understand Steve's central belief to be that God loves all his children. I don't hear Steve saying that he thinks that every Child of God must be heterosexual.
 

Steve? (can you reply forupload?)
Maggie

At 01:42 AM 2/2/97 -0800, John Lindner wrote: 
I don't, however, see this bias at all in her account.

At 05:11 AM 2/2/97 -0500, Maggie Heineman wrote: 
You're right. It wasn't biased. It was my emotional response, What bothered me is that I connected him in my mind with Steve. I wanted her to like him because I like Steve. But of course he isn't Steve. Joe is exactly what we expect an ex-gay speaker to be. Steve breaks the mold. Is Steve one-of-a-kind? I often suspect that he is.

On Sun, 2 Feb. 1997, Maggie Heineman wrote:  
" I understand Steve's central belief to be that God loves all his children. I don't hear Steve saying that he thinks that every Child of God must be heterosexual. Steve? (can you reply for upload?)"
 

At 11:05 AM 2/2/97 -0500, Steve C wrote: 
Maggie, I can't not reply. That is so true that if we don't say it, rocks and stones will start to talk and say so. 

I see this as the absolutely number one issue. There is nothing that is even close in importance. 

God loves persons who experience same gender attraction as fully and completely as every other person. As with us all, no change or embellishment of any kind is required to experience that love and enjoy the friendship of our Creator. 

Our sexual orientation whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, goes deeply to the core of our identity - who we believe we are as an individual person. Some (I stress "some") past public comments by theologically conservative Christians have been ignorant, simplistic, unhelpful, unloving, hateful, and harmful. We are guilty of the most heinous sin as We have done much to barricade the path to God's open and loving arms - arms nailed out wide on a cross. 

We are in great need of repentance and forgiveness. (I'm weeping as I write this. If I didn't believe in God and the miraculous I would give up.) This is the miracle I want to see - 

"Loving God, cause your church to love same gender attracted people the way you do- NOW!"  

(a couple of minutes later) 

I believe that to truly follow Jesus leaves no option on the matter of the treatment of our fellow human beings. To persons who experience same gender attraction, our brothers and sisters, Christians are called unmistakably and without excuse to extend justice and compassion. 

I look for the day when the stones do cry out - the formerly cold and stony hearts of unloving Christians. It will happen - I don't know when or how, but it will happen. It will happen all because of Jesus. 

"Even if your own mother forgets you, I won't. Look, I've carved your name on the palms of my hands." 

(Jesus will go to any lengths to get our attention. One might say he was the first to understand the powerful message of piercing.) 

There. That's my heart. To some I will have come off like a "weepy T.V. preacher" caricature. That doesn't matter. This is what I believe and how I feel. I will stake my life on him. 

Your friend, 
Steve 

At 11:24 AM 2/2/97 -0500, 
Maggie Heineman wrote:  
subject: Re: God's Love :-) 
I got it. 

At 11:30 AM 2/2/97 -0500, 
Steve C wrote:
The email message or God's love? :-) 
sc 

At 11:34 AM 2/2/97 -0500, 
Maggie Heineman wrote:  
It was intended to be ambiguous. please look at bridges-across/toc.htm and I did a new intro on /etown/

At 11:39 AM 2/2/97 -0500, 
Steve C wrote: 
Cool! I got a desk littered with Kleenex and you're being "ambiguous". :-) 
<bg> 
sc 

At 11:46 AM 2/2/97 -0500, 
Maggie Heineman wrote:  
It's uploaded. Is that concrete enough? 
bridges-across/resgustavus.htm 
 

Date: Wed, 12 Feb. 1997 13:28:45 -0800   

From: Tracie   
Subject: Gustavus and bridges  

Hi folks. I just finished reading the comments to my account of the ex-gay speaker at Gustavus. I found them very instructive. I thought I should clarify a few things. I wrote the account about two days after the event -- long enough to have processed it but short enough that my emotions about the event were still genuine. I did not want it to be a distant or overly objective piece. I know that my feelings about the event were clouded by the hate chalkings found on the sidewalk that same week. I know that they are each separate events, but the one affected how I viewed the other. This is why I included a comment about the chalking in my description of the event. I have also learned that besides being upset with the speaker, the chaplain choose not to attend the gathering afterward because the student sponsors of the event were clamoring for his approval and he needed space from all involved so he could respond appropriately (you also have to remember that this is Minnesota, the land of "nice").
 

Dialogue at Gustavus - To update you on how things are going since then. The campus glb community and supporters were invited to meet with individuals involved in all different aspects of Christian student organizations (there are 8-10 groups) to discuss the issue of faith and homosexuality. The glb student leader and the student leader of Gustavus Christian Community (an umbrella group of the leaders of the various Christian groups) facilitated the discussion. In attendance at the meeting were the pastor and counselor I mentioned in my account, as well as several faculty members and myself.

The discussion was very productive in that people from both "sides" learned about the human side of the other (it is easy to attack "them" but harder to attack "Ingrid" or "Hans"). A variety of beliefs were present -- from strong supports of Joe to gay welcoming Christians to gay atheists (such as myself). People disagreed with each other, but were very respectful in allowing each person to voice his/her views.

Although further meetings were to be planned, I have not heard anything yet. I will keep you posted

Tracie